Joe Biden Told A Voter He’ll “Go Further” Than Cutting Incarceration By 50%
Source:
Katherine Miller
Buzzfeed Reporter
July 9, 2019
Joe Biden told a voter he would commit to drastically cutting incarceration in the United States.
In a video shared with BuzzFeed News by the ACLU, Biden tells a man, Keith Albert, who identifies himself as an ACLU voter, that he’d “go further than” cutting incarceration by half
“Would you commit to cutting incarceration by 50%?” Albert asks Biden.
“More than that. We can do it more than that,” he responds.
Last month in Concord, New Hampshire, another self-identified ACLU voter asked if Biden would “commit to cutting the prison population overall, and specifically the federal prison population, in half” — a slightly different wording.
Biden responded at length about criminal justice policy before telling the woman that he would not commit to reducing the prison population by any percentage target.
“Folks, there are some circumstances in which people should be behind bars, because, in fact, they have committed a heinous crime and they remain a threat to society,” he said in New Hampshire. “But to arbitrarily say, I’m just going to make a commitment I will cut arbitrarily in half or by a third or by 90%, is not a rational way of going about it.”
“The rational way of going about it is to make sure you’re not putting people in jail who have not committed violent crimes; you should put them in work programs,” he continued. “And secondly, what we should be doing is not putting people in jail for crimes that in fact are on the books that really shouldn’t be on the books in my view.”
Katherine Miller
Buzzfeed Reporter
July 9, 2019
Joe Biden told a voter he would commit to drastically cutting incarceration in the United States.
In a video shared with BuzzFeed News by the ACLU, Biden tells a man, Keith Albert, who identifies himself as an ACLU voter, that he’d “go further than” cutting incarceration by half
“Would you commit to cutting incarceration by 50%?” Albert asks Biden.
“More than that. We can do it more than that,” he responds.
Last month in Concord, New Hampshire, another self-identified ACLU voter asked if Biden would “commit to cutting the prison population overall, and specifically the federal prison population, in half” — a slightly different wording.
Biden responded at length about criminal justice policy before telling the woman that he would not commit to reducing the prison population by any percentage target.
“Folks, there are some circumstances in which people should be behind bars, because, in fact, they have committed a heinous crime and they remain a threat to society,” he said in New Hampshire. “But to arbitrarily say, I’m just going to make a commitment I will cut arbitrarily in half or by a third or by 90%, is not a rational way of going about it.”
“The rational way of going about it is to make sure you’re not putting people in jail who have not committed violent crimes; you should put them in work programs,” he continued. “And secondly, what we should be doing is not putting people in jail for crimes that in fact are on the books that really shouldn’t be on the books in my view.”
The US Women's Soccer Team Could Finally Receive Equal Pay Under A US Senator's Bill
The United States women’s national soccer team has earned a parade. The players also earned a payday at least equal to their male counterparts’.
Days after the United States women's soccer team won their fourth World Cup, a US senator introduced a bill Tuesday that would prevent the use of federal funding for the 2026 men's World Cup until the US Soccer Federation agrees to equal pay for the women's and men's teams.
The bill, penned by Sen. Joe Manchin, a West Virginia Democrat, would prohibit the use of federal funds that would otherwise be provided to support host cities, local and state organizations, US Soccer, CONCACAF, and FIFA when the US cohosts the men's World Cup in 2026.
"The clear unequitable pay between the U.S. men’s and women’s soccer teams is unacceptable and I’m glad the U.S. Women’s Soccer Team latest victory is causing public outcry," Manchin said in a statement. "They are the best in the world and deserve to be paid accordingly."
On Sunday, the 23 women selected to represent the United States at the 2019 World Cup triumphed over the Netherlands to complete a dominating run to victory. It is the second straight time the United States has won the quadrennial tournament.
During the celebrations, fans chanted “equal pay,” highlighting the fact that the United States Soccer Federation, which employs the members of the men’s and women’s national teams, has long paid larger sums to the men. Megan Rapinoe, honored as the World Cup’s top scorer and best player, used her moment in the spotlight to call on United States Soccer to “set things right for the future”by giving the women’s team a raise.
Art piece "Fav of the Week"
Choose your #weapon this speaks volumes #truth #art piece #boondocks #illustration #social #voice piece created by June The Trillustrator @junethetrillustrator
11 Million Stories: The Truth of Mass Deportation
11 Million Stories: The Truth of Mass Deportation11 Million Stories shows in gripping detail what would happen to our country if mass deportation were to become the law of the land. In this six part series, undocumented immigrants are profiled in each episode. Each episode tackles the devastating effects on various sectors of society. Sofie Cruz tells the story of how her family would be ripped apart. Heriberto talks about the devastation of the agriculture industry. Hina explains how horrible the police state would become and Michelle makes us look back at our history imploring us not to make the same mistakes again. “11 Million Stories” shines a light on the ugly truth of mass deportation.Take a stand against the absurd and awful proposals of mass deportation at ImmigrationVoter.com!Writer/Director: Paola MendozaExecutive Producer: Michael SkolnikProducers: Joseph La Morte, Gloria La MorteEditors/Animation: Jon Brandon Cruz, Nik KazouraSOZE ProductionsDaniel Alejandro Leon- DavisShasti ConradTony ChoiLarry FellowsFEATURING:Sophie Cruz Heriberto GonzalezHina NaveedJoseph NiolaMichelle Yoon
Posted by FWD.us on Thursday, December 10, 2015
11 Million Stories shows in gripping detail what would happen to our country if mass deportation were to become the law of the land. In this six part series, undocumented immigrants are profiled in each episode. Each episode tackles the devastating effects on various sectors of society. Sofie Cruz tells the story of how her family would be ripped apart. Heriberto talks about the devastation of the agriculture industry. Hina explains how horrible the police state would become and Michelle makes us look back at our history imploring us not to make the same mistakes again. “11 Million Stories” shines a light on the ugly truth of mass deportation.
