LeapFrog’s LeapTV Is A Gaming Console Aimed At Kids

While LeapFrog might not necessarily be a brand we would think of when it comes to tablets and gaming consoles, they do have a market, and their market is usually targeted at kids. For example we’ve seen the company launch tablets and wearables aimed at children, and it looks like LeapFrog could be taking on console makers with their LeapTV.

The console, which is keeping in trend with LeapFrog’s other products, has been designed for kids in mind. The LeapTV seems to be a combination of both the Wii and the Kinect that allows children to interact with the console. There will be three modes of play: Body Motion, Pointer Play, and Classic Controller.

According to LeapFrog, the console is meant to encourage learning through active play and kids will have access to over 100 educational titles. The games will also be borrowing characters from popular movies such as Toy Story, Monsters Inc., and Spiderman, along with LeapFrog’s own library of characters that they have developed.

Parents who are interested in checking out the console will be interested to learn that the LeapTV system will be made available later this year (no specific dates were mentioned) where it will retail for $150 via LeapFrog’s website. Game cartridges will be priced at $30 each, but downloadable games and apps will be priced at $5.

LeapFrog’s LeapTV Is A Gaming Console Aimed At Kids

, original content from Ubergizmo. Read our Copyrights and terms of use.

Starbucks Could Expand Its Mobile App To Non-Starbucks Stores

starbucks appAccording to a report the other day, it was revealed that Starbucks had plans to expand the functionality of its mobile app by letting customers pre-order their drinks. However it seems that Starbucks’ plan for their mobile app is not stopping there, nor will it be limited to it being used at just Starbucks outlets.

Speaking to the folks at Re/code, Starbucks’ chief digital officer, Adam Brotman, revealed that Starbucks is currently in talks with potential partners about using the Starbucks app to act as a form of mobile payment. What this means is that not only can your Starbucks app be used to purchase coffee and other merchandise at Starbucks outlets, but it could also be used to purchase non-Starbucks related goods at other stores.

It’s an interesting take and would no doubt expand the functionality of the app, although admittedly it does sound like it would be going beyond Starbucks’ core competency. As it stands, there does not appear to be a standard when it comes to mobile payments, and companies such as Google, Isis, and Apple (rumored) are all clamoring to make their systems the industry standard.

However given that Starbucks already has a system in place and its ubiquitous nature, it would no doubt give them a headstart. Not to mention the idea of extending the Starbucks loyalty program to other products and services could be somewhat appealing as well. Unfortunately Brotman declined to mention which companies Starbucks was in talks with, but what do you guys think? How does the idea of being able to pay for non-Starbucks products with the Starbucks app sound to you?

Starbucks Could Expand Its Mobile App To Non-Starbucks Stores

, original content from Ubergizmo. Read our Copyrights and terms of use.

This Hoodie Has Been Designed For Audio Engineers In Mind

audio engineer hoodie 640x374Listening to music while wearing a hoodie isn’t a problem if you’re using earbuds or in-ear headphones, since those are small and don’t really get in the way. Regular headphones on the other hand, can be a bit uncomfortable. Wearing them under your hoodie might feel a bit tight, while wearing them over your hoodie looks a bit silly, plus the fabric from your hoodie would muffle the sound.

However that’s a problem that Betabrand thinks needs solving, which is why they have come up with a hoodie that they’re calling the Audio Engineer’s hoodie. According to Steven Wheeler, a designer at Betabrand, “For engineers that work with bands on tour, who generally want to be as inconspicuous as possible when adjusting things on a live stage, wearing black is key, hence all the blacked-out trim and fabric selections.”

The solution consists of using speaker fabric to make the hooded section of the hoodie. Speaker fabric can be found on the front of certain speakers which are designed to prevent dust from getting through, but at the same time not impeding the sound coming out from it. In this case the fabric will allow the wearer to remain hooded, but still allow music from the headphones to be pumped through just fine.

Other features of the hoodie aimed at audio engineers includes a reference sheet with wiring diagrams that has been folded into an interior pocket, and a loop for routing headphone wires upwards. The hoodie is priced at $158, although right now it has been given a 10% discount for early-bird customers, so if you’re interested in checking it out, head on over to its website for the details.

