Saturday, November 8, 2014


News Clips For The Day


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/israeli-settlements-in-jerusalem-increasing-tensions/


Israeli settlements in Jerusalem increasing tensions
By ALLEN PIZZEY CBS NEWS November 6, 2014, 7:24 PM

JERUSALEM - Thursday, Israeli police used force to break up large protests in the West Bank amid fears of a new uprising by Palestinians. Violence has grown since Israel gave the go-ahead for more Jewish settlements in the Palestinian section of Jerusalem.
Teargas and stones, running battles between Palestinian youths and Israeli security forces are happening daily now in the narrow streets of East Jerusalem. And there's every reason to think it will get worse.

This is a big part of the reason why: A stone's throw away hundreds of new apartments are being built for Jewish settlers on land that is supposed to be part of any future Palestine.

"They are demolishing the possibility of having an independent sovereign Palestinian State," said Mustapha Barghouti, a leading member of the Palestinian parliament. "The main thing that is blocking any possibility for peace, or any prospect for peace is the continuation of Israeli illegal settlement building."

In peace negotiations the terminology can be complex, the points nuanced, and the rhetoric is more often than not overblown. What's going on here however is summed up in a single phrase: Establishing facts on the ground.

This week Israel announced it would push ahead with another thousand apartments.

"The French build in Paris," Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said. "The English in London. Tell the Jews not to live in Jerusalem? Why?"

And as often happens here,the reply played out on the streets.

In the meantime, Jewish settlers continue to buy up houses in Palestinian neighborhoods. They have to pay well over the market price, but Israeli security is there to protect them.

The settlement expansion has resulted in a crazy quilt of unconnected patches of land that is supposed to make up a future Palestinian state. And as long as construction continues, violence will escalate and the peace efforts will keep crumbling.




See the history of the two states from Wikipedia below. More and more countries are recognizing Palestine as a state, though the US has not, but the mutual ongoing warfare has prevented national boundaries being drawn up under a peace treaty. The Jews came to Palestine to set up their ancient homeland with the backing of Britain in WWI, With Jewish independence being declared in 1948. Britain also administered the British Mandate of Palestine, during this same period. Israel continues to usurp more of the acknowledged Palestinian territory, despite world opinion against them. The Jews, hardened by their persecution in various places around the world, and the proud and equally warlike Palestinians continue their conflict despite US and UN attempts to bring them to an agreement. The following is from Wikipedia –

Israel – Wikipedia

“The aftermath of the Civil War and the consequent 1948 Arab–Israeli War led to the establishment of the 1949 cease-fire agreement, with partition of the former Mandatory Palestine between the newborn state of Israel with a Jewish majority, the West Bank annexed by the Jordanian Kingdom and the Arab All-Palestine Government in the Gaza Strip under the military occupation of Egypt.”

“Following the London Conference (1939) the British Government published a White Paper which proposed a limit to Jewish immigration from Europe, restrictions on Jewish land purchases, and a program for creating an independent state to replace the Mandate within ten years. This was seen by the Yishuv as betrayal of the mandatory terms, especially in light of the increasing persecution of Jews in Europe. In response, Zionists organised Aliyah Bet, a program of illegal immigration into Palestine. Lehi, a small group of extremist Zionists, staged armed attacks on British authorities in Palestine. However, the Jewish Agency, which represented the mainstream Zionist leadership, still hoped to persuade Britain to allow resumed Jewish immigration, and cooperated with Britain in World War II.”

1946 – “These events were the decisive factors that forced Britain to announce their desire to terminate the Palestine Mandate and place the Question of Palestine before the United Nations, the successor to the League of Nations. The UN created UNSCOP (the UN Special Committee on Palestine) on 15 May 1947, with representatives from 11 countries. UNSCOP conducted hearings and made a general survey of the situation in Palestine, and issued its report on 31 August. Seven members (Canada, Czechoslovakia, Guatemala, Netherlands, Peru, Sweden, andUruguay) recommended the creation of independent Arab and Jewish states, with Jerusalem to be placed underinternational administration. Three members (India, Iran, and Yugoslavia) supported the creation of a single federal state containing both Jewish and Arab constituent states. Australia abstained.”

“On 29 November, the UN General Assembly, voting 33 to 13, with 10 abstentions, adopted a resolutionrecommending the adoption and implementation of the Plan of Partition with Economic Union as Resolution 181 (II).,[46] while making some adjustments to the boundaries between the two states proposed by it. The division was to take effect on the date of British withdrawal. The partition plan required that the proposed states grant full civil rights to all people within their borders, regardless of race, religion or gender. It is important to note that the UN General Assembly is only granted the power to make recommendations, therefore, UNGAR 181 was not legally binding.[47]Both the U.S. and the Soviet Union supported the resolution. Haiti, Liberia, and the Philippines changed their votes at the last moment after concerted pressure from the U.S. and from Zionist organisations.[48][49][50] The five members of the Arab League, who were voting members at the time, voted against the Plan.

The Jewish Agency, which was the Jewish state-in-formation, accepted the plan, and nearly all the Jews in Palestine rejoiced at the news. Israeli history books mention 29 November as the most important date in the creation of Israel as it refers to UNGA 181 of 1947 Partition of the Mandate of Palestine into two states and whereof Israel's Proclamation of Independence refers to UNGA 181 as its source of sovereignty in Ph's 9 & 15.[citation needed]

The partition plan was rejected out of hand by Palestinian Arab leadership and by most of the Arab population.[qt 1][qt 2]Meeting in Cairo on November and December 1947, the Arab League then adopted a series of resolutions aimed at a military solution to the conflict.

Britain announced that it would accept the partition plan, but refused to enforce it, arguing it was not accepted by the Arabs. Britain also refused to share the administration of Palestine with the UN Palestine Commission during the transitional period. In September 1947, the British government announced that the Mandate for Palestine would end at midnight on 14 May 1948.[51][52][53]

Some Jewish organisations also opposed the proposal. Irgun leader Menachem Begin announced: "The partition of the Homeland is illegal. It will never be recognized. The signature by institutions and individuals of the partition agreement is invalid. It will not bind the Jewish people. Jerusalem was and will forever be our capital. Eretz Israel will be restored to the people of Israel. All of it. And for ever."[54] These views were publicly rejected by the majority of the nascent Jewish state.[citation needed]

The British had notified the U.N. of their intent to terminate the mandate not later than 1 August 1948,[60][61] However, early in 1948, the United Kingdom announced its firm intention to end its mandate in Palestine on 14 May. In response, President Harry S. Truman made a statement on 25 March proposing UN trusteeship rather than partition, stating that "unfortunately, it has become clear that the partition plan cannot be carried out at this time by peaceful means... unless emergency action is taken, there will be no public authority in Palestine on that date capable of preserving law and order. Violence and bloodshed will descend upon the Holy Land. Large-scale fighting among the people of that country will be the inevitable result."[62]

The Jewish Leadership, led by future Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion, declared the establishment of a Jewish State in Eretz-Israel, to be known as the State of Israel,[63] on the afternoon of Friday, 14 May 1948 (5 Iyar 5708 in theHebrew calendar), to come into force at midnight of that day.[64][65][66] On the same day, the Provisional Government of Israel asked the US Government for recognition, on the frontiers specified in the UN Plan for Partition.[67] The United States immediately replied, recognizing the provisional government as the de facto authority.[68] Israel was also quickly recognised by the Soviet Union[citation needed] and many other countries,[citation needed] but not by the surrounding Arab states. 

Over the next few days, approximately 700 Lebanese, 1,876 Syrian, 4,000 Iraqi, 2,800 Egyptian troops crossed over the borders and into Palestine (see 1948 Arab-Israeli War).[69] Around 4,500 Transjordanian troops, commanded partly by 38 British officers who had resigned their commissions in the British army only weeks earlier, including overall commander, General John Bagot Glubb, invaded the Corpus separatum region encompassing Jerusalem and its environs (in response to the Haganah's Operation Kilshon[70]) and moved into areas designated as part of the Arab state by the UN partition plan.