Take a stand against the absurd and awful proposals of mass deportation at ImmigrationVoter.com!
Writer/Director: Paola Mendoza
Executive Producer: Michael Skolnik
Producers: Joseph La Morte, Gloria La Morte
Editors/Animation: Jon Brandon Cruz, Nik Kazoura
SOZE Productions
Daniel Alejandro Leon- Davis
Shasti Conrad
Tony Choi
Larry Fellows
FEATURING:
Sophie Cruz
Heriberto Gonzalez
Hina Naveed
Joseph Niola
Michelle Yoon
The Millennial generation is the biggest in US history - even bigger than the Baby Boom.
LOVE & MARRIAGE
Millennials have been putting off significant milestones like marriage and children. But that does not mean they want to stay single forever. MEDIAN MARRIAGE AGE
2010's 30 years of age 1970's 23 years of age
MARRIAGE CAN WAIT The percentage of young people married and living on their own has dropped by more than 50% since the 1960s.
Millennials are one of the largest generations in history is about to move into its prime spending years. Millennials are poised to reshape the economy; their unique experiences will change the ways we buy and sell, forcing companies to examine how they do business for decades to come.
A different world, a different worldview. Millennials have grown up in a time of rapid change, giving them a set of priorities and expectations sharply different from previous generations.
As Millennials enter their peak home-buying years, their reluctance to enter the housing market could change. The cohort's sheer size, plus its desire to settle down in the future, could lead to a surge in home sales. PEAK HOME-BUYING YEARS
25 years of age - 45 years of age.
ACCESS, NOT OWNERSHIP
Millennials have also been reluctant to buy items such as cars, music and luxury goods. Instead, they're turning to a new set of services that provide access to products without the burdens of ownership, giving rise to what's being called a "sharing economy."
"25 YEARS FROM NOW, CAR SHARING WILL BE THE NORM, AND CAR OWNERSHIP AN ANOMALY." - Jeremy Rifkin, Author and Economist
Millennials have been putting off significant milestones like marriage and children. But that does not mean they want to stay single forever. MEDIAN MARRIAGE AGE
2010's 30 years of age 1970's 23 years of age
MARRIAGE CAN WAIT The percentage of young people married and living on their own has dropped by more than 50% since the 1960s.
Millennials are one of the largest generations in history is about to move into its prime spending years. Millennials are poised to reshape the economy; their unique experiences will change the ways we buy and sell, forcing companies to examine how they do business for decades to come.
A different world, a different worldview. Millennials have grown up in a time of rapid change, giving them a set of priorities and expectations sharply different from previous generations.
As Millennials enter their peak home-buying years, their reluctance to enter the housing market could change. The cohort's sheer size, plus its desire to settle down in the future, could lead to a surge in home sales. PEAK HOME-BUYING YEARS
25 years of age - 45 years of age.
ACCESS, NOT OWNERSHIP
Millennials have also been reluctant to buy items such as cars, music and luxury goods. Instead, they're turning to a new set of services that provide access to products without the burdens of ownership, giving rise to what's being called a "sharing economy."
"25 YEARS FROM NOW, CAR SHARING WILL BE THE NORM, AND CAR OWNERSHIP AN ANOMALY." - Jeremy Rifkin, Author and Economist
New York City Just Outlawed Running Credit
Checks on Job Applicants
The legislation, which passed last Thursday following an extensive grassroots campaign by local and national labor and community groups, restricts a boss, prospective employer or agency from “us[ing] an individual’s consumer credit history in making employment decisions.”
The final version incorporates some compromises pushed by the business lobby, such as carve-outs for positions that could involve handling “financial agreements valued at $10,000 or more,” police and national-security related jobs, or workers with access to “trade secrets.” While business groups cited these provisions as wins in a bill they otherwise chafed at, economic justice advocates have nonetheless hailed the law as a promising boost for an emerging nationwide movement.
Sarah Ludwig of the New Economy Project says, “It’s a strong law…and it’s going to cover most New Yorkers [and] most jobs by far and away. It’s a real civil rights victory.”
Enforcement of the law will be driven by a complaint process, which makes it a tricky game for the city authorities relying on workers to come forward. But Ludwig adds, advocates hope the system provides a platform for the city’s Human Rights Commission to gain new prominence under the de Blasio administration’s leadership, since the city has “this unbelievably strong human rights law” on paper but not necessarily in practice.
Similar legislation has passed in other areas, building on weak federal transparency regulations, but has been criticized for being diluted with corporate-friendly exemptions.
The rationale behind the ban is simple: it’s unfair and useless to use a person’s credit history, which is often inaccurate or misleading, when assessing their job qualifications. When corporations use massive data screenings to hire and fire en masse, credit checks can drastically narrow an applicant pool and subsequently be held as a cudgel over desperate job seekers and compel them to expose private background information. There’s nothing meritocratic about this practice. But it is racially biased, and very cruel to the poor. -Michelle Chen -thenation.com
The final version incorporates some compromises pushed by the business lobby, such as carve-outs for positions that could involve handling “financial agreements valued at $10,000 or more,” police and national-security related jobs, or workers with access to “trade secrets.” While business groups cited these provisions as wins in a bill they otherwise chafed at, economic justice advocates have nonetheless hailed the law as a promising boost for an emerging nationwide movement.
