Buy something on Amazon and want to send it back? Kohl’s will take it off your hands for you. The department store chain announced Wednesday that starting in July, it will accept Amazon returns at all of its 1,150 stores.
Kohl’s says it will accept “eligible Amazon items, without a box or label, and return them for customers for free.” The program will expand a pilot introduced at Kohl’s stores in the Los Angeles, Chicago and Milwaukee markets in 2017.
The move highlights a major headache of shopping online: You often can’t try something before you buy it, and if the item doesn’t work out, it can be a hassle to return it.
The Kohl’s-Amazon partnership offers one solution, at least for people with a Kohl’s nearby. (Kohl’s stores are often located in suburban strip malls, not city centers, so the partnership won’t help many carless urbanites.)
And why might Kohl’s want to partner with its online competitor? Foot traffic and new customers. If Amazon shoppers go to Kohl’s to make a return, perhaps they’ll pick up a few items while they’re at it.
The United States is having its worst year for measles since the disease was declared eliminated in the country in 2000. Federal health officials said Wednesday that 695 individual cases have been confirmed in 22 states in 2019.
The growing number reflects the rise of the antivaccination movement in the country and the spread of international outbreaks that have infected American travelers.
New York has been particularly hard hit, with 200 confirmed reported cases in suburban Rockland County, and at least 334 cases in New York City, almost all in Brooklyn. This week, public health officials in Los Angeles declared a measles outbreak in the county, making it the latest metropolitan area to be hit by the illness.
Five cases of measles are being investigated there. California requires childhood immunizations to attend public or private school, with exemptions allowed if a doctor confirms that there is a medical reason to not have all or some shots. It is one of the strictest laws in the country.
Here’s what you need to know about the disease and the risk of getting it.
What is measles?
Measles is an extremely contagious virus. It can cause serious respiratory symptoms, fever and rash. In some cases, especially in babies and young children, the consequences can be severe. Measles killed 110,000 people globally in 2017, mostly children under 5.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, one in 10 children with measles gets an ear infection, which can lead to permanent deafness. One in 20 children with measles develops pneumonia and one in 1,000 develops encephalitis (brain swelling that can cause brain damage). Pregnant women with measles are at greater risk of having premature or low-birth-weight babies.
One or two in 1,000 children who contract measles will die. In countries where measles vaccination is not routine, it is a significant cause of death, according to the World Health Organization.
How is measles transmitted?
Measles is transmitted by droplets from an infected person’s nose or mouth. If you’re in a room with someone infected with measles, you can inhale their virus when they cough, sneeze or even talk. Infected people can transmit the measles virus starting four days before they develop a rash, so they may be contagious before they realize they have the disease. They remain able to spread the virus for about four days after the rash appears.
The virus can also live on surfaces for several hours, and is so contagious that, according to the C.D.C., “you can catch measles just by being in a room where a person with measles has been, up to two hours after that person is gone.”
What are the symptoms of measles?
According to the Mayo Clinic, people show no symptoms up to two weeks after being infected. Then they develop symptoms typical of a cold or virus: moderate fever, cough, sore throat, runny nose, red and swollen eyes.
But after two or three days of that, fever spikes to 104 or 105 degrees and the telltale red dots appear on the skin, first on the face, then spreading down the body.
Abel Zhang, 1, being helped back into his clothes by his mother, Wenyi Zhang, center, his grandmother, Ding Hong, left, and Dr. Lauren Lawler, after receiving inoculations for measles, mumps and rubella at a clinic in Seattle. Credit: Elaine Thompson/Associated Press
Is there a cure for measles?
No. The vast majority of people who contract measles haven’t been vaccinated, and giving them the measles vaccine within 72 hours of being exposed to the virus might help — at least by reducing the severity and duration of the symptoms. The Mayo Clinic says that pregnant women, babies and people with weak immune systems can receive an injection of antibodies called immune serum globulin within six days of being exposed to measles, which might prevent or lessen the symptoms.
How safe and effective is the measles vaccine?
Extremely safe and effective. The measles-mumps-rubella (M.M.R.) vaccine causes no side effects in most children. Small numbers may get a mild fever, rash, soreness or swelling, the C.D.C. says. Adults or teenagers may feel temporary soreness or stiffness at the injection site. Rarely, the vaccine might cause a high fever that could lead to a seizure, according to the C.D.C. Contrary to misinformation that some anti-vaccine activists continue to repeat, the vaccine does not cause autism.
Children should receive two doses of the vaccine: the first when they are 12 to 15 months old; the second when they are between 4 and 6 years old. If infants who are between 6 and 11 months old are about to travel from the United States to another country, the C.D.C. recommends they receive one dose of the vaccine beforehand.
People who don’t get the vaccine are at very high risk for contracting measles. “Almost everyone who has not had the MMR shot will get measles if they are exposed to the measles virus,” the C.D.C. says.
If I’m not vaccinated, is it too late to get the shot?
It’s not too late. In fact, if measles is occurring in your community, it’s a good idea to get vaccinated unless you are sure you have previously received two shots of the M.M.R. vaccine; or you’ve had all three of the diseases the vaccine protects against (which gives you lifelong immunity); or you were born before 1957. (The vaccine was made available in 1963 and in the decade before that, virtually every child got measles by age 15, so the C.D.C. considers people born before 1957 likely to have had measles as children.)
But people who received the vaccine in the 1960s should consider getting immunized again. One of two vaccines available from 1963-67 was ineffective, the C.D.C. says. The effective vaccine during those years was the “live” vaccine; the ineffective one was the inactivated or “killed” vaccine. If you’re not sure, consult with your doctor.
If most people are getting vaccinated, why does it matter if I don’t vaccinate my child?
You are probably thinking of the concept of herd immunity, which means that if a large number of people are protected from a disease by a vaccine, the disease will be less likely to circulate, diminishing the risk for people who are unvaccinated. The threshold for herd immunity varies by disease — for a highly contagious disease, a very high percentage of people need to be vaccinated to meet that threshold.
Because measles is so contagious, between 93 percent and 95 percent of people in a community need to be vaccinated to achieve herd immunity. Remember, some people can’t be vaccinated for medical reasons: infants, pregnant women and people who are immune compromised.
During the Disneyland outbreak in 2015, a 9-month-old child whose parents were planning to immunize contracted measles from an older child who hadn’t been vaccinated, said Dr. Annabelle De St. Maurice, an expert on infectious diseases at U.C.L.A. So vaccinating your child not only protects your child, it helps protect others in your community.
Wait, didn’t we eliminate measles?
In 2000, measles was declared eliminated from the United States because the country had gone for more than 12 months without any “continuous disease transmission” within its borders. “Eliminated” doesn’t mean the disease was completely eradicated; it means the United States no longer had any places where the disease was endemic or homegrown.
There have been a small number of measles cases in the United States since then, ranging from 37 in 2004 to 667 in 2014, largely among people who were not vaccinated.
Most of the American cases since 2000 have been the result of people traveling to or from countries where measles is endemic because there is little vaccination.
How many people haven’t been vaccinated?
A small number in scattered pockets. Measles immunization in the United States is stable and high — more than 90 percent — according to C.D.C. tracking.
Who are the people not getting vaccinated?
One way to measure is by looking at the annual assessment of kindergarten vaccinations. It shows only Colorado, the District of Columbia, Idaho and Kansas dipping below the national 90 percent vaccination rate, though in certain communities the rate can be lower.
Generally, those who do not immunize their children are demographically more white and more educated, Dr. De St. Maurice said. “In part due to the success of vaccines, people are not as familiar with these diseases, so they question their effectiveness,” she said. Conversely, when the disease reappears, as it did in Washington, demand for vaccines rises.
Don’t states have laws requiring parents to vaccinate their children?
Every state has these laws. Three states allow only medical exemptions: Mississippi, West Virginia and, more recently, California, following the Disneyland outbreak. The rest grant exemptions for personal, philosophical or religious beliefs as well.
Signs warning patients at a clinic in Vancouver, Wash.Credit: Gillian Flaccus/Associated Press
Are the states with lax laws the ones with the most measles cases?
There have not been enough cases to warrant a major survey, but Dr. Saad Omer of the Emory Vaccine Center in Atlanta warned that with a rising number of cases, that could change.
Dr. Omer, who studies immunization coverage and disease incidence, said research had shown that states that allow more exemptions have increased pertussis (whooping cough) outbreaks.
Studies have also shown that people who refuse vaccines are disproportionately represented in the early stage of outbreaks. “They’re providing the tinder that can start the fires of the epidemics,” Dr. Omer said.
How does the U.S. compare with other countries?
Measles cases have been increasing around the world, too. Worldwide, there was an 80 percent drop in measles deaths from 2000 through 2017. But reported cases of measles have increased 30 percent since 2016, according to the World Health Organization.
Ninety-four percent of children in the United States get the recommended two-dose vaccine. According to the World Health Organization, more than a dozen countries reached the 99 percent mark, including Cuba, China, Morocco and Uzbekistan. Canada, Britain and Switzerland are a few of the Western countries that are below 90 percent.
In Europe overall, only about 90 percent of children receive the recommended two-dose vaccine. Worldwide, about 85 percent of children receive the first dose, but the number drops to 67 percent for a second dose, data shows.
Worldwide cases of measles have increased 30 percent since 2016, the World Health Organization said last year. Credit: Yahya Arhab/EPA, via Shutterstock
Does this mean mumps and rubella cases are re-emerging, too?
The M.M.R. vaccine has also greatly reduced the threat of mumps and rubella in the United States. It is not quite as effective against mumps, with 88 percent effectiveness, according to the C.D.C., and cases have increased in recent years, from 229 in 2012 to 6,366 in 2016.
Rubella used to cause millions of infections in the United States. According to the C.D.C., 12.5 million people got rubella in an epidemic from 1964 to 1965, and the disease caused 11,000 women to lose their pregnancies, 2,100 newborns to die and 20,000 babies to be born with congenital rubella syndrome, which can cause brain damage and other serious problems.
Rubella was declared eliminated in the United States in 2004, and the C.D.C. says that fewer than 10 cases are reported each year. But, as with measles and mumps, there are still many countries where it persists because of lack of vaccination, and every case since 2012 has been traced to people infected while traveling or living in another country.
Pam Belluck is a health and science writer. She was one of seven Times staffers awarded the 2015 Pulitzer Prize for International Reporting for coverage of the Ebola epidemic. She is the author of “Island Practice,” about a colorful and contrarian doctor on Nantucket.
Overuse of the medicines is not just a problem in rich countries. Throughout the developing world antibiotics are dispensed with no prescription required.
Try your luck at writing a caption for this photograph. Better yet, try an analysis of it.
The story headline is bad. The story is bad. On a smaller scale though, I am struck by the photograph of the man on the cell phone. He’s smiling as we walks across mountains of garbage where (he, and his?) people live, raise children, and go about daily living.
In this staggering story, Kenya is referred to as an emerg-ing economy. A develop-ing country. I’ve added the hyphens because in my eyes, as I have read and witnessed this story play out for decades, it is my conclusion, that too many countries in Africa have not emerged from anything. Media and scholars try to be polite and avoid confrontation by using the “ing” after the country’s name’s, because to label them as un-developed, is a smear. But, I don’t see any other way to put it. It is a smear. It is worse. It is atrocious to witness these realities in the modern age of developed economies all around the planet. Its not just Africa. Its in Asia, South America, and to a lesser extent, small pockets in our own country. But nothing compares with this. What goes on here is astounding, and its been going on as long as I have been alive. There’s no emerging. There’s no developing. Any development or emerging that’s going on is on such a small incremental basis, that its no match to the magnitude of the scourge.
Africa is a complex quagmire of dueling, feuding, conflicted, often rudderless countries, who move in and out of exploitative control of its peoples from one masquerading despot to another. I am not worthy to shine a true scholar’s shoes on this subject, but I do know what I see, or don’t see. I do see serious health consequences bordering on the continent of a nationwide crisis. I don’t see sustained action of several African countries united to work together. Globally, its the same story. Since decolonization, Africa has not been able to rise out of its troubled history of slavery and European exploitation. Yet, they affect us when we stop and take notice when an article like this one lands in front of our eyes. >MB
Read on to find out what you can do to protect whatever you can protect. Its not that difficult, but it does take time. You have to be willing to spend a few minutes. Okay, five, ten, fifteen, whatever. Privacy deserves attention. Does it not? And, by the way, this is not about having something to hide. Its about protecting your data, YOUR DATA, from companies who profit off of YOUR DATA, and offer nothing in return. They’re not giving away software. They are capitalized up the kazoo with billions.
There are plenty of switches in your iPhone settings, or other smartphones, that you can easily switch off and not even notice the loss. If you do, then you can switch them back on. try it. I have, and feel better for yet another thing, or group of things I can do to exert some kind of control on my personal life, that seems to be less and less valuable to the tech companies who are willing to exploit it at will.
The headquarters of Google in Manhattan. Credit: John Taggart for The New York Times
Google’s Sensorvault Is a Boon for Law Enforcement. This Is How It Works.
Investigators have been tapping into the tech giant’s enormous cache of location information in an effort to solve crimes. Here’s what this database is and what it does.
Law enforcement officials across the country have been seeking information from a Google database called Sensorvault — a trove of detailed location records involving at least hundreds of millions of devices worldwide, The New York Times found.
Though the new technique can identify suspects near crimes, it runs the risk of sweeping up innocent bystanders, highlighting the impact that companies’ mass collection of data can have on people’s lives.
Why does Google have this data?
The Sensorvault database is connected to a Google service called Location History. The feature, begun in 2009, involves Android and Apple devices.
Location History is not on by default. Google prompts users to enable it when they are setting up certain services — traffic alerts in Google Maps, for example, or group images tied to location in Google Photos.
If you have Location History turned on, Google will collect your data as long as you are signed in to your account and have location-enabled Google apps on your phone. The company can collect the data even when you are not using your apps, if your phone settings allow that.
Google says it uses the data to target ads and measure how effective they are — checking, for instance, when people go into an advertiser’s store. The company also uses the information in an aggregated, anonymized form to figure out when stores are busy and to provide traffic estimates. And those who enable Location History can see a timeline of their activities and get recommendations based on where they have been. Google says it does not sell or share the data with advertisers or other companies.
Does Google collect other forms of location data?
Yes. Google can also gather location information when you conduct searches or use Google apps that have location enabled. If you are signed in, this data is associated with your account.
The Associated Press reported last year that this data, called Web & App Activity, is collected even if you do not have Location History turned on. It is kept in a different database from Sensorvault, Google says.
How can I see what data Google has on me?
To see some of the information in your Location History, you can look at your timeline. This map of your travels does not include all of your Sensorvault data, however.
Raw location data from mobile devices can be messy and sometimes incorrect. But computers can make good guesses about your likely path, and about which locations are most important. This is what you see on your timeline. To review all of your Location History, you can download your data from Google. To do that, go to Takeout.Google.com and select Location History. You can follow a similar procedure to download your Web & App Activity on that page.
Your Location History data will appear in computer code. If you can’t read code, you can select the “JSON” format and put the file into a text editor to see what it looks like.
Can I disable the data collection?
Yes. The process varies depending on whether you are on a phone or computer. In its Help Center, Google provides instructions on disabling or deleting Location History and Web & App Activity.
How is law enforcement using the data?
For years, police detectives have given Google warrants seeking location data tied to specific users’ accounts.
But the new warrants, often called “geofence” requests, instead specify an area near a crime. Google looks in Sensorvault for any devices that were there at the right time and provides that information to the police.
Google first labels the devices with anonymous ID numbers, and detectives look at locations and movement patterns to see if any appear relevant to the crime. Once they narrow the field to a few devices, Google reveals information such as names and email addresses.
