Top economists urge to cut the working week to 20 hours.

Join us: fb.com/unitedhumanists

Top economists urge to cut the working week to 20 hours.

Britain is struggling to shrug off the credit crisis; overworked parents are stricken with guilt about barely seeing their offspring; carbon dioxide is belching into the atmosphere from our power-hungry offices and homes. In London on Wednesday, experts will gather to offer a novel solution to all of these problems at once: a shorter working week.

A thinktank, the New Economics Foundation (NEF), which has organised the event with the Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion at the London School of Economics, argues that if everyone worked fewer hours – say, 20 or so a week – there would be more jobs to go round, employees could spend more time with their families and energy-hungry excess consumption would be curbed. Anna Coote, of NEF, said: “There’s a great disequilibrium between people who have got too much paid work, and those who have got too little or none.”

She argued that we need to think again about what constitutes economic success, and whether aiming to boost Britain’s GDP growth rate should be the government’s first priority: “Are we just living to work, and working to earn, and earning to consume? There’s no evidence that if you have shorter working hours as the norm, you have a less successful economy: quite the reverse.” She cited Germany and the Netherlands.

Many economists once believed that as technology improved, boosting workers’ productivity, people would choose to bank these benefits by working fewer hours and enjoying more leisure. Instead, working hours have got longer in many countries. The UK has the longest working week of any major European economy.

Skidelsky says politicians and economists need to think less about the pursuit of growth. “The real question for welfare today is not the GDP growth rate, but how income is divided.”

Parents of young children already have the right to request flexible working, but the NEF would like to see job-sharing and alternative work patterns become much more widespread, and is calling on the government to make flexible working a default right for everyone.

Source: http://bit.ly/2fnd17V

7 Ways To Change Toxic Behavior.

Join us: fb.com/unitedhumanists 

7 Ways To Change Toxic Behavior.

By: Gina Florio.

This is not a fun thing to admit, but I used to be a toxic person. In fact, my level of toxicity hurt everyone in my life and drove many people away. I was a master at being selfish and making everything about me — all the time. It made a particularly tough period of my life even harder to deal with, too. I was in the deepest, most depressive phase of binge eating disorder (BED), and I was unhappy with the overall direction my life had taken. But I eventually got the help I needed, and now I’m able to look back and see the repercussions of my toxic behavior without experiencing overwhelming guilt.

Even though this all happened a long time ago, it’s not easy for me to put this information out there. But as uncomfortable as it is to write about, I know it will be worth it if just one person can benefit from my honesty. Because as useful as it is to read about the textbook psychology behind emotional toxicity, reading about someone else’s personal experiences as a toxic person will probably be more beneficial. Maybe my story can help you identify some behavior in your own life that you could do without, or perhaps it will help you notice which of your friends are tearing you down.

Here are seven ways I used to be a toxic person, and how I recovered:

1. I Said A Lot Of Passive Aggressive Things

I was the kind of person who would insist for days — sometimes weeks — that I wasn’t mad. No, I’m not mad. Not like you would care if I were anyway, I would say to my boyfriend all the time. I would spout similar things to my mom and my girlfriends, too. On top of that, I would frequently criticize others in underhanded ways, rather than have a frank conversation about why I was upset.

How I Recovered: Therapy was my savior in this department, because toxicity can’t really be reasoned with. No matter how many of my loved ones called me out on being passive aggressive, it only stuck when my therapist bluntly put it out there for me.

“Do you hear how passive aggressive that sounds?” he said to me once.

I was stunned, but because he wasn’t someone that I felt comfortable fighting with on the subject, I actually went home and mulled it over. Gradually, I started to see just how right he was — and how right my loved ones had been.

2. I Was Jealous Of Everyone

It was impossible for me to be happy for anyone when they came to me with good news. I coveted my mom’s new car at a stage in my life when I neither needed or wanted a vehicle. I resented how good my friend got at Zumba, even though I hated it. My envy ended up seeping into even the most remote corners of my social life.

I wasn’t actively choosing to be jealous all the time, but much of my time was spent thinking about other people’s accomplishments and possessions instead of finding ways to make myself happy.

How I Recovered: I spent a lot of time thinking about the things I was most insecure about in my life. I realized I wasn’t satisfied with where my career was, and I definitely wasn’t making the money I needed to pay my bills and student loan debt. I discovered that it was hard for me to stomach the smallest of someone else’s achievements because I was so distressed about my own lack of success.

I consulted a trusted few, and with them by my side, I constructed a game plan for the next few years. I turned my nasty thoughts into productive, healthy ones, and from there I finally found relief from my envy.

3. I Blamed Other People For My Problems

I was a champion at the blame game. I pointed the finger at my roommate for the state of our apartment, (which I rarely lifted a finger to clean) and insisted my yoga teacher was the reason why I couldn’t balance perfectly in class. I thought my life would feel simpler if I wasn’t the one at fault for the unpleasant things happening to me.

How I Recovered: Therapy helped with this, too. My therapist gave me a few tools to practice when I found myself on the verge of pointing fingers. Eventually, I started to feel relief when I took responsibility for my own actions. It took a lot of pressure off of my relationships, too.

4. I Attracted Drama

I loved a juicy piece of gossip — actually, I thrived off of it. Furthermore, not a day went by when I wasn’t involved in some sort of spectacle, whether it was arguing with a barista or demanding a refund at Urban Outfitters.

Toxic people habitually make themselves the center of attention, and they do so in negative ways. It’s our misguided way of burying the emotional pain we feel on a daily basis.

How I Recovered: One of my favorite yoga teachers said something that changed my life: “You can either live in a tornado of drama, or remove yourself from the storm and choose to live in peace.” That really stuck with me. I didn’t want to be trapped in a whirlwind of gossip and emotional turmoil anymore. Every day I made a point to steer clear of drama. Over time, avoiding drama became a habit.

5. I Flirted With People Who Weren’t My S.O. In Ways That Damaged My Relationship

I hate that I hurt my now-ex boyfriend by doing this. Most of my flirtations happened online rather than in person, but that didn’t make them any less damaging to my relationship. Of course, my chats started out innocently enough; but eventually my emotional dependence on them drove a wedge between my S.O. and me.

How I Recovered: As you can imagine, the guy I was with during this period of my life didn’t stick around. We split up for a lot of reasons, and most of them had to do with my toxic behavior.

After our breakup, my friends and therapist helped me realize that my behavior was coming from my own deeply rooted insecurity. The more I focused on my own issues with body image, the more I developed self-esteem. Soon, I didn’t need attention from men like I used to.

6. I Pressured People Into Partying With Me

It’s no secret that toxic people tend to veer toward the party scene. Going hard on Friday nights is a sweet escape from all the noise in our heads, and it’s even better when we’re surrounded by friends.

Back when I was drinking a lot, I would drag as many people as I could to various bars and clubs. When they politely refused, I would manipulate them into keeping up with me until sunrise.

How I Recovered: I stopped drinking as much, and I started being more open with my friends. Whenever I felt the urge to go out on the weekend with a group of friends, I called them up and told them flat out that I was feeling a bit restless. My newfound honesty prompted them to help me out rather than enable my behavior.

7. I Ignored My Friends When I Didn’t Feel Like Talking Or Hanging Out

My friends could text me a million times in a row asking for a listening ear, but if I wasn’t feeling up for it, I would blow them off without a second thought. I did this for a long time. Not surprisingly, I lost a lot of friends because of it. When I was an emotional wreck, though, I responded lightning-fast to any invitations to hang out. My friendships were terribly one-sided.

How I Recovered: I apologized to my friends, and I asked them to hold me accountable for any future flakiness. Then, I started responding to all their texts, calls, and emails the second I received them.

Source: http://bit.ly/2ed80fg

Women in Iceland protest pay gap by leaving work 14 percent early.

Join us: fb.com/unitedhumanists

Women in Iceland protest pay gap by leaving work 14 percent early.

Even in Iceland, the country many experts consider the world’s leader in gender equity, the gender pay gap persists. Women employees make 14 to 18 percent less than men in Iceland — a discrepancy that unions and women’s organizations say means women effectively work for free after 2:38 pm. On Monday, in protest of the pay gap, thousands of Icelandic women decided to work the hours their pay merited — by leaving their workplaces promptly when the clock struck 2:38.