International recognition of the State of Palestine
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The international recognition of the State of Palestine has been the objective of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) since thePalestinian Declaration of Independenceproclaimed the establishment of the State of Palestine on 15 November 1988 in Algiers at an extraordinary session in exile of the Palestine National Council.

The declaration was promptly acknowledged by a range of countries,[1] and by the end of the year the state was recognised by over 80 countries.[2] In February 1989, at the United Nations Security Council, the PLO representative claimed recognition by 94 states. As part of an attempt to resolve the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict, the Oslo Accords signed between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in September 1993 established the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) as a self-governing interim administration in the Palestinian territories. Israel does not recognise Palestine as a state and maintains de facto military control in the territories even in areas officially under the government of the PNA.

As of 30 October 2014, 135 (69.9%) of the 193 member states of the United Nations have recognised the State of Palestine. Many of the countries that do not recognise the State of Palestine nevertheless recognise the PLO as the "representative of the Palestinian people". On 29 November 2012, the UN General Assembly passed a motion changing Palestine's "entity" status to "non-member observer state" by a vote of 138 to 9, with 41 abstentions.[3][4][5][6]

Israel and a number of other countries do not recognize Palestine, taking the position that the establishment of this state can only be determined through direct negotiations between Israel and the PNA. The main issues currently obstructing an agreement are: borders, security, water rights, the status of Jerusalem and freedom of access toreligious sites, ongoing Israeli settlement expansion, and legalities concerning Palestinian refugees including the right of return.[cit

During September 2012, Palestine decided to pursue an upgrade in status from "observer entity" to "non-member observer state". On 27 November of the same year, it was announced that the appeal had been officially made, and would be put to a vote in the General Assembly on 29 November, where their status upgrade was expected to be supported by a majority of states. In addition to granting Palestine "non-member observer state status", the draft resolution "expresses the hope that the Security Council will consider favorably the application submitted on 23 September 2011 by the State of Palestine for admission to full membership in the United Nations, endorses the two state solution based on the pre-1967 borders, and stresses the need for an immediate resumption of negotiations between the two parties."

On Thursday, 29 November 2012, In a 138–9 vote (with 41 abstaining) General Assembly resolution 67/19 passed, upgrading Palestine to "non-member observer state" status in the United Nations.[77][78] The new status equates Palestine's with that of the Holy See. The change in status was described by The Independent as "de factorecognition of the sovereign state of Palestine".[79] Voting "no" were Canada, the Czech Republic, Israel, the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Panama and the United States.

The vote was an important benchmark for the partially recognised State of Palestine and its citizens, while it was a diplomatic setback for Israel and the United States. Status as an observer state in the UN will allow the State of Palestine to join treaties and specialised UN agencies,[80] the Law of the Seas treaty, and the International Criminal Court. It will permit Palestine to pursue legal rights over its territorial waters and air space as a sovereign state recognised by the UN, and allow the Palestinian people the right to sue for sovereignty over their territory in the International Court of Justice and to bring "crimes against humanity" and war-crimes charges, including that of unlawfully occupying the territory of State of Palestine, against Israel in the International Criminal Court.[81][82]

The UN has, after the resolution was passed, permitted Palestine to title its representative office to the UN as "The Permanent Observer Mission of the State of Palestine to the United Nations",[83] seen by many as a reflexion of the UN's de facto position of recognising the State of Palestine's sovereignty under international law,[77] and Palestine has started to re-title its name accordingly on postal stamps, official documents and passports.[78][84] The Palestinian authorities have also instructed its diplomats to officially represent the "State of Palestine", as opposed to the "Palestine National Authority".[78] Additionally, on 17 December 2012, UN Chief of Protocol Yeocheol Yoon decided that "the designation of "State of Palestine" shall be used by the Secretariat in all official United Nations documents",[34] recognising the "State of Palestine" as the official name of the Palestinian nation.

On Thursday 26 September 2013 at the United Nations, Mahmoud Abbas was given the right to sit in the General Assembly’s beige chair which is reserved for heads of state waiting to take the podium and address the General Assembly.[85]






ATHEISM IN THE NEWS – TWO ARTICLES

http://www.salon.com/2014/06/12/atheism_explodes_in_saudi_arabia_where_just_talking_about_atheism_is_illegal_partner/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=socialflow


Atheism explodes in Saudi Arabia, despite state-enforced ban

In the "cradle of Islam," a growing number of people are quietly declaring themselves nonbelievers

CARYLE MURPHY, GLOBALPOST
THURSDAY, JUN 12, 2014 07:45 AM EDT

JEDDAH, Saudi Arabia — In this country known as the cradle of Islam, where religion gives legitimacy to the government and state-appointed clerics set rules for social behavior, a growing number of Saudis are privately declaring themselves atheists.
The evidence is anecdotal, but persistent.

“I know at least six atheists who confirmed that to me,” said Fahad AlFahad, 31, a marketing consultant and human rights activist. “Six or seven years ago, I wouldn’t even have heard one person say that. Not even a best friend would confess that to me.”
A Saudi journalist in Riyadh has observed the same trend.

“The idea of being irreligious and even atheist is spreading because of the contradiction between what Islamists say and what they do,” he said.

The perception that atheism is no longer a taboo subject — at least two Gulf-produced television talk shows recently discussed it — may explain why the government has made talk of atheism a terrorist offense. The March 7 decree from the Ministry of Interior prohibited, among other things, “calling for atheist thought in any form, or calling into question the fundamentals of the Islamic religion on which this country is based.”

The number of people willing to admit to friends to being atheist or to declare themselves atheist online, usually under aliases, is certainly not big enough to be a movement or threaten the government. A 2012 poll by WIN-Gallup International of about 500 Saudis found that 5 percent described themselves as “convinced atheist.” This was well below the global average of 13 percent.

But the greater willingness to privately admit to being atheist reflects a general disillusionment with religion and what one Saudi called “a growing notion” that religion is being misused by authorities to control the population. This disillusionment is seen in a number of ways, ranging from ignoring clerical pronouncements to challenging and even mocking religious leaders on social media.
“Because people are becoming more disillusioned with the government, they started looking at the government and its support groups as being in bed together and conspiring together against the good of the people,” said Bassim Alim, a lawyer in Jeddah.

“When they see the ulema [religious scholars] appeasing the government,” he added, “people become dismayed because they thought they were pious and straightforward and just. “

“I believe people started being fed up with how religion is really controlling their life and how only one interpretation of religion should be followed,” said activist Fahad AlFahad.

Together, the appearance of atheists, a growing wariness of religious controls on society, as well as the continuing lure of jihad and ultraconservatism signal a breakdown in the conformity and consensus that has marked the Saudi religious field in the recent past. It is becoming a more heterogenous and polarized faith scene.
“The mosques are full but society is losing its values. It’s more like a mechanical practice, like going church, you have to go on Sunday,” said a former employee of state media. “We no longer understand our religion, not because we don’t want to. But because our vision of it, our understanding of it, has been polluted by the monarchy…[and]…by the official religious establishment that only measures religion by what the monarchy wants and what pleases the monarchy.”

The growing skepticism about religion and clerics is more visible nowadays because of social media outlets, including tweets, blogs and Facebook pages.
Here are three illustrative tweets from Saudis:

— Prince Abdul Aziz bin Fahad has been tweeting nonstop abt God. I pity his disconnectedness from today’s public. It’s not the 1980′s. Pathetic
— Because our illusion that our version of Islam is the only correct one needs to be washed away
— Could the ulema issue a fatwa against domestic violence? I mean the fatwa committee has prohibited playing Resident Evil 
At the same time, however, there is a countervailing trend in that some young Saudis are joining radical Islamist and jihadi movements, a trend reinforced by the war in Syria.

“When the Arab Spring started, young religious people were asking about Islam and democracy,” said Saud Al Sarhan, director of research at the King Faisal Center for Research and Islamic Studies in Riyadh. “But now they are just asking about Islam and jihad, after what is going on in Syria.”

