Search Google

3/31/15

The Heidi Chronicles: A+ for Provocative Storylines, B- for How Much Things Have Changed

I had never heard of The Heidi Chronicles, which is now playing on Broadway as a revival of Wendy Wasserstein's 1988 Tony-winning play. My mom got us tickets and mentioned something about having seen the original in the '80s and that I'd like it because of its humor and feminist themes. I expected to laugh, even to relate, but not to tear up during a monologue by Elizabeth Moss, who played the title character, or to leave the theater with a pit in my stomach, reciting the mantra nothing has changed.



Heidi follows the story of a woman, based on the playwright's own life, through the second half of the 20th century. Heidi's story begins when she is in high school and ends in her 40s, when she decides to be a single mother and adopts a daughter. The play illustrates Heidi's deep friendships and her unhealthy relationship with a man, all the while incorporating the overarching theme of growing into herself as a woman, a professor of art history, and a feminist.



The play spoke to me for the obvious reason of my feminism and my interest in the period in which it was set. I read a lot about the Women's Liberation Movement of the 1960s in high school, a period of social change that most of my friends had never really heard of. It was overshadowed in our history textbooks by the Civil Rights Movement and even by the Gay Liberation Movement. But in my free time, I loved learning about women's lib, the ERA, and The Feminine Mystique. I always said that if I could live through any period of history, it would be Gloria Steinem's revolution. I was excited that a play on Broadway was dedicated to this period.



At the play, my fifty-year-old mother nudged me when Heidi and a few friends met for a consciousness-raising group -- a catalyst of the Women's Liberation Movement that I had researched for a history paper about Gloria Steinem. I laughed along with my mom and her two friends at the repeated line "you either shave your legs or you don't." But my politically correct, 21st century mind internally countered with, That's not true. You can shave your legs and still be a feminist.



I stopped laughing during a heartbreaking scene between Heidi and her long-term on-and-off boyfriend from college, Scoop Rosenbaum, a Jewish lawyer played by Jason Biggs. Scoop has always cheated on her and is always rating people and things with a letter grade. The scene takes place at Scoop's wedding to another, more "bland-ish" woman than Heidi. And before kissing Heidi in a side-room of the reception hall, Scoop admits that he married the other woman because he "didn't want to come home to an A+" every night. If he had married an ambitious, intelligent, witty woman like Heidi, he thought he would have had to compete with his wife, which is something that he didn't want to do -- something that his ego couldn't handle.



When the lights came up at intermission, my mom's friend turned to me and said, "What's your opinion about that scene as a member of the next generation?" And unfortunately, I realized that the only difference is that now, in the 21st century, I've been trained by my family and teachers since the age of five to be the A+. I've been taught to lean in, to have it all. Heidi's ambition is no longer the exception. But what is all this A+ training for? For men to be too wary of competition and settle for my less driven peers? Because while the scene between Scoop and Heidi took place in the 80s, in reality, nothing has changed. Maybe I haven't been dismissed for being an A+, in those exact words, but I've certainly been told that I'm "a lot to handle" and "high maintenance" because I am opinionated and will argue my point. I noticed that in high school, while my friends were smart, driven, and beautiful, the boys seemed not to choose us; they seemed to go for the beautiful but the less smart and driven.



Another family friend that went to the play with us, a man in his 60s, responded that perhaps men are just too intimidated to pursue the A+'s. But that's the problem -- why are men intimidated by being with women at their own level? Because they are low in confidence and feel emasculated? That thought saddened me even more.



And then came the second half of the play, during which Heidi grows increasingly less happy as her feminist friends from the 60s get married and pregnant and move to LA to become movie producers. I cried during Heidi's monologue, giving an address to a university about the future of women, when she breaks down and admits that sometimes, she doesn't even feel comfortable with other women. She doesn't fit into the groups of women around her. She feels stranded by not only the ones who gave up careers and got married, but also the ones who gave up ideals and sold out. She herself is still devoted to getting female artists throughout history recognized.



The play ended on a melancholy note. After a long scene between Heidi and her longtime gay male friend and a culminating exchange between her and Scoop, she sits in a rocking chair with her newly adopted baby girl and sings to her "Darling, you send me" as the curtain falls. The ending, and the theme of the play in general, convey that women live in a world of either-or. Either they marry young, sacrifice their career, have a family, and don't end up as an A+ but instead serve men's ambition, or they, like Heidi, pursue their dreams, lean in, and are then forced to live alone. Perhaps the polarization of these two lifestyles was more pronounced in the '80s, but I'm afraid that it hasn't disappeared. Because the truth is, from the women I talk to, it is hard if not impossible for women to have it all.



I want to be a lawyer, but at the law firm I interned at this past summer, a female attorney came into my office, introduced herself, and then proceeded to tell me not to enter the field. She told me that my job would consume me, I wouldn't be able to have a family, and that if she could go back, she would change career paths and focus on her children. I will seriously consider my value of family when deciding whether or not to become a litigator, like I originally intended. I haven't heard any boy my age worrying that the career path he's pursuing isn't conducive to being a father.



After the show, we ran into my twenty-three year old cousin and her friend, who had also just seen it and were as affected by it as I was. They echoed what I was wary of: that there are some men who appreciate ambitious and successful women, but that they are "gems" and hard to find.



My mom and her friend, both in their fifties, two twenty-three year olds, and I, at 18, were surprisingly affected by the play in very similar ways. We all laughed, got choked up, related a little too much, and wished that the lessons from The Heidi Chronicles could change the 21st century. I wish that as a woman, I didn't have to choose between a career and a family - but then again, perhaps choosing one or the other is pressure that I put on myself. Moreover, I wish that men would not be intimidated if I choose to follow the more tenacious, career-oriented path. I want them to catch up and learn to love the type of A+ that I intend to be.



from The Huffington Post | The Full Feed http://ift.tt/1CIcJvo

Obamacare Exchanges Falling Far Short Of Smoking Cessation Requirements

WASHINGTON -- Only one state in the country makes sure that Affordable Care Act consumers have access to smoking cessation programs as the law requires, according to a report released Tuesday.



The ACA, commonly known as Obamacare, mandates that the health insurance policies available through exchanges set up under the law cover all seven FDA-approved tobacco cessation medications without cost-sharing. Yet today's report from the American Lung Association found that only West Virginia did so for all its available marketplace plans -- a feat no doubt helped by the fact that it's the only state with only one such plan. (Other states have anywhere from two in-state plans, to up to 18 in New York.) Meanwhile, five states -- Arkansas, Hawaii, Mississippi, South Dakota and Vermont -- had no plans offering all seven medications as required.



"About 70 percent of all smokers want to quit, and people who are on Medicaid and who have been historically uninsured are those with the highest smoking rates," Erika Sward, assistant vice president for national advocacy at the American Lung Association, told HuffPost. "This is really an area where states need to focus if they’re going to save lives and reduce the tobacco-caused burden."



Of the 348 health insurances issuers available through exchanges, the organization found that only 144 (or 41.4 percent) listed all seven tobacco cessation medications. Of those, only 60 explicitly mentioned that there was no cost-sharing as required by law, meaning no co-payments or deductibles. While some plans that didn't explicitly mention this feature may indeed provide the medications at no cost, the report noted that omitting this risks implying there was cost-sharing charged to any patients oblivious to the requirement.



Thirteen states plus the District of Columbia run their own marketplaces, while the rest are federally run. Compliance was slightly higher in state-run marketplaces versus federally run, but the difference was not statistically significant.



Only 12 states have more than half of plans in compliance with federal regulations. The top five states by percentage of plans in compliance are West Virginia, Minnesota, Oklahoma, California and North Dakota. Numbers were not immediately available regarding the percentage of beneficiaries covered under plans in compliance, as opposed to percentage of plans themselves.



In some ways this is symptomatic of a broader problem: the lack of follow-through on many of the consumer protections in the law. Alleged violations have ranged from insurers using drug formularies to exclude sicker high-risk patients, to complaints that the "narrow networks" of providers and hospitals on some plans are so narrow that people can't see the doctors they need. In theory, the ACA is supposed to prevent such practices.



The seven FDA-approved smoking-cessation medications required for coverage are bupropion, varenicline, nicotine nasel spray, nicotine inhalers, nicotine gum, nicotine patches and nicotine lozenges. While virtually all plans cover at least two or more of the medications -- 98.9 percent cover bupropion, for example -- Sward argued that still isn't enough.



"We know that there's not just one way that helps people quit smoking. What science shows, what evidence shows, and what the Affordable Care Act requires is that the more options smokers have to help them quit, the more successful they will be," said Sward. "Is covering two forms of medication better than covering zero? Yes. But is it enough to prevent the number-one cause of preventable death in this country? No."