Jennifer Valentino-DeVries is a reporter on the investigative team, specializing in technology coverage. Before joining The Times, she worked at The Wall Street Journal and helped to launch the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. @jenvalentino
A version of this article appears in print on , on Page A19 of the New York edition with the headline: Google’s Sensorvault: Here’s How It Works. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe
I’m sorry. I’m a meat eater, and that’s just that.
A dish of braised brisket with plums, star anise and port. Brisket is as tasty as short ribs but less expensive, which is what you want when you’re cooking for a large family dinner.
Invite Brisket’s More-Tender Brother for the Holidays
By
MELISSA CLARK
The New York Times
For years, I thought brisket was by nature a somewhat stringy, dry and chewy cut of beef. No matter how exacting the recipe or how careful the cook, the leanness of the meat dictated the texture.
So for the Jewish holy days, I gave up and served short ribs instead. No one complained because short ribs are delicious.
Then I tasted something called the second (or the deckle) cut of brisket. For lovers of fatty meat, this is brisket nirvana. It’s juicy, it’s succulent, it falls apart under the fork with barely a nudge. It’s also as tasty as short ribs but less expensive, which is what you want when you’re cooking for a large family dinner.
You can’t find the second cut in many supermarkets, but butchers have it if you ask; they usually grind it up for hamburger. The high fat content, coupled with the cut’s inability to slice neatly, has made it undesirable to the majority of home cooks in our fat-phobic culture. So the first cut became the standard cut; it’s what you get if you just buy “brisket.”
Once you get hold of a second-cut brisket, you can cook it exactly like the first cut, with one exception. It’s really much better if made the day before so you can remove the thick white cap of fat that will rise to the surface of the liquid as it chills. Lift it off with a slotted spoon, then reheat the meat and sauce in a 300-degree oven before serving.
I like to cook the meat a few days ahead, let it cool and stick the whole pot into the refrigerator. (It will keep nicely for three to five days.) Then I remove the fat while it’s cold and leave the pot out on the counter for a couple of hours before reheating. This allows the meat to come to room temperature, making the reheating quicker and more even.
For this recipe, I added plums to the onions in the sauce for brightness, and port for sweetness. Star anise and bay leaf add depth, but you could leave them out without anyone missing them, or substitute a cinnamon stick and orange zest. And if you don’t want to use port, regular red wine spiked with a few tablespoons of honey or brown sugar is a nice substitute.
BRAISED BRISKET WITH PLUMS, STAR ANISE AND PORT
Time: 5 hours 45 minutes, plus marinating
Yield: 12 to 14 servings
1 brisket (6 to 7 pounds), preferably second cut
2 tablespoons kosher salt
1 ½ tablespoons black pepper
3 garlic cloves, thinly sliced
1 bunch lemon thyme or regular thyme
2 tablespoons extra virgin olive oil
3 white onions, thinly sliced
1 cup ruby port
½ cup dry white wine
4 whole star anise (or 2 whole cloves)
4 whole bay leaves
2 ½ pounds ripe but firm plums, halved and pitted
Thyme leaves, for garnish (optional)
1. Season brisket all over with salt and pepper. Place it in a large container and cover with garlic and half the thyme sprigs. Cover and refrigerate overnight or for at least 4 hours. Let meat stand at room temperature for 30 minutes before cooking. Wipe off garlic and thyme.
2. Heat oven to 325 degrees. Place a very large Dutch oven over high heat. Add oil. Place brisket in pot and cook, without moving, until browned, about 7 minutes per side. (Cut meat into 2 chunks and sear in batches if it doesn’t fit in a single layer.) Transfer to a plate.
3. Add onions to pot and reduce heat to medium-high. Cook onions, tossing occasionally, until golden brown around the edges and very tender, 15 to 20 minutes. Pour in port and wine and scrape up any browned bits from the bottom of the pot. Stir in star anise, bay leaves and remaining thyme. Scatter half the plums over the bottom of the pot and nestle brisket on top. Scatter remaining plums over meat. Cover pot and transfer to oven. Cook, turning every 30 minutes, until meat is completely fork tender, about 5 hours. After 4 hours, uncover the pot so some of the liquid can evaporate and sauce can thicken.
4. If you have time, let brisket cool completely in the pot, then refrigerate, covered, overnight. (This makes it easier to remove the fat from the top with a slotted spoon.) Reheat meat in a 300-degree oven for about 45 minutes before serving, if necessary. If sauce seems thin, remove meat from the pot and bring liquid to a simmer. Let cook until it’s reduced to taste. Slice meat and serve with the plum sauce, garnished with thyme leaves if you like.
David Gilmour still tours, and still performs tight sets that live up to the best of Progressive Rock’s golden age. Nowadays, he tours mostly without the original members of Pink Floyd, but, he always includes exceptional musicians in the entourage. Here he is with Nick Mason and Richard Wright, two of the original members, performing one of their countless classics. There is lots of Pink Floyd online, all of varying degrees of audio/video quality. Easy to get lost. The title here says best sound. I’ve viewed plenty. It really is. Try a desktop w external speakers if you can (How novel!), or at least use headphones, if you’re limited to a five inch screen. Enjoy.
I’m sorry but this is not a convincing essay on plastering yourself to a smartphone excessively. Samantha Irby writes “…maybe it’s worth it.” Ok, fine. She’s a comedian, so this is supposed to be…funny? Not sure here. I think she’s into her phone big time, and this is more genuine than sarcastic. But then she doesn’t make any real case for that statement. It’s all glibness. So is this just a joke essay/opinion. Hmm. Its not funny.
She’s “…staring down the barrel of 40 yrs old!” So this is all about an existential conflict now? Wow. That better be a joke. But, its not funny. So…
As I wrote in an earlier post here, the problem with children and teens getting addicted into this vacuum of screen after screen after screen lies first with the adults around them that are addicted in front of them. Meet one right here…
Sure, electronic eyes are spying. But look at everything this pocket computer can do!
By Samantha Irby, Via NYTimes
My phone is my favorite possession. I wish I could pretend it has been some torrid courtship, that after much cat-and-mousing the two of us succumbed to our mutual attraction and decided to settle down and make an honest go of it, but I can’t: I am in breathless pursuit, hustling to keep her updated and paid for, wooing her with expensive protective cases and as many off-brand charging cords as there are outlets in my home. She acknowledges this attention with occasional notifications, blinking on the screen, reminders to update, so many needs. That makes me want her even more.
I know that having her carelessly bouncing around the bottom of my bag all day and on the nightstand inches from my sleeping face, readily available for when I need to look up “recipes for morons” or “the best way to wash a cat,” is putting my precious information at risk. My phone is always listening, and through a series of bloops and bleeps I do not understand, the data I have spewed into the universe gets sold and fed back to me in a targeted Instagram ad for whatever it is I now urgently need.
I don’t know how thrilled I am to be giving up my secrets, but it’s foolish to think I have any control over them, and ultimately I don’t care. I love convenience and entertainment too much to worry about how much information I cannot control is being leaked to marketers, retailers, the government and whatever Chinese intelligence agency controls the barrage of ads for $13 dresses that saturate my feed.
Maybe it’s because I got in the smartphone game late and have a real memory of how inconvenient life used to be.
I’m staring down the barrel of my 40th year, and the first computer I bought for myself was six or seven years ago. I didn’t get my first iPhone until they’d been around for years, partly because I was like: “Who needs that? I prefer to live in the real world!” but mostly because the idea of walking around with a $500 computer in my pocket seemed dangerous. And the idea that I could somehow scrape together the money to purchase said pocket computer while also maintaining a roof over my head (read: partying all the time and paying for cable) was hilarious and unrealistic. I was the last dinosaur at the club sending multi-tap texts on a Nokia E51 with no camera.
When I finally upgraded, I didn’t get what all the fuss was about. O.K., sure, this glowing rectangle in my bag can tell me the weather anywhere in the world at this exact moment, but who cares? Wait, it can also figure out exactly what wrong street I’m turning down and steer me back in the right direction? And it counted how many steps I took? While also storing all the passwords I can never remember? Please excuse me while I build this shrine to the new most important thing in my life.
That is how it gets you. I was a skeptic and then I was a convert almost immediately. I have long understood that I am a tiny, powerless cog in the wheel of modern America, plus I’m not a hacker, so what do I even know about keeping things hidden? Is it even possible for me, a regular person who cannot figure out how to program the television remote, to circumvent the eyes of all of the faceless technology corporations analyzing my information? What am I going to do, cheat Amazon? Outsmart Google? No, I’m going to do what everyone else does: enter my credit card information when prompted and get that thing I need two days from when I decided I needed it.
A few months ago I went to dinner with the kind of people whose idea of fun is to correct your pronunciation of “niçoise,” and they boldly suggested that we all put our phones face down in the center of the table for the entirety of the meal and what felt like a needlessly lingering discussion afterward.
Now, I didn’t die. But I also didn’t know what time it was. Or if anyone had texted me. And I’m not really a “post a picture of my fancy meal” kind of person, but I could tell that other people wanted to. The air was heavy with missed opportunity. And you know what we talked about while cringing internally as the carafe of still water we actually had to pay for came perilously close to splashing on our helpless devices every time it was passed?
TV shows, which you can watch on a phone. Books, which, if your eyes haven’t already burned through the back of your skull from being on your phone all the time, you can read on your phone. Murder podcasts, which are specifically made to be listened to on a phone.
Yes, your phone is potentially hazardous to whatever semblance of security you might have. Yes, there are many medical professionals who would attest to the deleterious effect modern technology has on the brains and interpersonal skills of adults. But hear me out: Maybe it’s worth it?
My phone knows so much about me. It knows where I am, how many steps I took to get there, the whisper of a thought I don’t remember even fully forming in my brain that somehow made its way to a search engine. It also knows I am addicted, which is why it doesn’t ever really have to worry about whether I’m creeped out by the digital eyes I can feel looking over my shoulder.
Not long ago, Apple put a screen-time feature on the iPhone that’s supposed to, I don’t know, shame me into putting down the drug it won’t stop selling me. I use the statistics it collects as a challenge to spend even more time messing around on my phone. Only one hour and 37 minutes of social networking yesterday, you say? Let me put this informative book I was reading down and try to top that. But my phone already knows that’s what I’d want to do.
Samantha Irby (@wordscience) is the author of the essay collections “Meaty” and “We Are Never Meeting in Real Life.”
“What you do with your spare time matters.” Love that. I like Aristotle’s thinking. Take the part “…true human flourishing requires activities like philosophizing that are pursued for no other reason than their intrinsic quality.” Beats in my heart, that one. There’s clearly an addiction problem. What makes it hard to address is that it affects young and old. How can teens and younger, improve their habits if the adults in the room don’t? At least these articles are still being written. But we have to read them, and respond.
Digital Addiction Getting You Down? Try an Analog Cure
Administering this cure isn’t easy, but it’s worth the effort.
By Cal Newport, via NYTimes
Arnold Bennett was an early-20th-century British novelist, playwright and critic. He’s perhaps best known for his detail-oriented novels set around the Staffordshire Potteries. In 1931, during a trip to Paris, he ignored a waiter’s advice to avoid the restaurant’s tap water and soon died of typhoid.
So, yes: Mr. Bennett is not a name that typically comes to mind when seeking advice about our current high-tech moment. But he should be.
In 1905, Mr. Bennett stepped away from his traditional genres to produce a short but remarkable volume of self-help literature titled “How to Live on 24 Hours a Day.” Targeted to the middle-class, white-collar workers who were filling in the growing London suburbs, Mr. Bennett argued that making the most of their leisure time was the key to cultivating a meaningful life. His suggestion for doing so was clear: rigorous intellectual self-improvement through reading and concentrated thought.
The specifics of this vision, in which the British “salaryman” scrutinizes Dante, are obviously dated. But there’s a deeper general truth lurking beneath the details: What you do with your spare time matters.
This idea, of course, is not new. In “The Nicomachean Ethics,” Aristotle argues that true human flourishing requires activities like philosophizing that are pursued for no other reason than their intrinsic quality. Seneca had similarly lofty visions for our time off, writing, “I am not sure that we cannot serve [the Commonwealth] better when we are at leisure to inquire into what virtue is.”
The wisdom of this timeless emphasis on quality leisure was made clear to me recently. Early last year, as part of the research process for my new book, “Digital Minimalism,” I asked for volunteers willing to spend January avoiding optional digital technologies in their personal life, including social media, online news, video games and streaming. Because this was a big sacrifice, I was expecting around a dozen brave souls to join me in this adventure. Instead, 1,600 people signed up.
Many of the participants in this digital declutter sent me reports about their experiences. One of the more striking findings was the degree to which low-quality, algorithmically optimized digital content had colonized their leisure time. When they powered down their devices, these declutterers were suddenly confronted with empty stretches that they had no idea how to fill.
Inspired by Mr. Bennett, I encouraged them to aggressively reintroduce high-value leisure activities that had nothing to do with glowing screens — even if these activities required more energy and commitment than clicking “next episode” or scrolling a Twitter feed. Many embraced my advice.
A graduate student named Unaiza replaced her habit of browsing Reddit at night with reading library books, finishing eight during her digital declutter.
“I could never have thought about doing that before,” she told me proudly.
Another volunteer, Melissa, revamped her social life, setting up dinners with friends and scheduling regular face-to-face time with her brother — who, to Melissa’s frustration, had a hard time looking up from his phone during their meetings. Yet another volunteer, Caleb, began journaling and listening to vinyl records from beginning to end. He told me the experience of listening to music is completely transformed when you lose the ability to tap “next” when you get antsy with the current song. An N.Y.U. student who wanted to stay informed during his declutter arranged to get a newspaper delivered to his dorm room, while a father named Tarald invested his reclaimed attention into remaining undistracted while with his children. He told me it felt “surreal” to be the only parent at the playground not looking down at an electronic device.
The positive effect of returning to these analog activities is so pronounced that I’ve come to think of this strategy like a magic pill of sorts for curing the low-grade anxiety and existential aimlessness that define our culture of constant connection. This effect seemed particularly powerful for young people who have never known life without an accompanying screen. Like sleep and exercise, this analog cure seems to have few downsides, and its benefits compound.
Administering this cure, however, isn’t an easy process.
Something that helps is recognizing the extent to which the digital stream has commandeered your attention. The articles that rank highly in your feeds were selected by algorithms that have studied your behavior and know with statistical certainty which headlines will keep you staring at your screen. Likes, photo tags, comments, favorites, retweets and other social approval indicators are engineered to make it nearly impossible to resist compulsively checking apps.
My advice to gain the upper hand in this struggle is to demobilize the digital stream. Remove from your phone any app that monetizes your time and attention, like Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. You don’t have to quit these services; you can still access them from a browser. But you’ve removed their ability to follow you throughout your day, persuasively manipulating your attention toward their own ends.
It’s also important to prepare yourself for the difficulty of reintroducing high-quality analog pursuits into your life. It’s easy to swap tweets with your digital tribe, but organizing an activity in your real-world community might require annoying logistics and force you to confront uncomfortable moments and social complexities.
But as Sherry Turkle poignantly asks, “Who said that you never have to have a moment of friction with difficult people or difficult moments, when did that become the good life?” Prepare yourself for this friction. It’s worth pushing through.
Early in his 1905 guide, Mr. Bennett labels our time “the most precious of possessions.” This is an observation worth remembering when great fortunes are being made by diverting this precious possession toward screens, where it can be alchemized into quarterly revenue numbers.
You can fight back. If you take whatever scraps of leisure your situation affords and commit them toward quality analog activity and away from dehumanizing digital consumption, you’ll take a strong stride away from simply existing and closer to actually living.
Lots of batteries get recycled. Lots don’t. Take alkaline batteries, for instance. You know, the double, triple A, C,, and D batteries many of us use? Do you know there is only one state that requires alkaline batteries to be recycled? Of course, its California. For the rest of the states, they allow you to simply toss them in the trash. Not good. Don’t believe its okay to throw them in the trash. Its not.