“[Iceland] is a good place to be a woman,” says Vigdis Finnbogadottir, who in 1980 became Iceland’s president and, in so doing, the world’s first democratically elected woman president. Things weren’t always so clear cut, however. Before October 24, 1975, when 90 percent of Iceland’s women went on strike — refusing to work, cook, or even provide childcare — only nine women had ever won seats in the country’s parliament. Just five years later, Finnbogadottir was elected. By 1999, more than a third of the country’s MPs were women. And in 2000, Iceland’s government passed a landmark parental leave legislation that many credit with helping women to return to work, and their former hours, more quickly after childbirth. Today, 90 percent of Icelandic fathers take parental leave — and research has shown that they continue to be involved in housework and childcare even after the leave is over.

The pay gap, however, has been slow to close — should the gap continue to shrink at the current rate, it would take 52 years before men and women were being paid equally. While explanations for the discrepancy vary, women and Icelandic leadership alike agree that the progress is too slow.

“It doesn’t matter whether it’s a gender pay gap or any other pay gap,” said Gylfi Arnbjörnsson, president of the Icelandic Confederation of Labor. “It’s just unacceptable to say we’ll correct this in 50 years. That’s a lifetime.”

Source: http://nyti.ms/2eyaaHe

Rising Number of Homeless Gay Teens Being Cast Out by Religious Families.

Join us: fb.com/unitedhumanists

Rising Number of Homeless Gay Teens Being Cast Out by Religious Families.

While life gets better for millions of gays, the number of homeless LGBT teens – many cast out by their religious families – quietly keeps growing.

One late night at the end of her sophomore year of college, Jackie sat in her parked car and made a phone call that would forever change the course of her life. An attractive sorority girl with almond eyes and delicate dimples, she was the product of a charmed Boise, Idaho, upbringing: a father who worked in finance, a private­school education, a pool in the backyard, all the advantages that an upper-middle-class suburban childhood can provide – along with all the expectations attendant to that privilege.

“There was a standard to meet,” Jackie says. “And I had met that standard my whole life. I was a straight-A student, the president of every club, I was in every sport. I remember my first day of college, my parents came with me to register for classes, and they sat down with my adviser and said, ‘So, what’s the best way to get her into law school?'”

Jackie just followed her parents’ lead understanding implicitly that discipline and structure went hand in hand with her family’s devout Catholic beliefs. She attended Mass three times a week, volunteered as an altar server and was the fourth generation of her family to attend her Catholic school; her grandfather had helped tile the cathedral. “My junior year of high school, my parents thought it was weird that I’d never had a boyfriend,” she says, “so I knew I was supposed to get one. And I did. It was all just a rational thought process. None of it was emotionally involved.”

After graduating, Jackie attended nearby University of Idaho, where she rushed a sorority at her parents’ prompting. She chose a triple major of which they approved. “I remember walking out of the sorority house to go to Walmart or something, and I stopped at the door and thought to myself, ‘Should I tell someone I’m leaving?'” she says. “It was the first time in my life where I could just go somewhere and be my own person.”

In fact, it took the freedom of college for Jackie to even realize who her “own person” was. “Growing up, I knew that I felt different, but when you grow up Catholic, you don’t really know gay is an option,” she says. “I grew up in a household that said ‘fag’ a lot. We called people ‘fags,’ or things were ‘faggy.'” Her only sex-ed class was taught by a priest, and all she remembers him saying is, “‘Don’t masturbate and don’t be gay.’ I didn’t know what those words meant, so I just hoped to God that I wasn’t doing either of them.”

When Jackie got to college, the “typical gay sorority encounters” she found herself having didn’t seem to qualify as anything more than youthful exploration; she thought all girls drunkenly made out with their best friends. By her sophomore year, she was dating a fraternity brother but was also increasingly turned on by a friend she worked with at the campus women’s center. “I was just playing it off as ‘So maybe I’m just gay for you – I mean, I don’t have to tell my boyfriend’ kind of thing,” she says. “I knew what I wanted, but it was never something I ever envisioned that I could have on a public level.” And yet, as her friendship with this woman turned physical and their relationship grew more serious, Jackie saw her future shrinking before her: a heterosexual marriage, children, church and the knowledge that all of it was based on a lie. “I honestly thought my whole life I was just going to be an undercover gay,” she says, shaking her head in disbelief.

For better or worse, that plan was never to be. Toward the end of her sophomore year, Jackie got a text message from one of her sorority sisters who said she’d been seen kissing another girl, after which certain sisters started making it clear that they were not comfortable around Jackie. (“You’re living in the same house together,” she says, “and, of course, to close-minded people, if somebody’s gay, that means you’re automatically interested in all 80 of them.”) Eventually, she went before her chapter’s executive board and became the first sorority girl at her college to ever come out, at which point she realized that if she didn’t tell her parents, someone else would. “I was convinced somebody was going to blast it on Facebook.”

So while Jackie hoped for the best, she knew the call she was making had the potential to not end well. “You can’t hate me after I say this,” she pleaded when, alarmed to be receiving a call in the middle of the night, her mom picked up the phone.

“Oh, my God, you’re pregnant” was her mom’s first response, before running through a litany of parental fears. “Are you in jail? Did you get expelled? Are you in trouble? What happened? What did you do?” Suddenly her mom’s silence matched Jackie’s own. “Oh, my God,” she murmured in disbelief. “Are you gay?”

“Yeah,” Jackie forced herself to say.

After what felt like an eternity, her mom finally responded. “I don’t know what we could have done for God to have given us a fag as a child,” she said before hanging up.

As soon as the line went dead, Jackie began sobbing. Still, she convinced herself that her parents would come around and accept her, despite what they perceived to be her flaw. As planned, she drove to Canada to celebrate her birthday with friends. When her debit card didn’t work on the second day of the trip, she figured it was because she was in another country. Once back in the States, however, she got a call from her older brother. “He said, ‘Mom and Dad don’t want to talk to you, but I’m supposed to tell you what’s going to happen,'” Jackie recalls. “And he’s like, ‘All your cards are going to be shut off, and Mom and Dad want you to take the car and drop it off at this specific location. Your phone’s going to last for this much longer. They don’t want you coming to the house, and you’re not to contact them. You’re not going to get any money from them. Nothing. And if you don’t return the car, they’re going to report it stolen.’ And I’m just bawling. I hung up on him because I couldn’t handle it.” Her brother was so firm, so matter-of-fact, it was as if they already weren’t family.

From that moment, Jackie knew that she was entirely on her own, that she had no home, no money and no family who would help her – and that this was the terrible price she’d pay for being a lesbian.

Jackie’s story may be distinctive in its particulars, but across America, it is hardly unique. Research done by San Francisco State University’s Family Acceptance Project, which studies and works to prevent health and mental­health risks facing LGBT youth, empirically confirms what common sense would imply to be true: Highly religious parents are significantly more likely than their less-religious counterparts to reject their children for being gay – a finding that social-service workers believe goes a long way toward explaining why LGBT people make up roughly five percent of the youth population overall, but an estimated 40 percent of the homeless-youth population. The Center for American Progress has reported that there are between 320,000 and 400,000 homeless LGBT youths in the United States. Meanwhile, as societal advancements have made being gay less stigmatized and gay people more visible – and as the Internet now allows kids to reach beyond their circumscribed social groups for acceptance and support – the average coming-out age has dropped from post-college age in the 1990s to around 16 today, which means that more and more kids are coming out while they’re still economically reliant on their families. The resulting flood of kids who end up on the street, kicked out by parents whose religious beliefs often make them feel compelled to cast out their own offspring (one study estimates that up to 40 percent of LGBT homeless youth leave home due to family rejection), has been called a “hidden epidemic.” Tragically, every step forward for the gay-rights movement creates a false hope of acceptance for certain youth, and therefore a swelling of the homeless-youth population.