Jonathan Cohn contributed reporting.



from The Huffington Post | The Full Feed http://ift.tt/1CIcHno

Transgender Mormons Struggle To Feel At Home In Their Bodies And Their Religion

Sixteen-year-old Grayson Moore had no label, only metaphors, to describe the disconnect he felt between his body and soul.



It was like car sickness, he says, when your eyes and inner ears disagree about whether you are moving.



"It makes you sick," Moore says. "That's the same with gender."



from The Huffington Post | The Full Feed http://ift.tt/1BInIAd

What Makes A People

Let’s consider a hypothetical scenario: One of the United States’ minor allies passes legislation criminalizing a particular identity-politic shared by a small portion of its citizens. The country then employs its police force and judiciary to jail members of this population, obliges discrimination, physical abuse – even murder – by vigilantes, then permits the press to publish identifying information forcing individuals from their homes and jobs. Does the US cut ties? Does it intervene?



from The Huffington Post | The Full Feed http://ift.tt/1BInIA6

4 Common Student Loan Problems -- and How to Deal With Them

'Fun Home' Brings Lesbian Protagonist To Broadway For The First Time

Although recent years have seen a wealth of gay content on the New York stage, “Fun Home” breaks fresh ground as the first Broadway musical to feature a lesbian protagonist.



The advance buzz on the musical, which is currently in previews at Circle in the Square Theatre, has been quick to emphasize that fact. In reality, though, such a sound bite oversimplifies the show’s subversive qualities. Based on out artist Alison Bechdel’s graphic memoir of the same name, “Fun Home” is actually a compelling look at two sides of the queer experience, with a complex, multi-faceted message about family relationships.



Keeping the non-linear structure of Bechdel’s novel, “Fun Home” pairs Alison’s adolescence and subsequent coming out story with the darker journey of her closeted gay father, Bruce, who commits suicide after a string of secret affairs with younger men. Three actresses -- Sydney Lucas, Emily Skeggs and Beth Malone -- portray Alison as a child, a college student and a middle-aged woman, respectively. Meanwhile, the show’s second act is a dramatic tour de force for Tony Award-winning actor Michael Cerveris (“Assasins”), who plays Bruce.



From left: Skeggs, Malone and Lucas in “Fun Home.”



fun home musical



The musical, which is directed by Sam Gold, played to sold-out audiences and nabbed sterling reviews when it opened Off Broadway at New York’s Public Theater in 2013; it was also a finalist for the 2014 Pulitzer Prize for Drama.



So while “Fun Home” couldn’t be further from the top hats and jazz hands of the traditional, feel-good Broadway musical, the cast and creative team are confident their work will find a captive audience, given the universality of the show’s coming-of-age themes.



“With any show you do, there’s a concern about whether or not an audience will embrace it,” Lisa Kron, who penned the book and lyrics, told The Huffington Post in an interview. “If we start to have nervousness around that question, it’s not going to do anything for us.”







Still, composer Jeanine Tesori admitted that she and Kron experienced some creative tension over how to initially portray a relationship between college-age Alison and her girlfriend (Roberta Colindrez) while the show was in development.



“There was a point when I said to Lisa, ‘These two young women, they have to kiss. They're in love, they have to be sexual,’” Tesori recalled. “And she was like, ‘I can’t bear it if people laugh at them.’ I realized then all she had been through, and it was so heartbreaking to me. It wasn't about her holding back; it was about her protecting the character.”



Aesthetically, “Fun Home” has been given a sizable upgrade since moving uptown, too. In a move that Cerveris says “strips away even more artifice,” the show is now being presented in the round in an effort to make the audience feel like they, too, are part of the action being presented onstage.



The Broadway cast of “Fun Home”



fun home





“The audience that finds this show is going to be a thinking audience, because it lives in such an emotional place,” Malone said. “As a culture, we’ve arrived at a place that is just aching for this show to be.”



Regardless of how the show ends up faring with Broadway audiences, Kron says she will forever see “Fun Home” as the ultimate extension of the work she was doing as part of the women's collective WOW Cafe Theatre in the 1980s.



“People often say to me, ‘This is so much bigger than just a story about a lesbian.’ And I say, ‘What has changed is your sense that a lesbian is an actual human being who can be as much of a prismatic reflection of the human experience as any other type of character,’” she said. “There’s no explicit explanation, justification or apology in this show, and to me, that’s a very exciting thing to put on stage.”



“Fun Home” is currently in previews at New York’s Circle in the Square Theatre, with an opening night set for April 19. For more information, head here.



from The Huffington Post | The Full Feed http://ift.tt/1DmriFN

The Five-Minute Rule

From time-to-time, people who learn about the inside-out nature of the human experience begin to feel guilty if they partake in any sort of outside-in action designed to improve the quality of their lives. As one of my own mentors said to me, "taking action to improve your plight is like carrying Dumbo's feather -- it's just a way of tricking yourself into allowing what would happen naturally of it's own accord."



Where I am at the moment with the seeming paradox of taking outside-in actions to make changes in an inside-out world is as follows...



In my household, we are long-term practitioners of the "five-second rule", that well-known urban myth which states that in defiance of all known laws of biology, food which is picked up and placed in ones mouth within five seconds of dropping it on the floor is still germ-free and safe to eat. We kind of all know it's not true, and we do it anyways. I think it's because we were all so well brought up that it makes us feel rebellious to do something "wrong" and "dangerous", no matter how small. (Also, Nina's a really good cook...)



When it comes to my life, I follow something I call the "five-minute rule". Despite the fact that I know my experience is created 100% from the inside-out, and biologically speaking I can only ever feel my thinking and not the events of the outside world directly, if I can make myself feel better by taking five minutes or less of action, I'll usually take it.



For example, let's say I've been stressed out about whether or not there's enough money in my checking account for an impending purchase. I know that my feeling of stress is a direct reaction to my thinking and not to the actual balance of my account. After all, there are 23+ hours of the day where my bank balance is exactly the same and I'm not feeling stressed about it.



And I know that the longer and harder I think about it, the more of a big deal it will seem to me, AND I know that if I just let the worry thoughts pass, I'll invariably get new thoughts and those thoughts will bring new feelings.



So why don't I just carry on with my life and let the worry-full thinking pass?



Because I also know that if I take the five minutes to go online and check my account, I'll feel better. Not because my bank balance will necessarily be where I want it to be, but because I'll stop thinking about it and feeling all the feelings which come with those thoughts.



In five minutes, I can make an appointment with a doctor to check on a mysterious pain or lump I've been worrying about. I can respond to an email I've been avoiding, reach out to an old friend I've been ignoring, or make amends for something I've been feeling guilty about.



I can also take a self-directed action - do some deep breathing, say some affirmations, drop into self-hypnosis, or drop down and do some push ups.



I know that it isn't really my action that's changed my feeling, but I'm happy to take that action anyways. After all, it only takes five minutes, and the fact that it was just a "Dumbo's feather" doesn't mean I'm not flying at the end of it.



For all those things that five minutes of action won't fix, it's equally great to know that I don't need the world to change in order for me to feel better. I am living in the feeling of my present-moment thinking, and I love the fact that I can't accurately predict what I'll be thinking five minutes from now, let alone five days, five months, or five years.



Since I'm only ever and always feeling my own thinking, that means I'm as likely to be feeling good as bad, happy as sad, grateful as maligned, and inspired as distraught. I don't need to control my feelings to enjoy my life any more than I need to control the weather to enjoy my day.



I am not a victim of the weather not because I can control it or avoid it, but because I can always work with it and through it. And I need not be a victim of my feelings not because I can control or avoid them, but because I can always work with them and through them.



When I'm not scared of my feelings, (because I don't need to change them, avoid them, or act on them), I'm free to feel them fully. Unresisted sadness can be delicious; unbridled anger is like being one with a gale force wind.



But from time to time, I forget all that and I once again become frightened by own internal weather. My experience of the world looks all too real, and phrases like "it's just my own thinking and it will pass" seem cruel instead of comforting.



It's in those moments that I willingly and willfully ignore the truth of the inside out nature of the human experience and take five minutes to make a change.