This attraction towards militant ultraconservatism is also apparent in the activities of unregulated religious vigilantes. Even as the government’s own religious police have come under stricter controls, these bands of young religious “volunteers” attack social gatherings to stop what they deem as prohibited activities, including music, dancing and gender mixing. In one famous incident in 2012, these “volunteers” raided the annual government-sponsored cultural festival known as Janadriya, where they clashed with security forces.

It is still dangerous to publicly admit one is an atheist because of the dire punishment one can face from a court system based on sharia, which regards disbelief in God as a capital offense.

In addition, conservative clerics who have considerable sway among Saudis, use the label ‘atheist’ to discredit those who question their strict interpretations of Islamic scriptures or express doubts about the dominant version of Islam known as Wahhabism.
That is what happened with 25-year-old Hamza Kashgari who in 2012 tweeted some unconventional thoughts about Prophet Muhammad, none of which indicated he did not believe in God. Still, he was called ‘atheist’ and to appease the religious establishment, the government jailed him for 20 months.

Also, Raef Badawi, in his early 30s, was accused of being atheist because he called for freedom to discuss other versions of Islam besides Wahhabism on the website “Free Saudi Liberals.” Badawi was sentenced to seven years in prison and 600 lashes in July 2013. His lawyer, Waleed Abu Alkhair, a human rights activist who also has been jailed, said Badawi told the court that he was a Muslim but added that “everyone has a choice to believe or not believe,” the BBC reported.

A Riyadh resident who has extensive contacts with young Saudis because of his job in higher education said that he “tries to warn young people that they are living according to an Islam constructed by the government, and not according to the Islam given us by God.”

Increasingly, he said, some youths “are going to ignore religion and become atheist, while others are going to understand the game.”

Resident Evil
Wikipedia

Resident Evil (バイオハザード Baiohazādo?, literally "Biohazard") is a horror fiction video game based media franchise created by Shinji Mikami and owned by the video game company Capcom. The franchise focuses around a series of survival horror video games, but has since branched out into comic books, novels and novelizations, sound dramas, a non-canonical series of live-action films and animated sequels to the games, and a variety of associated merchandise, such as action figures. The overarching plot of the series focuses on multiple characters and their roles in recurring outbreaks of zombies and other monsters, initially due to the release of the T-virus, a biological weapon created by the fictional Umbrella Corporation.



“'I know at least six atheists who confirmed that to me,' said Fahad AlFahad, 31, a marketing consultant and human rights activist. 'Six or seven years ago, I wouldn’t even have heard one person say that. Not even a best friend would confess that to me.' Saudi journalist in Riyadh has observed the same trend. ... The March 7 decree from the Ministry of Interior prohibited, among other things, 'calling for atheist thought in any form, or calling into question the fundamentals of the Islamic religion on which this country is based.'... A 2012 poll by WIN-Gallup International of about 500 Saudis found that 5 percent described themselves as “convinced atheist.” This was well below the global average of 13 percent.... what one Saudi called “a growing notion” that religion is being misused by authorities to control the population.... '… they started looking at the government and its support groups as being in bed together and conspiring together against the good of the people,” said Bassim Alim, a lawyer in Jeddah.... Together, the appearance of atheists, a growing wariness of religious controls on society, as well as the continuing lure of jihad and ultraconservatism signal a breakdown in the conformity and consensus that has marked the Saudi religious field in the recent past. It is becoming a more heterogenous and polarized faith scene.... — Could the ulema issue a fatwa against domestic violence? I mean the fatwa committee has prohibited playing Resident Evil.... Even as the government’s own religious police have come under stricter controls, these bands of young religious “volunteers” attack social gatherings to stop what they deem as prohibited activities, including music, dancing and gender mixing. In one famous incident in 2012, these “volunteers” raided the annual government-sponsored cultural festival known as Janadriya, where they clashed with security forces.”

This looks to me like a rising trend of thought against the government sponsored brand of Islam rather than real atheism. Nonetheless if a religion tries to restrict the very thoughts of a population as they apparently are doing in Saudi Arabia, there will be some who rebel. The WIN-Gallup poll found only 5% of Saudis who declared themselves to be atheists. “'The idea of being irreligious and even atheist is spreading because of the contradiction between what Islamists say and what they do,' he said.” It is not surprising that when unjust actions are being propagated by a religion, people will rebel. “'Could the ulema issue a fatwa against domestic violence?'” I would like to see mentally healthy men and women rebel against domestic violence on such a large scale that the religion itself will have to reform or lose power. That's what will have to happen in order for al-Qaeda and all other radical fundamentalist Islamic groups to lose their control in these countries, I am afraid. Clearly people in Saudi Arabia are talking about domestic violence as a dangerous and evil thing, and not a legitimate part of Islam.





http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/more-than-half-of-british-people-believe-religion-does-more-harm-than-good-survey-finds-9843695.html

More than half of British people believe religion does more harm than good, survey finds
Antonia Molloy writes for The Independent Online.
Friday, November 7, 2014

The majority believe that being religious does not make you a better person

More than half of people in the UK believe religion does more harm than good, while less than a quarter believe faith is a force for good, a new survey has revealed.

And the viewpoint even applies to those with strong faiths – one fifth (20 per cent) of Britons who describe themselves as being “very religious” said religion was harmful to society.

The findings from the study for The Huffington Post, which was carried out by Survation, challenge widely held beliefs about religion and its place in modern British society.

They show that only eight per cent of Britons describe themselves as very religious, while more than 60 per cent said they are not religious at all.

And the majority (55 per cent) believe that being religious does not necessarily make you a better person. One in eight Britons said atheists tend to be more moral, compared to just six per cent who said atheists are less moral.

Of the 2,004 people surveyed, 56 per cent described themselves as Christian, 2.5 per cent were Muslim, one per cent were Jewish and the remainder were of another faith or none.

Young people are actually more likely to have a positive view of religion. Around 30 per cent of 18-24 year-olds believe religion does more good than harm, compared to just 19 per cent of 55-64 year-olds.

Linda Woodhead, professor of the sociology of religion at Lancaster University, told The Huffington Post that the trend pointed to disillusionment with institutional religion in particular.

She said: “What we are seeing is not a complete rejection of faith, belief in the divine, or spirituality, though there is some to that, but of institutional religion in the historic forms which are familiar to people.”

Andrew Copson, chief executive of the British Humanist Association, said: “This survey just confirms what we know is the common sense of people in Britain today - that whether you are religious or not has very little to do with your morality.”




Religion is at the heart of the racial and cultural divides that give rise to the widespread persecution of “the other” in human society. Global warfare and pogroms are the result. The fact that a belief in an unknowable and invisible force – it has to be “accepted on faith” – leads people to react in a knee-jerk manner along group lines. They give over their right and even mandate under the laws of nature to think for themselves and explore issues of the nature of basic reality. Ritual, rhythm and music, group hysteria and even the use of drugs in some cases are the factors which persuade the masses that there is a power source that will provide their needs and give them victory in battle if they are faithful, and judge them in an afterlife if they are not. Luckily there is no longer a religion except for black magic that uses animal or human sacrifice to placate an angry god.

If people would think on their own, keep their conclusions to the range which they can prove logically, behave ethically and approach other people with toleration and kindness, the mythological and magical nature of standard religion would disappear and something like the philosophy based Eastern religions would emerge. Ethics, history, psychology, love for our brothers and scientific thought rather than a slavish following of a leader would be the sources that people would turn to for deciding what is true. Empathy rather than enmity would dominate.

Unfortunately, most people don't do much of that kind of thinking and they too frequently do harbor hatred against other groups. We are either going to “evolve” to a more genuinely intelligent form of human being or we will eventually meet our demise, probably sooner rather than later, judging by the state of the world today. The way things seem to me to be right now, the latter is the unavoidable outcome. Still I have hope of making the earth and the people on it a little better rather than worse. I strongly believe that this change for the good involves the actions and attitudes of many individuals , each acting on his own, rather than a military coup. I always vote Democrat, read some informational matter every day, try to be friends with other races, and maintain an “attitude of gratitude” about my life. If everyone would do those things, we would be much improved as a culture.





http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/03/opinion/yang-millennials-spending/index.html?hpt=hp_t4

Why millennials are not cheap
By Jeff Yang
updated 11:43 AM EST, Mon November 3, 2014

Editor's note: Jeff Yang is a columnist for The Wall Street Journal Online and can be heard frequently on radio as a contributor to shows such as PRI's "The Takeaway" and WNYC's "The Brian Lehrer Show." He is the author of "I Am Jackie Chan: My Life in Action" and editor of the graphic novel anthologies "Secret Identities" and "Shattered." The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.