“The summer that marriage equality passed in New York, we saw the number of homeless kids looking for shelter go up 40 percent,” says Carl Siciliano, founder of the Ali Forney Center, the nation’s largest organization dedicated to homeless LGBT youth. A former Benedictine monk-in-training, who once went by the nickname Baby Jesus, Siciliano had spent years living in monasteries and serving in shelters run by the Catholic Worker Movement before his own sexuality inextricably came between him and his institutional faith. “I ended up just feeling like the Catholic Church was wack,” he says. “Cardinal O’Connor [the archbishop of New York at the time who once said if he was forced to hire homosexuals, he would shut down all of the Catholic schools and orphanages in the diocese] was like the arch-homophobe of America.” Siciliano was working at a housing program for the homeless in the Nineties when he noticed that his clientele was getting younger and younger. Until then, he says, “you almost never saw kids. It was Vietnam vets, alcoholics and deinstitutionalized mentally ill people.” But not only were more kids showing up, they were also disappearing. “Every couple of months one of our kids would get killed,” Siciliano says. “And it would always be a gay kid.” In 2002, he founded the Ali Forney Center, naming it after a homeless 22-year-old who’d been shot in the head on the street in Harlem, not far from where the organization’s drop-in center currently resides. Siciliano had been close with Forney and felt that had he had a safe place to go, he might be alive today.

Since founding the center, Siciliano, 49, has become one of the nation’s most outspoken homeless advocates. “I feel like the LGBT movement has been asleep at the wheel when it comes to this,” he says, running his hands through his closely cropped hair and sighing. “We’ve been so focused on laws – changing the laws around marriage equality, changing ‘don’t ask, don’t tell,’ getting adoption rights – that we haven’t been fighting for economic resources. How many tax dollars do gay people contribute? What percentage of tax dollars comes back to our gay kids? We haven’t matured enough as a movement yet that we’re looking at the economics of things.”

Siciliano also understands that the kids he works with don’t sync up with to the message everyone wants to hear: It gets better. “There is a psychological reality that when you’re an oppressed group whose very existence is under attack, you need to create this narrative about how great it is to be what you are,” he says. “It’s like, ‘Leave the repression and the fear behind and be embraced by this accepting community, and suddenly everyone is beautiful and has good bodies and great sex and beautiful furniture, and rah-rah-rah.’ And, from day one of the Stonewall Riots, homeless kids were not what people wanted to see. No one wanted to see young people coming out and being cast into destitution. It didn’t fit the narrative.”

Jackie knew well what her parents thought of homosexuality, but she still held out hope that maybe over time her family would come around. With the last of her cash, she bought a bus ticket back to campus, where within a few weeks she defaulted on her rent. She started couch surfing and persuaded the women’s center to let her work through the summer for $6 an hour, 10 hours a week. “I mean, it was crap money, but it was something,” she says. “I didn’t tell anybody the situation I was in. I didn’t tell anybody I was hungry every day. I didn’t tell them I didn’t have a place to stay, because I thought this was my punishment for being gay and I deserved it.” She’d ask friends to crash overnight, lying about being too drunk to go home. If that fell through, she’d spend nights in study rooms on campus. She found herself dating women simply to have a bed, which she admits was neither “healthy nor permanent.”

In the upheaval that had suddenly become her daily existence, Jackie felt that she had to cling to something constant; she chose her education. The day after returning to campus, she went to the financial­aid office to ask for the help she’d never before had to seek, appealing to the university to gain status as an independent student. Though she did eventually receive tuition assistance, Jackie says, “You’re not meant to be homeless and a student. I learned really fast how to pretend to not be poor. I learned that if I had a couple of nice things to wear, nobody would notice that you wear them all the time. Or if you are a sociable person, people don’t notice that you’re never actually buying drinks. You just sort of figure it out.”

She was soon taking any job she could get: on campus, in town, even picking up the odd construction shift. “I would do anything I could for money,” she says. She finally pieced together enough funds to get a room in an apartment, but she couldn’t afford furniture. To hide her penury, she never let anyone in her room. Even being around other gay people was sometimes difficult, a reminder that though “they had committed the same ‘sin,’ their parents loved them,” she says. “They got to go home for the holidays. I had these moments when I would say, ‘I did everything right. I excelled in all the right ways. So why me?’ That hurt really bad. I mean, how do you explain to people that your parents chose not to parent you anymore?”

At times, it felt like more than Jackie could bear, and in these moments of doubt and despair she wrote her mother and father countless letters and e-mails begging them to be her parents again. “I wanted to take it all back so badly,” she says. “I was just like, ‘I’m sorry, I didn’t mean any of it.'” They eventually responded: If she went to a conversion therapist and tried to be straight, they would at least help her financially. At first, she agreed. “But I couldn’t do it,” she says now, four years later, in a city hundreds of miles away from where she imagines her parents still live. “I wanted to be their kid, but I couldn’t change. Everyone I’d ever known my whole life cut ties with me. But this was who I am.”

Growing up in a small Midwestern town, the son of a divorced Latina who worked three jobs, James would have felt like an outsider even if it weren’t for his sexuality. His hometown was the kind of all-American, cornfed place where “on every street corner you’d find a church” and where “the football players, if they knew you were gay, would call you a fag and tell you to suck their dick, or try to get you to bend over.” Already sidelined for being a minority, James, 20, says he “was terrified of being branded the gay kid.” In fact, he was so afraid that he suppressed an effervescent personality and kept to himself. When an openly gay classmate gave him a love letter, James was too scared to act on the impulses he’d felt for as long as he could remember. “So I just flipped out on him. I wasn’t ready for that.”

The same kind of fear kept James silent at home, where his mom cycled through religions: first Catholic, then Pentecostal (“die-hard Pentecostal”), then Jehovah’s Witness, and then back to Catholic once she met James’ stepfather. Though James never told his mom he liked other boys, her views on the matter were abundantly clear – “It was disgusting, sick, adding to the end of the world” – and she must have suspected. “At one point, and I was right there,” he says, “my mom actually told this lady that she loved all of her children besides me.”

Nevertheless, he worked up the courage to secretly start dating someone he’d met while waiting tables, and when he accidentally left his phone at home one day, his mom searched through it and found a picture of them kissing. “That was the day it really got serious,” James says of the fallout with his family. “When I came home, she accused me of being a whore and told me I’d die of STDs. She made my brother move out of the room that we shared. I guess she thought it was a disease or something, that I would give him the gay. Like, I’d touch him and he’d automatically be gay.”

Shortly after James graduated from high school, his mom told him that her home was not open to “people like you.” He grabbed a bag and followed her orders. “I was like, ‘I don’t know how I’m going to do this, I don’t know where I’m going,'” he says. “‘But at some point, it has to get better.'” He decided to get as far from home as he could. “I hitchhiked – 18-wheelers, anybody who would give me a ride. I knew it was dangerous.” He was in Florida before he felt like he’d gone far enough to stay put, though the only place he could find to sleep was an abandoned lot. “It used to be an old bus station,” he says, shrugging. He lasted three penniless weeks alone there, collecting rainwater to drink and going hungry. “For the first week, you’ll be like, ‘I’m dying of hunger,’ but after a while you don’t feel it anymore.” He finally got in touch with a friend who lived in Atlanta, and ended up staying in the friend’s car until they heard about a shelter called Lost-n-Found Youth, which had been started specifically for the large influx of homeless LGBT kids who travel from the surrounding red states to one of the South’s most liberal cities.

As James (who has asked me to change his name so he would not be identifiable to his family) is telling me this, he’s covered in dust and plaster particles from renovation work on the rambling old Victorian that Lost-n-Found has been able to lease for $1 a year. One day, the house will be able to give shelter to 18 homeless youths – a day that cannot come nearly soon enough for Rick Westbrook, a kindly 51-year-old with a serious Southern drawl. Along with two friends, Westbrook started Lost-n-Found in a small but cozy home he rented using donated funds, after learning that LGBT youth were frequently being turned away at local shelters.