Sarah Ludwig of the New Economy Project says, “It’s a strong law…and it’s going to cover most New Yorkers [and] most jobs by far and away. It’s a real civil rights victory.”
Enforcement of the law will be driven by a complaint process, which makes it a tricky game for the city authorities relying on workers to come forward. But Ludwig adds, advocates hope the system provides a platform for the city’s Human Rights Commission to gain new prominence under the de Blasio administration’s leadership, since the city has “this unbelievably strong human rights law” on paper but not necessarily in practice.
Similar legislation has passed in other areas, building on weak federal transparency regulations, but has been criticized for being diluted with corporate-friendly exemptions.
The rationale behind the ban is simple: it’s unfair and useless to use a person’s credit history, which is often inaccurate or misleading, when assessing their job qualifications. When corporations use massive data screenings to hire and fire en masse, credit checks can drastically narrow an applicant pool and subsequently be held as a cudgel over desperate job seekers and compel them to expose private background information. There’s nothing meritocratic about this practice. But it is racially biased, and very cruel to the poor. -Michelle Chen -thenation.com
The 7 Ultimate Soft Skills Of Truly Successful People
Bernard Marr: Linkedin Influencer/Best Selling Author
1. High EQ
EQ stands for emotional intelligence quotient, and your emotional intelligence determines how well you relate to other people, your ability to put yourself in other’s shoes, and your ability to build rapport. It’s important when you’re managing or working with a team, in networking, in understanding workplace politics and really any time you need to interact with a co-worker or client. In other words: it’s invaluable to develop these skills. You can improve your EQ by mindfully practicing putting yourself in another’s shoes, for example, to practice empathy and understanding.
2. Communication Skills
You might have the most brilliant ideas in the room, but if you aren’t able to effectively communicate those ideas, you’ll never get anywhere. Being able to communicate clearly is vital to working with managers, teams, and clients. You can start improving your communications skills by studying the words and phrases you should never use, and paying more attention to what you say.
3. Decision Making
A decisive person is going to be desirable in any position, at any level, and the ability to make decisions is especially important the higher up you climb on the ladder. Taking forever to decide, procrastinating by doing unnecessary research, or avoiding making decisions altogether aren’t a good way to get ahead anywhere. Practice being decisive and demonstrating your decision making abilities to get ahead.
4. Integrity
Integrity at work means owning your mistakes, doing what you say you’re going to do when you say you’re going to do it, acknowledging when new information means you’re wrong, and being willing to say, “I don’t know.” People will respect and trust a person much more who has a reputation for integrity than someone who never admits he’s wrong or always puts the blame on others.
5. Drive
Having drive doesn’t have to mean working 80 hours per week or volunteering for every extra project. Instead, demonstrating that you have drive could mean consistently working hard while you’re at work. It could mean having the initiative to continue your education in your field or go the extra mile for a project. It demonstrates that you’re committed to your work, and that’s very attractive to employers and managers.
6. Focus
Maintaining focus is an extremely important skill, whether we’re talking about focusing on a single task at hand or on your long-term objectives. It also means not getting sidetracked by “shiny object syndrome” or by what seems easy or expedient.
7. Balance
Perhaps most importantly, the key to a successful career in any job is maintaining a healthy balance. Only you can determine what makes a healthy balance for you, but it’s vital to balance your career with those things that will make you truly happy.
Bernard Marr: Linkedin Influencer/Best Selling Author
1. High EQ
EQ stands for emotional intelligence quotient, and your emotional intelligence determines how well you relate to other people, your ability to put yourself in other’s shoes, and your ability to build rapport. It’s important when you’re managing or working with a team, in networking, in understanding workplace politics and really any time you need to interact with a co-worker or client. In other words: it’s invaluable to develop these skills. You can improve your EQ by mindfully practicing putting yourself in another’s shoes, for example, to practice empathy and understanding.
2. Communication Skills
You might have the most brilliant ideas in the room, but if you aren’t able to effectively communicate those ideas, you’ll never get anywhere. Being able to communicate clearly is vital to working with managers, teams, and clients. You can start improving your communications skills by studying the words and phrases you should never use, and paying more attention to what you say.
3. Decision Making
A decisive person is going to be desirable in any position, at any level, and the ability to make decisions is especially important the higher up you climb on the ladder. Taking forever to decide, procrastinating by doing unnecessary research, or avoiding making decisions altogether aren’t a good way to get ahead anywhere. Practice being decisive and demonstrating your decision making abilities to get ahead.
4. Integrity
Integrity at work means owning your mistakes, doing what you say you’re going to do when you say you’re going to do it, acknowledging when new information means you’re wrong, and being willing to say, “I don’t know.” People will respect and trust a person much more who has a reputation for integrity than someone who never admits he’s wrong or always puts the blame on others.
5. Drive
Having drive doesn’t have to mean working 80 hours per week or volunteering for every extra project. Instead, demonstrating that you have drive could mean consistently working hard while you’re at work. It could mean having the initiative to continue your education in your field or go the extra mile for a project. It demonstrates that you’re committed to your work, and that’s very attractive to employers and managers.