(CNN) -- Millennials, that burgeoning category of young people who currently clock in between the ages of 17 and 35, are probably the most overanalyzed and overhyped generation in American history. I write this from the eye-rolling vantage point of a gen Xer — a member of a generation that tends to get ignored. Even so, I'll begrudgingly admit that there's steak behind the sizzle.

With a headcount of 78 million, they're the biggest cohort in our nation's history, and collectively have the latent spending power and political clout to radically transform America.

But great potential invites great skepticism. That's why millennial naysaying is so popular in the media, with pundits regularly chiming in on their sense of entitlement, their propensity toward self-indulgence, their lack of direction and their resistance to rules and authority.

One of the most common refrains is that millennials don't spend. The Atlantic even wryly dubbed them "The Cheapest Generation," which I'm sure would come as a huge shock to the 70- and 80-somethings who grew up during the Great Depression and came of age during World War II.

Of course, in our consumption-driven culture, failing to buy enough stuff is tantamount to being un-American. Remember in the days after 9/11, what then-President George W. Bush advised the grieving nation to do? "Participate in the economy." (Materialism is patriotism!)

So what use is this giant population of young people if they don't consume? As the Atlantic's Derek Thompson and Jordan Weissmann noted, millennials don't buy cars and they don't buy houses, and that, they suggested, could be an omen of looming fiscal catastrophe. "The largest generation in American history might never spend as lavishly as its parents did — nor on the same things," they wrote. "Since the end of World War II, new cars and suburban houses have powered the world's largest economy and propelled our most impressive recoveries. Millennials may have lost interest in both."

But is the lack of desire to have two of the three things that require large out-of-pocket expenses and then encumber you with long-term debt — the third being "children" — really equivalent to being cheap? To get to the heart of this question, are the deep-pocketed millennials of marketers' dreams in truth the stingy millennials of marketers' nightmares?

An analysis of data that focuses specifically on millennial values and attitudes suggests that the "cheap millennial" premise is fundamentally flawed — and quite possibly, entirely false. For one, as Thompson and Weissmann acknowledged, a big reason why millennials spend less is because they earn less, being both younger and more likely to be unemployed due to the Great Recession.

Furthermore, as the economy has recovered, millennials are beginning to open up their wallets, according to the report, "TRU Youth MONITOR: Consumers and Commerce," published by the Futures Company. (Full disclosure: I am a consultant for the company.)

Nearly two-thirds of millennials say they're more open to spending money now than they have been in the past few years, versus less than half the population as a whole. And millennials, like generations of young Americans before them, say they use shopping as therapy, with almost three-quarters agreeing that "Buying myself something new helps me feel better if I am feeling down or unhappy," versus 59% of the general population. Finally, over half of millennials say that if they "really want something, price is no object" — versus just 40% of Americans overall.

But what they really want isn't cars or homes. Millennials are spending, and spending plenty, when it comes to the things they're passionate about. It's just that these often aren't "things," at least not in the way we think about things.

"Millennials are much more likely to spend money on things they can share with friends, whether it's a nice dinner out, a weekend road trip or a one-of-a-kind experience," says my colleague, Christian Ruzich, millennial consumer expert and vice president of consulting at the Futures Company. In short, millennials spend on creating lasting memories rather than owning big, expensive objects that end up being anchors — or albatrosses.

So, what are they dishing out the dollars for? Let's call them the three Ts.

1. Travel
Millennials travel for pleasure more than any other group — taking, on average, nine leisure trips a year — and are more likely to have specific experiential goals, such as visiting every continent. They're keenly focused on unique encounters and cultural immersions, and seek to collect truly transformative moments, rather than just resort-based fun. David Chapman, director general of the World Youth Student and Educational Travel Confederation, notes that research shows the nature of youth travel has changed enormously over the past decade. "Young travelers today want, more than ever, to enrich themselves with cultural experiences, to meet local people and to improve their outlook for when they return home."

2. Technology
Millennials may be cutting back on living room media — they make up 44% of households that don't own televisions — but they're redeploying that spending on mobile devices and the services, apps and platforms that power them. Forty-seven percent of teens and 45% of twentysomethings say it is important to them to have the latest features or styles in smartphones (just 39% of teens and 32% of twentysomethings say the same for clothes). About a third of millennials say that if they like expensive brands of smartphones the best, then that's what they usually buy. They don't see the smartphone just as a gadget — for them it's the primary means by which they connect with friends, family and the outside world, making it a vital gatekeeper of their private information and personal relationships.

3. Training
Millennials are spending more on education than any prior generation to date. Of course, a good percentage of this goes toward paying down loans on schooling they've already obtained. The average millennial graduates with a $30,000 student loan burden. But even being in debt doesn't stop them from investing in advanced degrees, not to mention supplemental certification and enrichment courses.

The thing is, while they're in school, they aren't earning money, they're less likely to need to purchase a house of their own, and they're more likely to live lifestyles where transportation means riding a bus or a bike. That's a big factor in millennial "cheapness" regarding home and auto purchase right there. But the education that this generation is getting is likely to result in bigger salaries down the road, the so-called "college premium." So a great deal of millennial spending is likely not being suppressed, only delayed.

Which means that the naysayers who continue to warn that millennial anti-materialism will bring down the republic can rest easy. Americans aren't done living beyond their means just yet. After all, where would the red, white and blue be without a healthy amount of red ink?





If this CNN article is correct, the Millennials are very much like the 1968-75 “hippies” in their interests and concerns, with intangibles taking a priority over expensive physical acquisitions and social position. They are not making as much money as some prior generations, and very wisely, are not spending large amounts on credit cards. If the economy ever picks up sufficiently to the point that most Americans who want to work can get a job, they will bear watching to see if they all change and become Republicans. I would like to think they are mainly progressives at this time. They are described as being creative and entrepreneurial. The article on politics suggests that the Millennials need to do a bit of basic reading on what the various political and economic positions are. Of course, I make a constant study of trying to keep up with such information and I still need to keep reading up on all sorts of subjects. It's an endless quest. See the following Huffington Post and The Atlantic articles.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/britt-hysen/millennials-making-a-soci_b_5851186.html

Millennials Making a Social Impact
Britt Hysen
Posted: 09/19/2014

About a year ago, Courtney Spence wrote an article for HuffPo about how millennials are turning our down economy into the cause economy. She explains that millennials are using their creativity as a new form of philanthropy, and she is absolutely right. According to the 2014 Millennial Impact Report, 92% of millennials are contributing their creative skills to companies they feel are making a difference in the world.

What's exciting is that in addition to working for companies that are making a difference, millennials feel empowered to build their own businesses or charities that are contributing to social good. It seems today, there are more people in their 20s and 30s founding charitable businesses and non-profits than ever before. Personal responsibility is taking a strong hold of this generation and waking them up to the wisdom Gandhi shared over 100 years ago: "You must be the change you seek in the world."

Millennial Magazine is using its platform to enlighten the public as to who really is changing the world. If there was ever a doubt in the ability of the generation to steer humanity in a positive direction, it would be dispelled with the evidence of the thousands of socially conscious startups. We've been fortunate to feature a few individuals who understand the meaning of social good and provide evidence of this knowledge in their work.

Jordan Somer

The first woman who deserves recognition for what she is accomplishing is 20-year-old Jordan Somer, founder of the Miss Amazing Pageant. Somer is disrupting the pageant industry by providing an opportunity for women with disabilities to improve their self-esteem.