Westbrook, known to his charges as “Mama Rick,” says this has been due to discrimination: In one survey, approximately one in five LGBT youth were unable to secure short-term shelter, and 16 percent could not get assistance with longer-term housing – figures that were almost double those of their non-LGBT peers. However, it’s clear that funding is also a problem. The U.S. government spends more than $5 billion annually on homeless-assistance programs, yet federal laws allocate less than five percent to homeless children and youth specifically (though some money also makes its way to them through more generalized programs under agencies like HUD and the Department of Labor). Most of the dedicated funds are allocated through the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act (RHYA), which expired last September. “This is the first time it has not been reauthorized on time since 1988,” says Gregory Lewis, executive director of Cyndi Lauper’s True Colors Fund, who is working with Congress to ensure that RHYA will include a nondiscrimination clause. Currently, Lewis tells me, “there are no legal federal protections in place to bar discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity in RHYA programs.” At one residential placement facility in Michigan, LGBT teens were made to wear orange jumpsuits to “warn” other residents about their sexuality.

Since 2002, when President George W. Bush issued an executive order that permitted faith-based organizations to receive federal support for social services, an increased amount of federal funding has gone to churches and religion­affiliated organizations where LGBT youth may not feel welcome. The biggest provider for homeless youth in the country is Covenant House, an organization based in New York and a shelter where LGBT teens have historically faced harassment. “The gay kids would routinely get bashed there,” Siciliano tells me. “In the Nineties, one of the first kids I had go there came back and said he would never go back. When I asked why, he said they put him in a dorm with 14 kids, and when they went to bed, they gathered around and urinated on him to show how much they hated having a gay kid there.”

Yet to have even landed a bed at Covenant would have taken some luck. In New York, a city with nearly 4,000 homeless youth, there are only around 350 spots in youth shelters, and less than a third of those spots are designated for LGBT kids, despite their disproportionate share of the homeless-youth population. (And considering that many homeless youth may not openly identify themselves as LGBT when seeking services, many providers believe that the estimate of 40 percent may be far too low.) Across the country, there are only 4,000 youth-shelter beds overall, while an estimate derived from the National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway and Thrownaway Children put the number of homeless minors at 1.7 million. “We’ve actually thought about creating a handbook: This is what to look for in a decent, abandoned building to stay in,” says Westbrook ruefully. “If we don’t have the space for them, as an activist, it’s the next logical step: Give them information.”

While reserving beds for LGBT youth might at first seem like segregation, providers have often found that it can be difficult to ensure a safe space otherwise – and that creating a safe space can have a very discernible effect. James’ roommate Hannah (unlike most shelters, Lost-n-Found does not separate rooms by sex, making it much easier for trans kids to assimilate) was in and out of shelters all over the Atlanta area for more than three years after she was kicked out by a mother who had adopted her at age two because she’d always wanted a girl, and then rejected her when Hannah proved not girlie enough. “She read me Scripture about how people who have sexual sin would not enter the gates of heaven,” Hannah, a zaftig African­American, says, frowning. When that didn’t seem to have an effect, “she takes a knife and puts it right here” – Hannah points to her neck – “and says she will kill me, that she hates me and regrets adopting me.” Hannah was 20 and just back from a Job Corps training program when she found a policeman at her bedroom door telling her she had to leave, that her mom no longer wanted Hannah under her roof. Her stepfather gave her $20 on the way out. While driving her to a bus stop, the cop told her how sorry he was.

Over the next three years, Hannah cycled through shelter after shelter. The weeks, and sometimes months, when she couldn’t find a bed, she slept on the street, often outside the Day Shelter for Women, where she could at least get warm meals and a shower, even if she also found maggots in her hair. Living like that, it was impossible to imagine going to a job interview, especially after she lost her birth certificate and high school diploma when a worker at a shelter accidentally cleaned out her locker. She sold pot to make money and considered prostitution, a way many homeless women she knew got by. “I was very tempted,” she tells me. “Like, I had a guy say, ‘I’ll give you $100 if you do what I tell you to do.'” Hannah knew $100 was enough money to put herself up in a hotel for a couple of nights, but she says, “I could never see myself doing it.”

It wasn’t until she finally got off the waitlist at Lost-n-Found that Hannah began to see there might be a future for herself as a nonstraight woman – a revelation that Westbrook assures me is not uncommon. “Just in the two years we’ve been up and running,” he says, “there’ve been several kids we’ve run into who have been through every single system in town, but for some reason, they did not thrive. Other caseworkers had told us, ‘Good luck with him or her. We did all we could.’ These kids are now either in college or in an apartment of their own. The minute you bring them into a program like ours, where they’re with people like themselves, they don’t feel like they’re outnumbered, they don’t feel oppressed. They blossom.”

Hannah still sometimes feels like she’s “burning in hell.” She still wonders if “my life’s always been horrible because I like girls.” But since she started staying at Lost-n-Found, things have definitely shifted. She no longer sleeps with a knife under her pillow or worries about being kicked out of a shelter for her sexuality. She has a steady job with UPS, LGBT friends who accept her and a small safety net of savings to get her own apartment one day soon. “I’m not scared no more,” she says. “I don’t have to worry about people beating on me. It has been 100 percent better.”

For LGBT kids who remain homeless, the stakes are clearly life and death. They are seven times more likely than their straight counterparts to be the victims of a crime, often a violent one. Studies have shown they are more than three times more likely to engage in survival sex – for which shelter is the payment more often than cash. They are more likely to lack access to medical care, more likely to attempt suicide, more likely to use hard drugs and more likely to be arrested for survival crimes. According to the Equity Project, leaving home because of family­ rejection is the single greatest predictor of involvement with the juvenile-justice system for LGBT youth. And for so many of these outcomes, the clock starts ticking the moment a kid hits the streets. “We know we have 24 to 48 hours to get to them before they do anything illegal – whether it’s selling drugs, stealing or prostitution,” says Westbrook. “It’s a survival thing. In America, we lose six queer kids a day to the street. That’s every four hours a queer kid dies, whether it be from freezing to death or getting the shit beat out of them or a drug overdose. This is our next real plague.”

In fact, the ability to cope and handle homeless life may be significantly diminished in children who have grown up in very sheltered, religious environments. “It sounds so paradoxical, but the kid who’s been abused and neglected from childhood, in this very perverse way, they’re ready for the trauma that’s to come on the streets,” says Jim Theofelis, executive director of the Mockingbird Society, an advocacy organization for young people impacted by homelessness and the foster-care system, which does not always effectively screen for family acceptance before placing an LGBT youth. “But queer youth who grew up in a family where they were taken care of, and there was ice cream in the freezer at night, they face an extra challenge of really not being prepared for the culture of the streets or the foster-care system.”

That so many once-coddled youth choose this lifestyle over remaining at home is a testament to how horrifying familial rejection can be – and a phenomenon youth advocates refer to as being not “kicked out” but rather “edged out.” “The greatest gift my family ever gave me is driving me to the train station,” says Luke, 20, a soft-spoken son of a Pentecostal preacher who grew up in a backwoods part of Tennessee so remote that the closest town had less than 2,000 people and was 20 miles away. His only neighbors were a great-aunt and great-uncle, and because he was home-schooled until the second grade, after which his education ceased altogether (“My family didn’t approve of the things they taught at school, like science and sex ed”), he would go whole months at a time without seeing anyone outside of his family and the members of his church. He attended services at least three times a week, participating in faith healings and speaking in tongues. His dad performed exorcisms at home; once Luke realized that the feelings he had for men meant that he was gay, he was terrified that an exorcism would be performed on him. “It’s their belief that they can see auras or tell when people are lying, so I was always scared that everyone would be able to figure out my sexuality that way,” Luke says. “I prayed all the time that they wouldn’t. It was all just demon possession. That’s how they thought all gay people were, just possessed.” When the issue of gay rights would come up on the radio, Luke’s father would say in disgust, “They should gather all the gay people together and just kill them.” When Luke finally worked up the nerve to come out to his mother, she told him, “If you want to live, don’t tell your dad.”

But by then, Luke wasn’t sure he did want to live. He felt so depressed that he rarely left his room. He started having panic attacks. When a friend he’d made online told him that he couldn’t possibly stay in his situation any longer, he knew it was true. But he also knew that he didn’t have any skills, any education, any money or anywhere else to go. That’s when his friend sent him a $300 train ticket to Portland, Oregon, and told him about a youth shelter called Outside In. Luke told his family he was leaving, and though they warned him about how scary it was in the outside world, they didn’t stop him.