6. Focus
Maintaining focus is an extremely important skill, whether we’re talking about focusing on a single task at hand or on your long-term objectives. It also means not getting sidetracked by “shiny object syndrome” or by what seems easy or expedient.
7. Balance
Perhaps most importantly, the key to a successful career in any job is maintaining a healthy balance. Only you can determine what makes a healthy balance for you, but it’s vital to balance your career with those things that will make you truly happy.
7 countries where Americans can study at universities, in English, for free, or almost free... By Rick Noack Washiongton Post
Since 1985, U.S. college costs have surged by about 500 percent, and tuition fees keep rising. In Germany, they've done the opposite.
The country's universities have been tuition-free since the beginning of October, when Lower Saxony became the last state to scrap the fees. Tuition rates were always low in Germany, but now the German government fully funds the education of its citizens -- and even of foreigners.
Germany's higher education landscape primarily consists of internationally well-ranked public universities, some of which receive special funding because the government deems them "excellent institutions." What's more, Americans can earn a German undergraduate or graduate degree without speaking a word of German and without having to pay a single dollar of tuition fees: About 900 undergraduate or graduate degrees are offered exclusively in English, with courses ranging from engineering to social sciences. For some German degrees, you don't even have to formally apply.
In fact, the German government would be happy if you decided to make use of its higher education system. The vast degree offerings in English are intended to prepare German students to communicate in a foreign language, but also to attract foreign students, because the country needs more skilled workers.
Finland
This northern European country charges no tuition fees, and it offers a large number of university programs in English. However, the Finnish government amiably reminds interested foreigners that they "are expected to independently cover all everyday living expenses." In other words: Finland will finance your education, but not your afternoon coffee break.
France
There are at least 76 English-language undergraduate programs in France, but many are offered by private universities and are expensive. Many more graduate-level courses, however, are designed for English-speakingstudents, and one out of every three French doctoral degrees is awarded to a foreign student.
"It is no longer needed to be fluent in French to study in France," according to the government agency Campus France. The website studyportals.eu provides a comprehensive list of the available courses in France and other European countries.
Public university programs charge only a small tuition fee of about 200 dollars for most programs. Other, more elite institutions have adopted a model that requires students to pay fees that are based on the income of their parents. Children of unemployed parents can study for free, while more privileged families have to pay more. This rule is only valid for citizens of the European Union, but even the maximum fees (about $14,000 per year) are often much lower than U.S. tuition fees. Some universities, such as Sciences Po Paris, offer dual degrees with U.S. colleges.
Sweden
This Scandinavian country is among the world's wealthiest, and its beautiful landscape beckons. It also offers some of the world's most cost-efficient college degrees. More than 900 listed programs in 35 universities are taught in English. However, only Ph.D programs are tuition-free.
Norway
Norwegian universities do not charge tuition fees for international students. The Norwegian higher education system is similar to the one in the United States: Class sizes are small and professors are easily approachable. Many Norwegian universities offer programs taught in English. American students, for example, could choose "Advanced Studies for Solo Instrumentalists or Chamber Music Ensembles" or "Development Geography."
But don't expect to save money in Norway, which has one of the world's highest costs of living for expats. And be careful where you decide to study. "Winters in general are quite different in different parts of the country, with the north having hard, arctic winters, and the southwest mostly having mild, wet average European winters," the Norwegian Center for International Cooperation in Education notes.
Slovenia
About 150 English programs are available, and foreign nationals only pay an insignificant registration fee when they enroll. Slovenia borders Italy and Croatia, among Europe's most popular vacation destinations. However, Times Higher Education, a weekly magazine based in London, did not list one Slovenian university in its recent World University Ranking.
Brazil
Some Brazilian courses are taught in English, and state universities charge only minor registration fees. Times Higher Education ranks two Brazilian universities among the world's top 400: the University of Sao Paulo and the State University of Campinas. However, Brazil might be better suited for exchange students seeking a cultural experience rather than a degree.
"It is worth remembering that most of USP activities are carried out in Portuguese," the University of Sao Paulo reminds applicants on its website.
The country's universities have been tuition-free since the beginning of October, when Lower Saxony became the last state to scrap the fees. Tuition rates were always low in Germany, but now the German government fully funds the education of its citizens -- and even of foreigners.
Germany's higher education landscape primarily consists of internationally well-ranked public universities, some of which receive special funding because the government deems them "excellent institutions." What's more, Americans can earn a German undergraduate or graduate degree without speaking a word of German and without having to pay a single dollar of tuition fees: About 900 undergraduate or graduate degrees are offered exclusively in English, with courses ranging from engineering to social sciences. For some German degrees, you don't even have to formally apply.
In fact, the German government would be happy if you decided to make use of its higher education system. The vast degree offerings in English are intended to prepare German students to communicate in a foreign language, but also to attract foreign students, because the country needs more skilled workers.
Finland
This northern European country charges no tuition fees, and it offers a large number of university programs in English. However, the Finnish government amiably reminds interested foreigners that they "are expected to independently cover all everyday living expenses." In other words: Finland will finance your education, but not your afternoon coffee break.
France
There are at least 76 English-language undergraduate programs in France, but many are offered by private universities and are expensive. Many more graduate-level courses, however, are designed for English-speakingstudents, and one out of every three French doctoral degrees is awarded to a foreign student.