Growing up as a contestant herself, Somer saw an opportunity to bring the best of pageantry to those that needed the spotlight. She has created a program that allows physically and mentally challenged young women to feel proud about their identity while gaining confidence in their ability to live life to the fullest. And instead of charging a hefty price for contestants to enter the competition, a donation of five cans of food is all that is required. Somer is one of many heroes standing up to judgment by deflecting it with acceptance.

Amanda Slavin

Joining in that heroic stance is 28-year-old Amanda Slavin, CEO of CatalystCreativ, who is using events to inspire communities to improve themselves. With education programs like knowing how to come out to your parents or how to handle workplace bullying, she is providing a platform for these issues to be discussed. Individuals are then able to alleviate some of these burdens early on by learning from other people's experiences.

To help create this ROI or "Ripple of Impact" as Slavin likes to say, she is putting the wisest minds in front of those eager enough to learn and grow.

Dream Rockwell

Then there is 35-year-old, Dream Rockwell, founder and creative director of the Lucent Dossier Experience. Not only is her innovative and whimsical nature a huge inspiration for all that encounter her performances, but Rockwell is also sharing this spirit with the lives of orphans around the world. Utilizing her talents as a performer and fusing her passion for helping children, Rockwell has created a nonprofit calledCuddle the World that offers disadvantaged youth a creative outlet to journey into their imaginations and play in a world they never knew existed.

Everyone has a purpose in this life. As cliché as it sounds, that innate truth is often neglected. The second you begin to occupy your heart you will see that your passions are the coordinates to discovering your own inner treasure.

Courtney Spence reminds us that our creativity serves as a currency and is useless unless it is spent on things that matter.



http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/07/millennials-economics-voting-clueless-kids-these-days/374427/

Millennials' Political Views Don't Make Any Sense
That's not a harsh assessment. It's just a fair description.
Derek Thompson
JUL 15 2014

Millennial politics is simple, really. Young people support big government, unless it costs any more money. They're for smaller government, unless budget cuts scratch a program they've heard of. They'd like Washington to fix everything, just so long as it doesn't run anything.

That's all from a new Reason Foundation poll surveying 2,000 young adultsbetween the ages of 18 and 29. Millennials' political views are, at best, in a stage of constant metamorphosis and, at worst, "totally incoherent," as Dylan Matthews puts it.

It's not just the Reason Foundation. In March, Pew came out with a similar survey of Millennial attitudes that offered another smorgasbord of paradoxes:

Millennials hate the political parties more than everyone else, but they have the highest opinion of Congress.

Young people are the most likely to be single parents and the least likely to approve of single parenthood.

Young people voted overwhelmingly for Obama when he promised universal health care, but they oppose his universal health care law as much as the rest of the country ... even though they still pledge high support for universal health care. (Like other groups, but more so: They seem allergic to the term Obamacare.)

This is all very confusing. Perhaps it should be when we're using a couple thousand subjects to guess the collective opinions of 86 million people. What are we sure we know about Millennials? Two big things and one small thing.

1. Millennials are more liberal than the rest of the country, particularly on social issues, but they get more economically conservative when they make more money.
2.
The youngest voting generation today is the most liberal bloc in a long, long timefor three reasons.

First, they're young and poor, and young, poor people are historically more liberal. Second, they're historically non-white. Non-white Americans are historically liberal, too. Third, their white demo is historically liberal compared to older white voters, as Jon Chait has pointed out. It all adds up to one cresting blue wave. For now.

But something interesting happens when Millennials start making serious dough. They start getting much more squeamish about giving it away.

Richer Millennials on Redistribution: No, Thanks

Millennials don't know what they're talking about when it comes to economics.

Young people lean way left on issues like gay marriage, pot, and immigration. On abortion and gun control, they swim closer to the rest of the electorate.

But on economics, they're all over the map. You get the sense, reading the Reason Foundation and Pew studies, that a savvy pollster could trick a young person into supporting basically any economic policy in the world with the right combination of triggers. Conservative and liberal partisans can cherry-pick this survey to paint Millennials as whatever ideology they want. To wit:

On spending:
Conservatives can say: 65 percent of Millennials would like to cut spending.
Liberals can say: 62 percent would like to spend more on infrastructure and jobs.

On taxes:
Conservatives can say: 58 percent of Millennials want to cut taxes overall.
Liberals can say: 66 percent want to raise taxes on the wealthy.

On government's role in our lives:
Conservatives can say: 66 percent of Millennials say that "when something is funded by the government, it is usually inefficient and wasteful."
Liberals can say: More than two-thirds think the government should guarantee food, shelter, and a living wage.

On government size:
Conservatives can say: 57 percent want smaller government with fewer services (if you mention the magic word "taxes").
Liberals can say: 54 percent want larger government with more services (if you don't mention "taxes").

Some of these positions suggest, rather than prove, utter incoherence. For example, you can technically support (a) reducing the overall tax burden and (b) raising taxes on the wealthy by raising the investment tax and absolving the bottom 50 percent of Social Security taxes. Somehow, I think what's happening is simpler than young people doing the long math of effective tax rates. I think they're just confused.

Overall, Millennials offer the murky impression of a generation that doesn't really understand basic economics. To be fair, neither do most Americans. Or many economists, perhaps. Or most journalists. Economics is hard.

Far less important, but entertaining nonetheless: Millennials don't know what socialism is, but they think it sounds nice.

I predict that any readers over the age of 30 will absolutely love this fact about voters under the age of 29. Forty-two percent of Millennials think socialism is preferable to capitalism, but only 16 percent of Millennials could accurately define socialism in the survey.

Socialism or Capitalism?
52% advocate Capitalism and 64% a free market economy. On the other hand a whopping 42% are for Socialism and 32% a government managed economy.






Four reasons Elizabeth Warren should run for president in 2016 – CBS
By SCOTT CONROY REALCLEARPOLITICS
November 6, 2014, 9:52 AM

This article originally appeared on RealClearPolitics.

For most Democrats, Tuesday's elections were an across-the-board disaster -- a collective nightmare they'd rather not dwell on for another moment.

In the case of Elizabeth Warren, however, the 2014 midterms could end up being a call to arms.

The Massachusetts senator has repeatedly denied interest in running for president, and there is no doubt that Hillary Clinton would remain the overwhelming favorite to become the next Democratic nominee regardless of whether Warren gets in the race.

But the first-term senator wouldn't be the first ambitious politician to change her mind about running for the nation's highest office (see: Obama, Barack), and the results of Tuesday's elections crystallized the underappreciated reasons why it makes sense for her to do just that.

At some point over the next couple of months, Warren will have to decide whether to keep her word about 2016 or throw caution to the wind and take on the Clinton behemoth.

Here are four reasons why she should choose the latter route.

1. She fits the national mood
Voters aren't just dissatisfied with Washington, D.C. They're angry, and they're anxious.

According to exit polls conducted Tuesday, about two-thirds of voters said the country is on the wrong tack -- an even higher percentage than said the same thing during the Republican wave of 2010.

Additionally, voters by a 2-to-1 margin said they expect life will get worse for the next generation of Americans, while about two-thirds said that the economy favors the wealthy.

This sentiment is smack dab in the middle of Elizabeth Warren's political wheelhouse.

No Democrat speaks as passionately and as effectively about issues related to income inequality, lack of functional governance, and the declining American middle class as Warren does. And during a campaign season in which Democrats had little to get excited about, her fist-pumping, high-decibel, populist harangues got crowds fired up wherever she went.

In a modern era that requires any serious presidential candidate to have the unquantifiable "it" factor, Elizabeth Warren already does.

No one knows this better than Hillary Clinton.

During her own appearances on the 2014 campaign trail, Clinton attempted to co-opt some of Warren's "defender of the little guy" identity, telling a crowd in Boston, "Don't let anybody tell you it's corporations and businesses that create jobs."

A clear overreach, the remark drew immediate ridicule in a variety of circles, as it was readily apparent that Clinton lacked fluency in Warren-ese.

Unlike the former secretary of state, Warren doesn't have to work very hard to conjure up outrage over the privileges granted to Wall Street or the plight of the little guy.

These frustrations are the very reasons why the former consumer advocate entered politics in the first place, and they frame the issues that could propel her to the next level.