Battery recycling programs are a weakness in our disposal economy, and local government’s public relations outreach is poor, but its not one we can’t improve on our own. If you use enough batteries, or, if you’d like to create a community based battery recycling service, consider working with Battery Solutions. They do charge a fee, but, if you, or, your business, or residential community, use enough batteries over the course of a year, its not a lot to pay to keep them out of landfills, The cost is also very little to invest if it is spread across multiple participants, who want to do good by the environment.
If you don’t use that many, please don’t throw yours away. They cause harm. Try calling your local office supply store, like Staples. The one near me accepts all kinds of waste related to tech, and office products. Printer cartridges, laptop batteries, and, periodically, does accept alkaline batteries. Just walk in and drop them off. Thank you!
The above is an article from last October connected to a newer article below this post..
I start with this one because it describes the basic problem: Electric scooters in cities.
After reading several related articles all pretty much focused on recurring themes of injuries, I found myself coming to a fundamental cause of the problem, regardless of its being mentioned in the articles. Government paralysis.
Taken further, it’s about the failure of certain blocs of people to agree on a set of actions to address and correct a serious problem.
We can read articles like this and many others over and over blaming this person or that peeson because we think they’re on the wrong side, but some problems or challenges are just too complicated to reveal an obvious answer. This case about electric scooters in cities (overwhelming?) is one of those problems.
I may personally disagree with the complexity of tackling this situation, but I see obvious issues that should’ve been anticipated the moment one single electric scooter was permitted in one city. Let alone, several now, and growing.
We can not have motorized anything on sidewalks where pedestrians walk. Period. End of story.
Laws have to be in place, and enforced to ticket offenders who break these laws. Period. End of story.
Companies who rent these things should not allow renters to just drop them all over the place with no centralized hub network picking up after them.
Cities should limit the number of scooters it allows on its streets. There’s no limit now. That’s insane.
Special lIcenses should be required to operate these things, and operate the companies. They are not toys. They are not bikes. They are a motorized forms of transportation equipment capable of causing significant injury to its riders, pedestrians, and other vehicle operators.
This and all the other “complicated” problems around us in life need a compromised approach among interests or opinions. But what we need more than any of these things first is swift action and forward movement. That doesn’t happen in cities in this country. That has to change.
Mainstream news media is routinely attacked as an unreliable source for deeper truths, let alone, in-depth reporting.
That may be true in all too many cases, but, media provides public platforms for opinion writers.
Read enough of them, across the spectrum, and you’ll come away with valuable perspective.
Get enough of that, and truth is easier to find.
Herewith…
The language portraying second jobs as liberating or glamorous masks the reality of the insecure working lives of many Americans.
Via NYTimes, By Alissa Quart
Ms. Quart is the author of “Squeezed: Why Our Families Can’t Afford America.”
Ride-sharing cars have become ubiquitous in New York. Uber tries to attract drivers by promoting the job as a “side hustle.”Credit: Chad Batka for The New York Times
An attractive woman behind the wheel of a gray car says to the camera, “These days anyone can have a side hustle.” She then whisks off to the gym, for her other job as a personal trainer, beaming as she goes from one gig to another. This ad for the ride-share company Uber seeks to entice new drivers to join their ranks by using the “side hustle” come-on. The company isn’t alone.
Similarly laborious “side hustles” are celebrated in popular media and advertising, from self-help articles and other web content that exhort us to, say, work for a design studio part-time or sell CBD oil (great as a side hustle for moms, supposedly). Even pastors can use a side hustle, according to one evangelical blogger.
During tax season, you will also find filing suggestions for side hustlers. (Report all of your income! Deduct expenses!)
The truth is, working multiple gigs creates complications when you do your taxes. Compared with those with salaried jobs, who pay their taxes seamlessly through withholding, for side hustlers “the process will be a lot messier,” according to Steven Dean, the faculty director of the Graduate Tax Program at New York University Law School. You have to estimate and pay taxes on your own, he notes, and your expenses may not be reimbursed by your employer. In other words, paying quarterly tax estimates gives workers with side hustles yet another side hustle — being their own accountant, although this gig doesn’t even pay.
Nevertheless, this nouveau moonlighting continues to be exalted as cool, empowering or freeing. This mantra is false: Side hustles are not simply a new version of working as a “wage slave” so that we can do what we love in our off hours. Instead, far more often, people take on second or third side hustles because of wage stagnation or low pay at their full-time jobs.
Over the past few years, I have interviewed dozens of people who work a full-time job or close to it — teachers, professors, administrators and nurses, among others — and supplement their incomes by driving for Lyft or serving as a barista. They are not doing it for the glamour. They need these second jobs because their first jobs don’t cover astronomically rising rents, record health care costs or swelling college tuition. A full 30 percent of Americans do something else for pay in addition to their full-time jobs, according to an NPR/Marist survey last year.
Yet this sales pitch for the “side hustle” takes what we once called, more drably, another job and gives it a gloss, with a tiny shot of Superfly, disguising unstable working hours and a lack of bargaining power as liberation. You can see the twisted alchemy of what Reddit’s founder Alexis Ohanian has called “hustle porn.”
Commercial websites like Side Hustle Nation extol the joy of the new unstable labor, although its payoff actually arrives for only a few. As Nick Loper, the site’s “chief side hustler” writes, “My escape route was a side hustle business I built in my spare time — and you can do it too.” Medium has a whole Side Hustle publication. It bears the legend “You’re more than your day job.”
This language tries to make the dreary carousel of contemporary life sound more fun. “The phrase the ‘side hustle’ has gained a strange kind of prestige from downwardly mobile, college-educated tech workers,” said John Patrick Leary, the author of “Keywords: The New Language of Capitalism,” a sharp recent book on this troubling new lingo. Its glitz and energy derives from “a hip-hop genealogy,” although the side hustles name-checked in that genre are perhaps not the same as those imagined by Uber.
The “side hustle” is one of a growing roster of trendy corporatized idioms, like ordinary household appliances that are now “smart” or plain vanilla businessmen and women remade into the more exotic “entrepreneurs.” Our jobs are now “flexible,” although we are the ones contorting ourselves to work at all hours, or we are professionally “nimble” because we are trying to survive on freelance gigs.
Ultimately, like so much of this lexicon, the “side hustle” describes the overworked outsiders to privilege, who are forced into informal vocations by the absence of a legitimate economy. They are then told that suffering is valiant and also groovy. In a recent viral BuzzFeed piece describing millennials as the “burnout generation,” side hustles are listed as one of the main culprits.
There are some surprising benefits to side hustles. The 2017 tax reform introduced the qualified business income deduction, which provides side hustling workers with a rate reduction. But some people may not understand it, and this small benefit doesn’t make up for an uncertain work life.
So what can we do? For starters, anyone writing about work, whether as a journalist or as a social media exhibitionist, should stop glorifying long hours at work or juggling multiple workplace identities. Instead, we could be more open about what all these “side hustles” are really doing to our minds and bodies.
As workers, we might acknowledge that “side hustle” is an insidious term and resolve never to use it again. More broadly, we must fight other forms of this falsifying new jargon and seek out more truthful language. We could follow Raymond Williams, the cultural theorist, who once wrote that we should interrogate the language of contemporary society and “change as we find it necessary to change it, as we go on making our own language and history.” Most important, we can agitate to raise wages. If we do that, we won’t need cute euphemisms to cloak the chaotic truth of working life in today’s America.
Very useful. An in-depth look at how truly living with humility is not just checking off a few boxes now and then, but recognizing that it is a full spectrum way of life that involves many decisions on how we feel about, and conduct, ourselves around others almost every day. This primer is important to read right through to the last frame.
”’Mother Theresa once said, “Humility is the mother of all virtues; purity, charity, and obedience. It is in being humble that our love becomes real, devoted and ardent.” These words ring true, but you don’t have to be Mother Theresa, or even religious at all, to make an effort to practice humility in your everyday life. Being humble means accepting your limitations and making an effort to make the world a better place without wanting to take all the credit.
Part 1
Developing a More Humble Mindset
1.
Don’t think you’re too good for everything you do. People who have big egos tend to think that they deserve to be working at a better place, to be dating someone better, or even to be hanging out with people who are interesting and cooler. But your life is your life, and if you want better things, then you have to work to reach for them, instead of assuming the attitude that you’re not getting treated fairly. To practice humility, work to accept the life you have while striving for more without complaining.
If you adopt the attitude that you’re too cool for school, people will become allergic to you. Instead, work to be grateful for what you have and work to earn more, if that’s what you want.
2.
Be an optimist. People who practice humility are naturally optimistic because they don’t waste their time complaining about all of the bad things that have happened to them or dreading the future. Instead, they’re grateful what they have and they expect good things to happen in the future. Humble people don’t expect to be given good things on a silver platter, but they do believe that good things will happen to them if they work hard enough.
Work on being excited about all of the things the future holds instead of expecting catastrophe to strike at any moment.
Though it’s a good idea to be prepared for the worst, you should work on finding the silver lining in almost every situation.
3.
Accept that you’re not the best at everything. To get in a more humble mindset, you have to accept the fact that you’re not the best at everything—or even anything. No matter how great you are at surfing, singing, or writing fiction, there will always be someone who is more knowledgeable than you are, and that’s okay. Instead of acting like you have the final say on something, be open to the fact that you’re constantly evolving and improving, and know that other people can help you get there.
If you act like you’re the best at something, you’ll come off as arrogant. Instead, show people that, while you’re proud of what you know or what you can achieve, you’re always wanting to do more.
4.
Know that humility is not false modesty. It’s one thing to be humble and another thing to be falsely modest. If you spent all weekend working on a project for work and your boss tells you you did a great job on Monday, don’t say, “It was nothing.” Tell him that you’re glad he liked it and that you’re happy to have put a lot of work into it. You may think that shrugging off your achievements will make you look more modest, but in reality, it will actually make you come off as more arrogant.[1]
Sure, it can be kind of awkward when people are praising you. However, you should accept credit where credit is due instead of acting like it was no big deal.
5
Recognize your flaws. If you want to practice humility, then you have to be aware of the fact that you’re not perfect. If you think that you’re a flawless human being, then you’re not going to learn anything new in this world or grow as a person. Instead, it’s important to be self-aware and to know what you need to work on, so you can be humbled before others. A truly humble person knows that he has things to work on and makes an effort to get there.
Sure, it can be humbling to admit that you need to work on your social skills or that you’re not the world’s neatest person. But this can also lead you to work toward self-improvement.
Along with recognizing your flaws, it’s important to be able to accept the things you cannot change about yourself.
6
Avoid bragging. To truly practice humility, you should avoid bragging or showing off as much as you can. While you may want to talk about your accomplishments, you should avoid sounding like you’re showing off as much as possible. If you worked hard to do something, then you can talk about it, but avoid talking about how rich, attractive, or successful you are, or people are likely to get the wrong impression about you. Instead, you should trust the fact that if you’re a really impressive person, other people will get a sense of it without you having to tell them.
People who truly practice humility focus much more on praising other people than on focusing on their own accomplishments.
The next time you catch yourself talking about something you’ve achieved, ask yourself whether you’re bragging or showing off, or just sharing something you’re truly proud of.
7
Be grateful for what you have—and what you don’t. If you really want to practice humility, then you have to work on being grateful for everything the world has given you, from your health to your pet kitty. Don’t take anything for granted and know that it’s a privilege to even be reading an article online. You should also be grateful for the hardships and challenges you’ve faced, because they’ve made you into the person you are today.[
Of course, some people are a lot better off than others when it comes to the luck game. Just know that it’s what you do with your luck that matters, and that you should be grateful for what you have been given instead of complaining about what you don’t have.
Gratitude is essential for true humility. Work on making a list of everything you’re grateful for and add to it whenever you think of something else.
Part 2
Taking Action
Stop talking. One way to practice humility is to spend more time listening than you do talking. If you spend all of your time talking about yourself or sharing your ideas, then you’ll be less likely to learn from others or to appreciate what they have to offer. Listening to other people will also make them feel important and cared for, and it can be very humbling to give others a listening ear and a bit of your time.
It can be very humbling to realize that other people have a perspective that is just as valid as yours, and that everyone around is also filled with worries, doubts, and hopes.
Become an expert at listening to people without interrupting them or giving them advice unless they ask for it.
2
Give other people credit. If you want to practice humility, then the best thing you can do is to is to learn to give credit where it is due. If you’re praised for doing a report at work, make sure you mention that you couldn’t have done it without two of your coworkers. If you’re praised for scoring a goal at the soccer game, mention that you couldn’t have done it without your teammates. You are rarely responsible for 100% of your success, and it’s important to take the time to acknowledge all of the other people who made your success possible.
It will actually make you feel better to acknowledge that other people have worked hard, too. If you take all the credit without deserving it, then you’ll be practicing selfishness instead of gratitude.
3
Admit when you’re wrong. One characteristic of a truly humble person is the ability to admit you’re wrong. If you’ve made a mistake, it can be very humbling to let people know that you’re aware of your missteps and that you’re apologetic about them. Don’t just be in denial or brush it under the rug. If you want to practice humility, then you have to accept that you’re not perfect and come to terms with admitting your mistakes and apologizing for them.[3
When you apologize to people, look them in the eyes, make your words genuine, and show them that the behavior won’t happen again. Let them see that you’re taking the time to truly apologize, and that you’re not just doing it out of obligation.
Of course, actions speak louder than words. To truly be forgiven, you have to work to not make the same mistake again.
4
Go last. Whether you’re ordering at a family dinner, in line at the movies, or waiting to catch the bus, make an effort to let other people go before you once in a while. People who practice humility are aware that they’re not the most important people in the world, and they let other people go before them because they know that their time isn’t more important than anyone else’s. While you shouldn’t be a pushover, you should look for opportunities to let people go ahead of you if you want to practice humility.[4
There’s a real humility in saying, “After you.” Work on seeing that your time isn’t worth more than anyone else’s and letting other people have a chance before you do.
It goes without saying that cutting a line is the opposite of being humble.
5
Ask for advice. It can be very humbling to admit that you don’t have all the answers and to defer to someone else. When something is troubling or puzzling to you, take the time to turn to a friend for advice or to ask a coworker to share his expertise. Be comfortable with admitting that other people have something that is useful to you and that you’re always open to learning more and improving as a person. Truly humble people know that knowledge is infinite, and they’re always asking others to share what they know.
Don’t be afraid to admit that you don’t know something. In fact, most people love sharing their knowledge with others and will be eager to help you.
You can even offer a bit of praise when you ask for advice. Just saying something like, “Hey, I know you’re a whiz at math, and I just can’t understand this problem,” will make a person feel great, as long as it doesn’t sound like you’re sucking up.
6
Praise others. Another way to practice humility is to recognize other people for their achievements. Praise other people as much as you can, for being in awe of how hard your co-worker worked on a presentation to praising your sister for keeping her head up in a difficult situation. Praising others publicly, as long as you don’t embarrass them, can also be a great way to show your appreciation of others and to humble yourself before the strengths of other people.
Get in the habit of telling other people when they’re doing great at something. This can make both you and the person feel great.
Of course, make sure the praise is deserved. You don’t want the person to think that you just want something from him.
7
Give compliments. If you want to practice humility, then you should always be open to complimenting other people, from telling them how great they look to complimenting aspects of their personality. As long as your compliments are genuine, you’ll be making other people feel better about themselves while practicing humility in the process. Truly humble people recognize that other people have endless qualities that are worth praising.
Even something simple like, “I love your earrings. They make your eyes stand out,” can really brighten a person’s day, and it takes very little effort.