With all my love,

2014-08-17-20130402michaelsig.gif



For more by Michael Neill, click here.



from The Huffington Post | The Full Feed http://ift.tt/1CIcJvm

National Works on Paper exhibit opens April 2 at McNeese

The 28th annual McNeese National Works on Paper Exhibition opens with a reception honoring the exhibiting artists at 6 p.m. Thursday, April 2, in the Grand Gallery of the Shearman Fine Arts Annex at McNeese State University. The exhibit, which runs through May 8, is sponsored by the McNeese Department of Visual Arts and is part of the 2015 Banners at McNeese season. William Pittman Andrews, director of the Ogden Museum of Southern Art in New Orleans, is the juror for this year’s Works on Paper Exhibition. Gallery hours are 9 a.m.-4 p.m. weekdays. Andrews has selected 68 works from a broad national spectrum of paintings, drawings, photographs, prints and mixed media works on paper for the exhibition. He will give a gallery talk at Thursday’s reception. For more information about Banners events, visit the Banners website at banners.org or call the Banners office at 475-5123.



from American Press: Your Best News And Advertising Source - Home http://ift.tt/1NEb5yE

Poetry Coast to Coast: American Poets Paul Fericano and George Wallace

Paul Fericano and George Wallace





...the only people for me are the mad ones, the ones who are mad to live, mad to talk, mad to be saved, desirous of everything at the same time, the ones who never yawn or say a commonplace thing, but burn, burn, burn like fabulous yellow roman candles exploding like spiders across the stars.



-- Jack Kerouac, On The Road





In his newest collection, Hollywood Catechism, San-Francisco-born poet Paul Fericano sweeps up humor, irony and deep feeling in a winning trifecta. He takes the materials of popular culture -- from Elizabeth Taylor to The Three Stooges -- and makes of them something transcendent. Fericano rewrites Catholic liturgy, as in "The Director's Prayer", which begins, "Our Fellini / who Art in Carney, / Clooney be thy name," and ends not with "Amen" but, "Cut."



Yet, it is not all fun and games. For Fericano, founder of a support group for survivors of clergy abuse, male sexuality is inherently tied up with violence. A form of re-empowerment comes through satire. Master of the one-liner, Fericano sometimes delivers punch lines as titles, such as, "A Direct Correlation Between the War On Terror and the Proliferation Of Penis Enlargement Spam," and the chillingly prescient (a la Ferguson), "Thirteen Ways of Looking at a Black Man."



The poet also simultaneously admires and appropriates both Hollywood stars and famous poets, cutting everyone -- affectionately -- down to size. Obsessed since boyhood with the Three Stooges, poetic slapstick inhabits these poems in line after line that both hurts and makes us laugh. Indeed, Fericano may be said to be pulling off his own aesthetic -- "stoogery" -- delivered with same affection and dismay as the fool in King Lear's court.



These are poems that read like the messages in a bottle that might be written by the last sane man on Earth, when everyone else has gone mad.



In Poppin' Johnny, Long Islander George Wallace's poems explode on the page. Like the cartoon call-outs when Batman hits a bad guy in a punch-up scene, these poems are loaded with "pow," "bam," "biff." But, for all their muscular gestures, these poems also convey sensitivity and irony -- sometimes at once.



As much as Wallace has been called an inheritor of Kerouac, his heady and ecstatic proclamations can also be traced back to Whitman. Consider these lines from "Starlight! So Much Starlight":




[...] i saw starlight in



the coffins of the mad. i saw



starlight in the eyes of a dog.



i saw a man with a tin badge



he wore starlight on his chest.



handcuffs have it electric lights



have it window shades drawn



at night. [...]







These are poems obsessed with cars and dames, liquor and baseball. But beneath the brass-band bravado lie the horrors of "My First Dance" -- shaking a grown man's enormous sweaty hand, being pinned and kissed by a fat girl, drinking punch from a paper cup and sympathizing with the "four-legged madness of a dog / who was trying to do nothing more / complicated than just get away."



Yet even the most intimate moments are told in a vernacular slant, like when the speaker realizes in "How it Worked" that his lover is kissing him goodbye for the last time, and says:



i laid there like a pizza delivery guy with too / many pizzas to deliver who has fallen off his bicycle and / onto some wet pavement. i laid there like bambi on ice, / like flipper on a plate, and i looked back at her like roy / rogers trying to figure out what is wrong with his faithful / horse trigger.





These are poems as rough and vulnerable as manhood, as full of hope and heartbreak as the New World.



You could drive Route 66 from coast to coast to get a feel for the poetry of America. Or you could pick up copies of Fericano and Wallace, and read these poems out loud.



Portions of this article first appeared on robertpeake.com



from The Huffington Post | The Full Feed http://ift.tt/1MubKW8

The Latest Assault on the Affordable Care Act: An HIV+, 34-Year-Old Man's Perspective

It has now been almost eight years since I have been diagnosed with HIV. In today's day and age, HIV is a manageable chronic disease much like diabetes. We have come a long way since the onset of the HIV/AIDS epidemic in the early 1980s. The havoc it wreaked within the NYC gay community left many casualties behind. I think often of how my fate could have been so different if I was born in 1961 as opposed to 1981.



I can still remember the heroes of my youth who fought this disease so valiantly. The young, brave Ryan White taking on a society's discrimination with all his courage. The handsome and inspiring Pedro Zamora of The Real World who helped me to not only put a face on HIV, but a face on what it meant to be gay and living a life of dignity and truth. The charismatic Maurizio, the partner of my older cousin Sandy, who had been an Italian model in his younger years, gracing the pages of magazines. In 2000, he passed away from an HIV-related complication. Another life lost on a pile of so many before. The ultimate devastation for Sandy, whose photo album of friends was a graveyard of men long gone.



About a year into being diagnosed it was necessary for me to start taking medication. My T-Cells were getting lower and lower. At the time I was unemployed and receiving government assistance. If I didn't have Medicaid my life would have been in jeopardy. And this is where the latest assault on the Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare") and the Supreme Court of the United States come in. This is where I must make a resounding call for a single payer health care system. In today's day and age in the most industrialized country in the world, no one should be dying because of lack of quality care and access to that care.



For the approximately 1.2 million Americans living with HIV in the United States, HIV should now be a manageable condition with access to life-saving medications and quality care. However, a report published by the Kaiser Family Foundation in the beginning of 2014 found that over 700,000 people between the ages of 19-64 were still uninsured. The authors of the report estimate that this number would be reduced by 200,000 as a direct result of the ACA. Though the ACA is of great importance to this segment of the population, an estimated half a million people remain uninsured.



Single payer health care is the final answer. In a nutshell, single payer is universal health care. Giving everyone access to state funded health care, health care would be recognized as a basic human right rather than a commodity.



It is important that we understand what is at stake right now and make sure that we don't go backwards. We must solidify what we have in place in order to move forward. The same folks with the same right-wing agenda who brought you the 2012 Supreme Court ACA battle (National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius) are it again! Part II features the same cast of characters, including Michael Carvin, the plaintiff's attorney, who once again is trying with all his might to cripple the ACA. United States Solicitor General, Donald Verrilli, is being forced to defend the government's position for the second time.



2012's NFIB v. Sebelius case hinged upon the individual mandate and Medicaid expansion. With some exceptions (religious objectors, undocumented immigrants and incarcerated individuals), the individual mandate part of the ACA requires everyone to maintain a minimum level of health insurance for themselves and their tax dependents. Those who do not satisfy the individual mandate will face a financial penalty, also known as the shared responsibility payment. The individual mandate of the ACA was upheld by a slim 5-4 Supreme Court decision, where, in a surprise twist to many, Justice Roberts sided with the four liberal justices of the court (Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan).



The ACA also expands Medicaid eligibility. Funded by both the state and federal governments Medicaid provides health insurance to people with very little income. Though this program is a voluntary system for states, at this time all states participate in the program. Under the ACA expansion, Medicaid would now cover all people under 65 with household incomes at or below 133 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL). In 2012 this was $14,856 per year for an individual and $30,657 per year for a family of four. Pre-ACA Medicaid coverage by and large excluded non-disabled, non-pregnant adults without dependent children, unless states got waivers to cover them. Unfortunately, Medicaid expansion was limited by the Supreme Court when they allowed states to choose whether or not they wanted to expand Medicaid enrollment. Only Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor found Medicaid expansion to be constitutional. Currently 28 states plus D.C. have expanded their Medicaid coverage, five States are considering expanding, and 19 states have decided against expansion.



The Carvin case now before the Supreme Court, is the right's latest effort to take down the ACA. Carvin argues that the law holds that Federal subsidies will be given to states with exchanges that were "established by the State." With only 14 states setting up their own exchanges so far, the Federal Government has had to set up the exchanges for most of the remaining states and in some cases partner up with them. Carvin seeks to create chaos and unravel the ACA by applying a phrase of four words in the most literal of ways, in an effort to make the case that people in those states with federal exchanges should not be given subsidies, because they were not set up by the State. People in those states who are making use of the exchanges are by and large dependent upon federal subsidies. The ACA would be in serious jeopardy with so many people removed from the health insurance program. Costs for those remaining on the program would skyrocket, resulting in a crushing blow to the ACA, from which the program and the new law might never recover. Essentially right-wing ideology would triumph at the cost of people's lives.