This Hoodie Has Been Designed For Audio Engineers In Mind

, original content from Ubergizmo. Read our Copyrights and terms of use.

Who Said It? Blink-182, Sum 41, or Malcolm X?

It’s time for America’s favorite Internet game, Who Said It?

Who said it — Blink-182, Sum 41, or Malcolm X?

There are 15 quotations below, all attributed to one of the three. Who said which?

Was it the hit-making ’90s punk-pop trio from Poway?

… the hit-making ’90s punk-metal quartet from Canada?

… or Malcolm X?

Good luck, and no cheating. We’ve fought too long and rocked too hard to cheat now. Oh, you want answers? There are no answers, only questions! (Seriously, click onto the links below for each correct source.)

1. “So am I still waiting for this world to stop hating?”

2. “I believe in a religion that believes in freedom.”

3. “God has a master plan and I guess I am in his demand.”

4. “If you want to know what I’ll do, figure out what you’ll do. I’ll do the same thing, only more of it.”

5. “What’s the point of never making mistakes? Self-indulgence is such a hard habit to break.”

6. “It used to be hot, it becomes cool. It used to be strong, it becomes weak. It used to wake you up, now it puts you to sleep.”

7. “Mom and dad possess the key to instant slavery.”

8. “Those silent evil daughters like sirens on the water.”

9. “I could spend the rest of my life reading, just satisfying my curiosity.”

10. “We’ll use this song to lead you on and break the truth with more bad news.”

11. “A bullet to my head, your words are like a gun in hand. You can’t change the state of the nation.”

12. “If you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that’s not brotherhood, that’s hypocrisy.”

13. “I’m crippled from exhaustion and I dread the moment when you finally come to kill me.”

14. “The seas have parted, the endings started, the sky has turned to black.”

15. “I always knew it would end like this.”

SCORING:

12-15 right = “You didn’t land on Plymouth Rock, but you ROCK!”
8-11 right = “Not bad. Malcolm in the Middle.”
4-7 right = “All the Small Things includes your score.”
0-3 right = “Maybe you ought to go to the library. Or iTunes. Either one.”

Opioid Maintenance Therapy: Questions and Controversies

Opioid maintenance therapy, or using a legal opiate to reduce a person’s urge to take illicit drugs, has long generated controversy. Scientific evidence supports it as a practical, cost-effective strategy that prevents death and illness generated by street drug use and allows people who suffer from addiction to resume “mainstream” lives. But opponents argue that it simply replaces one addiction for another. So what’s the real story?

Currently there are two kinds of opioid maintenance drugs, methadone and buprenorphine (often packaged under the brand names, Suboxone or Subutex. In addition to buprenorphine, Suboxone contains an added ingredient, naloxone, which is meant to deter abuse by sending users into withdrawal if they inject the drug). Methadone was first approved for use in substitution therapy under the Nixon administration, but due to concerns about its misuse, it continues to be highly regulated. To receive methadone, most people have to go to a clinic to receive a daily dose in liquid form, which they drink under the watchful eye of a nurse. Numerous barriers prevent people from seeking or maintaining methadone treatment, including lack of transportation, the inconvenience of daily visits to the clinic, and cost (no insurance company except Medicaid will cover the treatment.)

“I have to drive 45 minutes to a clinic in another city to get my methadone,” says Chad of Durham, North Carolina. “Altogether, it’s about three hours out of my morning, every morning, for years. Most people just can’t do that.”

Like many others, Chad takes methadone to reduce his craving for heroin. Although heroin and methadone are both opiate drugs with abuse potential, heroin provides users with a quick, potent high followed by a crash, while methadone is slow onset and long-acting. Ideally, methadone therapy allows opiate-dependent people to take just enough of the drug to avoid withdrawal symptoms and reduce the urge to take illicit opiates so that they may focus their energies on other pursuits.

Buprenorphine (bupe), also an opiate maintenance drug, was licensed for use in the U.S. in 2002 to circumvent the regulatory barriers around methadone access. Unlike methadone, bupe is not dispensed in regulated clinics, but prescribed by licensed physicians as a sublingual tablet or dissolvable film. Insurance companies usually pick up the cost, but many place limits on coverage – to the ire of medical providers.