"It is no longer needed to be fluent in French to study in France," according to the government agency Campus France. The website studyportals.eu provides a comprehensive list of the available courses in France and other European countries.
Public university programs charge only a small tuition fee of about 200 dollars for most programs. Other, more elite institutions have adopted a model that requires students to pay fees that are based on the income of their parents. Children of unemployed parents can study for free, while more privileged families have to pay more. This rule is only valid for citizens of the European Union, but even the maximum fees (about $14,000 per year) are often much lower than U.S. tuition fees. Some universities, such as Sciences Po Paris, offer dual degrees with U.S. colleges.
Sweden
This Scandinavian country is among the world's wealthiest, and its beautiful landscape beckons. It also offers some of the world's most cost-efficient college degrees. More than 900 listed programs in 35 universities are taught in English. However, only Ph.D programs are tuition-free.
Norway
Norwegian universities do not charge tuition fees for international students. The Norwegian higher education system is similar to the one in the United States: Class sizes are small and professors are easily approachable. Many Norwegian universities offer programs taught in English. American students, for example, could choose "Advanced Studies for Solo Instrumentalists or Chamber Music Ensembles" or "Development Geography."
But don't expect to save money in Norway, which has one of the world's highest costs of living for expats. And be careful where you decide to study. "Winters in general are quite different in different parts of the country, with the north having hard, arctic winters, and the southwest mostly having mild, wet average European winters," the Norwegian Center for International Cooperation in Education notes.
Slovenia
About 150 English programs are available, and foreign nationals only pay an insignificant registration fee when they enroll. Slovenia borders Italy and Croatia, among Europe's most popular vacation destinations. However, Times Higher Education, a weekly magazine based in London, did not list one Slovenian university in its recent World University Ranking.
Brazil
Some Brazilian courses are taught in English, and state universities charge only minor registration fees. Times Higher Education ranks two Brazilian universities among the world's top 400: the University of Sao Paulo and the State University of Campinas. However, Brazil might be better suited for exchange students seeking a cultural experience rather than a degree.
"It is worth remembering that most of USP activities are carried out in Portuguese," the University of Sao Paulo reminds applicants on its website.
President Obama Is Finally Beginning To Get Credit For The Nation’s Economic Turnaround
By: Jason Easley -politicususa
The most recent polls from CNN and Gallup reveal that the American people are rewarding the president with higher job approval ratings. However, Republican bias against Obama continues to hold his job approval ratings down.
In a 2011 paper, political scientists Peter Enns and Gregory McAvoy found that partisan bias delays public perception of economy, “The total effects of partisanship appear to reduce the overall response of the public to changes in economic conditions. Even for economic evaluations, partisan attachments can overwhelm motivations for accuracy. This result may hold significant economic implications. When partisan bias is high, as during the George W. Bush presidency, aggregate economic evaluations appear less responsive to the objective economy.”
Partisan bias is the reason why 40% of Republicans in the latest CNN poll rated the current state of the economy as poor. The extreme degree of partisan bias in the country is also why President Obama is unlikely to get full credit for the economic improvements that have occurred during his time in office. The good news is that polling reveals that the public is starting to catch on.
The CNN poll showed Obama’s approval rating hitting a 20 month high, while a recent Gallup poll revealed that President Obama is polling ahead of where George W. Bush was at the end of his sixth year in office. Obama is likely to see his approval ratings continue to grow as long as the economy blossoms. A president’s approval numbers tend to move in line with major economic shifts. George W. Bush was already on the downswing thanks to a stagnant economy and an unpopular war. Barack Obama is on the upswing.
In a 2011 paper, political scientists Peter Enns and Gregory McAvoy found that partisan bias delays public perception of economy, “The total effects of partisanship appear to reduce the overall response of the public to changes in economic conditions. Even for economic evaluations, partisan attachments can overwhelm motivations for accuracy. This result may hold significant economic implications. When partisan bias is high, as during the George W. Bush presidency, aggregate economic evaluations appear less responsive to the objective economy.”
Partisan bias is the reason why 40% of Republicans in the latest CNN poll rated the current state of the economy as poor. The extreme degree of partisan bias in the country is also why President Obama is unlikely to get full credit for the economic improvements that have occurred during his time in office. The good news is that polling reveals that the public is starting to catch on.
The CNN poll showed Obama’s approval rating hitting a 20 month high, while a recent Gallup poll revealed that President Obama is polling ahead of where George W. Bush was at the end of his sixth year in office. Obama is likely to see his approval ratings continue to grow as long as the economy blossoms. A president’s approval numbers tend to move in line with major economic shifts. George W. Bush was already on the downswing thanks to a stagnant economy and an unpopular war. Barack Obama is on the upswing.
NYC HOUSING LOTTERIES still open!
NYC Housing Connect
NYC Housing Connect is your portal to search and apply for affordable housing opportunities in New York City. On the site, you can:
Applying and qualifying for affordable housing can be a long process, and you are not guaranteed to receive housing. Your household must not only qualify with detailed criteria on a property-by-property basis, but you must also be selected at random in that property's lottery. Preferences noted in the advertisement will be given first consideration. For more information on Preferences, see the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs). If you need immediate housing assistance, or require shelter, please call 311. For other housing resources for New York City, visit the Affordable Housing Resource Center at www.nyc.gov/housing. Click here to apply
NYC Housing Connect seeks to simplify the application process for you. The City of New York does not directly rent or sell housing. We work with private and nonprofit developers and their affiliates to create and market affordable housing. NYC Housing Connect is a service provided by the Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) and the Housing Development Corporation (HDC). Due to the high volume of applicants, HPD, HDC, and its developers cannot offer individualized counseling on the application process. Before applying, please take time to carefully read all instructions and the "How to Apply" and "What to Expect" sections
NYC Housing Connect
NYC Housing Connect is your portal to search and apply for affordable housing opportunities in New York City. On the site, you can:
- Learn how to apply for affordable housing in New York City.