2. Clinton's current standing in the polls won't last
As anyone who follows politics knows, at around this time eight years ago, Hillary Clinton was widely characterized as her party's "inevitable" 2008 presidential nominee.

Her eventual loss to Barack Obama demonstrated once again the folly of considering anything in this business to be preordained. And yet, here we go again.

Proponents of assigning the "I-word" to Clinton's 2016 candidacy insist that this time, it's clear for all to see, she really is inevitable. There is no Obama waiting in the wings, they observe. And Clinton's overall standing among key Democrats -- whether early state voters, key officials, or millionaire funders -- is without rival.

The woman is ahead by almost 50 points in Iowa, for God's sake!

But here's the problem with this argument: Clinton's current poll position could change dramatically once Democrats are presented with a real choice in 2015-16.

Warren, after all, is still somewhat of an unknown commodity.

At this point in 2006, Obama was already a household name -- a political celebrity known for his soaring keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention in Boston, as well as his compelling life story and vision for the nation that he chronicled in his best-selling books.

Though Warren has already become a cult hero among many left-leaning activists, rank-and-file Democrats who aren't political junkies just don't know her all that well yet.

If she were to announce her candidacy for president tomorrow, Warren would still trail Clinton in the polls, of course, but the current gap she faces would almost certainly narrow amid the media attention she'd receive.

And in a one-on-one match-up, many Democrats might be surprised to find that they respond more viscerally to the bright new star on the scene than to the steadfast veteran whom they had expected to get behind.

And that's a recipe for a real campaign.

3. Someone has to do it
Despite her strengths, it's difficult to conceive of a scenario in which Clinton becomes the first non-incumbent ever to run unopposed for her party's nomination. Someone's going to run against her.

Two Democrats who clearly covet the job are Vice President Biden and outgoing Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley. But both of these men are in weaker positions than Warren would be to compete seriously against Clinton.

Biden, no doubt, is deeply experienced, a natural charmer and a strong campaigner. Over more than four decades in Washington, he has built a strong connection to the party's grassroots base and its establishment alike. But if there's one thing everyone knows about Joe Biden, it's that he is tied at the hip to an unpopular president. That he will be 74 years old when the next White House occupant takes office in January of 2017 also does not help his case.

And while O'Malley, like Biden, has worked hard over the last year to ingratiate himself with influential Democrats around the country, the Maryland governor's 2016 prospects suffered a big hit on Tuesday when the Republican wave that signaled a rejection of Obama's policies also swallowed up O'Malley's anointed successor in Annapolis.

Democratic Lt. Gov. Anthony Brown's loss to Republican businessman Larry Hogan --who ran against O'Malley's policies at every turn -- will be a difficult one for the two-term governor to explain as he builds a case that his tenure was a resounding success.

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb are two other Democrats plotting potential 2016 campaigns, but neither man has the built-in fundraising capacity, nor the instant national stature that Warren would bring to a White House run.

Quite simply, Elizabeth Warren is the strongest un-Hillary candidate that the Democratic bench has to offer.

Plus, Warren exudes an affection for retail politicking. In this regard, she's more like Bill Clinton than the former first lady, who sometimes appears less than enamored of life on the trail.

Warren is a natural campaigner, while Clinton is at times a hesitant (though undoubtedly compelling) one.

Clinton has several major assets working in her favor, not the least of which is her unparalleled resume and the experience of having run for president before.

But for someone who has been in the nation's public eye for a quarter-century, it may prove difficult for Clinton to assert that her presidency would mark a dramatic change from the status quo.

Warren won't have that problem.

4. She has little to lose and a lot to gain
When Obama was mulling whether to make a 2008 White House bid, the reasons for him not doing so were clear: He was too inexperienced and too much of an underdog. If he bided his time for another four or eight years, most analysts concluded, he might have a real shot at the presidency somewhere down the line.

Obama ignored that advice, and the rest is history.

Again, nothing in politics is guaranteed, and Warren knows that. She may be a first-term senator with no previous experience in elected office, but she is also 65 years old and a sitting member of one of America's least popular institutions.

Warren could choose to remain in the Senate and build her resume with the aim of taking another look at a national run sometime in the future, but it's unlikely that if she takes that route, her star will shine any brighter than it does right now.

If she decides to sit this one out, Warren will remain one member of the minority party in a legislative body that offers no immediate prospect for her to advance the causes that are closest to her heart.

If, on the other hand, she runs for president, what's the worst that would happen?

She'd play a significant role in setting the course of the Democratic Party's future, while eating some bad food and ruffling a few feathers in the process.

No one would expect her to come out on top. And even in defeat, Warren could provide Clinton with an opportunity to polish her skills in the preseason before taking on the Republicans in the general election.

And who knows?

Warren might just surprise everyone, including herself, and actually win the thing.



RealClearPolitics
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

RealClearPolitics (RCP) is a Chicago-based political news andpolling data aggregator formed in 2000[2] by former options trader John McIntyre and former advertising agency account executive Tom Bevan.[3][4][5] The site's founders say their goal is to give readers "ideological diversity,"[6] though the progressive media watchdog groupMedia Matters for America and others describe the site as being right wing.[7]

Forbes Media LLC bought a 51% equity interest in the site in 2007.[8]RCP has expanded to include a number of sister sites. PoliticoExecutive Editor Jim VandeHei has called the site "an essential stop for anyone interested in politics".[9]

Origin[edit]
The Web site was founded in 2000 by McIntyre, a former trader at the Chicago Board Options Exchange, and Bevan, a former advertising agency account executive.[4] McIntyre explained "it really wasn't any more complicated than there should be a place online that pulled together all this quality information".[10] They call what they do "intelligent aggregation".[11] The site has grown in election-season spurts since it first went online. It has expanded from a two-man operation to a full-time staff of more than two-dozen employees overseeing the company's mainstay, RealClearPolitics, as well as ten smaller sites.

Philosophy[edit]
In an interview with the Chicago Tribune, McIntyre said, "We're trying to pull together the best political stories, op-eds, news analyses, editorials out there. The proliferation of content is enormous. Part of what we're trying to do is distill it in a clear, simple way for people who don't have hours to spend searching the Net".[9] He told the Chicago Sun-Timesthat RealClearPolitics strives to feature "serious intellectual pieces" and that they're "not looking for the over-the-top, vitriolic, red-meat craziness on either side".[12]
Patrick Stack of Time magazine has described the site's commentary as conservative-leaning.[13] The site has been described as being run by conservatives, and containing "opinion pieces from multiple media sources".[14] In 2009 RealClearPolitics was described as a weblog "in the conservative pantheon" by Richard Davis[15][16]
In an interview with the conservative magazine Human Events, McIntyre described the philosophy behind the Web site as based on "freedom" and "common-sense values". Said Bevan, "We think debate on the issues is a very important thing. We post a variety of opinions". He further stated, "we have a frustration all conservatives have", which is "the bias in media against conservatives, religious conservatives, [and] Christian conservatives".[3]

In a 2001 article for Princeton Alumni Weekly, which noted that "The articles selected invariably demonstrate McIntyre and Bevan's political bent, about which they are unabashedly forthcoming." McIntyre said, "I'm not really a die-hard Republican because my interests are less on social issues, more on taxing and spending...But I definitely don't want the government telling me what to do with my property...Nevertheless, any political junkie—even a liberal—would enjoy our site because the topics we choose are current."[17]

RealClearPolitics was listed among conservative political weblogs in a 2005 conference paper on mapping the political blogosphere by Robert Ackland of the Australian Centre for Social Research.[18]




“Additionally, voters by a 2-to-1 margin said they expect life will get worse for the next generation of Americans, while about two-thirds said that the economy favors the wealthy. This sentiment is smack dab in the middle of Elizabeth Warren's political wheelhouse.... In a modern era that requires any serious presidential candidate to have the unquantifiable 'it' factor, Elizabeth Warren already does.... Unlike the former secretary of state, Warren doesn't have to work very hard to conjure up outrage over the privileges granted to Wall Street or the plight of the little guy. These frustrations are the very reasons why the former consumer advocate entered politics in the first place, and they frame the issues that could propel her to the next level.... Though Warren has already become a cult hero among many left-leaning activists, rank-and-file Democrats who aren't political junkies just don't know her all that well yet.... Two Democrats who clearly covet the job are Vice President Biden and outgoing Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley. But both of these men are in weaker positions than Warren would be to compete seriously against Clinton.... Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb are two other Democrats plotting potential 2016 campaigns, but neither man has the built-in fundraising capacity, nor the instant national stature that Warren would bring to a White House run.... Warren is a natural campaigner, while Clinton is at times a hesitant (though undoubtedly compelling) one. Clinton has several major assets working in her favor, not the least of which is her unparalleled resume and the experience of having run for president before. But for someone who has been in the nation's public eye for a quarter-century, it may prove difficult for Clinton to assert that her presidency would mark a dramatic change from the status quo.... And who knows? Warren might just surprise everyone, including herself, and actually win the thing.”