Part 3
Living a Life Filled with Humility
1
Volunteer. If you make volunteering a part of your routine, then you will be able to have a more humility-filled life. Whether you’re helping children and adults learn to read at your local library or working a soup kitchen in your community, volunteering can help you get in touch with your sense of gratitude and help people who really need you. It can be incredibly humbling to spend time with people who are grateful for your help, and it can make you be more gracious and less likely to feel entitled.[5]
Volunteer for the sake of it, not for the bragging rights. You don’t need to tell your fifty closest friends that you’re volunteering just to show off. Of course, if you’re genuinely proud and want to talk about it, that’s another thing.
Giving your time to help others can make you realize that you don’t always need to put yourself first. This can make you live a life filled with humility.
2.
Don’t compare yourself to others. To practice gratitude on a regular basis, you should avoid comparing yourself to others, whether you’re jealous of your neighbors, your best friend, or even Taylor Swift. Focus on being grateful for what you have and enjoying your life on its own terms instead of thinking you need to have what your best friend or co-worker has to truly be happy. If you spend your life comparing yourself to others, then you will never feel like what you have is enough, and you won’t be humbled before all that you have been given.
You can admire other people and feel inspired to be better because of them. But if you covet what they have, you are likely to fall into feelings of bitterness that will keep you from enjoying your life.
Don’t gossip about people or put them down because you’re secretly jealous of them, either. Humble people only say nice things about people behind their backs.
3.
Be teachable. People who practice humility are the first to admit that they don’t know everything. Whether you’re getting tips from a co-worker or a friend, it’s important to be open to new possibilities and new knowledge. Let people see that you think they have a lot to offer you, and avoid acting stubborn or like you know everything. Even if you may feel like an expert on a topic, remember that you can always learn more; it’s humbling to admit that you’re a student of life.[6]
Don’t get defensive when someone is trying to teach you something. If that person has pure intentions, then you should make an effort to hear him out.
You don’t want people to feel like you think you have all the answers, or they won’t be eager to share their experiences with you.
4.
Practice anonymous kindness. If you want to practice humility, then not all of your kind deeds have to go noticed. Donate money to charity without telling a soul about it, or donate your old clothes without saying a thing. If you notice that a person’s parking meter is expired, throw in a few quarters. Help crowdfund a worthy project. Anonymously post a kind comment on a person’s blog. Take the time to do something nice without wanting anything in return, and you will be on your way to practicing humility every day.
If you’re the only person who is aware of the good you’ve done in the world, there is something especially humbling about the experience.
You can even write about the experience in a journal if you feel like telling someone.
5.
Don’t complain so much. People who practice humility aren’t often seen complaining because they realize that life is precious and that they have so much to be grateful for. Sure, we’ve all had bad days, and it’s okay to vent once in a while, but you shouldn’t make a habit of it if you want to practice humility. Remember that so many people have it so much worse than you, and that complaining about every little thing that happened to you instead of focusing on the positive will keep you from practicing humility.
People are drawn to appreciative, positive people. If you complain all the time or form relationships based on complaining all the time, then you’ll be less likely to live a humility-filled life.
Whenever you catch yourself complaining about something, try to counter that comment with two positive comments.
6.
Spend more time in nature. There’s something very humbling about being in nature, whether you take a long hike through the woods or you spend a day just lying on the beach. Nature can remind you that there are things bigger than ourselves and our problems out there, and that we should be in awe of the world instead of obsessing over all of our little problems or thwarted ambitions. Making a habit of being in nature more often can lead you to practice humility more.
Your problems won’t seem as severe when you’re standing at the base of a mountain. As corny as it sounds, being around nature will make you see that you’re just a grain of sand on the beach that is the universe, and that you should be thankful for what you have instead of bemoaning what you wish you had.
7.
Spend more time around children. Children have a natural sense of wonder and almost never cease to be in awe of the universe. If you want to practice humility more often, then you should make a habit of spending more time with children. They’ll help you see the world through new, youthful eyes, and you’ll be able to rediscover some of the magic you may feel that you lost because of the daily grind. Making a habit of spending more time with kids, whether you spend more time with your own, volunteer with children, or help a friend out by babysitting, can help you practice humility regularly.
You may think that you have a lot to teach children and will feel humbled when you see that they have a lot to teach you, too. Listen to their perspective about the world and see how it can help you become a more humble, grateful person.
Being around children will help you rejuvenate your sense of wonder. This can help you be more appreciative of the world around you and it will keep you from taking anything for granted.
8.
Practice yoga. Yoga is a practice devoted to being grateful for the body you have been given and your time on this earth. Though some yoga practices can be a great workout, too, the most important thing with yoga is being in touch with your mind and body and not taking a single one of your breaths for granted. If you want to work on practicing humility more, then you should make yoga a regular part of your life.[7]
Taking just 2-3 classes a week can transform the way you look at the world. If you feel like you just can’t make the time to go to a yoga class, you can practice at home.
Another buzzkill reminder about modern life in a society with a government that seemingly doesn’t care enough to protect its people. Corporations that think nothing about its customers privacy as long as a dollar can be made selling it?
As much as I think the causes are clear, i.e, weak, indecisive, or, corrupt government, that doesn’t pass, nor enforce the laws, I do believe, we as citizens have a responsibility to at least stay as informed as possible, to be equipped to manage our privacy or data with some degree of effort. This is a responsibility with “us,” as users of technology, and seekers of knowledge.
I read a lot of articles such as these. Not just because I’m interested in technology and modern communication, but, because it is part of everyday life. I find that important to recognize and point out. Not everyone else does. Why not?
There is a meaty argument about literacy and educational levels having a direct impact on why, and how, so much apathy and passiveness pervades the masses in this country. Not just about politics, for instance (longstanding), but, modern issues such as this one. Virtually sanctioned invasion of our private lives by big business, or anyone else they sell it off to.
I’m not trying to veer to far afield on this, but, I believe that passiveness, apathy, and cynicism are the triumvirate at the core of what we have wrought on ourselves with technology today. It deserves a whole other essay to discuss.
I know it sounds bad, but, I believe there’s still enough people who are not handicapped by this paralysis to fight back, to make a difference. So why don’t we? Don’t we care…enough? Don’t we believe it…matters? Do we just move on, and conclude that these sorts of things are hopeless struggles against big business and corrupt governments?
It’s such an easy argument. It’s so easy to accept. But its a mistake.
Cynicism is not the foe of big business and bad government. It’s the friend of both. Cynicism does not inhibit and curtail more of the same behavior. It stimulates and grows more of it, because it breeds passivity. This is going to be a big battle, if it ever does come from the “people”. The real war from here on is not about brother against brother. That’s a mere distraction, a diversion to cultural coffee table feuds. The real war is right here in this article, multiplied by a hundred more that are written and acted out every day. Big money, big business, big tech, and a bought and paid for government. At some point, we all have to ask ourselves the famous question. Are we part of the solution, or part of the problem.
Wireless companies sell your location data. Federal regulators should stop them.
By Geoffrey Starks Mr. Starks is a member of the Federal Communications Commission.
April 2, 2019
When you signed up for cellphone service, I bet you didn’t expect that your exact location could be sold to anyone for a few hundred dollars. The truth is, your wireless carrier tracks you everywhere you go, whether you like it or not. When used appropriately, this tracking shouldn’t be a problem: location information allows emergency services to find you when you need them most.
But wireless carriers have been selling our data in ways that allows it to be resold for potentially dangerous purposes. For instance, stalkers and abusive domestic partners have used location data to track, threaten and attack victims. This industrywide practice facilitates “pay to track” schemes that appear to violate the law and Federal Communications Commission rules.
Companies are collecting and profiting from our private data in hidden ways that leave us vulnerable. As you carry your phone, your wireless carrier records its location so calls and texts can reach you. And you can’t opt out of sharing location data with your carrier, as you can with a mobile application. Your carrier needs this data to deliver service. But, according to recent news reports, this real-time phone location data has long been available to entities beyond your wireless carrier, for a price. In one alarming example, reported by Vice, a bounty hunter was able to pay to track a user’s location on a map accurate to within a few feet. In another case, a sheriff in Missouri used location data provided by carriers to inappropriately track a judge.
In other words, an ability that seems to come right out of a spy movie is now apparently available to just about anybody with your phone number and some cash. The pay-to-track industry has grown in the shadows, outside of the public eye and away from the watch of regulators.
Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, first raised the alarm last year, sending a letter to the F.C.C. on May 8 demanding an investigation into abuses by the pay-to-track industry. The Times reported on the issue the same week. Senator Wyden also demanded answers from the major wireless carriers. After that, the top wireless companies said that bounty hunters and others would no longer have access to their customers’ locations.
But months later the reports continue. Other recent articles suggest that highly accurate GPS location information from our phones — which, according to F.C.C. rules, should be used to send help to 911 callers — is still available on a location-data black market. Since then, wireless companies have said they’ll stop selling our location information completely — eventually.
The misuse of this data is downright dangerous. The harms fall disproportionately upon people of color. According to the Pew Research Center, people of color rely more heavily on smartphones for internet access, so they create more of this data, which makes them more vulnerable to tracking. Researchers also know that location data can be used to target them with misinformation or voter suppression tactics. It can also lead to assumptions about a person’s race or income level, assumptions that can feed into discriminatory automated decision making.
What is the government doing to protect us? Congress passed laws years ago protecting this kind of information and entrusted the F.C.C. with the responsibility of enforcing them.
It is unquestionably the F.C.C.’s job to protect consumers and address risks to public safety. Our location information isn’t supposed to be used without our knowledge and consent and no chain of handoffs or contracts can eliminate the wireless company’s obligations. This is particularly true for the misuse and disclosure of GPS-based 911 location data — which is squarely against F.C.C. rules.
The F.C.C. says it is investigating. But nearly a year after the news first broke, the commission has yet to issue an enforcement action or fine those responsible. This passage of time is significant, as the agency usually has only one year to bring action to hold any wrongdoers accountable before the statute of limitations runs out. Some may argue that the F.C.C.’s authority to take action against wireless carriers for this activity has gotten weaker in recent years, with the repeal of consumer-focused privacy and net neutrality rules during the current administration. But I believe that the commission still has ample authority to address these egregious pay-to-track practices.
Federal action is long overdue. As a Democratic commissioner at the Republican-led agency, I can call for action, but the chairman sets the agenda, including deciding whether and how quickly to respond to pay-to-track schemes. The agency’s inaction despite these increasingly troubling reports speaks volumes and leaves our duty to the public unfulfilled. The F.C.C. must use its authority to protect consumers and promote public safety, and act swiftly and decisively to stop illegal and dangerous pay-to-track practices once and for all.
“The deepest hunger of the human soul is to be understood. The deepest hunger of the human body is for air. If you can listen to another person, in depth, until they feel understood, it’s the equivalent of giving them air.”
From the 60-song collection, An American Treasure, released last Fall, this previously unreleased track is one of many that remind fans how sad a loss to music, Tom’s unexpected passing was.
I know you tried hard Hard to get it right There’s a sadness, in your eyes Poor little one They ruled you like a king Don’t be afraid to depend on me
Nothing matters (It doesn’t matter) No… (It doesn’t matter) I say you keep a little soul And nothin’ really matters anymore (It doesn’t matter) Oh… (It doesn’t matter) Honey, keep a little soul And nothing’s gonna matter anymore
Lately I’ve been thinking ‘Bout gettin’ outta town Through all the heartache Gonna look around You think it over, baby You come with me Don’t be afraid to live what you believe
Nothing matters (It doesn’t matter) No… (It doesn’t matter) When you keep a little soul And nothin’ really matters anymore (It doesn’t matter) Oh… (It doesn’t matter) Honey, keep a little soul And nothing’s gonna matter anymore
And all people got soul, honey All people got dreams Don’t be afraid, to get up on your feet man Oh… depend on me Don’t be afraid to live what you believe Yeah
Doesn’t matter (It doesn’t matter) No… (It doesn’t matter) When you keep a little soul And nothin’ really matters anymore (It doesn’t matter) Oh… (It doesn’t matter) I say, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah! Nothin’ really matters, oh (It doesn’t matter) Uh-uh-uh… Keep a little soul And nothin’ really matters anymore (It doesn’t matter) Uh-uh-uh… (It doesn’t matter) Honey, keep a little soul Nothin’ really matters anymore
As I am apt to do, I think about big picture life in quiet moments. Especially when I am in a pleasant environment around nature. I thought about what I wanted life to be, wished it would be, hoped it was underneath all of the overlays of existence. Its overwhelming to digest. Most people don’t do it. At least not until they feel the sand in the hourglass running out. My father was like that in his later years. He would talk to me differently than he had when I was a boy. He would mention words of wonder about the world, the power of religion in positive ways for troubled souls.
Dad wasn’t religious, but he became religious, as in a devotion to the wholeness in which he started viewing the world. I knew what he was going through, but as a teenager troubled by my own growing pains, I didn’t appreciate it. He died soon after my eighteenth birthday, and that is precisely when I started to first open my eyes to what he was seeing, how he felt. I thought about him and about that time, when I wrote the words below on a sloping green hillside under the sun. <MB
Dick Dale had a name that more people remembered, than who he actually was. What they remember is his sound. Beyond that sound, Dale deserves to be remembered for the huge influence he had on the musicians, guitars and amplifier designs that followed into the glorious days of rock and electric guitar that dominated the music scene for decades after.
Here are some good articles, and terrific videos, that sum it much better than I could.
Beto O’Rourke on the opening day of his campaign for president. – Credit: Todd Heisler/The New York Times
A fair portrait of Beto’s current status, and his reception. The piece is long, but I found it useful, and worth digesting to round out his picture. As for me, I lean Nay on his chances for nomination, let alone beating Drumpf. Beto strikes me as a Bernie wannabe without the core substance, experience, or speaking skills. Bernie Light, if you will, or Bernie as activist HS senior. Additionally, there’s enough contradiction in his political past, as well as, easily targeted vulnerabilities, that will get him taken down by the Right, if not also, more progressive, and seasoned competitors.
The advent of Beto O’Rourke’s presidential candidacy has Democrats arguing ferociously among themselves.
By Thomas B. Edsall, Via NYTimes/Opinion
Mr. Edsall contributes a weekly column from Washington, D.C. on politics, demographics and inequality.
March 20, 2019
Within days of his announcement that he was running for the Democratic presidential nomination, Beto O’Rourke shot up in the rankings in terms of money, media coverage and Google searches.
Then the knives came out — progressives, women, African-Americans and party loyalists all took a stab at him.
The response to Beto is polarizing the Democratic activist community. The overriding question for Democrats is electability: who can beat Trump is a matter of pressing concern and profound anxiety for at least half the nation. The wrong choice would be disastrous.
Let’s start with O’Rourke’s negatives and we’ll get to the positives later.
“I’ve been quite critical of O’Rourke because I don’t really think the 2020 race needs him. We already have a pretty good bench of Democrats, and they mostly have thought far more about policy and politics than O’Rourke has,” Sean McElwee, a co-founder of Data for Progress, whose views represent those of many on the outspoken left, told me:
I think he’s vulnerable because of his gaffes and vague policies, but I think he’s most weak due to his pretty pro-development tenure on the El Paso City Council.
McElwee contended that O’Rourke is
no more electable than Kamala Harris or Elizabeth Warren and would be far less prepared to staff and run a White House. He’s never shown a commitment to progressive policies in the past, why should we trust him now? We don’t need a superstar, we need someone ready to push all-out to implement the progressive agenda.
Gina Glantz, a co-founder of GenderAvenger, an organization determined to ensure “women are represented in the public dialogue,” replied to my inquiry about O’Rourke:
I must admit after a few days of watching and reading about his opening gatherings I am less rather than more intrigued. To me, he exudes a sense of entitlement, which I find off-putting.
How about O’Rourke and the white working class?
Paul A. Sracic, a political scientist as Youngstown State University, emailed me:
O’Rourke’s vague, “We all need to come together” message will not resonate with people who see life as a battle. Working class voters believe in pugilistic politics. And I suspect that O’Rourke’s punk rock background will seem odd to working class voters. These voters want to feel as if their candidates are “one of them.”