The ACA has been the biggest health care expansion since 1965, when Medicare and Medicaid became law. To all the critics of the ACA, we can agree with its shortcomings while understanding that it lays a foundation for us to build upon. I recently attended a health care panel where one man reminded everyone in the room of what President Obama had to go through to get this law enacted. Obama, he said, came out of this period of time with arrows coming out of his back. I am grateful for this law, because I clearly understand that it is means for the poorest people in this country. I would not be here today if it wasn't for the free, quality health care I was given in the form of Medicaid. As we know, even with government assistance, many Americans are saddled with high health care costs and are forced to navigate an often complex system.



I support the ACA and I advocate for a single payer national health insurance system. With this system in place, all medically necessary services for every United States resident would be covered. For-profit healthcare would disappear. Patients wouldn't be burdened with obstacles to care such as premiums, deductibles and co-pays. The Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act (H.R. 676) seeks to create a single payer system here in the United States. This is what HIV+ people, LGBT people, people of color and those who are living in poverty desperately need. This is what we all need in order to be a society in which our ideals are realized rather than sold off.



We can't go backwards, there's just too much at stake.



from The Huffington Post | The Full Feed http://ift.tt/1MubIgU

New Proposals To Rein In Payday Loans Show Why Unscrupulous Corporations Want You To Hate Government

2015-03-31-1427817064-9065506-428pxRichard_Cordray.jpg



I've got two quotations I'd like you to consider, one from someone you know, and one from someone you probably don't. The first is from Ronald Reagan:



The nine most terrifying words in the English language are 'I'm from the government, and I'm here to help.'





The second remark is from Trudy Robideau. It describes her experience with so-called payday loans, i.e., short term, high interest loans designed to help people with a financial emergency who are between paychecks. Ms. Robideau needed to repair her car and borrowed $800. When it came due, she paid a fee to extend the due date. Eventually, she ended up taking out a new loan to pay back the old one, beginning a vicious cycle similar to the one that has ruined countless lives while this industry has almost quadrupled in size (not counting for inflation) since 2001. Here's Ms. Robideau:



Ka-ching. You're hooked. You can feel the hook right in your mouth. And you don't know it at the time, but it gets deeper and deeper.





The remark from President Reagan perfectly encapsulates contemporary Republicanism, both in form and content. It's simplistic, ideological, and emotional. One other thing: it's completely divorced from the reality of any specific person's life. A person like Trudy Robideau.



The new proposed rules--the first draft of what will hopefully become regulation--from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) cover traditional payday loans and loans in which people put their car up as collateral for a short-term loan, as well as some kinds of installment loans whose term runs more than 45 days. The proposals would mandate that lenders actually look at the obligations and incomes of would-be borrowers similar to the way they do with mortgages and other kinds of loans, so that people who are unlikely to be able to repay their debts don't end up in a situation like Trudy Robideau. The CFPB looked at 15 million short-term loans and reported that fewer than one in five were paid off on time. Clearly, this is an industry where taking advantage of financially vulnerable people is standard practice.



Here's another doozy: when a borrower doesn't pay on time, lenders can currently just take what they are owed right out of the person's bank account, often leading to bounced checks and additional charges that leave the borrower even worse off. No more, if these proposals are adopted, as lenders would have to notify the borrower three days before taking funds out of an account. As for these loans being used to cover one-time expenses--which is how the industry pitches their product--almost seven in 10 borrowers used the money to cover recurring bills while only one in six borrowed for true, one-time emergencies, according to the Pew Charitable Trust.



The initial response from the payday loan industry was just what you'd expect, criticizing the proposals for limiting the "choices" and "options" of consumers. I know most of you cherish preserving your option to be ripped off, and I'm sure corporations love having the option to do so. It really is about liberty, after all. Consumer advocates, on the other hand, are rightfully pushing for the CFPB proposals to be made tougher. Nevertheless, we know the industry's lobbyists will work the refs and try and weaken the proposals. But as the net neutrality debate showed, the public can also have an influence on regulators if people speak up.



Reining in the payday loan industry has been in the works over at the CFPB for a while now, and it's not a moment too soon. John Oliver offered a brilliant critique of the industry last summer, and I had something to say on it as well after prosecutors finally caught up with some lenders who had been violating New York State law.



Until now, 32 states had little to no effective cap on the interest rate a lender could charge. In other words, they allowed usury. It's worth noting that the political system in many of these states is dominated by Christian conservatives, despite the biblical prohibition of usury. National regulations should do more to curb abuses, although legislation would make these consumer protections even more secure.



Why isn't there national regulation? Because of the same people who loved Obamacare until it was proposed by Barack Obama. In other words: Republicans. According to them, government supposedly is the problem. They say things like that because it sounds a lot better for them than the reality. The reality is that Republicans oppose regulations because they seek to stop the corporations and wealthy interests that bankroll Republican campaigns from lying to Americans by selling something different from or inferior to what they advertise, or by distorting the market to drive out competitors (which not only hurts honest businesspeople who can't compete but also cheats consumers out of the benefits of having more choices when they shop), or by damaging the environment, or any number of other things that those without scruples will do to maximize profits.



From Barry Goldwater to Ronald Reagan to Mitt Romney, conservatives have tried to convince the American people that government is bad because a vibrant, effective government is the enemy of those who cheat and exploit. Liberals welcome a healthy, substantive debate over whether a given problem can be solved through regulation, and which measures might work better than others. Such a debate serves the public good by coming up with sound ideas that can be tested, evaluated, changed and even abandoned if that's what the evidence demonstrates makes the most sense.



Republicans, however, want to poison the debate by claiming that regulations kill jobs, or diminish freedom, or, I don't know, make rainbow unicorns smile less brightly. Oh, and when their predictions prove false, do they change course? Do they admit they may have been wrong? Was that really Ronald Reagan's natural hair color?



Of course government can make mistakes. But so can private industry. Do you know why? Because both consist of human beings. We aren't perfect. What's also clear about us humans, about human nature, is that we are competitive. We want to win. Some of us--not many, I'd argue, but enough to potentially ruin things for everyone else--want to win so badly that they will do just about anything they can get away with in their pursuit of victory. For such people, it's not really about providing for their family, it's about crushing their enemies--and anyone who gets hurt along the way is but collateral damage.



The payday loan proposals we are discussing come out of an agency established by the Dodd-Frank law that sought to regulate the financial industry after the crisis of 2008. Republicans have hated the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (and Dodd-Frank in general) since it was born. They sought to prevent it from ever even functioning, and, as Elizabeth Warren noted, their current budget makes clear they still want to defang it, "to make sure the watchdogs are tame." Imagine that. Republicans don't want to protect consumers against interest rates that can go, according to current law in many states, north of 400 percent. They say it's about freedom and personal responsibility, and complain that government should just get out of the way. They have to say that, because that's what's in the interests of the elites who back them. Liberals have a different message.



As President Obama said Thursday in regard to these new CFPB proposals:



"As Americans, we don't mind seeing folks make a profit....But if you're making that profit by trapping hardworking Americans into a vicious cycle of debt, you got to find a new business model. You got to find a new way of doing business."





Liberals recognize reality, the reality that good people sometimes find themselves in a desperate situation, and that desperate people sometimes make bad choices. Liberals believe it is immoral to take advantage of another person's desperation to excessively line one's own pockets.



Although some people are willing to do so, liberals believe that our country cannot permit such behavior. Those are the beliefs and the values that underlay the regulations liberals support and against which Republicans rail by talking about faceless bureaucrats. We liberals have to fight back by highlighting the faces and stories of real people like Trudy Robideau.



from The Huffington Post | The Full Feed http://ift.tt/1NE7511

The True Intent Of Indiana's ‘Religious Freedom' Bill, According To The People That Helped Write It

Indiana Gov. Mike Pence (R) and state Republican leaders have been playing damage control this week, claiming that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act is not a law that enables anti-LGBT discrimination.



from The Huffington Post | The Full Feed http://ift.tt/1MubHtz

When Is the Cheapest Time to Fly Internationally?

2015-03-30-1427734022-1666993-Rome_shutterstock_107102642_800x.jpg



Whether you're heading to the romantic cobblestone towns of Europe, the bustling cityscapes of Asia, the wild backcountry of Africa or somewhere else entirely, this breakdown of the most important points to remember when booking international flights from the United States is a must read. It's been put together using Hopper 's unique research methodology, which collates millions of pieces of data related to flights departing out of American airports, to identify things like the cheapest departure dates, booking times, return days and plenty, plenty more. So read on if you'd like to learn the cheapest times to book an international flight.