- View current and upcoming housing opportunities.
- Start, save, and complete an application for your household.
- Apply to housing options for which you may qualify.
Applying and qualifying for affordable housing can be a long process, and you are not guaranteed to receive housing. Your household must not only qualify with detailed criteria on a property-by-property basis, but you must also be selected at random in that property's lottery. Preferences noted in the advertisement will be given first consideration. For more information on Preferences, see the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs). If you need immediate housing assistance, or require shelter, please call 311. For other housing resources for New York City, visit the Affordable Housing Resource Center at www.nyc.gov/housing. Click here to apply
NYC Housing Connect seeks to simplify the application process for you. The City of New York does not directly rent or sell housing. We work with private and nonprofit developers and their affiliates to create and market affordable housing. NYC Housing Connect is a service provided by the Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) and the Housing Development Corporation (HDC). Due to the high volume of applicants, HPD, HDC, and its developers cannot offer individualized counseling on the application process. Before applying, please take time to carefully read all instructions and the "How to Apply" and "What to Expect" sections
FDA Recommends Relaxing Ban On Gay Men Donating Blood — With A Big Caveat
Dominic Holden
The Food and Drug Administration recommends a policy that would allow blood donations from men who have abstained from sex with another man for one year. LGBT advocates say the recommendation does not go far enough.
The Food and Drug Administration today moved toward relaxing the country’s widely criticized policy that bans gay men from ever donating blood. The federal department will recommend reforming the policy, limiting the ban to those who have had sex with men in the previous year.
“We would not recommend such a policy change if we didn’t think the safety of the blood supply would be maintained,” Peter Marks, deputy director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said in a conference call with reporters.
The FDA will will submit the proposal to the Federal Register in 2015 to receive public comment, Marks said. He did not provide a timeline for codifying a final policy.
But the new recommendation has drawn criticism for not going far enough. Sen. Tammy Baldwin, while applauding the move as a step in the right direction, criticized the proposal as unscientific and singling out gay men. “Our goal is to replace this discriminatory, lifetime ban on blood donations by healthy gay and bisexual men with a policy based on individual risk,” she said in a statement.
“While this announcement represents needed progress, I remain concerned that it does not achieve our goal of putting in place a policy that is based on sound science and allows all healthy individuals to donate,” she added. Gay Men’s Health Crisis (GMHC) issued a statement calling the proposal “offensive and harmful.”
“This new policy does not require heterosexual blood donors to be celibate for one year,” the group said in a statement. “Some may believe this is a step forward, but in reality, requiring celibacy for a year is a de facto lifetime ban. … While the FDA is right to revisit the outdated lifetime ban, GMHC calls on the FDA and HHS Secretary [Sylvia Mathews ] Burwell to implement a risk-based blood donation policy, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity, and to stop perpetuating the stigma and discrimination driving the HIV/AIDS epidemic.”
Current policy bans all men who have had sex with men since 1977 from donating blood. Critics have describing the 1983 policy, approved at the height of the AIDS epidemic, as an archaic and scientifically unjustified barrier to getting blood to those who need it. Transgender advocates say the rule has been used to ban transgender people from donating blood.
“Half of the men who are unable to donate under the existing deferral would be able to donate under the revised policy,” said FDA’s Marks.
However, Ian Thompson, American Civil Liberties Union’s legislative representative, said in a statement that a one-year deferral would still block many potential donors.
“The reality for most gay and bisexual men — including those in committed, monogamous relationships — is that this proposal will continue to function as a de facto lifetime ban,” Thompson said.
The ACLU, he said, will keep advocating for a risk-based screening process, not an across-the-board deferral policy based on sexual orientation and today’s proposal “must be seen as part of an ongoing process and not an end point.”
The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) similarly argued that the recommended policy would still “stigmatize gay and bisexual men, preventing them from donating life-saving blood based solely on their sexual orientation, rather than a policy based on actual risk to the blood supply,” according to a statement from David Stacy, HRC’s government affairs director. “This new policy cannot be justified in light of current scientific research and updated blood screening technology. We will continue to work towards an eventual outcome that both minimizes risk to the blood supply and treats gay and bisexual men with the respect they deserve.”
Dominic Holden
The Food and Drug Administration recommends a policy that would allow blood donations from men who have abstained from sex with another man for one year. LGBT advocates say the recommendation does not go far enough.
The Food and Drug Administration today moved toward relaxing the country’s widely criticized policy that bans gay men from ever donating blood. The federal department will recommend reforming the policy, limiting the ban to those who have had sex with men in the previous year.
“We would not recommend such a policy change if we didn’t think the safety of the blood supply would be maintained,” Peter Marks, deputy director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said in a conference call with reporters.
The FDA will will submit the proposal to the Federal Register in 2015 to receive public comment, Marks said. He did not provide a timeline for codifying a final policy.