For Luke, the outside world has in fact been scary. During his three-day train ride to the West Coast, he barely left his seat except to change trains in Chicago, where Union Station was filled with more people than he’d ever seen in his life. Once he got to Portland and secured a shelter bed, he was so shy that he couldn’t speak above a whisper. “There were a lot of heroin users, a lot of meth and weed,” he says. “I was like, ‘I don’t know if I can do this, because I’m used to being around church people.'” Nevertheless, the time away from his family has helped him begin to accept the reality of his sexuality. “I’m free now, and I can be how I want, and that’s not wrong at all. It’s a struggle at times, but I’m getting there.” On the day we spoke, Luke had been homeless for almost a year. “It’s definitely been the best year of my life,” he says.

On Palm Sunday this past April, Carl Siciliano wrote an open letter to Pope Francis that was published as a full-page ad in The New York Times. “Your Holiness,” it began, “I write to you as a Roman Catholic, a former Benedictine monk and as a gay man who has spent over 30 years serving the homeless.” It then went on to explain how the papal stance on homosexuality tears families apart and to beg the head of the church – which disregards biblical passages on atrocities like slavery and genocide – to see that the time has come to reconsider a teaching that yields “such a bitter harvest.”

Of course, the bitter harvest begins long before a child ends up on the streets. When Ben, the youngest son of a Baptist minister from New Hampshire, asked his mother at age nine what the word “gay” meant, he didn’t realize that the answer she gave would describe his own feelings – or that those feelings would, from that moment on, impact his emotional development. “She explained what it was and told me that it was an abomination,” Ben tells me in the sunny group-therapy room at the Ali Forney Center, which he ran away to at age 17. “It was like telling a nine-year-old that they are broken. I remember being on the kitchen floor just crying, praying to God for him to make me normal. That’s how I looked at it: ‘If it’s this bad for me to be this way, why did God make me? I wish I were dead.'” When Ben finally did come out to his parents at age 16, they sent him away to a Christian school across the country and began to explore reparative-therapy options, all of which reinforced the idea that he was terribly flawed, so much so that “the people closest to me thought I needed to be changed, fixed.”

The problem is, running away, as Ben did, may deliver youth from their parents’ judgment, but not from that of God – whom more than half of the youth I spoke with said they still believed in – and once on the street, the psychological trauma that’s inherent in this deeply internalized shame often plays out to their detriment. And yet, as hard as it might be to imagine conservative faiths backing down from their demonization of homosexuality, it can be equally hard to get activists to address the issue. “LGBT­advocacy groups don’t want to talk about religion,” says Mitchell Gold, founder of Faith in America. “One, they don’t want to come across as anti-religion. And two, they just aren’t familiar with it. But the number-one hurdle to LGBT equality is religious­based bigotry. The face of the gay-rights movement shouldn’t be what I call ’40-year-old well-moisturized couples.’ The face of the gay-rights movement should be a 15-year-old kid that’s been thrown out of his house and taught that he’s a sinner.”

Of course, even when it’s a large factor, religion often isn’t the only reason a child leaves home. Many stories include poverty, addiction and abuse; the intricate workings of a family’s dynamic can be impossible for an outsider to understand or parse. But it becomes so natural to vilify parents who’ve abdicated­ their duties or alienated their kids that it is often forgotten how very hard it can be to change one’s worldview in the face of deeply ingrained religious beliefs. “It’s easy to see kids as victims and parents as perpetrators,” says Caitlin Ryan of the Family Acceptance Project. “But most parents would not want to make a Sophie’s choice between their faith and their child. These are parents who have been given misinformation for years.”

Nevertheless, more than 40 percent of the agencies responding to the LGBT Homeless Youth Provider Survey do not offer services that address family conflict. When Child Services got involved with Ben’s case, as the law requires of homeless minors, they initially wanted to send him home. And his parents wanted him back: Under their own roof, they would have been able to control his contact with the secular influences they felt were affecting his sexuality. Ben refused to return to that environment. He promised his social worker that he would only run away again – and that the next time, he’d know enough to stay under the radar.

In December 2013, Jackie finally graduated from college – not that she attended the ceremonies. “The only reason you walk during graduation is so people can watch you,” she says. “But I had nobody to invite – and a cap and gown cost money – so I just took a shift at work instead.”

As she’s saying all this, Jackie, now 24, is slowly sipping a Pabst Blue Ribbon in the sort of pleasant dive you’d expect to find in Portland, the city she now calls home (the signs on the bathroom doors read BOTH and EITHER). Last week, the marriage-equality law went into effect in Oregon, and so it’s a celebratory time, even for those like Jackie who know what disappointments faith in one’s future can bring. Not long ago, she was in Ikea with her girlfriend, when, for the first time in years, she felt herself begin to come apart. “I never shed a tear after coming out, ever, but I always knew the mourning was going to come, and it did,” she says. “When you stop stressing about food and having a roof over your head, you stress about normal things like wanting to be wanted, or wanting to be loved, or ‘Damn, I wish I had a photo of myself from when I was a kid.'”

Jackie’s girlfriend has helped her cope with the transition. Now that Jackie has a job training sexual­assault advocates, she can enjoy the first adult relationship she’s ever had, in which a stocked fridge and warm bed weren’t wrapped up in it, marring the emotional aspects. And while she says it’s strange, being with someone simply to be with them, she admits “there’s a healing process in entering a consensual, healthy relationship that’s based on love rather than need.” It’s not quite the same as having a family, but it’s not like being alone either.

The evening’s golden sunlight streams in through the bar’s front window, washing the room in sepia tones. Jackie leans back in her chair. Wearing Ray-Bans, hair rakishly swooped to the side, she looks like any other educated, socially conscious Portland hipster. But for Jackie, poverty and abandonment are brands she’ll carry for life. “I’ll never look at a bed in the same way; I’ll never look at food in the same way,” she says. “Sometimes, I’ll sit at a table with people I interact with on a daily basis and think, ‘None of these people have an inkling of anything I’ve been through, and they never will.'”

Jackie doubts she’ll ever speak to her family again, though it’s still hard to think of holidays spent without them, of childhood stories that will remain untold, of the jarring lack of continuity between her existence then and now. “I spent the past four years paying for that one sentence I uttered,” she says quietly. “People ask me all the time if I hate my parents for everything they’ve put me through, but I really don’t. If anything, I just feel sad for them because I’m sure it hurts so bad to have chosen their religious values over their child. I mean, in the grand scheme of things, they suffered through it just as much as I did, just in different ways.” She sighs and looks out the window to where the shadows will soon lengthen into night. “I think, in the long run, no one won.”

Source: http://rol.st/2evyB7R

Neoliberalism is creating loneliness and wrenching society apart.

Join us: fb.com/unitedhumanists

Neoliberalism is creating loneliness and wrenching society apart.

What greater indictment of a system could there be than an epidemic of mental illness? Yet plagues of anxiety, stress, depression, social phobia, eating disorders, self-harm and loneliness now strike people down all over the world. The latest, catastrophic figures for children’s mental health in England reflect a global crisis.

In Britain, men who have spent their entire lives in quadrangles – at school, at college, at the bar, in parliament – instruct us to stand on our own two feet. The education system becomes more brutally competitive by the year. Employment is a fight to the near-death with a multitude of other desperate people chasing ever fewer jobs. The modern overseers of the poor ascribe individual blame to economic circumstance. Endless competitions on television feed impossible aspirations as real opportunities contract.

Consumerism fills the social void. But far from curing the disease of isolation, it intensifies social comparison to the point at which, having consumed all else, we start to prey upon ourselves. Social media brings us together and drives us apart, allowing us precisely to quantify our social standing, and to see that other people have more friends and followers than we do.

As Rhiannon Lucy Cosslett has brilliantly documented, girls and young women routinely alter the photos they post to make themselves look smoother and slimmer. Some phones, using their “beauty” settings, do it for you without asking; now you can become your own thinspiration. Welcome to the post-Hobbesian dystopia: a war of everyone against themselves.