Negative coverage in the press has been abundant:
“The Unbearable Male Privilege of Beto O’Rourke” (The Daily Beast). He voted for Republican legislation (The Wall Street Journal). He put his adolescent fantasies into print (The Resurgent). He’s a wealthy dilettante (The National Review), an empty shell (The New Republic), a teenage hacker (USA Today), a master class in male entitlement (The Guardian).
At the same time, O’Rourke has captured the imagination of millions of voters and donors.
Frank Wilkinson, a former colleague of mine, wrote at Bloomberg:
O’Rourke is not the only candidate modeling decency as an antidote to Trumpism. But he’s the one who has best harnessed the anxiety and rage generated by Trumpism’s assaults on democratic values and transformed them into willful, defiant optimism.
Don Fowler, former chair of the Democratic National Committee, captures this feeling: “He clearly possesses a charismatic charge, a spark that few others have.” Still, Fowler goes on to enumerate O’Rourke’s liabilities:
His impressive campaign for the Senate in Texas was a combination of luck and a damaged opponent. His ability to conduct an effective national campaign is totally unknown. His recent tour of the country was essentially by himself — a very poor way to test a candidate’s national potential in a crowded, competitive field. As to issues, the same unknown quality of his organizational potential characterizes his policy and ideological stances. Both major prongs of a national campaign are truly unknown and must be tested in the public crucible. Only time will tell on both policy and operational scores — wait and see.
A Texas Democratic operative lavished praise on Beto, on background, in order to speak freely:
O’Rourke has an intangible energy that goes beyond the litmus test. On a national scale that could be monumental. It’s emotional. It’s not tangible. Beto tapped into something with nontraditional voters. People who never publicly supported a campaign were putting Beto signs in their yard. LeBron James wore his logo on a hat.
“I first saw the momentum in late spring 2018,” reports the Republican strategist Scott Reed:
I live in Dallas and saw the yard signs popping up, all in front of large homes and mansions that would traditionally have been straight G.O.P. It almost became a badge of courage for many of the limousine liberals in Dallas.
Reed, who ran Bob Dole’s 1996 presidential campaign, went on:
His Willie Nelson event in Austin drew 50k folks and was also a strong signal to young voters — even though very few voted. His performances in the debates was exceptional and added to his momentum. Cruz was the #1 G.O.P. fund-raiser and he got swamped every quarter. I see a little Bobby Kennedy in him.
Richard Murray, a political scientist at the University of Houston, was also impressed. He emailed:
His appeal in Texas is a combination of an attractive persona with animated mannerisms that come across as cool and authentic to many (especially those under 35); boundless energy plus exceptional verbal skills that enable him to weave stories from folks he’s encountered on the campaign trail into compelling narratives (a rare skill) — displayed in an environment where voters in our very diverse and fast growing metropolitan areas have soured on the far right turn of Texas GOP leaders like Ted Cruz and Dan Patrick.
How about a national campaign?
Will this combination work in a national primary featuring the most diverse set of competitors in the nation’s history? I do not know, nor does anyone else. But the retail politics states of Iowa and New Hampshire are great places to test his road show outside the Lone Star State.
Murray’s son, Keir Murray, a Democratic political consultant in Texas, added more praise:
My own sense is his appeal was based, in part, on being a natural foil to Cruz (who is pretty much loathed by all but true conservatives in Texas) and by extension to Trump. O’Rourke is self-effacing, low-key guy, who comes across as fundamentally decent. I don’t think most Democrats, liberals or everyday Texans knew much about his policy positions, or cared much. They liked him. People sensed he was being himself — not perfect, not having all the answers — but honest and good-hearted.
Robert Stein, a political scientist at Rice, is upbeat on O’Rourke’s prospects. He wrote me:
Shortly after the November election progressives hit him hard for not backing their issue positions on guns and energy. My sense is that he is looking to avoid being defined on a left/right dimension/continuum. It seems like he is trying to define his candidacy as humane, pragmatic and capable of beating Trump.
Stein argues that
he is sufficiently retail for places like Iowa and New Hampshire and if he can survive the rush before Super Tuesday, he should come out of the March primaries in the upper echelon of remaining candidates.
Although O’Rourke lost the Texas Senate race to Cruz by just under 3 percent, exit polls show that he won among women, 54-46; among voters under 45, 59-40; minorities, 69-31; college graduates, 51-48; moderates, 65-34; and voters who say they are not white born-again or evangelical Christians, 61-38. While suffering from some hostile media impressions, O’Rourke has gotten his share, if not more so, of favorable press:
He’s authentic, full of energy, and stripped of consultant-driven sterility (Vanity Fair). Will Beto O’Rourke Become President? (Texas Monthly). Beto O’Rourke Rivals Trump on Social Media (Newsweek). Beto O’Rourke could lead a blue wave in Texas (Vox). Beto O’Rourke blows up the 2020 Democratic primary (Politico).
At the same time, some of the strongest opposition to O’Rourke — reflecting schisms within the Democratic Party — has come from women’s rights advocates, many of whom took offense at a comment he made to Vanity Fair: “Man, I’m just born to be in it.”
Natasha Korecki, a Politico reporter, captured the feminist opposition to O’Rourke in her March 15 story, “‘Not one woman got that kind of coverage’: Beto backlash begins.”
Korecki wrote:
The breathless, sweeps-like cable television coverage that greeted the former Texas congressman’s first campaign events stunned and frustrated many Democratic operatives — particularly women — who viewed it as an example of the double standard at work in the historically diverse presidential field. To them, O’Rourke, a white, male candidate had already been anointed the next sensation, his entry into the race greased by live television shots and O’Rourke-centric panels.
Celinda Lake, a Democratic pollster, told Politico, “I think if you look at the pattern, there is a real distinction between the way men were covered and the way the women were covered. There’s a huge double standard,” before adding:
With women, many, many more negatives were raised and the men were treated like the Second Coming. I’m surprised that this is continuing in 2019, after the year of the woman.
In response to the animosity, O’Rourke indicated that he would pick a woman as his vice-presidential running mate. On March 15, he told reporters: “It would be very difficult not to select a woman with so many extraordinary women who are running right now.”
O’Rourke appears to be acutely sensitive to this issue. He told Vanity Fair, before he announced his bid, that “the government at all levels is overly represented by white men,” and he didn’t leave it there:
That’s part of the problem, and I’m a white man. So if I were to run, I think it’s just so important that those who would comprise my team looked like this country. If I were to run, if I were to win, that my administration looks like this country. It’s the only way I know to meet that challenge.
It’s not altogether clear, however, that women currently seeking the top job would be thrilled by O’Rourke’s offer of the number two spot.
Washington political professionals are also going to be a hard sell.
John Lawrence, former chief of staff for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, questions whether O’Rourke is up to the challenge. Lawrence says he finds it difficult
to see a white male emerging from the multicandidate pack. True, all the women/minorities could divide up the other voters, but with proportionate allocation of delegates, it’s hard to see a white male moderate emerging with a majority.
“Freshness only goes so far,” Lawrence pointed out:
After a year of being beat up by competitors, the press, Trump, grass roots, etc., he might not look or sound so “fresh.” He strikes me as somewhat superficial, very much a personality; I am not convinced the act sells on a national basis.
Isaac Hale, a political scientist at the University of California, notes that
Beto doesn’t have the luxury of running in the Democratic presidential primary as “not Ted Cruz.” which is certainly a large part of what endeared him to Democratic voters around the country in 2018.
O’Rourke, Hale observes, “is something of a blank slate that voters and party elites can project their own policy preferences onto,” a characteristic that can work to his advantage or disadvantage.
Lynn Vavreck, a political scientist at U.C.L.A., looked at the same issue from a different angle:
The ways these races get framed depends a lot on who the candidates are and what their constraints are — if O’Rourke finds himself in a race against another young white male who is inspiring, these things won’t be a strength of his; but if he finds himself running against an older person who isn’t inspiring, they could be.
Vavreck added:
Your constraints are only constraints if your opponent doesn’t share them; and your strengths are only strengths if your opponent doesn’t share them. When there are 16 people vying for the nomination you have to winnow the field to be able to talk sensibly about who has advantages beyond just fund-raising and organization. Are there no other candidates who have “capacity to inspire,” “policy centrism”?
In the current contest, Vavreck declared, “There are. This makes me think that these may not be unique strengths of this candidate!”
Suzanne Model, a sociologist at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst who has written extensively on race and immigration, argues that O’Rourke faces an uphill battle for the nomination:
O’Rourke will do well in the primaries but it is unlikely that he will win. Young, handsome and self-effacing, his charismatic manner will appeal to “non-policy wonks.” This includes traditionally-oriented women, young adults, and political moderates. In addition, his recent pro-immigrant stance, Hispanic sounding name and Texas roots should garner him support among Latinos.
But, Model continued,
O’Rourke’s problem is that he has little appeal to left-leaning voters or African-Americans. They watched the G.O.P. destroy a Democratic president who expressed a willingness to work with Republicans; hence, they seek a candidate who is more experienced, sophisticated and aggressive.
In order to beat Trump, Model contends,
The Democratic standard-bearer must carry a significant proportion of two constituencies: African Americans and working class white males. Under an O’Rourke candidacy, too many African Americans will stay home and too many working class white males will vote for Trump. Perhaps no Democratic candidate is capable of succeeding simultaneously with these two heterogeneous groups, but that is the most plausible route to a Trump defeat.
Which brings us back to the existential question I raised at the beginning of this column: Can Beto O’Rourke beat Donald Trump?
O’Rourke’s fund-raising success will keep him in the contest longer than less fortunate competitors, and the volume of media coverage he elicits is boosting his name recognition, a crucial first step.
G. Elliott Morris, a political data reporter for the Economist, noted on Twitter that O’Rourke has received more cable news coverage in the five days since his announcement than any other candidate during the full post-announcement week. O’Rourke is on a path to get 180 percent of the coverage received by Bernie Sanders, the previous leader on this measure.
While head-to-head polls are still in a larval stage, they do signal the demographic sources of support for the candidates.
The most recent CNN poll, released on Tuesday, shows, for example, that the leader, Joe Biden, at 28 percent overall, gets more support from moderates than from liberals, more from older voters than young voters, more from men than women and more from whites than from minorities. Bernie Sanders, at 20 percent, is just the opposite, stronger among liberals, young voters, minorities and women.
O’Rourke, at 11 percent, has a long way to go to catch up with either Biden or Sanders. But the CNN poll shows that O’Rourke’s supporters tend to be slightly more liberal than moderate, young rather than old, female rather than male, and O’Rourke gets more support from African-Americans and Hispanics than from whites.
In other words, O’Rourke’s backing is tilted to constituencies that are not normally associated with a moderate white Democratic politician whose voting record, by party standards, is on the center-right. If these demographic patterns hold, O’Rourke is competing more directly with Sanders (and Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren) than with Biden.
The Sanders-O’Rourke battle has already begun. Bernie Sanders loyalists have been challenging O’Rourke’s credentials for the past three months as both men seek support from younger voters.
“Forces loyal to Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders are waging an increasingly public war against Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke, the new darling of Democratic activists,” Jonathan Allen and Alex Seitz-Wald of NBC News wrote in December. “O’Rourke’s ability to connect with younger and progressive white voters,” they continued, “puts him in direct competition with the Vermont senator.”
On Tuesday, Sanders announced that he has hired David Sirota, one of O’Rourke’s harshest critics, as a senior adviser and speechwriter. On Dec. 22, Sirota published a 1,700 word denunciation of O’Rourke in The Guardian that concluded,
Another blank-slate Democrat who pretends there is a unifying third way between the 99 percent and the 1 percent and who refuses to take sides in big fights against corporate power — that may excite Betomaniacs, establishment Democrats and those with stakes in the status quo, but it won’t rescue our country and it won’t save the planet.
For a candidate with only a modest record in national politics, O’Rourke faces a daunting but not necessarily insuperable challenge in securing the nomination. His candidacy will be a test of his charisma and “spark,” as Don Fowler put it — of the “decency” and “integrity” that a fair number of voters and observers have commented on — against the more substantial and detailed progressivism of his adversaries, the moderation of still others — and all the things we don’t know about him yet.
Thomas B. Edsall has been a contributor to The Times Opinion section since 2011. His column on strategic and demographic trends in American politics appears every Wednesday. He previously covered politics for The Washington Post. @edsall
“Adolescents don’t think they will get addicted to nicotine, but when they do want to stop, they find it’s very difficult,” says Yale neuroscientist Marina Picciotto, PhD. Recent and past studies show that nicotine can cause physical changes in the teenage brain. – Credit: Getty Image
Yet another “Duh” piece of news that should’ve, could’ve, been addressed properly, the moment big tobacco and vape manufacturers embraced plunged in to the market, and played down its dangers.
Government regulators failed, and are still failing, to protect the public, and especially young people, from the absurdly obvious dangers of nicotine addiction. Corporate lobbyists, from tobacco, and the newly minted “Big Vape,” combined with ignorance, gullibility, and denial, by the users, who think there’s no harm enough to regulate, as they cite industry funded research, are the usual causes. Furthermore, the clueless argument about e-cigarettes helping conventional smokers actually quit tobacco, makes even less sense than giving Methadone to junkies for the last half century. Here’s a great piece on that: Methadone: The Good, Bad, and the Ugly.
As per usual, the U.S. FDA has dragged at a snail’s pace to catch up with the reality, despite warnings by the American Academy of Pediatricians, the American Lung Association, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and numerous qualified studies. While the FDA will be forced to face this issue, the question remains will it be enough, or will it be more of the usual PR half steps like banning only a segment of its sales, and having schools put signs in its bathrooms. The FDA needs to step up and do its job.
For a good background on how we got here, check out the link from The Verge below from 11/16/17, The three links below it are more recent news.
I think there’s valuable instruction here that all of us can use.
Creating Happiness is done in many steps. Only with self awareness can we see where our steps are taking us.
Self Awareness is having a clear perception of your personality, including strengths, weaknesses, thoughts, beliefs, motivation, and emotions. Self Awareness allows you to understand other people, how they perceive you, your attitude and your responses to them in the moment.
We might quickly assume that we are self aware, but it is helpful to have a relative scale for awareness. If you have ever been in an auto accident you may have experienced everything happening in slow motion and noticed details of your thought process and the event. This is a state of heightened awareness. With practice we can learn to engage these types of heightened states and see new opportunities for interpretations in our thoughts, emotions, and conversations. Having awareness creates the opportunity to make changes in behavior and beliefs.
Why Develop Self Awareness?
As you develop self awareness you are able to make changes in the thoughts and interpretations you make in your mind. Changing the interpretations in your mind allows you to change your emotions. Self awareness is one of the attributes of Emotional Intelligence and an important factor in achieving success. Self awareness is the first step in creating what you want and mastering your life. Where you focus your attention, your emotions, reactions, personality and behavior determine where you go in life. Having self awareness allows you to see where your thoughts and emotions are taking you. It also allows you to take control of your emotions, behavior, and personality so you can make changes you want. Until you are aware in the moment of your thoughts, emotions, words, and behavior, you will have difficulty making changes in the direction of your life.
Self Awareness in Relationships
Relationships are easy until there is emotional turmoil. This is the same whether you are at work or in your personal life. When you can change the interpretation in your mind of what you think you can change your emotions and shift the emotional quality of your relationships. When you can change the emotions in your relationships you open up entirely new possibilities in your life.
Having a clear understanding of your thought and, behavior patterns helps you understand other people. This ability to empathize facilitates better personal and professional relationships.
Develop Self Awareness
Self awareness is developed through practices in focusing your attention on the details of your personality and behavior. It isn’t learned from reading a book. When you read a book you are focusing your attention on the conceptual ideas in the book. You can develop an intellectual understanding of the ideas of self awareness from a book, but this is not the same. With your attention in a book you are practicing not paying attention to your own behavior, emotions and personality.