But the new recommendation has drawn criticism for not going far enough. Sen. Tammy Baldwin, while applauding the move as a step in the right direction, criticized the proposal as unscientific and singling out gay men. “Our goal is to replace this discriminatory, lifetime ban on blood donations by healthy gay and bisexual men with a policy based on individual risk,” she said in a statement.
“While this announcement represents needed progress, I remain concerned that it does not achieve our goal of putting in place a policy that is based on sound science and allows all healthy individuals to donate,” she added. Gay Men’s Health Crisis (GMHC) issued a statement calling the proposal “offensive and harmful.”
“This new policy does not require heterosexual blood donors to be celibate for one year,” the group said in a statement. “Some may believe this is a step forward, but in reality, requiring celibacy for a year is a de facto lifetime ban. … While the FDA is right to revisit the outdated lifetime ban, GMHC calls on the FDA and HHS Secretary [Sylvia Mathews ] Burwell to implement a risk-based blood donation policy, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity, and to stop perpetuating the stigma and discrimination driving the HIV/AIDS epidemic.”
Current policy bans all men who have had sex with men since 1977 from donating blood. Critics have describing the 1983 policy, approved at the height of the AIDS epidemic, as an archaic and scientifically unjustified barrier to getting blood to those who need it. Transgender advocates say the rule has been used to ban transgender people from donating blood.
“Half of the men who are unable to donate under the existing deferral would be able to donate under the revised policy,” said FDA’s Marks.
However, Ian Thompson, American Civil Liberties Union’s legislative representative, said in a statement that a one-year deferral would still block many potential donors.
“The reality for most gay and bisexual men — including those in committed, monogamous relationships — is that this proposal will continue to function as a de facto lifetime ban,” Thompson said.
The ACLU, he said, will keep advocating for a risk-based screening process, not an across-the-board deferral policy based on sexual orientation and today’s proposal “must be seen as part of an ongoing process and not an end point.”
The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) similarly argued that the recommended policy would still “stigmatize gay and bisexual men, preventing them from donating life-saving blood based solely on their sexual orientation, rather than a policy based on actual risk to the blood supply,” according to a statement from David Stacy, HRC’s government affairs director. “This new policy cannot be justified in light of current scientific research and updated blood screening technology. We will continue to work towards an eventual outcome that both minimizes risk to the blood supply and treats gay and bisexual men with the respect they deserve.”
Bullying in the Workplace
A friend recently sent this article to me. It is well written and I thought so many others out there may not have any idea the impact bullying has...in the work place. Bullying is a blatant need for attention. It is wrong and everyone in their right mind knows that. Society has become so self absorbed that they associate bullying with being cool. It is disgusting and it has to change.
"The social rules of the workplace are a pretty complicated balancing act: You have to be friendly and likable, while remaining professional at all times. You need your boss to like you, but you don’t want your co-workers to think of you as a suck-up. You often have to navigate generational and cultural divides, and still get things done. And because you want to keep your job, the last thing you want is to be the person causing trouble.
The best advice is to just keep your head down and do your job, which is what most of us do.
But when you throw working with a total jerk into that mix, things can get confusing: People who are actively being bullied by a co-worker have trouble even recognizing it’s happening, and because they’re afraid of not being believed, most people suffer the abuse in silence, according to a new study in the journal Management Communication Quarterly. “A lot of people don’t know that bullying is something that occurs in the workplace, so when it happens they almost don’t know what to make of it,” explains lead study author Stacy Tye-Williams, assistant professor of communications studies and English at Iowa State University.
Roughly 1 in 4 American workers say they have dealt with bullying at some point, according to a 2014 survey from the Workplace Bullying Institute. And the stress it causes can really affect your health. “Previous research has linked it to depression, anxiety, and increased sick days,” Tye-Williams says. “It causes this constant state of pins and needles.”
Sound familiar? Here are 6 ways to spot a true office bully, plus what to do.
Your boss takes his job way too seriously
If you have a bully, chances are it’s your boss. More than half the people in the latest study pointed to their supervisor as the person causing problems for them. “There is certainly a power dynamic aspect,” Tye-Williams says. “One person told us their boss would yell at them, I am your God and when you are here you will do what I tell you to do.” Talk about a hostile work environment! While that may seem obviously inappropriate, there’s something about it happening at your job that can make behavior like that disorienting. “We found that victims have a really hard time even putting the events in order,” Tye-Williams adds.
You notice a nasty pattern
“The key is that it’s not just a one-time thing. It’s repetitive,” Tye-Williams explains. “It’s more than one person snapping at you on a bad day. It’s the person who snaps at you repeatedly to a point where you go, this is systemic. This is how they work.“
You hear whispers when you enter the break room
It can make you feel like you’re back in high school, but gossip is another big weapon in the office bully’s arsenal. “Gossip is a good example of mobbing, which is when the bully gets multiple people involved in harassing you,” Tye-Williams says. This can be even more isolating than one-on-one bullying because you may feel like you have no one on your side.
You’re being conspired against
Another example of mobbing is bullies working together either to get you in trouble, make you look bad, or steal assignments from you. “We had someone tell us how coworkers would come together to make sure they always got the worst shift,” Tye-Williams says. This can lead you to feel ostracized and very isolated.
How to stop it
Aside from getting a new job, putting an end to it can be tough because every work situation is different. “If the problem is your supervisor, it’s especially tricky, of course,” Tye-Williams says. “What’s important is understanding the organization and the dynamics that are specific to your workplace, so you know who it’s safe to tell. But you also have to have a clear story before you do so.”