Is it any wonder, in these lonely inner worlds, in which touching has been replaced by retouching, that young women are drowning in mental distress? A recent survey in England suggests that one in four women between 16 and 24 have harmed themselves, and one in eight now suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder. Anxiety, depression, phobias or obsessive compulsive disorder affect 26% of women in this age group. This is what a public health crisis looks like.

If social rupture is not treated as seriously as broken limbs, it is because we cannot see it. But neuroscientists can. A series of fascinating papers suggest that social pain and physical pain are processed by the same neural circuits. This might explain why, in many languages, it is hard to describe the impact of breaking social bonds without the words we use to denote physical pain and injury. In both humans and other social mammals, social contact reduces physical pain. This is why we hug our children when they hurt themselves: affection is a powerful analgesic. Opioids relieve both physical agony and the distress of separation. Perhaps this explains the link between social isolation and drug addiction.

Experiments summarised in the journal Physiology & Behaviour last month suggest that, given a choice of physical pain or isolation, social mammals will choose the former. Capuchin monkeys starved of both food and contact for 22 hours will rejoin their companions before eating. Children who experience emotional neglect, according to some findings, suffer worse mental health consequences than children suffering both emotional neglect and physical abuse: hideous as it is, violence involves attention and contact. Self-harm is often used as an attempt to alleviate distress: another indication that physical pain is not as bad as emotional pain. As the prison system knows only too well, one of the most effective forms of torture is solitary confinement.

It’s unsurprising that social isolation is strongly associated with depression, suicide, anxiety, insomnia, fear and the perception of threat. It’s more surprising to discover the range of physical illnesses it causes or exacerbates. Dementia, high blood pressure, heart disease, strokes, lowered resistance to viruses, even accidents are more common among chronically lonely people. Loneliness has a comparable impact on physical health to smoking 15 cigarettes a day: it appears to raise the risk of early death by 26%. This is partly because it enhances production of the stress hormone cortisol, which suppresses the immune system.

Studies in both animals and humans suggest a reason for comfort eating: isolation reduces impulse control, leading to obesity. As those at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder are the most likely to suffer from loneliness, might this provide one of the explanations for the strong link between low economic status and obesity?

Anyone can see that something far more important than most of the issues we fret about has gone wrong. So why are we engaging in this world-eating, self-consuming frenzy of environmental destruction and social dislocation, if all it produces is unbearable pain? Should this question not burn the lips of everyone in public life?

There are some wonderful charities doing what they can to fight this tide, some of which I am going to be working with as part of my loneliness project. But for every person they reach, several others are swept past.

This does not require a policy response. It requires something much bigger: the reappraisal of an entire worldview. Of all the fantasies human beings entertain, the idea that we can go it alone is the most absurd and perhaps the most dangerous. We stand together or we fall apart.

Source: http://bit.ly/2f78Tbc

Should You Let Your Pets Lick Your Face?

Join us: fb.com/unitedhumanists

Should You Let Your Pets Lick Your Face?

It seems harmless enough. You get nose to nose with your dog and talk to it as it laps at your mouth and cheeks with its tongue, or you come home from work and bring your lips to your dog’s in a greeting to say hello.

It may feel like the ultimate display of affection, but when it comes to such kisses, experts caution: Beware of dogs.

What’s the harm?

Dr. Neilanjan Nandi, an assistant professor of medicine at Drexel University College of Medicine in Philadelphia, said in an email that most animals’ mouths are host to “an enormous oral microbiome of bacteria, viruses and yeast.”

Dr. Nandi says a dog’s saliva has proteins that may help cleanse or heal its own wounds, but in a paragraph titled “Why Not to Make Out With Your Pet,” he noted, “There are some organisms unique to dogs that we were simply not meant to tolerate or combat.”

Some bacteria in dogs’ mouths are zoonotic, meaning the animals can pass them to humans and cause disease.

Some common zoonotic bacteria include clostridium, E. coli, salmonella and campylobacter, which can cause severe gastrointestinal disease in humans, said Dr. Leni K. Kaplan, a lecturer of community practice service at Cornell University’s College of Veterinary Medicine.

So I shouldn’t let my dog lick me at all?

Not entirely.

“When dog saliva touches intact human skin, especially in a healthy person, it is extremely unlikely to cause any problems, as there will be very little absorption through the skin,” Dr. Kaplan wrote in an email.

However, a dog’s saliva and pathogens can be absorbed more easily through the mucous membranes of a person’s nose, mouth and eyes. Though illnesses transmitted this way are rare, Dr. Kaplan said it was best to avoid having your dog lick those parts of your face.

John Oxford, a professor of virology at Queen Mary University of London and an expert in microbiology, said he would never let a dog lick his face, The Hippocratic Post reported.

“It is not just what is carried in saliva,” he said. “Dogs spend half of their life with their noses in nasty corners or hovering over dog droppings so their muzzles are full of bacteria, viruses and germs of all sorts.”

What other illnesses can be transmitted?

Other infections, such as hookworms and roundworms, can be transmitted in a practice called coprophagia, in which animals ingest one another’s stool or by licking each others’ anuses, Dr. Nandi said in an email.

Dr. Joe Kinnarney, the immediate past president of the American Veterinary Medical Association, said in an interview that one study calculated that a puppy could have as many as 20 million to 30 million roundworm eggs in its intestinal tract in one week. He said a client’s child at his practice in Greensboro, N.C., nearly lost an eye from a roundworm infection.

It is conceivable that a dog with fecal material in its mouth could transmit an intestinal parasite to a human through licking, but that is rare, Dr. Sarah Proctor, a clinical assistant professor and the director of the veterinary technology program at the University of New Hampshire, said in an email.

More commonly, a parasite can be contracted by ingesting contaminated soil — via a home garden, for example — where pets have left their droppings.

President Obama even touched on the subject in an interview with Wired magazine that was published in August:

“I still don’t let Sunny and Bo lick me, because when I walk them on the side lawn, some of the things I see them picking up and chewing on, I don’t want that, man,” Mr. Obama said, laughing.

Are there other hazards?

Dr. Proctor says people should be aware that not all dogs want to be hugged or kissed.

“Most people do not pick up on a dog’s subtle body language that shows fear, stress or aggression,” she wrote. “Putting your face into a dog’s face and kissing it could lead to a bite on the face if you are not careful.”

What about, you know, cats?

Cats do not eat feces, and humans are therefore unlikely to become infected by parasites from them, according to the website petMD.

Cats’ mouths do harbor Pasteurella, which can cause infections of the skin and lymph node, and Bartonella henselae, a bacterium that can cause a severe skin and lymph node infection known as cat scratch fever, the website reported.

Most of those infections come from bites or scratches.

What precautions should I take?

Experts recommend:

• Make sure your pet is current on all vaccines.

• New pets should undergo deworming.

• Keep your pets away from the feces of other animals.

• Wash your hands regularly with soap and water. Here’s how to do it right.

Arden Moore, who hosts “Oh Behave,” a podcast on Pet Life Radio, said in an email that she welcomed the occasional kiss from her five dogs and one cat, and kisses the tops of their heads in return.

“Pets, just like people, crave attention and affection,” she said. “As long as I remain healthy and my pets stay healthy, I will take this ‘risk’ and accept their kisses.”

Source: http://nyti.ms/2exZYMs

Artificial intelligence will change the course of our species.

Join us: fb.com/unitedhumanists

Artificial intelligence will change the course of our species.

What was once just a figment of the imagination of some our most famous science fiction writers, artificial intelligence (AI) is taking root in our everyday lives. We’re still a few years away from having robots at our beck and call, but AI has already had a profound impact in more subtle ways. Weather forecasts, email spam filtering, Google’s search predictions, and voice recognition, such Apple’s Siri, are all examples. What these technologies have in common are machine-learning algorithms that enable them to react and respond in real time. There will be growing pains as AI technology evolves, but the positive effect it will have on society in terms of efficiency is immeasurable.