“It’s crazy for insurance companies to make up artificial limits,” says Dr. Sharon Stancliff, MD, a buprenorphine provider and also the former Medical Director for a methadone clinic in New York City. “We don’t place limits on blood pressure medication or diabetic insulin.” She points out that in addition to helping reduce a person’s craving for illegal drugs, opioid replacement therapy is shown to reduce the incidence of HIV transmission, drug overdose, and other morbidity and mortality related to illegal opioids.

Dr. Logan Graddy, MD, who runs an opioid maintenance clinic in Durham, North Carolina, agrees that artificial limits on treatment presents a serious impediment to recovery. “I recommend at least one year [on bupe] to my patients, but warn them that some might need it the rest of their lives. Many patients stay on the therapy at low doses because they feel that coming off completely can put them at risk for relapse.”

Even though leading health organizations, including SAMSHA, WHO and UNODC promote opioid maintenance as a cost-effective tool to prevent HIV transmission and save lives from overdose and other drug-related activity, these programs continue to face criticism from traditional recovery groups, medical providers, and even users themselves.

“People taking methadone feel stigmatized,” says Dr. Stancliff. “There is a pervasive idea that abstinence is the only answer to addiction even though we know it doesn’t always work.”

Medical providers who prescribe methadone and bupe often face stigma as well, but that doesn’t stop providers like Dr. Stancliff and Dr. Graddy, who advocate for opioid replacement therapy because they have seen real results with their patients.

“A motivated patient on replacement therapy can make astounding changes in a year,” Dr. Graddy says. “Many change careers, go back to school, and turn their lives around to where they might have been before they started taking drugs. I’ve seen miracles happen.”

MH17 and the Long Term Costs of Russia's Ukraine Incursion

Policymakers, especially policymakers who have never seen action, are often seduced by covert operations. They see them as the perfect policy instrument: cheap, deniable, effective. Yes, there can be tremendously effective covert or at least non-conventional operations and campaigns, but just as all intelligence operations must come to terms with the fundamental truth that nothing is guaranteed to stay secret for ever, so too these sneaky campaigns can very easily either fail or, even more likely, have unexpected consequences that may overshadow the intended outcome. After all, while al Qaeda and the rise of Osama bin Laden cannot entirely be charted back to the US campaign to support Islamist rebels fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan — had the social, political and intellectual climate not been ready for the message of jihad then they would have remained on the fringes — nonetheless there is a strong connection.

Courtesy of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, Putin is now coming to terms with the blowback from his Ukrainian adventure, a hybrid non-linear political-military campaign fought largely through local proxies, and this is something that will dog him for as long as he is in power. I plan to look at these in more detail at a later date, but in summary, the consequences are:

1. You don’t have control over events on the ground but (rightly) get blamed when bad stuff happens. The MH17 shootdown is generating an unprecedented level of anger. Even if ultimately it is unable to muster the unity, determination and moral courage to act resolutely — although I hope they do — I do not believe the West will look at Putin the same way again. Furthermore, the pliant choir of “useful idiots” arguing the Russian case, whether out of self-interest or because of a naive and perverse disillusion with their own society, will find their lives harder and their audiences less tolerant.

2. You inject yourself into the negotiations, but can’t deliver on a deal. At this stage, Kiev will be looking for more from Moscow than “we won’t send any more people or weapons in to join the fight” but it is questionable whether the Russians can do more than extract those elements of the rebellion which really are direct covert operatives and try to persuade the rest. Given that Moscow doesn’t really care about the east Ukrainians but is instead using them to put pressure on Kiev, it is unlikely to put a great premium on looking after them and their interests — but it must then sell them the consequent peace terms.

3. You create chaos on your border. Even if Kiev is able to win a military victory or else is willing and able to arrange some kind of peace deal (which is all the harder now), eastern Ukraine will be suffering from the effects of this nasty conflict for years to come. Bad blood between communities, civilians angry at either the separatists or government after being caught in the crossfire, a hemorrhage of weapons which will arm gangsters, terrorists and random lunatics for years to come… considering the close ethnic and economic connections across the border, that will inevitably have an impact on Russia.