The Cheapest Day to Buy an International Flight is on a Thursday




Believe it or not, the day on which you search for and book your international flight has a direct effect on the overall price of the ticket. By crunching huge amounts of data related to flight searches made for departures from airports within the United States, we've discovered that Thursdays are actually the cheapest time to seek out your seats -- which is great news for those people who find themselves too busy to go scouring the internet for bargains over the weekend!



The Cheapest Day to Fly Internationally is on a Tuesday or Wednesday




This one's great news for anyone eager to excuse themselves from the second half of the week in the office for a jaunt through the sands of the Caribbean, the jungles of Latin America or whatever other action-packed international destinations come to mind. Indeed, our statistics have shown that fliers who departed from the United States on a Tuesday or a Wednesday tended to pay less on average for their flight tickets than travelers leaving home on any other day of the week.



The Cheapest Day to Return from your International Trip is on a Wednesday




And when it comes to returns, the midweek continues to reign supreme, with Wednesday flights back into the United States coming in as the cheapest option overall for international travelers. Granted that may not be the best news for package holidaymakers or families looking to make the most of Saturday-to-Saturday changeovers, but it does mean avoiding the biggest crowds at the airport and allows for plenty of creativity when it comes to trip planning.



The Cheapest Time to Book an International Flight is at Least 25 Days in Advance




Booking early is among the most ubiquitous pieces of advice any airline expert can give and budget-conscious travelers would do well to take heed too, because we've discovered than by bagging a seat at least 25 days prior to takeoff, passengers can knock as much as $250 off from the total price of their ticket. That said, it's always worth checking booking stats for your specific route, because prime buying times can vary greatly, with some flights ebbing to a low as much as 100 days before departure!



The Cheapest Time to Fly Internationally is from February-March




Granted this one's a bit of a misnomer, because yearly price trends on international flights are typically dictated primarily by the high and low seasons of the destination abroad. However, it's interesting to note that the cheapest international flights for travelers in the United States fall outside of school vacation periods and major national holiday times, with the lowest fares coming in February and March and summertime seat prices swelling to a whopping average of $1,023!



Liked this article? Here are some more tips about when to buy and fly from Hopper!









This article originally appeared on Hopper.com.



from The Huffington Post | The Full Feed http://ift.tt/1MubGpz

5 Simple Ways to Express Gratitude and Other Lessons I Learned From My Mom

Throughout our lives, we all need something and someone to believe in. We also need someone who believes in us. That was the role my mother played in my life.






I was once told that when you lose your parents you lose your fan club, and this is exactly the way I felt when my mom passed away six years ago. I can no longer pick up the phone and hear Mom's enthusiastic, "Good morning, Sunshine!" Nor can I call her for advice or tell her about my latest speaking engagement or TV appearance.






No one will ever care about my success quite the way my mother did. And with each passing day I see myself becoming more like her as I try to keep her legacy alive through my words and actions.






Whenever I do something nice for someone else, I think of all the kind deeds my mother did for others -- making soup for a sick neighbor, cutting and styling a friend's hair and making tray favors for hospital patients.






She loved practicing random acts of kindness long before that phrase was coined, and every day she looked for and welcomed opportunities to pass her generous gestures to others. My mother was grace in action.






In light of what my mother taught me, here are five simple ways to show gratitude every day.






Write in an abundance journal. Purchase a small notebook and keep it in your briefcase, purse or bedside table. Take a few minutes at the end of each day to jot down one or two positive experiences, or, alternatively, write down what you're grateful for at the end of each week.






Include small acts of kindness: a stranger who paid for your coffee, someone who held the door for you, a phone call or note of appreciation from a friend, client or colleague.






If you don't write down these small moments of happiness, they will be easily forgotten. When you keep a journal, you can look back and remember how much you have to be thankful for during the times when life doesn't seem to be going your way.






Express your gratitude in person. When a friend, colleague or client goes above and beyond, be sure to verbalize your appreciation. Go to their office or treat them to lunch or a quick cup of coffee.






When you make time for those who are important to your business, the lasting impression can be endlessly rewarding.






Show respect for those around you. Treat others with the same level of courtesy you expect to receive: smile, show kindness, exhibit patience and listen. For instance, the next time you make a coffee run in the morning, offer to bring back coffee for someone else in the office, too. Wash your coffee mug in the office kitchen rather than letting your dirty dish sit in the sink. If you see someone running toward the elevator, hold the door.






You know how nice it feels when someone takes a few moments to show kindness. Be that person to someone else.






Don't complain. When something terrible happens, it's natural to want to complain about it. You may become impatient with someone in line who takes too long to pay or moan to an employee about a difficult client. You may even complain to yourself when a driver cuts you off in traffic.






Every time you complain, you reinforce a negative state of mind without offering a solution to the problem at hand. Instead, next time you feel frustrated, take a few breaths and try focusing on something positive.






Volunteer in your community. There's a well-known secret among long-time volunteers: an act of kindness does more good for you than those you're serving.






Once a month, I take my therapy dog, Cooper, to the local library where the children read stories to him. After all, dogs are non-judgmental and they make great listeners.






If you're short on time, choose a volunteer opportunity that requires only an hour or two each month. Volunteering gives you something positive to focus on and is a great way to give back to the community at large.






For more gratitude tips, visit Jacqueline Whitmore's blog, http://ift.tt/14J3f59, or "like" her Facebook page.






from The Huffington Post | The Full Feed http://ift.tt/1MubFSv

You Can Play 'Pac-Man' In Google Maps Right Now

Wednesday is April Fools' Day, and Google's already released its first "prank." Well, it's less of a prank and more of a treat. Starting on Tuesday, you can play the classic arcade game "Pac-Man" on Google Maps.



Here's how to play: Go to Google Maps, and on the bottom left of the map you'll see a little box with a screengrab from "Pac-Man" in it. It looks like this:



pac man google maps



So far, we're only seeing this on desktop versions of Google Maps, not on the mobile app.



To play, click on the "Pac-Man" square, and Google Maps will zoom into your map and transform it into a game. (It works best if you use an area with lots of streets.) You can use your arrow keys to move the Pac-Man around the streets, eating up the little pellets and fruits while avoiding the ghosts.







It's not clear how long this game will last, so get some playtime in while you can!



from The Huffington Post | The Full Feed http://ift.tt/1NE72T5

Elizabeth Warren: Give Hillary Clinton A Chance

Elizabeth Warren wants America to hear Hillary Clinton out.



Appearing on NBC’s “Today” on Tuesday to promote her new book, the Massachusetts senator said that the former Secretary of State deserves an opportunity to demonstrate how she plans to help the middle class if she decides to run for president.



“I think we need to give her a chance to decide if she’s going to run and to lay out what she wants to run on,” Warren said. “I think that’s her opportunity to do that.”



Warren also reaffirmed that she won’t challenge Clinton in 2016, despite calls from liberals and a few conservativesfor her to do so.



“I’m not running and I’m not going to run,” Warren said. “I’m in Washington and I’ve got this great job and a chance to try and make a difference on things that really matter.”



Many on the far left have urged Warren to run for president, citing Clinton’s relatively hawkish foreign policy stances and cozy relationship with Wall Street.



Over the past several years, Warren has been measured in her comments about Clinton. In an interview with People Magazine in November, Warren said that while her relationship with Clinton is cordial, they aren’t particularly close.



“We have talked. It's not much more than that. Not much more," Warren said.



from The Huffington Post | The Full Feed http://ift.tt/1DmqbpF

Dunkin' Donuts Wants You To Eat Oreo Cheesecake Squares For Breakfast

Dunkin' Donuts is unveiling a new spring menu this April and it's definitely going to affect your summer beach body. That's because the company wants you to up your morning dessert game and try cheesecake for breakfast. Specifically, Dunkin' Donuts' new Oreo and Raspberry Cheesecake Squares -- because donuts alone weren't unhealthy enough.



Behold, the Squares in all their sugary glory:



dunkin



Available in April only, Dunkin' says these gluttonous stuffed donut squares are "filled with smooth and creamy cheesecake filling, frosted with white icing and finished with raspberry flavored candy or crumbled Oreo cookies."



The rest of Dunkin's new spring menu is surprisingly more savory than it is sweet. Possibly based on the company's success with its Tomato Mozzarella Supreme Bagel (or pizza bagel, as we like to call it), Dunkin' is trying out a Southwest Supreme Bagel. Described as "a plain bagel topped with melted Colby Jack cheese, corn, black beans, peppers, tomatoes, onions and spices," you can see it pictured below:



dunkin



Other notable additions to the menu include a Snack 'N Go Steak Wrap and a Pretzel Roll Chicken Sandwich. The Pretzel Roll is breaded chicken with bacon, white cheddar cheese and honey mustard on a pretzel roll and seems like it could either be really good or really gross.



dunkin



Want to read more from HuffPost Taste? Follow us on Twitter, Facebook, Pinterest and Tumblr.



from The Huffington Post | The Full Feed http://ift.tt/1Dmq9hn

12 Heartfelt Ways To Include Lost Loved Ones In Your Wedding Day

What's Up With All the Honking?