I am very much interested in Elizabeth Warren. She has strongly championed causes that I care about, and has no fear of speaking her mind and taking over the whole room's attention. She doesn't have the long and interesting background of Hillary Clinton, but then she doesn't have a large number of right-leaning people who absolutely hate her, either. I do believe it was the “I don't bake cookies” remark that has done Hillary in. I agree with her completely, of course. If I want a cookie I go to the grocery store every time. I have always admired her courageously intellectual approach to things, very similarly to Obama. John Q Public doesn't hold intellectuals as heroes, but as troublemakers and conceited radicals. I do tend to view being intellectual as a good thing as long as the philosophy we bear doesn't make us tend toward eugenics for the poor and the “other” races and religious groups,or any other heartless stances such as blocking funds on a higher minimum wage and the public education system.

The hard right, in my viewpoint, are truly immoral people, even if they are Fundamentalist Christians, because they tend to believe in racism and stealing the last few dollars that the poor possess. I think Warren probably agrees with me on that. She lacks Hillary's acquired drawbacks, shows more promise to me than Biden, and if she does chose to run I will almost certainly vote for her. I can hardly wait for the next election season. It's always exciting.





Fewer Babies Are Born Prematurely, But Many Still Suffer – NPR
By Nancy Shute
November 06, 2014

The number of babies born too early dropped to 11.4 percent of all births in 2013, the best number in 17 years.

But that's still more than 450,000 children being born too early. Those babies face in increased risk of death, and those who survive are more likely to have problems including intellectual disability, vision or hearing loss, cerebral palsy and breathing trouble.

One reason for the success is that women, doctors and hospitals are getting the message about the benefits of waiting until labor begins, rather than choose to deliver a few weeks early.

"After 37 weeks there was a little bit of a cavalier attitude, that the baby was OK and it was OK to deliver," says Dr. Siobhan Dolan, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the Albert Einstein School of Medicine and a spokesperson for the March of Dimes. The nonprofit released its premature births report card Thursday, based on CDC data.

Recent data has shown that babies born at 37 weeks are still more likely to have complication and end up in the NICU. "While 37 weeks is better than 35 weeks, 39 weeks is better than 37 weeks," Dolan told Shots.

Many issues play into prematurity, including genetics and family history, preexisting medical conditions, whether a woman has delivered prematurely before, and race.

Preterm births are more common among African-American women, at 16.5 percent. For Hispanic women, the number is 11.6 percent. White women and Asian women give birth prematurely about 10 percent of the time.

A national map of preterm birth rates delivers that message starkly: rates are highest in the Deep South, where African-American women are more likely to be poor and lack access to health care. Women without health insurance are twice as likely to have a premature baby.

The preterm rates also track obesity rates, Dolan notes. "Being overweight or obese is a major factor in preterm birth and lots of other health conditions," she says.

Though these new numbers hit the federal Healthy People 2020goal for reducing premature births, the March of Dimes folks say the U.S. should aim for 9.6 percent, in line with other wealthy countries.

Medical expenses for an average premature infant are about $54,000 compared to just $4,000 for a healthy newborn.




“One reason for the success is that women, doctors and hospitals are getting the message about the benefits of waiting until labor begins, rather than choose to deliver a few weeks early.... The nonprofit released its premature births report card Thursday, based on CDC data. ecent data has shown that babies born at 37 weeks are still more likely to have complication and end up in the NICU. 'While 37 weeks is better than 35 weeks, 39 weeks is better than 37 weeks,' Dolan told Shots....A national map of preterm birth rates delivers that message starkly: rates are highest in the Deep South, where African-American women are more likely to be poor and lack access to health care. Women without health insurance are twice as likely to have a premature baby. The preterm rates also track obesity rates, Dolan notes. 'Being overweight or obese is a major factor in preterm birth and lots of other health conditions,' she says.... the March of Dimes folks say the U.S. should aim for 9.6 percent, in line with other wealthy countries.”

“Medical expenses for an average premature infant are about $54,000 compared to just $4,000 for a healthy newborn.” Even if a woman has no health insurance, it still pays financially to see a doctor for pre-natal care, almost certainly the cause of such a high rate of pre-term births among those without insurance. In several ways that tends to make me feel ashamed of the US, we – the richest nation on earth – lag behind the rest of the industrialized world. We are supposed to be so highly civilized, but it's just a portion of our people who have the advances that go with wealth.

Most of the countries in Europe pay for a more secure and comfortable life for their poor. They also have a higher level of education, ranking higher on achievement tests when in school, and having financing for college coursework. Of course, their citizens pay more taxes I've always heard. The Republicans are always wanting to lower taxes, especially on corporations and the wealthy, but without taxes there is not enough revenue to finance social programs. Stories like this one always disturb me. I hoped to see a more fair and just social system before I died, but that probably won't happen. I hope we don't end up with a neo-Nazi government here. If we do even I personally will probably end up living on the street from lack of government financing.







Pythagoras' iPhone: Is Listening A Lost Classroom Art? – NPR
Eric Westervelt
Education Correspondent
November 07, 2014

Listen and learn, the saying goes.

But are students and teachers these days fully listening to each other?

What, exactly, is good listening, and why does it matter when it comes to learning? Is "close listening" a doorway to understanding that too many of us are keeping only half open?

My story on Socrates last week that kicked off our 50 Great Teachers project got me, and some of you, thinking about those questions.

The teachers in our story frequently reminded students how important it is to really hear each other in an open way. They consider it a vital, foundational part of Socratic-type dialogue and discussion — and learning.

"Outer circle for right now, I just want you guys listening," sixth- and seventh-grade teacher Tim Ogburn told his students several times when we visited at the Black Pine Circle school in Berkeley, Calif.

Maryann Wolfe, a veteran AP government and politics teacher at Oakland Technical High School, made similar calls for students to fire up big, attentive ears.

A good number of the comments we got about the piece talked about the lost art of listening and its relation to learning.

"Hey, if it teaches my students to listen while others speak I'm all for it," Len Lewis wrote in our comments section. "That basic skill is mostly lost in our society today. You can see in people's eyes that they are, if they are polite and not butting in, simply repeating in their head what they want to say to you instead of actually listening to what you are saying."

Julian Treasure works to rebuild that neglected, basic skill. He's a writer, business owner and TED lecturer. "Conscious listening is very largely overlooked in the mainstream of education. It's such an important skill in life. And yet we expect children to pick it up from home or from peers informally," Treasure told me. "It would be some sort of shock horror story if a child left school unable to read or write. But we do not teach explicitly, or test in the main, either speaking or — much more importantly — listening."

I'm not sure how you'd substantively test for listening, but it's a great point: Educators and parents are so focused on measuring reading, writing and math skills that the arts of speaking and listening often get pushed to a dusty corner of the pedagogic agenda. "Which I think is shocking," Treasure says.

Many believe there's a need for more conscious listening among teachers as well. Treasure points out instructors are likely filtering comments through a set of pre-existing assumptions that are far more deeply ingrained than the student's. Donald Finkel made a similar point and called for moving away from the 'teacher as great orator' model in his book Teaching With Your Mouth Shut.