4. You disappoint people you previously counted as fervent supporters. It’s not just Strelkov who expressed disappointment at Russia’s stance. There are already concerns within the ultra-nationalist wing in Russia, people who previously saw Putin as the ideal ruler, not least given his recent shift towards a messianic Russian exceptionalism and a commitment to asserting Russia’s rights to protect Russians abroad. This is very much a fringe movement, and poses no serious threat to Putin, but it does mean that he no longer can rely on their active support.

5. You undermine your persona as the infallible tsar. Of course the Russian media will spin whatever decision he chooses to make, but we shouldn’t presume that the Russian population are wholly clueless. If he has to accept the crushing of the insurrection and, even more alarming, a further Ukrainian drift towards Europe without having been given some grounds to claim”Mission Accomplished,” then he will look bad. (To that end, if the aim is an early end to hostilities, it would make sense for Kiev to ponder what face-saving package it can give that it is willing to give: simply a nicely package assertion of things already said, such as the protection of Russia’s status as a state language; as well as what is a practical inevitability, such as ruling out NATO membership for at least eight years, might be enough.)

6. You look weak before your other neighbors, undermining claims to regional hegemony. Just as the 2008 Georgian War was as much — if not mainly — about asserting Moscow’s will and capacity to punish those Near Abroad states challenging its regional hegemony, a perceived failure in Ukraine cannot but embolden those other nations. Let’s face it, Moscow has in the main relatively little positive soft power: no one especially likes Russia or looks up to it as a model. Instead, there are some countries who regard it as either too useful or too dangerous to flout. That pragmatic arithmetic may shift.

7. You are held accountable for your actions (maybe). We’ll have to see quite how robust the further Western response will be. The current sanctions regime and diplomatic chill is a little irksome but entirely bearable, but if we start seeing more concrete measures, whether the cancellation of contracts (can Paris really still deliver modern assault carriers to Russia with good conscience?), expanded travel bans or even sectoral sanctions, then this will hit Russia and Russians. Short-term bravado will give way to longer-term concerns in this case. Either way, those voices in the West who warned that Putin’s Russia was that dangerous thing, a compound of the aggressive and erratic, have been proven right, and NATO now looks more relevant than at any time since not even 1991, but arguably since Gorbachev’s accession to power.

One way or the other, while the concept of non-linear war is still entirely valid and will be a crucial factor in 21st century statecraft, in this case it has gone very wrong. Bad luck for Moscow, to a degree, but handing powerful weapons to undertrained, undisciplined and gung-ho rebels is in many ways an invitation to such bad luck. And ultimately Putin has no one to blame but himself (although I’m sure he’ll find someone.)

Mark Galeotti is Professor of Global Affairs at New York University’s Center for Global Affairs, where his focus is modern Russian history and security affairs and transnational and organized crime. He has published widely, with 13 authored and edited books to his name, and writes a personal blog at inmoscowsshadows.wordpress.com, where this post first appeared.

Four Emergency Workers Barred From Duty Following NYPD Chokehold Death

By Jonathan Allen

NEW YORK, July 20 (Reuters) – Four emergency responders have been put on modified duty while authorities investigate their response to a man, suspected of selling untaxed cigarettes, who died after New York police put him in a chokehold, a fire department official said on Sunday.

The two paramedics and two emergency medical technicians will not be permitted to respond to 911 calls while the death of Eric Garner, who was 43, is investigated, the fire department official said. He spoke on condition of anonymity because he is not a department spokesman.

Garner’s death, the cause of which is still being determined by the city’s medical examiner, has provoked outrage.

Mayor Bill de Blasio, who promised to improve frayed relations between police and the public when he took office in January, called the death a “terrible tragedy” and promised a “thorough” investigation by the Staten Island district attorney and the police department’s internal affairs bureau.

The four suspended emergency workers are not employees of the fire department but work for a Staten Island hospital, the fire department official said.

Two police officers involved have also been put on desk duty.

In a widely circulated bystander’s video, Garner can be seen arguing with police officers outside a Staten Island beauty parlor on Thursday and denying that he is selling untaxed cigarettes before officers tackle him to the ground.