Think of learning to be mindful and self aware as learning to dance. When learning to dance we have to pay attention to how and where our feet move, our hands and body motion, what our partner is doing, music, beat, floor space, and other dancers. Dancing isn’t learned from books and Self Awareness isn’t either. A dancer needs awareness of their body movements. Self awareness is what you develop when you pay attention to your expressions of thought, emotions, and behavior.
When you become more self aware you instinctively begin to see aspects of your personality and behavior that you didn’t notice before.
If you have an emotional reaction of anger or frustration, you notice many of the thoughts and small triggers that build up towards those emotions. You also notice moments when you can change the interpretations in your mind, or not believe what you are thinking. In this heightened awareness you instinctively make better choices in your thought process long before an emotional reaction or destructive behavior.
Making changes in your behavior is much easier to do when you catch them early in the dynamic, before the momentum of thought and emotion has gathered steam. The changes in your mind, and behavior become simple and easy steps when you develop self awareness.
Oh, alright! Here’s what you need to know. Now you can have a conversation with somebody about this mess, and seem all…I dunno…intelligent? Happy now?
But, if you really want to know what the deal is, according to me, make sure you read my thoughts about this…what did I call it…MESS, from my post from 12/12/2018. Then, you’ll really be intelligent!
What Is Brexit? A Simple Guide to Why It Matters and What Happens Next
To live honestly, is to spend quiet time with ourselves doing nothing but thinking about life, and what we feel about it. Deeply, honestly,
I don’t mean some few random minutes of thumbnail introspection, whilst in the throes of passion, perhaps during a conflict or interaction about our strongest beliefs, followed by making a grand statement or two, spoken aloud, or to ourselves, as we putter around the house, doing laundry, or feeding house pets. Anybody can do that.
I mean really devoting specifically directed block of time, of thirty or more minutes, in quiet isolation, on a regular basis, alone with ourselves, free of interruption and distraction, thinking about what we really feel deep inside about who we are, what we want, need, and believe to be most important to help us feel balanced with, and reasonably adjusted to, the complexities, and challenges of life.
It is most important that when spending this time alone to think about who we are, we do so with no pretense, or illusion, on realistic expectations, circumstances beyond our control, or a denial of who we are, innately, instinctively, without apology, guilt, conflict, or hesitancy.
For better or worse, given the benefit or consequences, to face all of this without fear, is the only way to live honestly within oneself. It will help us be who we really are, and it will allow us to live honestly with others.
It is the only way to live.
There is so much good in this article. So much that can help people not be in conflict, and distant from each other. This is just one article, of so many others of this type, that are out there to help all of us overcome roadblocks to peace and understanding in our relationships. Sadly, the bigger roadblock to benefiting from this wisdom is the ego itself that keeps someone from reading it in the first place, or taking it as an instructive moment with a sense of humility about one’s own issues. An ego that leaves no door open to question itself, is an ego with no room for anyone else’s. With that, I ask anyone visiting here to please try and read this post, no matter how much you think you don’t need to. Just try.
Did you ever have a fight that you really didn’t want? It doesn’t have to happen ever again. It may take some practice, but it will work. And, by the way, it will help you with any kind of negotiation or conflict resolution in any place, almost without exception. I’ll even tell you about the few exceptions.
The cause of arguments and fights is lack of mutual, empathic understanding. When empathy is not engaged, then people revert to a self-protective mode and become judgmental. The result is bad feeling on both sides and no happy ending.
Here is how empathy so commonly gets bypassed. We all tend to want to get to the “bottom line,” the solution that will resolve the conflict. That’s exactly the wrong thing to focus on, yet. Imagine that you are feeling short-changed. You dare to say something about it: “I don’t think you are paying your fair share.” Partner is immediately on the defensive and begins to present a case for why he/she did nothing wrong. You don’t agree, but Partner isn’t even listening to the counter-argument. From then on, things escalate unless someone decides to break it off. Either way, nothing is decided.
If that that was a business negotiation. It might result in a compromise, but it wouldn’t leave either party feeling good. What is missing is an understanding of the others’ motivations, likes and dislikes. Why have each of you taken the position you have? This isn’t unfamiliar. We all want to be understood. When you really feel that you understand the other person and they understand you, then it is completely natural to be willing to give and take. In fact, the bottom line becomes easy rather than hard. A happy compromise becomes quite obvious.
So here’s the rule: You are not allowed to say a word about any possible solution until you have a thorough understanding of the other person’s feelings and feel equally understood by them. Until then, you have to keep working towards that understanding.
Of course that is a tough rule, but if you can’t achieve understanding, then you may not have a good outcome. So here’s how to get there.
Understanding feelings is quite unnatural for many of us, especially men. Humans are often not used to understanding their own feelings and would rather fix (can you see the premature bottom line coming?) a problem than understand feelings. They may even have principles against delving into feelings, so it may require some teaching or even convincing at the outset that understanding each other is really the best way to arrive at a win-win. solution. After all, winning is about feeling. It means feeling good about the outcome, and that only happens when you understand and feel understood.
How to do it is to “interview” the other person about his or her feelings, and when you have a thorough understanding, then ask if the other person would like to hear about your point of view.
How to Interview for Feelings
Rule 1: Follow your natural curiosity about why. Why is that important to you? Why is it sooo important? I wonder what makes you feel that way?
Rule 2: Recognize an incomplete answer and keep asking. “Because.” Or “I just feel that way” are not good enough. Those are off-putting non-answers. “Maybe you haven’t thought about it, but I really want to understand how important this is to you and why.”
Rule 3: Be aware of what you still don’t know. “It’s just how I am.” And you respond, “Yes, I hear that, but I’m curious about how you got that way, because it does seem to be a big deal for you.” When I really ‘get it,’ then I’m sure I’ll feel more ready to value your point of view and even make a compromise.”
Rule 4: Wait till you understand before you ask if your partner would like to understand you. They will be feeling better, so they will usually say, “Yes.”
“You know, I think it’s because I am constantly worrying about money. I worry that we’ll run out, even though I know it’s not realistic. And I worry that you aren’t as careful as I am. I always try to limit what I spend, partly to have some left and partly to set an example. I’ve been resenting your spending for a while, but didn’t dare say anything about it. I didn’t understand why you felt that was a good way to use what we’ve earned. Now I do get where you are coming from.”
This is beginning to sound like someone ready to compromise. It took a lot of work to get there, but ending the conversation short of that level of understanding would surely have left underground resentments seething and an unhappy ending.
What are the exceptions? Some people are really dedicated to not knowing their own true feelings. Narcissistic people have trouble admitting to being less than perfect. People whose feelings are too fragile may not be able to cope with full honesty. Young people who are not yet ready to grow to the next level may not be able to look at themselves honestly without judgment. They may need help in getting to the point where they are happier owning the truth than hiding from it. Everyone else will benefit right away from your having the patience to hold back and keep asking till you get to a full, empathic understanding of your partner’s feelings.
“I’m bored.” It’s a puny little phrase, yet it has the power to fill parents with a cascade of dread, annoyance and guilt. If someone around here is bored, someone else must have failed to enlighten or enrich or divert. And how can anyone — child or adult — claim boredom when there’s so much that can and should be done? Immediately.
But boredom is something to experience rather than hastily swipe away. And not as some kind of cruel Victorian conditioning, recommended because it’s awful and toughens you up. Despite the lesson most adults learned growing up — boredom is for boring people — boredom is useful. It’s good for you.
If kids don’t figure this out early on, they’re in for a nasty surprise. School, let’s face it, can be dull, and it isn’t actually the teacher’s job to entertain as well as educate. Life isn’t meant to be an endless parade of amusements. “That’s right,” a mother says to her daughter in Maria Semple’s 2012 novel, “Where’d You Go, Bernadette.” “You are bored. And I’m going to let you in on a little secret about life. You think it’s boring now? Well, it only gets more boring. The sooner you learn it’s on you to make life interesting, the better off you’ll be.”
People used to accept that much of life was boring. Memoirs of pre-21st-century life are rife with tedium. When not idling in drawing rooms, members of the leisured class took long walks and stared at trees. They went motoring and stared at more trees. Those who had to work had it a lot harder. Agricultural and industrial jobs were often mind-numbing; few people were looking to be fulfilled by paid labor. Children could expect those kinds of futures and they got used to the idea from an early age, left unattended with nothing but bookshelves and tree branches, and later, bad afternoon television.
Only a few short decades ago, during the lost age of underparenting, grown-ups thought a certain amount of boredom was appropriate. And children came to appreciate their empty agendas. In an interview with GQ magazine, Lin-Manuel Miranda credited his unattended afternoons with fostering inspiration. “Because there is nothing better to spur creativity than a blank page or an empty bedroom,” he said.
Nowadays, subjecting a child to such inactivity is viewed as a dereliction of parental duty. In a much-read story in The Times, “The Relentlessness of Modern Parenting,” Claire Cain Miller cited a recent study that found that regardless of class, income or race, parents believed that “children who were bored after school should be enrolled in extracurricular activities, and that parents who were busy should stop their task and draw with their children if asked.”
Every spare moment is to be optimized, maximized, driven toward a goal.
When not being uberparented, kids today are left to their own devices — their own digital devices, that is. Parents preparing for a long car ride or airplane trip are like Army officers plotting a complicated land maneuver. Which movies to load onto the iPad? Should we start a new family-friendly podcast? Is this an O.K. time to let the kids play Fortnite until their brains melt into the back seat? What did parents in the ’70s do when kids were bored in the way-back? Nothing! They let them breathe in gas fumes. Torture their siblings. And since it wasn’t actually for wearing, play with the broken seatbelt.
If you complained about being bored back then, you were really asking for it. “Go outside,” you might get, or worse, “Clean your room.” Was this fun? No. Was it helpful? Yes.
Because things happen when you’re bored. Some of the most boring jobs I’ve had were also the most creative. Working at an import factory after school, I pasted photos of ugly Peruvian sweaters onto sales sheets. My hands became encrusted with glue as the sweaters blurred into a clumpy sameness. For some reason, everything smelled like molasses. My mind had no choice but to drift into an elaborate fantasy realm. It’s when you are bored that stories set in. Checking out groceries at the supermarket, I invented narratives around people’s purchases. The man buying eggplant and a six-pack of Bud at 9 p.m.: Which was the must-get item and which the impulse purchase? How did my former fifth-grade teacher feel about my observing her weekly purchase of Nutter Butters?
Once you’ve truly settled into the anesthetizing effects of boredom, you find yourself en route to discovery. With monotony, small differences begin to emerge, between those trees, those sweaters. This is why so many useful ideas occur in the shower, when you’re held captive to a mundane activity. You let your mind wander and follow it where it goes.
Of course, it’s not really the boredom itself that’s important; it’s what we do with it. When you reach your breaking point, boredom teaches you to respond constructively, to make something happen for yourself. But unless we are faced with a steady diet of stultifying boredom, we never learn how.
The idea isn’t that you suffer through crushing tedium indefinitely like Neville (“N is for Neville who died of ennui”) of “The Gashlycrumb Tinies.” It’s that you learn how to vanquish it. This may come in several forms: You might turn inward and use the time to think. You might reach for a book. You might imagine your way to a better job. Boredom leads to flights of fancy. But ultimately, to self-discipline. To resourcefulness.
The ability to handle boredom, not surprisingly, is correlated with the ability to focus and to self-regulate. Research has shown that people with attention disorders are particularly prone to boredom. It makes sense that in a hyperstimulating world, what at first seems captivating now feels less so; what was once mildly diverting may now be flat-out dull.
It’s especially important that kids get bored — and be allowed to stay bored — when they’re young. That it not be considered “a problem” to be avoided or eradicated by the higher-ups, but instead something kids grapple with on their own.
We’ve stopped training children to do this. Rather than teach them to absorb material that is slower, duller and decidedly two-dimensional, like a lot of worthwhile information is, schools cave in to what they say children expect: fun. Teachers spend more time concocting ways to “engage” students through visuals and “interactive learning” (read: screens, games) tailored to their Candy Crushed attention spans. Kids won’t listen to long lectures, goes the argument, so it’s on us to serve up learning in easier-to-swallow portions.
But surely teaching children to endure boredom rather than ratcheting up the entertainment will prepare them for a more realistic future, one that doesn’t raise false expectations of what work or life itself actually entails. One day, even in a job they otherwise love, our kids may have to spend an entire day answering Friday’s leftover email. They may have to check spreadsheets. Or assist robots at a vast internet-ready warehouse.
This sounds boring, you might conclude. It sounds like work, and it sounds like life. Perhaps we should get used to it again, and use it to our benefit. Perhaps in an incessant, up-the-ante world, we could do with a little less excitement.
Pamela Paul is the editor of the Book Review and a co-author of the forthcoming book “How to Raise a Reader.”
I barely remember this film for many of the reasons cited in this effectively illustrative review. Reading now, I am on my mission to seek it out and live through everything that writer Petra Mayer describes here. I was a prime audience member of the Monkees time on the public stage, both during and after their heyday, including most poignantly, the national and world events attached to their demise. Deep chords struck.
If you’re of my vintage, perhaps you will be too. Read the article, and find the movie to watch. Here’s a link on YouTube that might go away eventually, so check it out if you can in time.
In Head, the Monkees made a play for creative and cultural respect. Did it work? No. Was it a strangely great movie? Heck yeah.
Photo by Moviestore/Shutterstock
I don’t think, as a teenage fangirl, that I realized exactly how bitter, how cynical, how teeth-grittingly furious the Monkees’ 1968 movie Head is. How it starts with — more or less — a suicide: Micky Dolenz running in a panic through a municipal ribbon-cutting ceremony and taking a leap off of a shiny new suspension bridge, tumbling through the air and crashing into the water to the stately chords of “Porpoise Song” while the rest of the band watches in consternation from the railing. How it ends the same way, except this time it’s all four of them jumping. How the Gerry Goffin-penned lyrics that play over both scenes go “a face, a voice/an overdub has no choice, an image cannot rejoice.”
Washington state social worker Alan Naiman, photographed in 2013, left most of his $11 million estate to children’s charities.
Friends remember Washington state social worker Alan Naiman as being frugal. He wore old shoes held together with duct tape, bought his apparel at the grocery store, drove jalopies and ate at cheap restaurants. But when he died of cancer in January 2018, at age 63, the people around him learned that he had quietly saved millions for a higher cause.
Naiman left most of his $11 million estate to organizations serving abandoned, impoverished, sick and disabled children.
“He left it all to charities — mostly to kids, the section of society that couldn’t really help themselves,” his friend Shashi Karan told NPR.
Naiman had no spouse or biological children. But his elder brother, who was disabled and died in 2013, “kind of colored the way he looked at things,” his friend Susan Madsen told The Associated Press.
Before spending two decades at Washington’s Department of Social and Health Services, where he reportedly earned about $67,200 a year, Naiman was a banker.
“He made a career change into social services probably around the time he was fostering,” Washington State Department of Children, Youth and Families spokeswoman Debra Johnson told NPR. A dedicated and valued employee, he shared fond memories of the children he fostered, she said.
Despite living a modest life, he amassed a great deal of wealth by saving his work wages, taking on side jobs and inheriting millions from his parents.
Before he was diagnosed with cancer, Naiman thought about taking more road trips or moving to a house with a view, Karan said. But those dreams receded after the diagnosis. Instead, he spent his time researching charities.
He would joke that he was doing “work at the foundation,” alluding to Microsoft founder and billionaire philanthropist Bill Gates, Karan said.
Naiman was buoyed by the knowledge that he was leaving the organizations his money. Karan recalled to CNN that Naiman said, ” ‘My gift is going to be bigger than their annual budget. It’s going to blow them away.’