A LESSON IN HISTORY

AI isn’t a new concept; its storytelling roots go as far back as Greek antiquity. However, it was less than a century ago that the technological revolution took off and AI went from fiction to very plausible reality. Alan Turing, British mathematician and WWII code-breaker, is widely credited as being one of the first people to come up with the idea of machines that think in 1950. He even created the Turing test, which is still used today, as a benchmark to determine a machine’s ability to “think” like a human. Though his ideas were ridiculed at the time, they set the wheels in motion, and the term “artificial intelligence” entered popular awareness in the mid- 1950s, after Turing died.

American cognitive scientist Marvin Minsky picked up the AI torch and co-founded the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s AI laboratory in 1959, and he was one of the leading thinkers in the field through the 1960s and 1970s. He even advised Stanley Kubrick on “2001: A Space Odyssey,” released in 1968, which gave the world one of the best representations of AI in the form of HAL 9000. The rise of the personal computer in the 1980s sparked even more interest in machines that think.

But it took a couple of decades for people to recognize the true power of AI. High-profile investors and physicists, like Elon Musk, founder of Tesla, and Stephen Hawking, are continuing the conversation about the potential for AI technology. While the discussion occasionally turns to potential doomsday scenarios, there is a consensus that when used for good, AI could radically change the course of human history. And that is especially true when it comes to big data.

The very premise of AI technology is its ability to continually learn from the data it collects. The more data there is to collect and analyze through carefully crafted algorithms, the better the machine becomes at making predictions. Not sure what movie to watch tonight? Don’t worry; Netflix has some suggestions for you based on your previous viewing experiences. Don’t feel like driving? Google’s working on a solution for that, too, racking up the miles on its driverless car prototype.

THE BUSINESS EFFECT

Nowhere has AI had a greater impact in the early stages of the 21st century than in the office. Machine-learning technologies are driving increases in productivity never before seen. From workflow management tools to trend predictions and even the way brands purchase advertising, AI is changing the way we do business. In fact, a Japanese venture capital firm recently became the first company in history to nominate an AI board member for its ability to predict market trends faster than humans.

Big data is a goldmine for businesses, but companies are practically drowning in it. Yet, it’s been a primary driver for AI advancements, as machine-learning technologies can collect and organize massive amounts of information to make predictions and insights that are far beyond the capabilities of manual processing. Not only does it increase organizational efficiency, but it dramatically reduces the likelihood that a critical mistake will be made. AI can detect irregular patterns, such as spam filtering or payment fraud, and alert businesses in real time about suspicious activities. Businesses can “train” AI machines to handle incoming customer support calls, reducing costs. It can even be used to optimize the sales funnel by scanning the database and searching the Web for prospects that exhibit the same buying patterns as existing customers.

There is so much potential for AI development that it’s getting harder to imagine a future without it. We’re already seeing an increase in workplace productivity thanks to AI advancements. By the end of the decade, AI will become commonplace in everyday life, whether it’s self-driving cars, more accurate weather predictions, or space exploration. We will even see machine-learning algorithms used to prevent cyberterrorism and payment fraud, albeit with increasing public debate over privacy implications. AI will also have a strong impact in healthcare advancements due to its ability to analyze massive amounts of genomic data, leading to more accurate prevention and treatment of medical conditions on a personalized level.

But don’t expect a machine takeover any time soon. As easy as it is for machine-learning technology to self-improve, what it lacks is intuition. There’s a gut instinct that can’t be replicated via algorithms, making humans an important piece of the puzzle. The best way forward is for humans and machines to live harmoniously, leaning on one another’s strengths. Advertising is a perfect example, where machines are now doing much of the purchasing through programmatic exchanges to maximize returns on investment, allowing advertisers to focus on creating more engaging content.

While early science fiction writers might have expected more from AI at this stage, the rest of the world is generally satisfied with our progress. After all, not everyone is ready for humanoid robots or self-learning spaceships.

Source: http://bit.ly/2euOEoM

Baby Jesus statue in Canada gets shocking restoration.

Join us: fb.com/unitedhumanists

Baby Jesus statue in Canada gets shocking restoration.

A handmade terracotta sculpture of baby Jesus’s head that was added to a broken statue outside a Catholic church in Canada has prompted amusement and disappointment, with some likening it to the now infamous attempt by a Spanish woman to restore a crumbling fresco of Jesus.

 

canada baby jesus head
Heather Wise, the local artist who sculpted the new baby Jesus head, said the project was ‘an honour of my entire art career’. Photograph: Marina von Stackelberg/CBC

For nearly a decade, a white stone statue of Mary and baby Jesus has stood outside Ste Anne des Pins Catholic church in downtown Sudbury. At times vandals had targeted the statue, leaving the head of baby Jesus rolling on the ground nearby.

About a year ago, the head of baby Jesus was knocked off again. This time, it seemed, the vandals had taken it with them.

The statue stood headless for months as the church’s priest, Gérard Lajeunesse, asked local businesses about crafting a new head. It would have to be custom-made, he was told, and could cost as much as C$10,000 ($7,500).

It was around then that he received a knock on his door from a local artist. Heather Wise had been walking the church’s grounds with a friend when she noticed the headless statue.

“I was so sad,” she told Sudbury.Com. “My feelings were hurt when I saw it, because I thought, ‘Who would do that?’ It’s just not a positive feeling to see that. I said ‘I’m an artist, I would like to fix it.’”

She had learned how to sculpt at a local college, but had never worked with stone. Still, she felt compelled to help. “I knocked on the door, talked to the priest and we’ve been getting this together, because we had to find out a way of doing it.”

Wise spent hours crafting the bright orange clay head. “To do a statue of baby Jesus for a church is like an honour of my entire art career,” she said, explaining that she would aim to sculpt a permanent head out of stone by next year.

The new head was attached about two weeks ago. Reaction was swift; parishioners reacted with hurt, surprise and disappointment, Father Lajeunessetold the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.

While he understood their point of view – “It really is shocking to the eyes because of the big contrast in colour” – he was stumped at how to handle the situation. “I wasn’t trained for this in seminary.”

He stressed that the new head – whose features are rapidly eroding in the rain – is just temporary. “It’s a first try. It’s a first go. And hopefully what is done at the end will please everyone,” he said. “She did this out of the goodness of her heart.”

The head sparked bemusement on social media, with some pointing out the striking resemblance between baby Jesus and Maggie Simpson.

Others defended the artist’s good intentions, while others dubbed her effort to be an Ecce Homo for the new age – a reference to the botched attempt by a Spanish octogenarian to restore a peeling fresco of Jesus Christ. That was described as the “worst restoration in history” by local press.

“No wonder Mary has her eyes closed,” wrote one commenter on the CBC website, while another pointed out: “Since nobody knows what Jesus looked like, what difference does it make?”

Source: http://bit.ly/2eBq3dR

Forget Trump’s Wall with Mexico, Let’s Build a Bi-National Border City Instead.

Join us: fb.com/unitedhumanists

Forget Trump’s Wall with Mexico, Let’s Build a Bi-National Border City Instead.

Donald Trump keeps talking about the big, beautiful wall he’s going to erect on the U.S.-Mexican border. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton wants to build bridges—metaphorical ones, that is.

Mexican architect Fernando Romero has taken a more literal approach to Clinton’s proposition. He’s long been a proponent of “building bridges,” and believes that boundaries are obsolete. “With technology, those borders are just becoming symbolic limits,” he recently told Dezeen Magazine. “The reality is that there exists a very strong mutual dependency of economies and trades.” That’s why he has now designed a master plan for a walkable, super-connected metropolis straddling the U.S.-Mexico border.

Back in the early 2000s, Romero’s architecture firm conceptualized a tunnel-like “Bridging Museum” in the Rio Grande Valley, which would act as “both a funnel and a window between the borders.” But his vision for a utopian border city, on display at the London Design Biennale, is much more complex and detailed. Via the press release:

The concept is rooted in the long history of places where frontiers meet, cities where cultures both clash and blend to create something altogether unique, places like Hong Kong, Andorra, Baarle Hertog/Baarle Nassau, and Standstead/Derby Line. Border City is the first integrated masterplan for a binational city conducive to both sides of the border, employing tools of enterprise such as special economic zones to argue for its viability.