One officer puts him in a chokehold as Garner repeatedly says, “I can’t breathe!” the video shows. The police department bans the use of chokeholds.

A second video emerged over the weekend, apparently recorded by another bystander, in which police officers stand around Garner. He is either unconscious or already dead as he lies motionless on the ground, his hands cuffed behind his back. A couple officers occasionally move his limp body, the video shows; other officers check the contents of his trouser pocket, removing a cellphone and packs of cigarettes.

“Come on, guy, breathe out, alright?” one officer says in the video as he crouches over Garner and pats him on the shoulder.

After several minutes, the video shows an emergency responder arriving and taking Garner’s pulse at his wrist and neck. Several officers then lift Garner, still limp, with his eyes open, onto a stretcher. He was declared dead at a nearby hospital.

Garner weighed 350 pounds (159 kg) and stood 6 feet 3 inches (1.9 meters) in May, the time of his most recent of 31 arrests, according to police. His wife has said he was asthmatic, diabetic and suffered from sleep apnea.

One of the two suspended police officers, identified by police as Daniel Pantaleo, has had to relinquish his gun and badge, according to local media reports, a move that was criticized by the main police officer’s union.

“The department’s modification of this police officer under these circumstances is a completely unwarranted, knee-jerk reaction for political reasons,” Patrick Lynch, the president of the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association, said in a statement. He said the move unfairly “pre-judges” the officer.

(Reporting by Jonathan Allen; Editing by Dan Grebler)

Will New Zealand Ban the Ivory Trade? Jane Goodall and Helen Clark Speak Out

2014-07-19-global_march_.jpg
Photo credit: Dex Kotze / savingthewild.com

The African poaching crisis is at its worst levels ever, with an elephant killed every 15 minutes for its tusks, fuelled by an insatiable demand for ivory products.

Prominent New Zealand business leaders have teamed up with many of the most respected international conservation agencies and spokespeople – including Jane Goodall, WildAid, and the Environmental Investigation Agency – to formally urge the New Zealand Government to consider a complete ban on all ivory trading. An Open Letter (available for sharing via social media) was delivered to the New Zealand Government and Prime Minister John Key on the 17th of July.

The Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Select Committee is due to make a decision on 24 July regarding the ivory ban petition by Auckland teacher Virginia Woolf, supported by environmental policy analyst Fiona Gordon.

In support of the ivory ban in New Zealand, I met up with legendary conservationist and scientist Jane Goodall to discuss the elephant crisis.

2014-07-19-jg_webheader_670x220.jpg
Image credit: savingthewild.com

“Every ivory bracelet, pendant or trinket represents a dead elephant,” says Goodall. She continued:

The problem is that as long as there are loopholes for selling ivory legally, the illegal trade will continue. A total ban on the sale of ivory is the only way forward. Social media can amplify the message and put pressure on your government, and ultimately it is up to us to give a voice to the voiceless.

New Zealand’s role in the trade of ivory makes the country complicit in this crisis, and the petition is calling on the government to strengthen laws and fix loopholes that are encouraging illicit trade. Elephants are continually put at risk by the prospect of a sanctioned sale of ivory, whether in conventional auction houses such as Webbs Auction House in Auckland, or via Internet trading sites such as Trademe.

As a follow up to the interview with Jane Goodall, I interviewed Helen Clark, Administrator of the United Nations Development Programme. Clark had recently returned from visiting African countries on the frontline of the poaching crisis. Voted by Forbes as one of the most powerful women in the world, Clark is on a mission to dismantle the illegal wildlife trade by tackling the root of the problem: rural poverty in African source countries.

2014-07-19-helen_clark_savingthewild.com.jpg
Photo credit: Helen Clark / savingthewild.com

“This vile trade is a development, environmental, and security challenge,” says Clark. “It is pushing endangered species toward extinction, fuelling corruption and conflict, and putting lives and livelihoods at risk.”

UNDP has committed to help stop the illegal wildlife trade, contributing through their global presence and expertise in governance, the rule of law, poverty eradication, and environmental protection.

Helen Clark says New Zealand has a role to play in overcoming the poaching crisis and saving the elephants from extinction.