He was right.
Naiman gave a reported $2.5 million to a Washington state charity that helps newborns who were exposed to opiates, cocaine and other drugs.
“We first became aware of Alan’s generosity last fall when we received a $10,000 donation from him online,” the Pediatric Interim Care Center said. “Thinking that large amount might be a mistake, we called him to make sure he had entered the right number of zeroes! Yes, he told us, the donation was right, and there would be more to come in the future.”
Naiman then wrote a letter to staff that explained why: One frantic night in the early days of his career at the Department of Social and Health Services, he was trying to find a home for a fragile baby. The center’s founder came to his office to take the child.
The organization announced that it would use the funds to pay off the mortgage on its building.
Naiman also surprised a foster care group called Treehouse, Chief Development Officer Jessica Ross told NPR. He made a first-time donation of $5,000 in the months before he died — a lot of money to the organization. “Then, shortly after his passing, we learned he would be donating an additional $900,000. The donation is completely unexpected,” she said.
He told staff that he brought his foster children on shopping sprees at Treehouse’s free clothing store.
The money will help fund a planned expansion of a graduation support program as well as career services for fostered youth, Ross said.
Other children’s charities that made Naiman’s cut included Little Bit Therapeutic Riding Center, which provides therapeutic horseback riding for people with disabilities, and WestSide Baby, which distributes new and used items to low-income families.
Naiman also gave money to his parents’ Catholic church and to Disabled American Veterans, according to Karan.
“For someone to live their life the way Alan did — and then leave a legacy like this to so many worthy organizations — is an inspiration,” Ross said. “We’re so thankful to be a part of this. What a generous, loving man.”
FILE – In this July 27, 2018, file photo, the Dave Johnson coal-fired power plant is silhouetted against the morning sun in Glenrock, Wyo.
This is an update on the earlier NYTimes article/post from September. There are so many areas to fight back and resist this President’s actions against the environment. If you choose one fight against this administration, make it this one.
By ELLEN KNICKMEYER, AP News, December 29, 2018
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration has targeted an Obama-era regulation credited with helping dramatically reduce toxic mercury pollution from coal-fired power plants, saying the benefits to human health and the environment may not be worth the cost of the regulation.
The 2011 Obama administration rule, called the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, led to what electric utilities say was an $18 billion clean-up of mercury and other toxins from the smokestacks of coal-fired power plants.
Overall, environmental groups say, federal and state efforts have cut mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants by 85 percent in roughly the last decade.
Mercury causes brain damage, learning disabilities and other birth defects in children, among other harm. Coal power plants in this country are the largest single manmade source of mercury pollutants, which enters the food chain through fish and other items that people consume.
The proposal Friday from the Environmental Protection Agency challenges the basis for the Obama regulation. It calculates that the crackdown on mercury and other toxins from coal plants produced only a few million dollars a year in measurable health benefits and was not “appropriate and necessary” — a legal benchmark under the country’s landmark Clean Air Act.
The proposal, which now goes up for public comment before any final administration approval, would leave the current mercury regulation in place.
However, the EPA said it will seek comment during a 60-day public-review period on whether “we would be obligated to rescind” the Obama-era rule if the agency adopts Friday’s finding that the regulation was not appropriate and necessary. Any such change would trigger new rounds in what have already been years of court battles over regulating mercury pollution from coal plants.
This move is the latest by the Trump administration that changes estimates of the costs and payoffs of regulations as part of an overhaul of Obama-era environmental protections.
It’s also the administration’s latest proposed move on behalf of the U.S. coal industry, which has been struggling in the face of competition from natural gas and other cheaper, cleaner forms of energy. The Trump administration in August proposed an overhaul for another Obama-era regulation that would have prodded electricity providers to get less of their energy from dirtier-burning coal plants.
In a statement, the EPA said Friday the administration was “providing regulatory certainty” by more accurately estimating the costs and benefits of the Obama administration crackdown on mercury and other toxic emissions from smokestacks.
Hal Quinn, head of the National Mining Association, charged in a statement Friday that the Obama administration had carried out “perhaps the largest regulatory accounting fraud perpetrated on American consumers” when it calculated that the broad health benefits to Americans would outweigh the cost of equipment upgrades by power providers.
Sen. Tom Carper of Delaware, the top Democrat on the Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee, condemned the Trump administration’s move.
The EPA has “decided to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory” after the successful clean-up of toxins from the country’s coal-plant smokestacks, Carper said.
He and other opponents of the move said the Trump administration was playing with numbers, ignoring what Carper said were clear health, environmental and economic benefits to come up with a bottom line that suited the administration’s deregulatory aims.
Janet McCabe, a former air-quality official in the Obama administration’s EPA, called the proposal part of “the quiet dismantling of the regulatory framework” for the federal government’s environmental protections.
Coming one week into a government shutdown, and in the lull between Christmas and New Year, “this low-key announcement shouldn’t fool anyone — it is a big deal, with significant implications,” McCabe said.
I don’t wonder too much why this is the case. The U.S is famous for getting tied up by corporate lobbyists, stifling bureaucracy, and a wholly inefficient, meek FDA. Further insult to public health is the plain greed of sellouts to corporations rich enough to pay for whatever they want.
This small list is a trifle of the much larger list of banned foods, chemical, and agri products that are banned, not only in Europe, but here in our own California, stateside.
Want to know what’s likely safe for public health, and what’s likely not? Don’t look at our federal regulations. Look at Europe, and then look at California.
The European Union prohibits many food additives and various drugs that are widely used in American foods.
By Roni Caryn Rabin, NYTimes
Q. What foods are banned in Europe that are not banned in the United States, and what are the implications of eating those foods?
A. The European Union prohibits or severely restricts many food additives that have been linked to cancer that are still used in American-made bread, cookies, soft drinks and other processed foods. Europe also bars the use of several drugs that are used in farm animals in the United States, and many European countries limit the cultivation and import of genetically modified foods.
“In some cases, food-processing companies will reformulate a food product for sale in Europe” but continue to sell the product with the additives in the United States, said Lisa Y. Lefferts, senior scientist at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a food safety advocacy organization.
A 1958 amendment to the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act prohibits the Food and Drug Administration from approving food additives that are linked to cancer, but an agency spokeswoman said that many substances that were in use before passage of the amendment, known as the Delaney amendment, are considered to have had prior approval and “therefore are not regulated as food additives.”
In October, the F.D.A. agreed to ban six artificial flavoring substances shown to cause cancer in animals, following petitions and a lawsuit filed by the Center for Science in the Public Interest and other organizations. The F.D.A. insists the six artificial flavors “do not pose a risk to public health,” but concedes that the law requires it not approve the food additives. Food companies will have at least two years to remove them from their products.
Here’s a short list of some of the food additives restricted by the European Union but allowed in American foods. Most must be listed as ingredients on the labels, though information about drugs used to increase the yield in farm animals is generally not provided.
Potassium bromate and azodicarbonamide (ADA)
These additives are commonly added to baked goods, but neither is required, and both are banned in Europe because they may cause cancer. In recent years, some American restaurant chains have responded to consumer pressure and removed them from their food.
Potassium bromate is often added to flour used in bread, rolls, cookies, buns, pastry dough, pizza dough and other items to make the dough rise higher and give it a white glow. The International Agency for Research on Cancer considers it a possible human carcinogen, and the Center for Science in the Public Interest petitioned the F.D.A. to ban it nearly 20 years ago. The F.D.A. says potassium bromate has been in use since before the Delaney amendment on carcinogenic food additives was passed.
Azodicarbonamide, or ADA, which is used as a whitening agent in cereal flour and as a dough conditioner, breaks down during baking into chemicals that cause cancer in lab animals. It is used by many chain restaurants that serve sandwiches and buns. The Center for Science in the Public Interest has urged the F.D.A. to bar its use. The F.D.A. says it is safe in limited amounts.
BHA and BHT
The flavor enhancers and preservatives BHA and BHT are subject to severe restrictions in Europe but are widely used in American food products. While evidence on BHT is mixed, BHA is listed in a United States government report on carcinogens as “reasonably anticipated” to be a human carcinogen.
Brominated Vegetable Oil (BVO)
BVO is used in some citrus-flavored soft drinks like Mountain Dew and in some sports drinks to prevent separation of ingredients, but it is banned in Europe. It contains bromine, the element found in brominated flame retardants, and studies suggest it can build up in the body and can potentially lead to memory loss and skin and nerve problems. An F.D.A. spokeswoman said it is safe in limited amounts, and that the agency would take action “should new safety studies become available that raise questions about the safety of BVO.”
Yellow food dyes No. 5 and No. 6, and Red Dye No. 40
These dyes can be used in foods sold in Europe, but the products must carry a warning saying the coloring agents “may have an adverse effect on activity and attention in children.” No such warning is required in the United States, though the Center for Science in the Public Interest petitioned the F.D.A. in 2008 to ban the dyes. Consumers can try to avoid the dyes by reading lists of ingredients on labels, “but they’re used in so many things you wouldn’t even think of, not just candy and icing and cereal, but things like mustard and ketchup,” marshmallows, chocolate, and breakfast bars that appear to contain fruit, Ms. Lefferts, the food safety scientist, said.
The F.D.A.’s website says reactions to food coloring are rare, but acknowledges that yellow dye No. 5, used widely in drinks, desserts, processed vegetables and drugs, may cause itching and hives.
Farm Animal Drugs
The European Union also bans some drugs that are used on farm animals in the United States, citing health concerns. These drugs include bovine growth hormone, which the United States dairy industry uses to increase milk production. The European Union also does not allow the drug ractopamine, used in the United States to increase weight gain in pigs, cattle and turkeys before slaughter, saying that “risks to human health cannot be ruled out.” An F.D.A. spokeswoman said the drugs are safe.
Everyone is entitled to their own definition. Some may abide by more liberal views. Some are more constrained. Some of us put weight in demonstrative actions. Others treasure words, and expressions.
The ways we develop, recognize, and show romantic love, may differ in ways among the billions of people on this planet, but I believe there are qualities, and behaviors that are universal within all of us. The universal qualities are the things I hold dearest, and most deeply, when I define romantic love, and what it means to me.
To love someone. To really love someone, is to make them the center of your universe. I add the word, “really”, to emphasize this emotional state, because there are too many cases of this word, “love”, being used to describe other states of attraction, and attachment that are not the deep and committed love I’m sharing here.
Making someone the center of your universe, is as huge as it sounds. It is a tremendous magnetic pull on your life, that not only bathes you in its warmth and sunlight, but also shades parts of your life, that otherwise would exist, if not thrive, autonomously. This is the part of love that has no finish line. There’s no immediate reward that can be calculated. It’s a philosophical acceptance that requires sacrifice of the one, for the greater good of the two.
This is not to say that sacrifices should abound, and autonomy forsaken. Quite the contrary. A deeply committed love should always accommodate deep individual needs. What are we to each other, if we are nothing to ourselves?
But we are not all dovetailed parts that fit nicely into one another. We all have rough edges that need sanding, odd sizes, and shapes that need work because they don’t match up. Skilled carpenters get paid to make beautiful custom furniture. An alliance of true love, requires no less. We must be willing to be carpenters.
Thinking, about this headline. Thinking, I agree. Thinking, that one, one of the key issues for my distaste of Trump, may very well have been his association with the Right side of government, and it’s ideology. In this regard, the question to all of us left of center and beyond, is how we’d have been, would be, with a left sided Trump? I know my answer. What’s yours?
Thing is, Trump’s problem, mostly, is that he’s… hmmm… an imbecile.
For me, being politically incorrect is generally more of a good thing, than bad. For that, Trump gets decent marks. The country, humanity even, deserves, needs, a departure from the old line boilerplate politician that essentially took over this country after the WWII.
This isn’t the place for that longish essay. It’s just a shortcut sentence to my point, and this article below.
Again, the issue with Trump… he’s an imbecile. We don’t need that.
Heading into the 2020 Democratic primaries, a new NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll has a warning for Democrats: Americans are largely against the country becoming more politically correct.
Fifty-two percent of Americans, including a majority of independents, said they are against the country becoming more politically correct and are upset that there are too many things people can’t say anymore. About a third said they are in favor of the country becoming more politically correct and like when people are being more sensitive in their comments about others.
It certainly is true that Brexit, and the relationship with the EU is complicated. But, the reasons why this leave/don’t leave conflict has become a two year long fiasco mess that it is today, is not as complicated.
The general public, the voting masses of citizens, the vast electorate, the rank and file, the mainstream who hold ordinary jobs, many who struggle to provide, survive, and most importantly, do not own a life of politics, all too often fail to study a societal problem to the depths it requires.
Ignorance, naïveté, laziness, misguided trust, or, even given proper analysis, just flawed reasoning, all fill the bucket of excuses that explains these events.
Combine these habitual very human shortfalls with millions of impassioned, clashing opinions, and you get a vortex of downward spiraling conflicts that drags everything into it.
Politicians, government legislators, for all their flaws, their corruption, their weaknesses, their lies, and their greed, are genuinely driven, dedicated individuals, who have a very specific job to do. Research, study, and analyze a problem or situation, and form an informed opinion of action to address that situation or problem. Whether their ultimate position serves them, or their constituents selfishly, or with a measure of greater good thinking, is besides the point.
The definition, or outcome, of right or wrong is not relevant. The point is, there was a very specific, step by step process that is undertaken to help make a decision, take a stand, or propose a solution to the situation or problem.
In the UK, as in the U.S., and increasingly, around the world, the citizenry aggregate, is unwilling, uncommitted, to put the same work into understanding and executing this same process before they present their own opinions.
Until this changes, there will be more crisis and havoc before there is resolution and stability.
MB
Theresa May Survives Leadership Challenge, but Brexit Plan Is Still in Peril
Two and a half years after Britain’s referendum on whether to leave the European Union, the country remains divided. We met with voters on both sides of the debate — those who voted to leave and now feel betrayed, and those campaigning for a second referendum
By Stephen Castle, NYTimes
LONDON — Britain’s prime minister, Theresa May, survived the gravest threat yet to her embattled leadership on Wednesday, winning a party confidence vote and averting a leadership battle that threatened to plunge the country into prolonged crisis.
But the victory celebration, if any, is likely to be short-lived.
While Mrs. May survived to fight another day, the future of her stalled plan to leave the European Union looked bleaker than ever.
She still lacks the votes in Parliament to pass it. She stands little chance of winning the concessions from Europe that she needs to break the logjam.
And the surprisingly strong vote against her within her own party underscores the difficulty she faces in winning approval for any plan for Britain to leave Europe, or Brexit, as the deadline for withdrawal looms.
For one moment, however, after a week of humiliating setbacks, the prime minister could savor her win.
Prime Minister Theresa May outside 10 Downing Street after she survived a confidence vote on Wednesday.
“Here is our renewed mission,” she said outside her offices at 10 Downing Street after the vote on Wednesday. “Delivering the Brexit that people voted for, bringing the country back together and building a country that truly works for everyone.”
But even that moment was tempered by loss.
Mrs. May won the vote only after promising that she would step aside soon after the Brexit agonies were over, according to reports from a meeting of Conservative Party lawmakers preceding the vote. That pledge removed the generally unwelcome possibility that she would stand as party leader in the next general election.
Mrs. May, said George Freeman, a Conservative lawmaker, had made clear “that she has listened, heard and respects the will of the party that once she has delivered an orderly Brexit, she will step aside for the election of a new leader.”
In the vote on Wednesday, on a confidence motion called by her own Conservative Party, Mrs. May won the support of 200 Conservative lawmakers, while 117 voted against her. The protest vote exceeded many forecasts, and is expected to compound her difficulties in Parliament, where her enemies were already pressuring her.
“This was a terrible result for the prime minister,” said Jacob Rees-Mogg, a leader of the hard-line pro-Brexit faction.