Recently I found myself in a new city. I won't mention it by name, but if you're curious I will say that it starts with an "F" and rhymes with "Mort Mauderdale."



Hubbie and I decided to spend our one day there checking out the sites. Our specific mission was to find a new pair of pajama pants (resulting from an unfortunate "I-can't-believe-you-forgot-to-check-that-drawer-before-we-checked-out" moment upon leaving our previous hotel).



The day was a hot one, as tends to happen in Mort Mauderdale. And we all know that the heat can take its toll on even the best of us.



2015-03-30-1427736018-2510552-bloghotdog.jpg





As we came to our first intersection, we watched as two cars turned in the same direction, attempting to merge into the same lane.



Both cars laid on the horn.



At the next block we saw the light turn green, and the lead driver was a bit slow to hit the gas. Which is apparently why the line of cars behind him...



...laid on the horn.



By intersection three we were curious. Would the trend continue? Sure enough, a car blocked the intersection while waiting for traffic to pass, causing a whole bunch of other cars to...



...lay on the horn.



We were puzzled. What was up with all that honking? And what did it say about the city of Mort Mauderdale?



And that's when we realized that the honking really had nothing to do with the city, or the heat, or even the cars that might have been at fault.



The honking had to do with the drivers who were doing it...the honkers if you will.



Now, to be fair I really can't judge too harshly on this one. I've certainly done my share of honking in this lifetime. Really, we all have.



2015-03-30-1427736097-6891286-babyhonking.jpg





But I also know what honking really is.



Honking is the opportunity to let someone know you're frustrated or angry, without ever having to face them in person. Honking is a form of passive aggression, and a somewhat cowardly one at that.



Honking is something that feels OK for many of us to do, but feels terribly personal when it happens to us.



Honking may create sound on the outside, but it happens because we're not too happy inside...and we need a release.



When you look at it this way, honking doesn't just happen in cars.




  • Honking happens in social media, when we post something nasty about a place of business or an elected official, knowing we'll never have to look them in the eye



  • Honking happens when we shout nasty judgements at the celebrities or news reporters on our television sets, even though we don't know them at all



  • Honking is the snarky comment we make about a co-worker under our breath...the passive aggressive dig we give to our sister...the rolling of the eyes when the store clerk isn't moving fast enough






This kind of honking has nothing to do with those we're honking at...



...and everything to do with us as honkers.



What it really means is that we ourselves are frustrated or just feel bad in some way. It means that we are desperate to let off a bit of steam, to play the victim, to blame someone else for how we're feeling.



Sure, sometimes honking is necessary...like when a car drifts into our lane, or when a driver isn't paying attention. But we're not talking about that kind of honking.



We're talking about the bitter, laying-on-the-horn, passive-aggressive kind of honking.



The good news is that when we honk - inside the car or in another way - we've got a surefire sign that something is amiss in our lives. Which means we can then set about figuring out what it is and getting our lives back on track.



It's just up to us as honkers to take notice.



A few pointers for those on either side of the honking relationship...



To those who honk:




  • Recognize what it means when you lay on the horn



  • Notice when you do it more, the patterns going on in your life



  • Understand the real reason you're all honk-crazy



  • Then try to make the problem better






To those who get honked at:




  • Cut the driver some slack. He or she isn't in a good place. And you are. Because you're not honking.



  • Try not to take it personally. Really, it's not about you. (Unless you drive really terribly. Then it might be a little bit.)






I tried to remember this during that hot walk in Mort Mauderdale, and it worked. Because in that moment I was not in a honking place myself.



Nor was I later...when our mission was accomplished so successfully.



2015-03-30-1427736204-9523531-blogpjs.JPG





This week...



Recognize your honking tendencies - inside and outside of the car.



Figure out what's really up with your honking.



Then make it better. Honk less. Feel happier.





PS: Special thanks to humboldthead for the baby photo and istolethetv for the pooch pic.



from The Huffington Post | The Full Feed http://ift.tt/1ExELMu

No More Mr. Nice Gal

As I've grown in my career, and in my business, I've been surprised by how many times people have misunderstood my pleasant attitude for a lack of intelligence. I'm a nice person by nature. This doesn't, however, mean that I am a welcome mat. Here are things that I've learned from being a woman in the business world.



Know Your Value



One thing about being a nice gal, is that people think that you will do any favor they ask. When I first started in business I had to say "yes" to a lot of work for little to no compensation just to get my name out there. Now that I have a fully operational business with employees and overhead, there are still those who think that because I'm nice, I can do work for them for free. Part of becoming better in business is that you have to know what your worth. This true whether you own a business, are an employee, or work as a freelancer. I'm all for a "friend discount" now and then, but remember a real friend will want to pay you what your worth.



Don't Be Afraid to Show your Teeth



Women in the workplace have to walk a fine line between being the nice girl who makes the coffee or the tenacious go-getter that no one likes. Sometimes we have to sacrifice popularity to get a job done. That's not to say that we should walk into work with guns blazing or looking for a fight. But we should all feel confident in speaking our minds or standing up for what we believe in. Even if it means we get a few less smiles from co-workers in the morning, it will set you apart in the long wrong and help you boss or client see that you really care about your company and the work you do.



Turn in the Girl Card



We've all graduated high school, most of us have at least some college under our belts, when will we realize that the things we did in elementary school to get ahead wont work in a male-driven, business world? Believe me when I say your boss doesn't have a behavior board in his or her office and they aren't giving out gold stars for sharing your lunch. Crying may get you a day off, but it wont get you a promotion. To gain respect in the office place you have to be willing to create a few waves but have enough control to not knock the whole boat over.



Don't Lose Your Touch



Women are great listeners, we have a wonderful capacity for empathy, which actually makes us perfect for positions as mentors and leaders. Just because we have to put on our big girl pants at work doesn't mean that we cant still operate under our own terms. Its all about balance and that starts with respecting yourself and who you are as a woman and as an employee. No one will give you chance if you don't give yourself one. So be bold ladies, just because we have boobs doesn't mean that we don't have the balls to take on the big guys.



from The Huffington Post | The Full Feed http://ift.tt/1BIjKaI

Who Are the Nuclear Scofflaws?

Given all the frothing by hawkish U.S. Senators about Iran's possible development of nuclear weapons, one might think that Iran was violating the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).



But it's not. The NPT, signed by 190 nations, and in effect since 1970, is a treaty in which the non-nuclear nations agreed to forgo developing nuclear weapons and the nuclear nations agreed to divest themselves of their nuclear weapons. It also granted nations the right to develop peaceful nuclear power. The current negotiations in which Iran is engaged with other nations are merely designed to guarantee that Iran, which signed the NPT, does not cross the line from developing nuclear power to developing nuclear weapons.



Nine nations, however, have flouted the NPT by either developing nuclear weapons since the treaty went into effect or failing to honor the commitment to disarm. These nine scofflaws and their nuclear arsenals are Russia (7,500 nuclear warheads), the United States (7,100 nuclear warheads), France (300 nuclear warheads), China (250 nuclear warheads), Britain (215 nuclear warheads), Pakistan (100-120 nuclear warheads), India (90-110 nuclear warheads), Israel (80 nuclear warheads) and North Korea (<10 nuclear warheads).



Nor are the nuclear powers likely to be in compliance with the NPT any time soon. The Indian and Pakistani governments are engaged in a rapid nuclear weapons buildup, while the British government is contemplating the development of a new, more advanced nuclear weapons system.



Although, in recent decades, the U.S. and Russian governments did reduce their nuclear arsenals substantially, that process has come to a halt in recent years, as relations have soured between the two nations. Indeed, both countries are currently engaged in a new, extremely dangerous nuclear arms race. The U.S. government has committed itself to spending $1 trillion to "modernize" its nuclear facilities and build new nuclear weapons. For its part, the Russian government is investing heavily in the upgrading of its nuclear warheads and the development of new delivery systems, such as nuclear missiles and nuclear submarines.



What can be done about this flouting of the NPT, some 45 years after it went into operation?



That will be a major issue at an NPT Review Conference that will convene at the UN headquarters, in New York City, from April 27 to May 22. These review conferences, held every five years, attract high-level national officials from around the world to discuss the treaty's implementation. For a very brief time, the review conferences even draw the attention of television and other news commentators before the mass communications media return to their focus on scandals, arrests and the lives of movie stars.



This spring's conference might be particularly lively, given the heightening frustration of the non-nuclear powers at the failure of the nuclear powers to fulfill their NPT commitments. At recent disarmament conferences in Norway, Mexico and Austria, the representatives of a large number of non-nuclear nations, ignoring the opposition of the nuclear powers, focused on the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear war. One rising demand among restless non-nuclear nations and among nuclear disarmament groups is to develop a nuclear weapons ban treaty, whether or not the nuclear powers are willing to participate in negotiations.



To heighten the pressure for the abolition of nuclear weapons, nuclear disarmament groups are staging a Peace and Planet mobilization, in Manhattan, on the eve of the NPT review conference. Calling for a "Nuclear-Free, Peaceful, Just and Sustainable World," the mobilization involves an international conference (comprised of plenaries and workshops) on April 24 and 25, plus a culminating interfaith convocation, rally, march, and festival on April 26.



Among the hundreds of endorsing organizations are many devoted to peace (Fellowship of Reconciliation, Pax Christi, Peace Action, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Veterans for Peace, and Women's International League for Peace and Freedom), environmentalism (Earth Action, Friends of the Earth, and 350NYC), religion (Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns, Unitarian Universalist UN Office, United Church of Christ, and United Methodist General Board of Church & Society), workers' rights (New Jersey Industrial Union Council, United Electrical Workers and Working Families Party), and social welfare (American Friends Service Committee and National Association of Social Workers).



Of course, how much effect the proponents of a nuclear weapons-free world will have on the cynical officials of the nuclear powers remains to be seen. After as many as 45 years of stalling on their own nuclear disarmament, it is hard to imagine that they are finally ready to begin negotiating a treaty effectively banning nuclear weapons -- or at least their nuclear weapons.



Meanwhile, let us encourage Iran not to follow the bad example set by the nuclear powers. And let us ask the nuclear-armed nations, now telling Iran that it should forgo the possession of nuclear weapons, when they are going to start practicing what they preach.



This post originally appeared in TIME Magazine.



Lawrence Wittner (http://ift.tt/UlyLuw) is Professor of History emeritus at SUNY/Albany. He is the author of Confronting the Bomb: A Short History of the World Nuclear Disarmament Movement (Stanford University Press).



from The Huffington Post | The Full Feed http://ift.tt/1xvLowh

Gov. Mike Pence Invokes Selma In Defending Indiana's Anti-LGBT Law

Indiana Gov. Mike Pence (R) went on “Fox & Friends” on Tuesday morning to defend the “religious liberty” bill he recently signed, which critics say invites discrimination against gay, lesbian and transgender people.



Since the legislation was signed last Thursday, the governor has faced blistering criticism and a boycott that now includes the states of Connecticut and Washington.



“Five years ago, my wife and my family walked the Edmund Pettus Bridge with John Lewis when I co-chaired the pilgrimage to mark the 45th anniversary of Bloody Sunday,” Pence said on the show. “I abhor discrimination. If I was in a restaurant and saw a business owner deny services to someone because they were gay, I wouldn’t eat there anymore. Frankly, that’s how most Hoosiers are.”



But Pence’s refusal to answer basic questions about what the law would allow make his assurances ring hollow. Pence has said he would not support LGBT anti-discrimination legislation to coincide with the law, and refused -- a whopping six times -- to answer whether the legislation would allow a florist to decline service to a gay couple.



“It’s important to me in this process, and we’ll do it through legislation, that people know that Indiana is standing here for religious liberty,” the governor added.



from The Huffington Post | The Full Feed http://ift.tt/1GcxwIT

GOP presidential candidates get behind Indiana's license-to-discriminate law

Jeb Bush speaks at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) at National Harbor in Maryland February 27, 2015. &nbsp;REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque &nbsp;(UNITED STATES - Tags: POLITICS) - RTR4RHCV
Jeb Bush


Ultra-conservative voters have been suspicious of Jeb Bush, who hasn't been loud and proud enough on their key issues. But on Monday, the former Florida governor and dynastic candidate threw them a juicy bone when he—like other Republican 2016 hopefuls—defended Indiana's new license-to-discriminate law:

“I think Governor Pence has done the right thing,” said Mr. Bush, who is expected to run for president in 2016. “I think once the facts are established, people aren’t going to see this as discriminatory at all.” [...]

“There are many cases where people acting on their conscience have been castigated by the government,” Mr. Bush said. “This is really an important value for our country, in a diverse country,where you can be tolerant of people’s lifestyles but allow people of faith to exercise theirs.”



How dare the government castigate people for discrimination! Let's tolerate people's lifestyles while allowing people of faith to exercise it by discriminating against people with, you know, "lifestyles." And of course, remember that we're not talking about people in their private lives, we're talking about businesses. This isn't about whether you have to have the gay neighbors over for dinner in your home, it's about whether a restaurant or store is allowed to refuse to serve people because the owner is a bigot. Jeb Bush's answer is yes.

Sen. Marco Rubio's answer is ... confused on the concept:


"Nobody is saying that it should be legal to deny someone service at a restaurant or at a hotel because of their sexual orientation. I think that's a consensus view in America," Rubio said on Fox News Monday. "The flip side is, should a photographer be punished for refusing to do a wedding that their faith teaches them is not one that is valid in the eyes of God?"

It seems that Rubio thinks some businesses—photographers, anyway—should be allowed to discriminate, but not restaurants or hotels. Except that Indiana's law doesn't have some big "except restaurants and hotels" carve-out, so what Rubio is saying doesn't work as a response to this particular law. But what does that matter when you're a presidential candidate trying to have it both ways?

Not bothering to try to have it both ways are, predictably, candidates like Ted Cruz:


“Governor Pence is holding the line to protect religious liberty in the Hoosier State,” Mr. Cruz said. “Indiana is giving voice to millions of courageous conservatives across this country who are deeply concerned about the ongoing attacks upon our personal liberties.”

Predictably, other potential candidates like Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, former Texas Gov. Rick Perry, former Sen. Rick Santorum, and retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson were firmly on Team Okay-to-Discriminate. And Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker continued to be vague yet far-right in his issues positions, sending a spokesperson out to say that "As a matter of principle, Gov. Walker believes in broad religious freedom and the right for Americans to exercise their religion and act on their conscience" without quite directly addressing the Indiana law.






from Daily Kos http://ift.tt/1DmpdJU

Rivière et Mangala pires recrues de l'année en Angleterre

Quelle est la pire recrue de la saison en Angleterre ? Le site web du Daily Mail procède ce mardi à son classement annuel des plus gros flops. Il est dominé par les Français.




















from Sports.fr http://ift.tt/1C2k6sC

Brive: Germain prolonge jusqu'en 2018

Louisiana preschool grading criticized

BATON ROUGE — Louisiana's planned method for grading its preschool programs has "serious flaws," two education groups said Monday. The Advocate reports (http://bit.ly/1HXZmL4 ) a study by the groups says the proposed grading plan fails to detail how programs can be improved, relies too heavily on a single grade to judge quality and lacks guarantees needed for fairness. The study was released by the Policy Institute for Children, which advocates for children, and Education's Next Horizon, which advocates for public education improvements. Leaders of both groups have been heavily involved in setting up the new system. Gov. Bobby Jindal pushed for a 2012 law requiring improvements to replace a pre-K setup that critics say is plagued by inequities in funding and quality. New rules to take effect next school year will include early performance guidelines for children from infants to age 3; academic standards for 3- and 4-year-olds; and report cards that grade early childhood education sites. The report says Louisiana's Department of Education plans to issue report cards that measure two areas: one on teacher-child interactions and the other to measure the aggregated scores of all programs in a network. However, the report says no other state relies on a single grade to measure how students and teachers are faring. "While teacher-child interaction is one important measure of quality, it must be combined with other critical markers of quality to be effective means to achieve improved child outcomes," the study says. It also says the state has failed to ensure that independent, third-party assessors will handle the review of how students and teachers are faring. Officials with the state Department of Education didn't comment on the criticism, saying they haven't read the report. --- Information from: The Advocate, http://theadvocate.com



from American Press: Your Best News And Advertising Source - Home http://ift.tt/1BIj5pS

Officials: Iran nuke talks to continue in new phase

LAUSANNE, Switzerland — Wrapping up six days of marathon nuclear talks with mixed results, Iran and six world powers prepared Tuesday to issue a general statement agreeing to continue talks in a new phase aimed at reaching a final agreement by the end of June to control Iran's nuclear ambitions, officials told The Associated Press on Tuesday. Officials had set a deadline of March 31 for a framework agreement, and later softened that wording to a framework understanding, between Iran and the so-called P5+1 nations — the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China. And after intense negotiations, obstacles remained on uranium enrichment, where stockpiles of enriched uranium should be stored, limits on Iran's nuclear research and development and the timing and scope of sanctions relief among other issues. The joint statement is to be accompanied by additional documents that outline more detailed understandings, allowing the sides to claim enough progress has been made thus far to merit a new round, the officials said. Iran has not yet signed off on the documents, one official said, meaning any understanding remains unclear. The talks have already been extended twice as part of more than a decade of diplomatic attempts to curb Tehran's nuclear advance. The next stage will be presented as a new phase, because most of the parties had ruled out another prolongation of this round. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to comment on the talks on the record. If the parties agree only to a broad framework that leaves key details unresolved, President Barack Obama could face stiff opposition from members of Congress who want to move forward with new Iran sanctions legislation. Lawmakers had agreed to hold off on such a measure through March while the parties negotiated. Obama has warned that passing new sanctions during the talks could upend the sensitive discussions. The softening of the language from a framework "agreement" to a framework "understanding" appeared due in part to opposition to a two-stage agreement from Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Earlier this year, he demanded only one deal that nails down specifics and does not permit the other side to "make things difficult" by giving it wiggle room on interpretations. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, who left Lausanne Monday, arrived back to the Swiss city by late afternoon, another indication that an end to the talks was near. In Moscow, he told reporters: "Prospects for this round of negotiations were not bad, and I would even say good." Some of the P5+1's foreign ministers joined Kerry and Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif at the talks over the weekend in an intense effort to reach a political understanding on terms that would curb Iran's nuclear activities in exchange for sanctions relief. Kerry and others said the sides have made some progress, with Iran considering demands for further cuts to its uranium enrichment program but pushing back on how long it must limit technology it could use to make atomic arms. In addition to sticking points on research and development, differences remain on the timing and scope of sanctions removal, the officials said. The Obama administration says any deal will stretch the time Iran needs to make a nuclear weapon from the present two to three months to at least a year. But critics object that it would keep Tehran's nuclear technology intact. Officials in Lausanne said the sides were advancing on limits to aspects of Iran's program to enrich uranium, which can be used to make the core of a nuclear warhead. Uranium enrichment has been the chief concern for more than a decade. But Western officials say the main obstacles to a deal are no longer enrichment-related but instead the type and length of restrictions on Tehran's research and development of advanced centrifuges and the pace of sanctions-lifting. Over the past weeks, Iran has moved from demanding that it be allowed to keep nearly 10,000 centrifuges enriching uranium, to agreeing to 6,000, plus another 480 centrifuges in the underground facility in Fordo that the Iranians say would be used only to enrich other elements used for peaceful purposes. The officials said Tehran now may be ready to accept even fewer. Tehran says it wants to enrich only for energy, science, industry and medicine. But many countries fear Iran could use the technology to make weapons-grade uranium. --- White House Correspondent Julie Pace contributed to this story.



from American Press: Your Best News And Advertising Source - Home http://ift.tt/1bNd06n

Discussing Clinton’s Email Scandal: Thiessen on Fox News’ ‘The Kelly File’

On Fox News' 'The Kelly File,' Fellow Marc Thiessen discusses the Hilary Clinton email scandal and the potential repercussions.



from AEI » Latest Content http://ift.tt/1Dmm397

Don’t forget the 1980s

It should be a deeply sobering thought for Americans that the U.S. housing finance sector has collapsed twice in the last three decades. Of course, we know that there was the painful shriveling of the huge U.S. housing and mortgage bubble of the 2000s, but only twenty years before there was the mass failure of the savings and loan (thrift) industry, first from interest rate risk and then from bad loans. Up to then they had been the dominant mortgage lenders. Their collapse resulted in the failure of the government’s savings and loan deposit insurance fund, which required a $150 billion taxpayer bailout. The bonds sold in 1990 to finance that bailout run to 2030, so the taxpayers will be paying for the 1980s bailout for 15 more years from now! Does the U.S. as a nation have a natural ineptitude for housing finance? Moreover, the savings and loan crisis was mixed together with a severe commercial banking crisis.


Here’s a financial history quiz: How many U.S. thrift institutions and commercial banks do you think failed or had to get government assistance in the 1980s crisis? Before you read the answer, what’s your number?


The correct answer is that all told, 1,332 U.S. thrift institutions failed between 1982 and 1992. In the same period, 1,476 U.S. commercial banks failed. That is a total of 2,808 financial institution failures, or an average of 255 failures per year over those eleven years. That is on average five failures a week over a decade. Pretty tough times in the financial system!


But how well is that 1980s financial collapse remembered? How much do you remember about it, dear Reader? That probably depends on your age. Consider, for example, a fellow who is today a responsible bank senior vice president or regulator or central banker and 50 years old. In 1982, he was 17 and doubtless thinking much more about girls and football than about the crisis in housing finance, so he can remember little if anything about it. Conversely, the 50 year old senior vice president or regulator or central banker of 1982, who had to deal with the crisis, is now 83 and probably long retired, if alive. For today’s 29-year old bond trader, the 1980s are ancient and irrelevant history and even the panic of 2007-2009 is pretty long ago.


The natural process of ageing, mortality and the arrival of new generations cuts heavily against the effective retention of the lessons of financial history. Financial history could be taught in universities or on the job, but mostly is not. This helps the cycles of boom and bust continue.


How serious was the 1980s crisis? Well, in that decade the then-Chairman of the Federal Reserve made a Friday night phone call to the Governor of the Bank of Japan. His reported first words were: “The American banking system might not last until Monday”!


Here’s another quiz: Which year was that? What was the immediate crisis which gave rise to the call? Who was the Federal Reserve Chairman who made such an extreme statement?


The right answers are: 1982. The global sovereign debt crisis. Yes, there have also been two sovereign debt crises in the last three decades; the second one still in process with the threatened post-bailout default on Greek government debt. The 1980s sovereign debt crisis was then known as the “LDC [less-developed country] debt crisis.” The Federal Reserve Chairman was Paul Volcker.


At the same time as the savings and loans (as directed by their regulator) were making soon-tobe disastrous long-term, fixed rate loans funded with short-term deposits, hundreds of American banks, including all the big ones (along with banks in Europe, Japan and Canada) had been on a lending spree to the governments of the less-developed, or as we would now say, emerging countries. This disastrous lending spree had been widely praised by official and private cheerleaders as “recycling petro-dollars” in the jargon of the time – displaying everyone’s typical inability to foresee the coming crisis. By the spring of 1982, the Federal Reserve was making special loans to the Bank of Mexico to make the latter’s financial statements look better. In August, 1982, Mexico defaulted on its debt and it belatedly became obvious to everybody that the heavily indebted LDC governments could not pay what they owed.


As economist Richard Koo, at that time the head of the International Financial Markets Section of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, recalls, therefore the “big U.S. banks were all virtually bankrupt.” At the same time, it was realized that the thrift industry was in the aggregate bankrupt. What a combination!


But that was not all. At the same time, two other bubbles were deflating: an oil bubble (sound familiar?) and a farmland bubble. So not only was the thrift industry on the way to a huge taxpayer bailout, but nine out of the biggest nine banks in oil-centric Texas failed, along with many others, and the Farm Credit System, a government-backed lender, failed, too, and had its own government bailout. No wonder Volcker was phoning up his central banking brethren!


Here is your last quiz: What did Chairman Volcker do to confront the massive losses on the loans the banks had made to the governments of the LDCs? Face the facts and take the write-downs? Mark the loans to market? Try to reduce the credit exposure to these insolvent borrowers? Have a stress test?


Which alternative did he choose?


The correct answer is: None of the above. Instead, Volcker ordered the bank regulators not to classify these loans as non-performing, in spite of the fact that they were bad loans – in other words, to cook the books – and ordered the banks to keep the game going with new loans to the insolvent borrowers, pushing off recognition of billions in losses for years.


Thus the forceful Chairman Volcker “steamrollered though,” as Koo says, with a bold strategy and a very high-stakes gamble, which he got away with. At the same time, the regulator of the savings and loans, the hapless Federal Home Loan Bank Board, was likewise postponing loss recognition, cooking the books, and making big gambles, which it however lost.


The Federal Home Loan Bank Board was abolished by Congress in 1989 and replaced by the Office of Thrift Supervision. The Office of Thrift Supervision was in turn abolished by Congress in 2010.


Sic transit gloria in American housing finance. In the meantime, the Federal Reserve, which created the 1970s runaway inflation and its interest rate aftermath which broke the thrifts, has advanced to ever greater power and prestige. With striking irony, the Federal Reserve in the aftermath of the 2000s bubble has become the biggest investor in long-term, fixed rate mortgages there is – in effect, the biggest savings and loan in the world.






from AEI » Latest Content http://ift.tt/1IivsxO

Search Google

Blog Archive