We can all do a great deal in our own way, whether by raising the issues as individual citizens through social media, lobbying our local legislators to raise the issue to a national level, or supporting the work of the UN and governments to tackle the problem. We can support the work of CITES, and support ivory demand reduction work. We can all do more, and we must, if we are going to save this iconic species.

All eyes will be on New Zealand this week while the Select Committee considers the petition to ban the ivory trade. On Friday I got in touch with Dr Kennedy Graham, MP spokesperson on trade, and one of the seven members of the committee weighing in on the decision.

I have heard experts argue that New Zealand laws on ivory trade and their policing enable some illegal trade to happen here. So there may be scope to tighten the laws to close any loopholes, or better resource the existing laws so that they are properly policed. The issue is not going to go away, nor should it.

Jamie Joseph is a writer and an environmental activist currently based in New Zealand. She will be returning to her African homeland in October to join the war on poaching. Follow the campaign to ban all ivory trade @ savingthewild.com – every voice counts.

U.S.-Africa Leaders' Summit: Let's Ensure it's on the Positive Side of History

If you are an Africa-hand, activist or development partner, you are either directly or indirectly involved with the upcoming Washington, D.C. August 4-6, 2014, U.S.-Africa Leaders’ Summit. Fundamentally, the event is incredibly historic as it will be the first time that a sitting U.S. president has invited all the leaders of the Africa Region to a single event (with the exceptions of Zimbabwe, Central Africa Republic, Eritrea, and Western Sahara), to discuss key continent issues and the macro U.S.-Africa relationship. The four themes for the summit are: Investing in Africa’s Future; Peace and Regional Stability, and Governing for the Next Generation.

There is some griping, of course, about aspects of the summit, but overall the event is a step in the right direction for the United States, even if some parts of the program rankles Africa-hands and activists on both sides of the Atlantic and bothers many African Leaders. They are all pondering the single most asked question: Why are there no individual heads-of-state (HOS) meetings with the 50 leaders attending? China, France, Japan, India all have gotten this right – holding one-on-one meetings lasting a few minutes. So the U.S. approach to not doing this does bother many. But, this article is not necessarily arguing for individual meetings.

However, here is a new thought or one possibly considered but dismissed: How could having five sub-regional meetings – short presidential sessions with leaders of West, Central, East, South, and North Africa – be too much for us to do? This doesn’t seem to be an excessive time requirement (this is the argument against one-on-ones). But, considering the cost, distance, respect-balance ratios at stake as these leaders travel to the U.S. with probably no less than 10 senior government officials, we should be able to manage five meetings. Moreover, the U.S. sound policy direction to encourage regional integration and cooperation on the very issues the summit will address would be advanced by having regional discussions with the President of the United States.

Some factoids why this misstep could not only be strategically wrong for the U.S., but further play into the notion by some that the U.S. approach is not on par with China and others are: Africa’s population is reportedly 1.5 billion, and is on course to reach a population of 2.4 billion people by 2050; and, its average 2.4 percent growth rate could remain constant for decades. Africa is the third-most populated region and will become the largest – with most facing poverty unless we all do some additional things correctly now.

Arguing that demographics is a U.S. strategic issue as we look forward in the 21st Century for new partners on policy, business, or counterterrorism – Africa is key to the United States. Its large demographics make it more so. The summit themes are great, the U.S. interest is historic, but we may need to show something else based more on Africa’s perception (not ours) of appropriateness. Thus, the suggestion being made here is to consider or re-consider the sub-regional meeting approach – further concretizing, and synergizing the U.S. stated desire to have a positive U.S.-Africa relationship. Hence calling the summit historic should not be hyperbole!

However positively the summit is planned, the fact that there are no HOS meetings, even at the sub-regional level, might be what is remembered most, and that would be a shame. Especially since the themes are on target, and various events like the recent FEEEDS-Gallup-Allafrica Africa Forum, the first to launch, and the array of July 31-August 5, 2014, unofficial and official events all addressing key related topics.