The vote does give her some breathing room. Under the Conservative Party’s rules, she cannot be challenged again by her own lawmakers for another year, which at least offers some stability for moving the Brexit plan forward. Had she lost, the Conservatives would have been thrust into a divisive, drawn-out process that would have stretched well into the next month.
Graham Brady, the chairman of the 1922 committee, the body that represents Conservative backbenchers, announcing that Theresa May survived the confidence vote.
The delay would have threatened the country’s ability to reach a deal by the March deadline, potentially resulting in the messy prospect of a no-deal Brexit.
Nevertheless the victory came at a price, laying bare the opposition within her own party ranks to Mrs. May, who leads a government that has no parliamentary majority.
The confidence vote was called after weeks of discord when at least 48 Conservative lawmakers submitted the letters of protest required to force it. Mrs. May canceled a trip to Dublin where she had hoped to talk to her Irish counterpart, Leo Varadkar, about changes that might help build support in the British Parliament for her Brexit proposals.
But it had already been clear that she was in deep political trouble, battered from multiple directions by her management of the European Union withdrawal. In particular, many hard-line Brexit supporters within her party believed she was not making a complete enough break with the bloc.
In recent days, she suffered two embarrassing setbacks. Last week, the House of Commons voted her government in contempt of Parliament — the first time any prime minister had been censured in that way — for failing to release the advice her government’s lawyers had given on Brexit.
And on Monday, she postponed a vote on the Brexit agreement she had negotiated with the European Union, acknowledging that it stood to be defeated by “a significant margin.” In fact, lawmakers say, views on the topic, which has dominated British politics for nearly three years, are so fragmented that no approach has majority support in Parliament, and probably not even among Conservatives.
May’s Brexit Deal Is Probably Still Going to Fail. What Happens Then?
Nobody knows, really. But these are the likeliest scenarios.
Mrs. May argued Wednesday morning that the only beneficiaries of a vote of no confidence would be the opposition Labour Party.
Having survived it, she now faces an uphill task to garner sufficient support for her withdrawal agreement with the European Union, a lengthy legal document that Brussels has warned is the only deal on the table.
John Springford, deputy director of the Center for European Reform, a London-based research institute, said that the size of the vote against her “is an even clearer signal that she won’t be able to get her deal through Parliament, and makes it even more likely that when she puts the deal to the vote she will lose that.”
On Thursday she is scheduled to travel to Brussels to meet leaders of the 27 other European Union countries to try to secure some reassurances that might help her win a vote on the Brexit plans. She has promised to allow lawmakers to decide the matter by Jan. 21. If there is no agreement then, Britain could be facing a chaotic departure on March 29.
Or not. There could be a second referendum, a mutually agreed extension of the negotiating period or even, as Mrs. May has warned her party, no Brexit at all. What does not seem to be in the cards, for now, at least, is the general election that the opposition Labour Party leader, Jeremy Corbyn, has been angling for throughout the Brexit process.
While Mrs. May has maintained a public face of optimism over securing some pledges from the European Union intended to reassure her own lawmakers, she is unlikely to win any game-changing concessions.
Mrs. May in the House of Commons on Wednesday
Her strategy appears to be to delay the critical vote — now probably in the middle of January — and to hope that the growing risk of a disorderly departure brings some lawmakers back into line. But many doubt that will work.
“Clearly, her last throw of the dice is count down the clock and try to bounce people into voting for it,” Mr. Springford said. “But I am not convinced she will win that vote. I don’t think that she can get meaningful concessions from the European Union that would be enough to get her over the line.
“The best hope is that everybody calms down over Christmas, that they start to really worry about no deal, and that some more moderate people signal that they will support her. But everyone is now so high up their pole that I am not sure they can climb down.”
In Brussels, diplomats said they could see little benefit from Mrs. May’s travails, and that no new British leader would be able to change the fundamentals of the 585-page divorce agreement negotiated so painfully.
That applies to the so-called backstop that the pro-Brexit lawmakers are particularly incensed about. That provision would insure the free movement of goods over the Irish border in the event that a free-trade agreement is not reached in the two-year transition period after Brexit. What is especially galling for the Brexiteers is that it would continue indefinitely, or until the European Union decides it is no longer needed.
The main fear is that there is no majority in Parliament for any kind of Brexit deal, one diplomat said, speaking on condition of anonymity according to diplomatic protocol.
“Even the funny elements of this are actually tragic,” said another diplomat. “I still hope Beckett, Kafka and Havel are not those who will finish writing this piece.”
Steven Erlanger contributed reporting from Brussels.
Products that we enjoy continue to create privacy, misinformation and workplace issues. We can do better at getting the industry to do better.
Via NYTimes, By Brian X. Chen
It has never felt worse to be a technology consumer. So what can you do about it?
That’s the question of the year after many of the biggest tech companies were mired in scandal after scandal or exposed as having committed necessary evils to offer the products and services that we have so blissfully enjoyed.
Those instant Amazon deliveries? They sure are convenient, but Amazon warehouse workers in Europe protested the company during Black Friday, describing their working conditions as inhuman.
You might have considered deleting Facebook after the social network confessed that Cambridge Analytica, a political consulting firm, had improperly obtained the data of millions of users. If that didn’t convince you, maybe the security breach exposing the data of 30 million Facebook accounts did.
All of this bad behavior circles back to you. We are the buyers, users and supporters of the products and services that help Big Tech thrive.
So what do we do at this point to become more ethical consumers?
“I think this is an incredibly powerful question to ask,” said Jim Steyer, chief executive of Common Sense Media, a nonprofit that focuses on technology’s impact on families. “It’s a very important moment where consumer behavior can have a transformational impact.”
I talked to a broad range of people — ethicists, activists, environmentalists and others — about how to become a more empowered, socially responsible tech consumer. Here’s what they agreed on.
Boycott and Shame
First and foremost, when tech does you wrong, one of the most powerful ways to protest is to take your business elsewhere and ask your friends and family to go along.
Last year, hundreds of thousands of customers abandoned Uber in favor of alternatives like Lyft after the ride-hailing company’s many scandals, including repeated accusations that it turned a blind eye to sexual harassment. That choice became a movement known as #DeleteUber. This year, people frustrated with Facebook took part in a #DeleteFacebook campaign.
The financial impact of these actions may not have been huge. Uber continues to grow (while still losing money) as it marches toward an initial public offering. Facebook has reported increased profits, though its user growth has slowed.
Even so, damage to a brand may have plenty of repercussions because it motivates the company to change its behavior, Mr. Steyer said. Both Uber and Facebook, facing enormous pressure, have modified some of their practices and committed to improvements.
“Sometimes shame is one of the most important arrows in your quiver,” Mr. Steyer said.
Give Up Convenience for Independence
We can also take the path less traveled — that is, take our data and money to products made by more ethical vendors.
Many people have hesitated to delete Facebook because doing so felt futile. Facebook is an all-in-one place for discovering local events, reading news, watching videos and staying connected to friends and family. The company also owns Instagram and WhatsApp, two of the largest photo-sharing and messaging services.
Pulling the plug on Facebook is a hassle, but not impossible. Taking on the challenge of finding alternatives is an example of how people can give up some convenience in exchange for individual empowerment, said Shahid Buttar, a director of grass-roots advocacy for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital rights nonprofit.
There is no direct replacement for something as convenient as Facebook. But if you go piecemeal, Mr. Buttar said, there are options. These include using an RSS reader, a software tool for getting a comprehensive feed of news sources that are self-curated; messaging people with a service like Signal, which is open-source software; and looking up events on organizing services like Meetup.
The same approach can be applied to Google if you take issue with its behavior. While Google offers a comprehensive suite of web services, including news, email and maps, you could switch to an alternative for each of those products.
A chief example: When ordering from Amazon or other online retailers, think twice before you opt for same-day or overnight delivery, even if it’s free. Other than the human toll of fast service, which has included miscarriages by pregnant workers at Verizon warehouses, there is an environmental impact.
A rush shipment could involve multiple vehicles and various facilities before it gets to your door. So pause and ask yourself if you actually need that smartphone or scented candle tomorrow. If you can wait, choose no-rush delivery, which could take about a week.
You can reduce your environmental impact further by delaying how often you upgrade technology. That can be achieved by regular maintenance of devices, including smartphones, laptops and tablets.
Vincent Lai, who works for the Fixers’ Collective, a social club in New York that repairs aging devices, said people could become more empowered by repairing, maintaining and modifying products to escape the upgrade cycle that tech companies impose.
When your smartphone seems to be slowing down, for instance, take steps to speed it back up by purging some photos and apps to clear storage, replacing an aging battery or reinstalling the operating system.
“One of the things you can do to be more responsible is to take greater ownership of your stuff,” Mr. Lai said.
Think About Your Friends
The Cambridge Analytica scandal this year illustrates our responsibility to think about others, not just ourselves, when using technology.
When Cambridge Analytica worked with a researcher who distributed a questionnaire app on Facebook to about 270,000 Americans, people who responded to the questions unwittingly shared data about their Facebook friends. As a result, the personal information of 87 million people was harvested to create voter profiles and to target political messages.
The sharing of friends’ data might have been prevented if Facebook users had been aware of their privacy settings. One now-defunct setting was called Apps Others Use, which controlled the information that your friends shared about you when they used apps, including your birthday or hometown.
In other words, if people had disabled Apps Others Use, Cambridge Analytica most likely couldn’t have collected the data of their friends. More important, if those who took the quiz were aware of the potential of sharing information about their friends, they might have opted not to participate.
But how can you be more conscious of your actions when technology is so confusing in the first place?
Education is key. Mr. Buttar said a network of 85 groups that make up the Electronic Frontier Foundation Alliance hosted workshops across the United States that taught people more about issues like digital privacy and data protection. And many online forums and publications track these issues closely.
The bottom line is that you are not alone. And if a company makes it too difficult for you and your friends to stay safe while staying connected, you can leave.
“If you’re really uncomfortable with the values of a company, don’t use their product,” Mr. Steyer said.
Read more about how to keep yourself safe and be less wasteful with technology.
Brian X. Chen is the lead consumer technology writer. He reviews products and writes Tech Fix, a column about solving tech-related problems.
WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is expected on Tuesday to unveil a plan that would weaken federal clean water rules designed to protect millions of acres of wetlands and thousands of miles of streams nationwide from pesticide runoff and other pollutants.
Environmentalists say the proposal represents a historic assault on wetlands regulation at a moment when Mr. Trump has repeatedly voiced a commitment to “crystal-clean water.” The proposed new rule would chip away at safeguards put in place a quarter century ago, during the administration of President George H.W. Bush, who implemented a policy designed to ensure that no wetlands lost federal protection.
“They’re definitely rolling things back to the pre-George H.W. Bush era,” said Blan Holman, who works on water regulations with the Southern Environmental Law Center. Wetlands play key roles in filtering surface water and protecting against floods, while also providing wildlife habitat.
President Trump, who made a pledge of weakening a 2015 Obama-era rule one of his central campaign pledges, is expected to tout his plan as ending a federal land grab that impinged on the rights of farmers, rural landowners and real estate developers to use their property as they see fit.
Under the Obama rule, farmers using land near streams and wetlands were restricted from doing certain kinds of plowing and planting certain crops, and would have been required to apply for permits from the Environmental Protection Agency in order to use chemical pesticides and fertilizers that could have run off into those water bodies. Under the new Trump plan, which lifts federal protections from many of those streams and wetlands, those requirements will also be lifted.
A spokesman for the Environmental Protection Agency, John Konkus, declined to comment on the plan.
The clean water rollback is the latest in a series of actions by the Trump administration to weaken or undo major environmental rules, including proposals to weaken regulations on planet-warming emissions from cars, power plants and oil and gas drilling rigs, a series of moves designed to speed new drilling in the vast Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and efforts to weaken protections under the Endangered Species Act. This week in Katowice, Poland, at an annual United Nations conference on mitigating global warming, Trump administration officials held an event touting the benefits of fossil fuels.
The proposed water rule, scheduled to be announced Tuesday morning at the Environmental Protection Agency, is designed to replace an Obama-era regulation known as Waters of the United States. Tuesday’s unveiling of the proposal is expected to coincide with its publication in the federal register. After that, the administration will take comment on the plan for 60 days, and it could then revise the plan before finalizing it next year.
The Obama rule, developed jointly by the E.P.A. and the Army Corps of Engineers under the authority of the 1972 Clean Water Act, was designed to limit pollution in about 60 percent of the nation’s bodies of water, protecting sources of drinking water for about a third of the United States. It extended existing federal authority to limit pollution in large bodies of water, like the Chesapeake Bay and Puget Sound, to smaller bodies that drain into them, such as tributaries, streams and wetlands.
But it became a target for rural landowners, an important part of President Trump’s political base, since it could have restricted how much pollution from chemical fertilizers and pesticides could seep into water on their property.
The new Trump water rule will retain federal protections for those larger bodies of water, the rivers that drain into them, and wetlands that are directly adjacent to those bodies of water, according to a detailed eight-page fact sheet prepared by the administration ahead of the unveiling of the rule and reviewed by The New York Times.
But it will strip away protections of so-called “ephemeral” streams, in which water runs only during or after rainfalls, and of wetlands that are not adjacent to major bodies of water, or connected to such bodies of water by a surface channel of water. Those changes represent a victory for farmers and rural landowners, who lobbied the Trump administration aggressively to make them.
“The Obama administration led with the premise that all water is connected, all water runs downhill, and the federal government could control all water,” said Don Parrish, director of regulatory relations with the American Farm Bureau Federation, who met with White House officials over the summer to press the case for those changes.
“If they can control the water that falls out of the sky, they control the land that it falls on,” he said.
Mr. Parrish also said the Obama rule chafed its detractors because of the perception it was written by bureaucrats who did not understand the daily reality of farmers’ livelihoods. “The last administration called our concerns silly and ludicrous, and this administration took us seriously. They listened to us,” he said.
In particular, he cited a social media campaign run by the Obama administration, “Ditch the myth,” which challenged the claim that the rule would have regulated water in ditches. “With that campaign, they were laughing at us,” he said.
Mr. Trump won cheers from rural audiences on the presidential campaign trail when he vowed to roll back the Obama rule. Real estate developers and golf course owners (industries in which Mr. Trump worked for decades) were also among the chief opponents of the earlier rule. One of Mr. Trump’s first actions in office was to sign an executive order directing his E.P.A. chief to repeal and replace the rule.
To environmentalists, however, the proposed rule change “upends the core mission of the E.P.A., which is to protect human health and the environment,” said Bart Johnsen-Harris, who works on water policy at the Environment America, an advocacy group.
While the Obama rule would have applied federal protections to wetlands that are not adjacent to major bodies of water, or do not directly drain into them via a surface water channel, the new rule will strip away that protection. That potentially opens millions of acres of pristine wetlands to more pollution, according to Mr. Holman of the Southern Environmental Law Center.
“For wetlands, this is an absolute disaster, compared to the Obama plan,” he said. While such wetlands may not be physically next to major bodies of water, they can still drain into such larger bodies through underground networks, Mr. Holman said.
Stripping away those protections would still allow pollution to seep into the nation’s broader waterways, he said. It would also make it easier for developers to pave over such wetlands.
Federal courts had already halted the implementation of the 2015 Obama-era rules in 28 states after opponents sued to block them. However, in recent months the rules had taken effect in the other 22 states.
The wetland protection policies put in place decades ago by the first President Bush, an avid fisherman, followed on his own campaign pledge to save wetlands, saying, “all wetlands, no matter how small, should be preserved,” and proposing a “no net loss” policy. That initial policy was later weakened by Mr. Bush’s own E.P.A., but environmentalists have credited him for elevating the issue.
Fifteen years later, the second President Bush gave regulatory teeth to his father’s proposal, implementing an E.P.A. rule requiring stronger wetlands protection that his father had once envisioned.