“The number one thing you can do to sort that out is to tell someone you trust,” she continues. “Having someone ask questions and simply listen helps you form a coherent story. This ultimately helps your case because how clearly someone tells the story impacts whether people believe them.” After you have done that, it’s a good idea to find and keep any documentation you can: make a log of instances as they happen, save e-mails, and get co-workers to back you up. One study participant shared how the supervisor had actually manipulated multiple people in the office into hating one another (using gossip and other malicious techniques). Once they all realized it, they were able to band together and have the person fired. “It’s a very difficult problem to fix, but there are things you cans do,” Tye-Williams says."
This artice was originally published on Health.com
Give student loans the finger: A new solution to a massive generational outrage
Recently, news broke that Rolling Jubilee, a nonprofit organization dedicated to the eradication of debt, purchased $4 million in private student loan debt and forgave all of it, relieving some 2,000 Americans of that oppressive burden. The group purchased the loans for pennies on the dollar from the notorious for-profit Everest College. And it’s only the beginning –according to Rolling Jubilee’s website, they’ve forgiven more than $18.5 million in debt, much of it medical, on only $701,000 raised.
Such activism cannot be praised enough. It’s entirely selfless, brings important issues to light and directly aids many Americans. But it can only go so far. The total national debt, both public and private, is a preposterous $60 trillion. If Rolling Jubilee succeeded in wiping out $4 million of that total every day, it would take more than 41,000 years for America to be debt-free. Even if they focused only on, say, mortgages, it would take more than 9,000 years.
Of course, a lot more than $4 million moves through the American economy every day. But the numbers still help illustrate the obvious: something much more radical has to be done, a fact that Rolling Jubilee organizer Astra Taylor concedes. In a recent New Yorker profile, Taylor said, “We shouldn’t have to buy this debt. It’s treating a symptom without ever treating the disease.”
The problem of debt is far beyond the scope of any one person or organization to take care of. Acting en masse, however, there is a great deal Americans can do. The best solution to the student loan crisis is a very elegant and simple one: stage a collective refusal to make good on student loan debt. Such a boycotting of payments is well within the power, not to mention the rights, of the American citizenry, and it makes good sense to take such a collective action. -KYLE SCHMIDLIN
Black Fraternities & Sororities Band Together To Shut Down Mona Scott-Young's Latest Project
For years, Mona Scott-Young has been behind the scenes effortlessly crafting the careers of Busta Rhymes, Missy Elliott and 50 Cent, to name a few.
And in recent years, through her Monami Entertainment company, she has teamed with VH1 for various franchises including 'Love and Hip Hop,' which uncovers the lives of the women behind some of the most famous rap stars out.
However the producer’s latest developing project, “Sorority Sisters,” has drawn a widespread backlash amongst black fraternity and sorority members due to its misrepresentation of Alpha Kappa Alpha, Delta Sigma Theta, Zeta Phi Beta and Sigma Gamma Rho members highlighted in the show’s trailer, which has since been removed from the web due to the uproar.
Following the negative reaction to the “Sorority Sisters” preview clip, Reynoir Lewis launched a MoveOn.Org petition in an effort to axe the series from airing on television:
Stop the spread of ignorance and stereotyping of our beloved Black Greek letter organizations. Our founders amongst EVERY organization worked extremely hard to allow us to unite and flourish not only on college campuses, but as a people well beyond our college days, and Mona Scott-Young now threatens to demolish those aims and goals we all abide by. If this show airs, we will boycott any and all advertisers affiliated with the show through commercial advertising, product placement and/or location use.
*I, Reynoir Lewis, will be personally delivering these signatures to the President Philippe Dauman and the Executive Chairman Sumner M. Redstone.* Thank you for your support.
To date, there are over 20,000 signatures for Lewis’ petition, with the goal of receiving 25,000. To sign the petition, click here.
Source Huffington Post | By Brennan Williams
For years, Mona Scott-Young has been behind the scenes effortlessly crafting the careers of Busta Rhymes, Missy Elliott and 50 Cent, to name a few.
And in recent years, through her Monami Entertainment company, she has teamed with VH1 for various franchises including 'Love and Hip Hop,' which uncovers the lives of the women behind some of the most famous rap stars out.
However the producer’s latest developing project, “Sorority Sisters,” has drawn a widespread backlash amongst black fraternity and sorority members due to its misrepresentation of Alpha Kappa Alpha, Delta Sigma Theta, Zeta Phi Beta and Sigma Gamma Rho members highlighted in the show’s trailer, which has since been removed from the web due to the uproar.
Following the negative reaction to the “Sorority Sisters” preview clip, Reynoir Lewis launched a MoveOn.Org petition in an effort to axe the series from airing on television:
Stop the spread of ignorance and stereotyping of our beloved Black Greek letter organizations. Our founders amongst EVERY organization worked extremely hard to allow us to unite and flourish not only on college campuses, but as a people well beyond our college days, and Mona Scott-Young now threatens to demolish those aims and goals we all abide by. If this show airs, we will boycott any and all advertisers affiliated with the show through commercial advertising, product placement and/or location use.
*I, Reynoir Lewis, will be personally delivering these signatures to the President Philippe Dauman and the Executive Chairman Sumner M. Redstone.* Thank you for your support.
To date, there are over 20,000 signatures for Lewis’ petition, with the goal of receiving 25,000. To sign the petition, click here.
Source Huffington Post | By Brennan Williams