Interactive dialogue and partnership are the summit’s goals. Again, all good! Although I am cheering for and confident that the summit, in so many ways, will be successful, this one issue is something many of us cannot understand. Sub-regional sessions could be tied to single topics. For example, West or Central Africa sessions could focus on security, given challenges in Mali, Nigeria, and Central African Republic and threats to U.S. national interest. East Africa’s topic could be energy, noting great efforts of EXIM, Commerce, USAID, USTDA and leaders to help the 550 million Africans without power.

The last three U.S. administrations – politics aside – have done a tremendous job changing the U.S.-Africa post-Cold War paradigm – creating out of the box, or next to the box signature initiatives from AGOA to PEPFAR to MCC to FEED the Future to YALI. All in which FEEEDS-CEO, during diplomatic and non-diplomatic years, has had an opportunity to be involved.

In sum, as an American and long-time Africa hand, FEEEDS-CEO is proud of all these things, and proud that the U.S. is having this summit – hopefully the first of many. Although, a summit was called for in the 2000 Africa Growth and Opportunity Act; it has taken 10 years to get there. Indeed, it is important for this event to be remembered in good light. Even if the summit is successful on many fronts, it might be footnoted everywhere that we couldn’t find time to hold, at a minimum, five sub-regional sessions. It is not like we haven’t held more than five before. If one recalls, and I do, as I was there and attended one, the 2010 Nuclear Security Summit had a similar number of world leaders, 49. According to various official U.S. scheduling reports, there were at least 9-10 bilateral sessions.

I am voting for this historic summit to be remembered for all the things we did right, not for the one thing we didn’t do right. Let’s reconsider and put sub-regional meetings on the agenda.

The Power of Learned Optimism

My wife, Elenor, and I are among the plaintiffs in one of Utah’s two marriage equality lawsuits ping-ponging its way up the judicial system. Our case, Evans vs. Utah, which is led by the ACLU of Utah, is seeking the State’s recognition of the roughly 1,300 couples who married this last winter when Utah Supreme Court Judge Robert Shelby ruled Utah’s marriage ban unconstitutional in the Kitchen v. Herbert case.

Ah, our 17 days of legally-protected bliss.

And while the Utah Supreme Court and the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals have ruled in our favor, the number of stays imposed at this point feels somewhat akin, I’d imagine, to a dog waiting to get a treat from its owner. (Stay. Staaaaaaaay.)

It goes without saying that waiting is the worst. Especially when it’s for something so important.

Yet, I have an overwhelming sense of calm and optimism about the changing landscape for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and trans* people in America. Even marriage equality in good ol’ Utah.

The press, who oftentimes reach out for our reactions before Elenor and I even have a chance to connect after hearing of the proceedings in our case, seem surprised by our unwavering optimism as the recognition of our marriage continues to be delayed.

But I guess that’s just it; we see it as a delay – a delay of the inevitable. Because, really, we have everything in our favor right now.

First, we have enough people (although a dwindling minority) like Attorney General Reyes and Governor Herbert who are willing to resist this change, thereby fueling our cases to propel through the courts. It is because of them that we have seen 27 consecutive rulings (stays aside) that favor marriage equality and the equal protection of same-sex couples. I wouldn’t go as far as to say we owe them a debt of gratitude, but it’s worth noting their role in our movement.

Second, change is the American way. Our country was founded on the idea that our collective ability to coexist will become more refined over time, and accordingly, our laws must thoughtfully allow the flexibility to support our burgeoning enlightenment. When the courts have the chance to examine our cases and strip away the ill-conceived and misinformed rhetoric about the impacts of marriage equality on children, states’ sovereignty or “traditional” marriage, the only notion left standing will be that we all have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness – and that that comes second to nothing else. History is on our side.

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, we are out and proud. We have experienced sometimes excruciating rites of passage that have tested our belief in and love of ourselves. We have faced personal doubt, social exclusion and even fear for our safety. We have mourned the loss of those for whom the pain was unbearable.

And through that, we have learned to see the beauty in our humanity, and have embraced the extraordinary power of our pride. We have learned optimism in the face of prejudice and disappointment, and nothing can take that away. Nothing.

So although we want and need these protections immediately, when reporters ask how we remain confident and patient through this process our reply is that we know nothing else.

Optimism is how we survive.