What Would Pythagoras Do?
It is said that in ancient Greece, before Socrates, the philosopher and mathematician Pythagoras would put up a screen for his first-year students. They were not allowed to see him teach. The visual, he thought, would be a distraction from attentive listening and what he saw as the vital aural mode of teaching and learning.

It got me wondering just how teaching in this country became so textbook- and reading-centered while the oral and aural bedrock tools of Western learning got pushed to the sidelines, long before the Common Core came to town.

Safe to say, iPads and smart phones would likely be banned in Pythagoras' classroom if he were teaching today.

Listening gets a passing mention in most state's Common Core standards. But it's cursory and seen only through the lens of outcomes: to respond and think well, you have to listen. Sure. But the process of listening is almost never addressed. Good listening, experts say, is a strategy to be practiced and honed, not just a skill.

And it's pretty clear few states and districts prioritize it.

"Listening is very challenging to teach, and it's been taken out of the curriculum at the K-through-12 level systematically throughout the last couple of decades," says Laura Janusik, an associate professor of communications at Rockhurst University in Kansas City, Mo.

"There's this assumption that, just because we can hear, that means we can listen effectively. That's like suggesting that just because we can speak we can speak effectively. And we all know that is absolutely not the case," Janusik tells me.

That too few students are not honing their listening skills might be a bigger issue than many of us want to admit in an era when a glowing screen, large or small, is usually just an arm's length way.

Be honest, how often do you tell someone, "yeah, I'm listening," while tap tap tapping away on your computer or checking your smart phone or doing three things other than really listening?

The fact is, students today are getting less practice at listening. At the college level, research shows that if students are required to take a basic communications course, "there is less than 7 percent of the class and textbook time that's dedicated to listening," Janusik says.

Hmm, just seven percent. What'd you say?

Janusik's work combines psychology, brain research and communications. She's interested in what's happening in the brain when people are listening.

Millennials And Listening
Recent scholarship and the 2010 book The Shallows: How the Internet Is Changing the Way We Think, Read and Remember,make the case that millennials are doing a lot more quick-hit skimming when reading and learning. They may be processing information very differently than previous generations because of the Internet.

Are students too often experiencing the classroom as a kind of mind-candy movie? You go into it for an hour or so and leave. That was fun/boring. The plot may not sink in. Even Bill and Ted listened closely to 'So-crates' in their Excellent Adventure. Dust. Wind. Dude.

Some believe careful listening is like entering a kind of meditative state or akin to the Buddhist concept of mindfulness.

Can students learn to listen, old-school style, without ubiquitous digital distractions? Sure. But that may not be realistic.

There are, however, practical classroom steps teachers can take, and Janusik says it starts by making links in an active, conscious way. Long-term memory research shows that learning happens best when students can make connections, build and attach information to other things swirling around in their cerebral cortex.

Janusik often tells her students, " 'OK, connect what we were just talking about to three things we've learned about in this class or another class.' " She adds that, "I find that just that simple strategy really helps them to remember things more."

Listening expert and writer Julian Treasure says he's currently crafting a school curriculum for conscious listening that he hopes to finish early next year. He hopes it will help show people how your communication experience is fundamentally changed by how someone is listening to you.

"This is a skill. This is not something that is just natural that we can expect everyone to be brilliant at just because we are human," Treasure says. "It is something we have to work out. Listening is an activity. It's not passive. We are creating the world by listening all the time."



https://www.ted.com/about/our-organization

Our organization

TED is a nonprofit devoted to spreading ideas, usually in the form of short, powerful talks (18 minutes or less). TED began in 1984 as a conference where Technology, Entertainment and Design converged, and today covers almost all topics — from science to business to global issues — in more than 100 languages. Meanwhile, independently run TEDx events help share ideas in communities around the world.

Our Mission: Spread ideas
TED is a global community, welcoming people from every discipline and culture who seek a deeper understanding of the world. We believe passionately in the power of ideas to change attitudes, lives and, ultimately, the world. On TED.com, we're building a clearinghouse of free knowledge from the world's most inspired thinkers — and a community of curious souls to engage with ideas and each other, both online and at TED and TEDx events around the world, all year long.

In fact, everything we do — from our TED Talks videos to the projects sparked by the TED Prize, from the global TEDx community to the TED-Ed lesson series — is driven by this goal: How can we best spread great ideas?

TED is owned by a nonprofit, nonpartisan foundation. Our agenda is to make great ideas accessible and spark conversation.

We want to hear from you: Contact us



http://www.asha.org/public/hearing/Understanding-Auditory-Processing-Disorders-in-Children/

Understanding Auditory Processing Disorders in Children
by Teri James Bellis, PhD

In recent years, there has been a dramatic upsurge in professional and public awareness of Auditory Processing Disorders (APD), also referred to as Central Auditory Processing Disorders (CAPD). Unfortunately, this increase in awareness has resulted in a plethora of misconceptions and misinformation, as well as confusion regarding just what is (and isn't) an APD, how APD is diagnosed, and methods of managing and treating the disorder. As a result, there are some who question the existence of APD as a distinct diagnostic entity and others who assume that the term APD is applicable to any child or adult who has difficulty listening or understanding spoken language. The purpose of this article is to clarify some of these key issues so that readers are better able to navigate the jungle of information available on the subject in professional and popular literature today.




“A good number of the comments we got about the piece talked about the lost art of listening and its relation to learning. 'Hey, if it teaches my students to listen while others speak I'm all for it,' Len Lewis wrote in our comments section. 'That basic skill is mostly lost in our society today. You can see in people's eyes that they are, if they are polite and not butting in, simply repeating in their head what they want to say to you instead of actually listening to what you are saying.'... Educators and parents are so focused on measuring reading, writing and math skills that the arts of speaking and listening often get pushed to a dusty corner of the pedagogic agenda. 'which I think is shocking,'Treasure says.... Be honest, how often do you tell someone, 'yeah, I'm listening' while tap tap tapping away on your computer or checking your smart phone or doing three things other than really listening? The fact is, students today are getting less practice at listening. At the college level, research shows that if students are required to take a basic communications course, 'there is less than 7 percent of the class and textbook time that's dedicated to listening,' Janusik says.... Some believe careful listening is like entering a kind of meditative state or akin to the Buddhist concept of mindfulness. ... There are, however, practical classroom steps teachers can take, and Janusik says it starts by making links in an active, conscious way. Long-term memory research shows that learning happens best when students can make connections, build and attach information to other things swirling around in their cerebral cortex."

"'It is something we have to work out. Listening is an activity. It's not passive. We are creating the world by listening all the time.'" Two things in this NPR article on listening strike home with me. First, that concentrated listening is very similar to the Buddhist concept of 'mindfulness.' Too often I am simply wandering around inside my head, sometimes with rapid fire thoughts, losing my original train so that I almost stop hearing what is being said. I do believe I have some auditory disability, as I have trouble sometimes perceiving clearly what is being said, and then keeping my mind on what is going on around me. When I'm writing these blog entries I sometimes wander from the original subject to something different. I try to catch those things and delete them. I have been diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder, which involves, along with depressive episodes, periods of these "rushing or racing thoughts." I have learned to try harder to listen and concentrate when taking courses or watching the news on TV.

The second thing that was interesting in the primary news article is the statement that learning requires consciously linking the new information up with older stored facts, visuals, and understandings. I have found myself doing exactly that, and when I do it I am more likely to fully absorb what I hear or read. If I think along with the lecturer/writer and link things up as I go, I understand and remember much more easily It also gives me a distinct sense of exhillaration at the same time. If a professor can arouse that exhillaration in me I will enjoy his course trememdously and almost certainly make better grades. If he almost never does that, I hate to sit through his lectures and have to slog along with the textbook which may not be very interesting, especially in high school. I think really good teachers have a gift for making the coursework come alive, and their students will usually learn better for them. Giving those very good teachers some bonus pay seems fair to me. Teachers unions don't usually like that. They want teacher rankings to be based on seniority, but some of those old teachers are really tired and burned out, and aren't doing a very good job. That is a problem for the students, especially if they have a deficit in their reading skills or don't understand the subject very well.