Romero’s city would lie between New Mexico and Texas in the U.S. and Chihuahua in Mexico. He includes in it the positive elements of neighboring El Paso and Ciudad Juarez, like their bustling sister economies, but plans away some of the limitations. His city has no worries about currency exchange rates and restrictions on moving, studying, or working on either side of the border. Also: No sprawl.

It’s multipolar, with many business districts and specialized economic sectors; It’s super-connected, allowing for a steady circulation of people, goods, and services within it and outside it. At its heart lies the inland port of Santa Teresa, a recently opened freight hub at New Mexico-Mexico border. The I-10 highway connects the city’s dense and walkable urban area to far-flung regions in East and West Coasts of the U.S. And a web of other roadways and express trains link the city’s various economic hotspots and key industries.

This isn’t a purely conceptual project: Romero wants to actually build it on private land in the next decade of so, Dezeen reports. Just as well, because according to global strategist Parag Khanna, hyperconnected urban centers will soon become the most powerful actors on a global stage. In that sense, Romero’s vision represents the future of cities.

Check out the diagrams and renderings illustrating the various components of Romero’s plan below:

A hexagonal grid with criss-crossing roadways links economic hubs North of the border with San Jeronimo and San Jose in the South. (Fernando Romero Enterprise)
The Inland port of Santa Teresa can link supply and demand chains.  (Fernando Romero Enterprise)
People can move around freely by car, or via the express trains. (Fernando Romero Enterprise)
The hexagonal city has high density zoning features, with a couple of central business districts.  (Fernando Romero Enterprise)
Plenty of roads connect the different neighborhoods. (Fernando Romero Enterprise)
But there’s no dearth of public transit. (Fernando Romero Enterprise)
Romero’s border city has plenty of e-bike docks and biking paths. (Fernando Romero Enterprise)
Most importantly, it’s pedestrian-friendly. (Fernando Romero Enterprise)
When (and if) it’s completed, this is what Romero’s city might look like from the sky. (Fernando Romero Enterprise)

Source: http://bit.ly/2dCrqKk

Warren Buffett Gave Away 75% Of Donald Trump’s Net Worth In 2015, Offers Facts On Taxes.

Join us: fb.com/unitedhumanists

Warren Buffett Gave Away 75% Of Donald Trump’s Net Worth In 2015, Offers Facts On Taxes.

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump defended his personal income tax strategies during the second presidential debate, saying:

Now, the taxes are a very simple thing. As soon as I have — first of all, I pay hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes. Many of her [Clinton’s] friends took bigger deductions. Warren Buffett took a massive deduction.

(I’ve fact-checked and annotated the second presidential debate. You can read my live blog coverage here.)

Trump was alluding to the nearly $1 billion loss on Trump’s state income tax returns made public by the New York Times. That loss, suggested the Times, could mean that Trump did not owe federal income taxes for years. During the second presidential debate, Trump acknowledged that he took massive deductions on his returns, but would not answer specific questions about his tax picture, saying, “I pay hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes.”

Trump invoked Buffett’s name twice, saying the while he took advantage of the tax laws, “so did Warren Buffett and so did George Soros and so did many of the other people that Hillary is getting money from.” Forbes ranks Buffett, CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, at #3 on the Forbes 400, just behind Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos, with an estimated net worth of $65.3 billion. In September, Forbes pegged Trump’s worth at $3.7 billion.

Today, Buffett fired back at Trump, releasing a statement specifically addressing information in his own tax returns. Noting that Trump has not seen those tax returns, he says, “I am happy to give him the facts.” Buffett has, he says, paid federal income tax every year since 1944, when he was 13. He added, parenthetically, “Though, being a slow starter, I owed only $7 in tax that year.” In those 72 years, Buffett says he has never used a carry forward.

A carry forward is a tax technique that allows you to apply a tax benefit in a future year if you are unable to use the full amount in the current tax year. It’s a pretty valuable tax provision especially for high-income taxpayers who may generate huge deductions in one year which can offset high tax bills in future years. (You can find out more about carry forwards as they apply to net operating losses here and other kinds of losses here.)

Specifically, Buffett says that “My 2015 return shows adjusted gross income of $11,563,931. My deductions totaled $5,477,694, of which allowable charitable contributions were $3,469,179. All but $36,037 of the remainder was for state income taxes.” Buffett lives in the state of Nebraska where income tax rates range from 2.46% to 6.84%.

Trump-v-Buffett

Buffett says that his total charitable contributions for the year were $2,858,057,970 (not a typo), of which “more than $2.85 billion were not taken as deductions and never will be.” He notes that “Tax law properly limits charitable deductions.

By law, the amount you can deduct for charitable contributions cannot be more than 50% of your adjusted gross income (AGI) for the year: your deduction may be further limited depending on the nature of the donated property and the type of charitable organization. If your contributions are more than those limits, you can carry over those deductions for up to five years (limits on contributions are also carried forward each year) though Buffett specifically says that he will “never” carry his 2015 charitable deductions forward. Typically, that’s the result when your charitable contributions each year are so high that carrying those forward would be impossible. Here’s a quick example using smaller numbers:

Let’s say that your AGI is $100,000 and that you have $75,000 in charitable contributions in year one. You can deduct 50% in year one ($50,000) and carry the remaining $25,000 forward to year two. Let’s say that in year two, your AGI remains the same and you contribute $50,000 to charity. Under the current rules, you must apply your current year charitable contributions before you apply any carry forward. So since you’ve hit your 50% of AGI limit ($50,000) in year two, you can’t use the excess deduction, so it gets rolled to year three. Let’s say in year three, your AGI remains the same and you again contribute $50,000. You still can’t use that carry forward. And so it goes until the carry forward hits the five year mark and simply disappears. Got it?

Buffett goes on to say that his federal income tax for the 2015 tax year was $1,845,557. That amount is, he says, not unusual since his “returns for previous years are of a similar nature in respect to contributions, deductions and tax rates.”

Buffett also notes that he, too, has “been audited by the IRS multiple times and am currently being audited.” That’s not a coincidence but rather a nod to the Internal Revenue Service’s “Wealth Squad.” The so-called “Wealth Squad” (which is a lot easier to say than its official name, the “Global High Wealth Industry Group of the IRS Large Business and International Division”) was created by the IRS in 2010 to focus audits of high-income/high-wealth taxpayers like Buffett and Trump. You can read more here.

However, unlike Trump, Buffett says, “I have no problem in releasing my tax information while under audit,” adding, “Neither would Mr. Trump – at least he would have no legal problem.”

Buffett has previously challenged Trump to reveal his returns, offering to show his returns in exchange. Buffett offered to meet Trump for the document exchange in Omaha, Nebraska (where Buffett lives); Mar-a-Lago (the opulent historic Palm Beach estate of Marjorie Merriweather Post which Trump bought in 1985); or any other place. So far, Trump has yet to take Buffett up on his offer.

Publicly, Trump has declared that he will not release his tax returns, citing advice from his attorneys because of an ongoing audit. At last night’s debate, Trump added, “But — but as soon as my routine audit is finished, I’ll release my returns. I’ll be very proud to. They’re actually quite great.”

Here is Buffett’s statement in its entirety:

Answering a question last night about his $916 million income tax loss carryforward in 1995, Donald Trump stated that “Warren Buffett took a massive deduction.” Mr. Trump says he knows more about taxes than any other human. He has not seen my income tax returns. But I am happy to give him the facts.

My 2015 return shows adjusted gross income of $11,563,931. My deductions totaled $5,477,694, of which allowable charitable contributions were $3,469,179. All but $36,037 of the remainder was for state income taxes.

The total charitable contributions I made during the year were $2,858,057,970, of which more than $2.85 billion were not taken as deductions and never will be. Tax law properly limits charitable deductions.

My federal income tax for the year was $1,845,557. Returns for previous years are of a similar nature in respect to contributions, deductions and tax rates.

I have paid federal income tax every year since 1944, when I was 13. (Though, being a slow starter, I owed only $7 in tax that year.) I have copies of all 72 of my returns and none uses a carryforward.

Finally, I have been audited by the IRS multiple times and am currently being audited. I have no problem in releasing my tax information while under audit. Neither would Mr. Trump – at least he would have no legal problem.

Source: http://bit.ly/2e4IDz6

%d bloggers like this: