The Case For Cultural Enrichment For Iran

While we as Americans believe that education is the vehicle for unlocking the potential of a society and key to economic growth, every year, the Islamic Republic of Iran shuts the doors of its colleges to thousands of its own citizens solely on the basis of their religious beliefs.

The academic year is now in full swing. College students around the world have settled into their routine, writing papers and preparing for exams. Yet Baha’i students in Iran face a different challenge: discrimination-based rejection and even expulsion from Iran’s universities, denying them a future.

Iran has historically championed freedom and human rights. It has been the birthplace of Zoroastrian, Baha’i and Sufi religions and the land where thanks to the human rights doctrine of Cyrus the Great and the general cultural tolerance, Judaism and Christianity alongside Islam have seen periods of coexistence and prosperity. But today, the Islamic Republic’s constitution which is inspired by the Sharia laws, prescribes second-class status to Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians (and women) with 50 percent rights given to their counterparts, and categorically deprives the followers of the Baha’i faith of any recognition or rights whatsoever.

It’s been estimated that for the past three decades tens of thousands of qualified Baha’i students who revealed their faith have been systematically denied university admission or expelled unceremoniously. Volumes of testimonies, transcripts, correspondence and documentations have been assembled and presented in advocacy efforts on their behalf to no avail. But nothing spells out this this intentional discrimination better than a 1991 declaration or “mosavabeh” issued by the Islamic Republic’s Supreme Council of Culture and Revolution — a gatekeeping body with the paramount responsibility to preserve and promote the indispensable values of the Islamic Revolution. This declaration specifically calls for the immediate removal of Baha’i students at any point upon the revelation of their religious identity, including post registration or during the academic year. Although this declaration conflicts directly with the country’s constitutional recommendation for universal access to education (Article 3, Sec. 3), the Council of Culture and Revolution’s positions seem to govern admission practices in institutes of higher education.

In response to this systematic exclusion, Baha’i community members established Baha’i Institute of Higher Education (BIHE), an alternative educational institution tapping into the expertise of expunged academics and collaborative faculty from accredited universities abroad. But the determination to keep Baha’i individuals from accessing education is so vehement that even these make-shift schools held in community members’ living rooms are frequently raided, participants arrested and books confiscated. Despite the anticipated rejections and risk of arrest, determined Baha’i students continue to apply to universities while continuing to use the services of BIHE.

In the past decade, government officials have upped the ante and surprised the persistent Baha’i applicants with a yet another rejection tactic that circumvents the objectionable religious identification question. According to numerous reports, unlike the early years of the revolution when students were to answer a question declaring their religious affiliation, applicant are working against an online filtering system that automatically recognizes them by name and refers them to a government office known as the “evaluation center” where they must appear in person. The applications are at this point aborted by the system or left permanently incomplete; candidates seldom receive a documented rejection letter. Some have reported that when appearing at the “evaluation center” they were presented with the National University Entrance Examination booklet, which allegedly states: “only Muslims and officially recognized minorities are permitted to participate.”

Among those who took the exam but faced an aborted application process is Shadan Shirazi, an aspiring math major who ranked 113 in the entrance exam among over one million applicants. Shadan whose parents have served time in Iran’s prisons for their beliefs, represents the second generation of Baha’is who has been deprived of educational access for the past 36 years. Shadan, like many other students believes that she was automatically recognized by the online application system and directed to the “evaluation center” where even the employees seemed to know her by name. Shadan reports of an inconclusive visit where the officials could not facilitate the completion of her application nor offer an explanation for their decision. Rather, they asked her to put her complaints in writing, which she did. Shadan’s mother believes that these pseudo-appeal processes are just “calming” strategies to assuage the frustrated applicants and their families.

Interestingly, Iran was recently named the world’s number one country in its brain drain, reportedly losing up to 150,000 of its intellectual elite annually at an estimated cost of $150 billion. Given such intellectual and financial challenges, wouldn’t Iran be better served if it openly welcomed all of its qualified students regardless of religious belief? Young students such as Shadan and her peers representing the non-recognized religious minorities are at the prime of their educational achievement and like other Iranian students could boost the country’s brainpower and contribute to the growth of their society.

In the US, we have learned that students and academic institutions alike benefit from diverse populations. We recognize that although overcoming the history of discrimination and segregation is a daunting and ongoing challenge, diversity of our American nation is an indisputable asset that boosts the prospects for our collective future.

The current negotiations between the US and Iran present an opportunity to discuss a kind of enrichment that goes beyond nuclear capacity and centrifuges. Iranians and Americans can engage in much needed discussions about enriching their societies and reap the benefits of treating their citizens as equals.

Congress Needs to Think Big About Fish

When you buy a house, do you inspect only the roof? Of course not. You look at the whole structure: the foundation, insulation, plumbing, and many other aspects that indicate the overall condition of a home.

Taking a look at the big picture is wise when buying a house–and equally wise when making many other decisions, including how we conserve our oceans. And it could translate into a huge benefit for fish as well as those who enjoy or depend on them.

Before setting fishing rules, fishery managers consider the health and abundance of a particular fish population, typically one population at a time. Instead, they should take into account not only individual fish populations but also the ecosystems in which they live–the whole house, in other words.

In practice, this would mean that before managers set fishing rules, they would consider where fish live, how their environment affects them, what they eat, what eats them, what unique roles they perform in the oceans, what threats they face from a changing ocean ecosystem, and how fishing affects that environment.

2014-09-24-Crockett6HuffPoimage.jpg

Such an approach, ecosystem-based fisheries management, may sound complex, but there are concrete, cost-effective steps to make it a reality, including conserving habitat where fish spawn and protecting food sources for fish. This holistic approach could help dwindling species recover and boost healthy populations–achievements that can bring economic benefits to fishing businesses and coastal economies.

Some of the fisheries management councils are adopting this approach. In Alaska, home to some of our nation’s most prized commercial fisheries, the North Pacific Fishery Management Council tracks trends in the environment to help guide decisions about catch limits. The council also has protected several kinds of prey, or forage fish, the smaller species that provide food for the larger. And it has permanently closed about 1.2 million square miles of ocean bottom to fish trawling and scallop dredging–both of which drag destructive gear along the ocean floor–to help protect habitats that are important to bottom-dwelling species. These and other conservation-minded tactics have helped create some of the most robust and healthy fish populations in U.S. waters.

Farther south, the Pacific Fishery Management Council, which regulates fishing in federal waters along the entire western U.S. coast, recently adopted its first ecosystem plan–a document that spells out how to look at the big picture when managing marine resources.

While some fishery managers already consider the whole rather than just the parts, we need to ensure that all of them do so by making it a requirement in federal law. Now is an opportune time as Congress considers renewing the nation’s primary fish law, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Legislators should require policies that protect and restore ocean ecosystems and also specify how ecosystem information can be factored into fisheries management rules and plans.

The law was created nearly 40 years ago, when scientists mostly relied on reported catch from fishermen to draw conclusions about the health and abundance of fish populations. With modern, sophisticated technology, we now know significantly more about fish migration patterns, species health, what affects them, and the roles they play in the ocean.

Seafood enthusiasts, fishing businesses, coastal communities, and anglers will benefit if we can ensure that fishery managers use all the information they have to make smart decisions. We need to remind them of the wisdom of looking at the whole house–not just the roof.

Watch Joan Rivers Lecture Kim Cattrall About Birth Control

During a visit to HuffPost Live, Kim Cattrall got to relive an appearance on “The Late Show Starring Joan Rivers.” While promoting 1987’s “Mannequin,” Cattrall went on a press tour, which included a lecture from the late comedian.

“You don’t use birth control?” Rivers asked a young Cattrall, before making the actress promise that she would use condoms.

“That was one of my first television experiences,” Cattrall said on HuffPost Live. “She was so sweet to me.” The “Sex and the City” star then revealed that Rivers sent her an apology note and commended her for being such a good sport that night.

Do You Have to Pay Income Taxes on Social Security Benefits?

Dear Carrie,

From what I’ve read, if a married couple has annual withdrawals from 401(k)s, IRAs or pensions that exceed a certain amount, their Social Security benefits may be taxed. Is that true?

— A Reader

Dear Reader,

You’re absolutely right. When it comes to income taxes, many people think only of the money they earn in a paycheck. But the reality is that there are many other types of income that are subject to ordinary income taxes. And all of that income, in turn, can trigger taxes on Social Security benefits — which can come as an unwelcome surprise.

To determine whether your Social Security benefits will be taxed, the IRS uses what it calls your “combined income” — which is the sum of your adjusted gross income (AGI), non-taxable interest, and half of your Social Security benefits. If your combined income exceeds a certain limit, 50 to 85 percent of your benefits may be taxed.

All this is probably enough to send you running to your accountant. But before you do, let’s go over some of the facts so you can have a more meaningful discussion.

Retirement account withdrawals that are subject to income tax
A withdrawal from a retirement account is considered to be ordinary income and is taxed as such with a few exceptions, depending on the type of account. Here are the most common retirement accounts and how they’re taxed:

  • Traditional IRA, 401(k), 403(b) or other employer-sponsored plan: Earnings and pre-tax contributions are taxed at ordinary income tax rates. If you made after-tax contributions, a portion of your withdrawal will be taxable and a portion will be tax-free.
  • Roth IRA and Roth 401(k): Both contributions and earnings are income tax-free once you reach age 59½ and you’ve held the account for 5 years.
  • Pension: If all contributions were made with pre-tax dollars, withdrawals are treated as ordinary income.
  • Annuity: It depends on the type of annuity. Any gain from purchased annuities, such as fixed and variable annuities, is treated as ordinary income. Best to talk to your tax advisor.

Other sources of taxable income
Many retirees have other sources of income besides retirement accounts. So it’s important to remember that taxable income also can include self-employment income, as well as unearned income such as dividends and interest, capital gains and U.S. Savings Bonds.

Alimony, unemployment compensation, gambling winnings or lottery winnings are additional sources of taxable income.

How much income you can have before benefits are taxed
As I mentioned, whether or not your Social Security benefits will be taxed depends on your combined income. For 2014, a married couple filing jointly with combined income under $32,000 ($25,000 for single filers) won’t pay income taxes on their benefits.

However, if their income is between $32,000 and $44,000 ($25,000-$34,000 for single filers), up to 50 percent of Social Security benefits may be subject to ordinary income taxes. If their income exceeds $44,000 ($34,000 for singles), up to 85 percent of benefits may be taxed.

Here’s a simple example: In 2013, Ted and Marsha each withdrew $20,000 from their 401(k)s. They also had $1,000 in dividends and interest. They had no deductions, so their AGI was $41,000. They also had $1,500 in non-taxable interest income, and together they collected $36,000 in Social Security benefits. Their combined income for purposes of computing the taxability of Social Security benefits (the tax-exempt interest is still non-taxable) was $42,500 plus $18,000 (half of their Social Security benefits) for a total of $60,500, putting them well over the $44,000 limit. You can see how easily it adds up.

What you can do about it
If paying taxes on your Social Security benefits seems inevitable, you can strategize a bit to help minimize the pain. First, if you haven’t yet filed for benefits, think about the best time for you and your spouse. It may be wise for one or the other of you to delay filing for benefits, not only to keep taxes low, but also to let your benefits grow.

Then, as you plan or refine your retirement income strategy, take a look at all your sources of income (including required minimum distributions from retirement accounts once you reach 70 ½) and divide them into taxable and non-taxable categories. See how much of your retirement expenses you can cover from sources not subject to ordinary income taxes. If possible, keep withdrawals from your retirement accounts low enough to stay in a lower tax bracket — and potentially lower the percentage of Social Security benefits that may be taxed.

Now talk to your accountant
Once you’ve looked at the broad numbers, you can use calculators on the Social Security website to explore different scenarios and determine how much you may be taxed. But to really get a handle on the numbers, I suggest talking to your accountant.

If you do have to pay taxes, you can make quarterly estimated tax payments or choose to have federal taxes withheld from your benefits. Whichever you decide, at least there won’t be any surprises.

Looking for answers to your retirement questions? Check out Carrie’s new book, “The Charles Schwab Guide to Finances After Fifty: Answers to Your Most Important Money Questions.”

Read more at http://www.schwab.com/book. You can e-mail Carrie at askcarrie@schwab.com. This column is no substitute for an individualized recommendation, tax, legal or personalized investment advice. Where specific advice is necessary or appropriate, consult with a qualified tax advisor, CPA, financial planner or investment manager.

COPYRIGHT 2014 CHARLES SCHWAB & CO., INC. MEMBER SIPC. (0914-5693)

Hospitals In States That Won't Expand Medicaid Left With More Unpaid Bills

States that refuse to accept Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion aren’t just leaving behind poor residents, they’re also hurting hospitals’ bottom lines.

Because the Affordable Care Act cut the number of people with no health insurance this year, hospitals across the country will see $5.7 billion less in unpaid bills, according to a report issued by the Department of Health and Human Services Wednesday.

But the difference in states that have expanded Medicaid versus those that haven’t is stark, the report shows. Hospitals in the 25 states that already have made Medicaid available to more poor residents and the District of Columbia will see $4.2 billion less in unpaid bills and charity care, a decrease of one-quarter. In the other states, the decline will be just $1.5 billion, or 9 percent.

In other words, the reduction in the uninsured brought about by Obamacare has predictably led to a decrease in the number of people turning up at hospitals with no health insurance and no means to pay for their medical care. And that decrease is more substantial in states that allowed their poorest residents access to Medicaid coverage.

“It’s actually showing that this provides benefits to states,” Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell said at a briefing with reporters prior to the report’s release Wednesday.

The findings are a reflection of the fact that the uninsured rate, especially among low-income people, has fallen much more in states that expanded Medicaid than in states that didn’t.

In a New England Journal of Medicine article published in July, HHS and the Harvard School of Public Health estimated 10.3 million fewer people are uninsured as a result of Obamacare. HHS also announced this month that 7.9 million more people are enrolled in Medicaid or a related benefit called the Children’s Health Insurance Program than before Obamacare enrollment started last October. In addition, 7.3 million people have signed up for private health insurance via the law’s exchange marketplaces, Burwell disclosed last week.

The Democrats who wrote the Affordable Care Act intended to expand Medicaid nationwide to anyone earning up to 133 percent of the poverty level, or about $15,300 for a single person. But the Supreme Court ruled in 2012 that states could opt out, enabling Republican governors and state legislators — mostly in the South — to refuse generous federal funding to cover low-income residents.


<img src="http://www.advisory.com/~/media/Advisory-com/Daily-Briefing/2012/11/DB_medicaid_map_lg.jpg"

Via: The Advisory Board Company

The failure to expand Medicaid in those states has left 4.8 million people who would have been eligible without coverage, according to the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.

The American Hospital Association, along with other national state hospital groups, endorsed the Affordable Care Act precisely because they wanted more people covered and fewer patients unable to pay for care. That’s even though the law also cuts Medicare and Medicaid funding hospitals receive.

In states that haven’t expanded Medicaid, hospitals are enduring the funding reductions without the increase in insured patients, though. When the Supreme Court ruling came down, hospital groups in states like Texas and Florida unsuccessfully lobbied in favor of the Medicaid expansion. The figures released by HHS show why they tried.

“Many of the hospitals in these communities feel it already, but I think the data and information will help them make their case more strongly with regard to the importance to their bottom line,” Burwell said.

A growing number of states that initially didn’t expand Medicaid are signing on, most recently Pennsylvania and New Hampshire, bringing the total up to 27 plus Washington, D.C. Burwell is in discussions with other states, including Utah, about bringing them aboard. “The more that we are able to attract conservative Republican governors, the more that those who have very strong feelings will perhaps listen,” she said.

HHS based its analysis on financial reports from hospital chains such as HCA Holdings and LifePoint and on surveys by state-based hospital trade associations. The consulting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers published a similar report this month, and its findings are consistent with HHS’s.

The 'Diabetical'

2014-09-23-Diabetical.jpg

I have loved the term “diabetical” since the matriarch of Tyler Perry’s Madea movie franchise first coined the phrase. The term masterfully highlights the diabolical nature of the disease, which has now become a worldwide public health crisis.

So what is diabetes? According to the CDC, diabetes reflects a condition where the body doesn’t process food properly. Consumed food is turned into sugar — our body’s prime energy source. The pancreas, an organ in the abdomen, produces the hormone insulin, which assists the body in utilizing sugar as an energy source. In the diabetic state, insulin is either not made properly (known as Type-1 diabetes), or doesn’t function properly (known as Type-2 diabetes). Diabetes is non-discriminate; it affects men, women, and children. It exerts its effects on all organ systems of the body, and if not kept in check, can result in blindness, nerve damage, stroke, heart attacks, kidney failure and limb loss — all of which, and more, are sequelae of the disease.

An exponential rise in the prevalence of the disease has been noted. Between 1985 and 2002, the number of the world’s population affected by diabetes rose from 30 million to 217 million. By 2030, this figure is expected to exceed 366 million.

Additionally, health care expenditures utilized to treat and prevent diabetes and its attendant complications are expected to exceed 490 billion dollars by 2030; interestingly enough, of that expenditure, more than 50 percent is anticipated to originate from the United States.

Aside from the economic impact, the prevalence of the disease exerts a huge burden. Lost revenue due to decreased workdays, restricted activity, decreased productivity, disability and mortality exists.

For us compatriots here in the United States, the question exists — how did we get here? The ‘diabetical’ epidemic did not come about as some sort of pathogen, such as the enterovirus that is rapidly spreading across the States; it came quietly. It came by a change in lifestyle. With the transition from “living off the land” to an industrial way of life, we as a nation have begun to eat less healthily, we are sedentary, we live longer now, and lastly WE ARE OBESE. Obesity and diabetes are now the yin/yang commonality.

Why am I on my soapbox? As a maternal fetal medicine specialist, I see a lot of obesity in my practice. Aside from the two types of diabetes mentioned earlier, there is a third that affects the pregnant woman. Diabetes prior to pregnancy (pre-gestational diabetes), and diabetes diagnosed during pregnancy (gestational diabetes) exist, and can negatively impact the unborn in utero, after birth, into childhood and beyond. Diabetes can cause congenital malformations, alter fetal growth, and preclude the newborn child to obesity and the development of diabetes into adulthood. Obesity and diabetes are transgenerational conditions that may have the ability to be decreased by the pregnant mom; what you eat, how you live, how you teach your children to eat and live, directly impacts your own health and that of future generations.

To the mamas-to-be, increase your exercise, fresh fruit and vegetable consumption and decrease eating the processed and fried foods. WATCH your weight and the weight of your children. If you are diabetic and wish to become pregnant, see your doctor and get your diabetes in control prior to conceiving. Motherhood is your opportunity to break the hold the ‘diabetical’ has, because after all in the glorious words of William Ross Wallace, “the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world.”

Facebook Is Playing 'Big Brother' All Wrong

Last month was the first time I heard of Facebook’s latest messenger app — that insidiously diabolical technological advancement which virtually everyone seemed to loathe from day one. At the time, Facebook’s transition to the new messenger looked rather grim, as users cited privacy concerns and complained of being forced into downloading the app if they were to continue sending ever-important messages via their mobile devices (although whether or not one can actually be “forced” into downloading an app remains up for debate).

I hadn’t given the messenger app much thought since then, largely because I never considered downloading it in the first place. I’m already drowning in messenger apps on my devices; it’s exhausting just considering the litany: Gchat, iChat, WhatsApp, Skype messenger and, least sexy of all, the standard text message. I even have a walkie-talkie app called Voxer, just in case I want to pretend I’m lost in the Vietnam bush circa 1969 and the Viet Cong’s closing in (a fantasy which inevitably ends when I apply a little tech savvy via my iTranslate app, ask the locals for directions in broken Vietnamese, am eventually guided to the nearest fan boat out of town and finally — with a smile — am presented with a voucher for a complimentary weekend stay at the Hanoi Hilton the next time I’m in town). Truthfully, each time I receive a Voxer message I pretend I’m Willem Dafoe in Platoon. Unfortunately, despite all the wishing in the world, as of today Tom Berenger has not called in an airstrike and put me out of my misery.

It wasn’t until a few days ago that the Facebook messenger app again entered my consciousness. This time it was after seeing new headlines concerning the app’s spyware and reading an article on motherboard.com reporting that, according to internet security expert, Jonathan Zdziarski, “messenger appears to have more spyware-type code in it intended specifically for enterprise surveillance.”

Hence, considering the reports in August and the reports from a few days ago, I could only logically conclude that the Facebook messenger app was indeed a complete bust, guilty of not only spying but also being inflexible and inconvenient, not to mention the equivalent of arm wrestling users into hitting the download button to boot. Case closed. The people have spoken and they have chosen one of seventy-two other messaging apps in a collective F-U to Facebook.

Paradoxically, when I checked the list of top downloaded free apps on iTunes a moment later, despite receiving a paltry one-and-a-half star feedback rating, the Facebook messenger app was number one, having been downloaded over 500 million times. As you might imagine, I detected a contradiction afoot. Publicly decrying an app and then downloading it half a billion times often sends a less-than-decisive, arguably mixed message. One might even suggest that doing so essentially conveys, “We hate the app with a true passion, but c’mon, is anyone seriously suggesting verbal communication as an alternative?”

So, apparently, the messenger app is bad — really bad, in fact. But perhaps because we’re all used to living with disappointment in every other aspect of our lives, we’re willing to settle for something that is not only bad, but perhaps also not in out best interest, so long as it ensures uninterrupted communication with people we probably barely know in the first place.

At first I was a bit disappointed that a majority didn’t exercise their collective power as consumers and cause the messenger app to be a miserable failure. It could have been the greatest display of consumer solidarity since the abysmal failure that was Robin Thicke’s latest album (although if we’re being honest, it was never really going to take a village to make that happen). Nevertheless, I might be even more disappointed with Facebook.

So many companies are already utilizing the standard ‘Big Brother’ shtick, it almost seems overly passive, uninspired and just plain lazy. Anything worth doing is worth doing right, and in the case of the Facebook messenger app, they may have undershot completely.

Facebook wants to release an inconvenient and intrusive app? Fine. Be intrusive. Be damn intrusive and outright creepy, in fact. But at least give us something with tangible benefits, something we can use.

Why didn’t they roll out their lousy messenger app with a mind-blowing physical intervention app?

For example:

Each time someone attempts to send a follow-up request (you get the first one free) from one of those insufferable games like Farmville, a large mallet extends out of their computer’s monitor or phone’s screen and obliterates one of the requester’s fingers. Afterward, the app could send the intended requestee a picture of the smashed appendage.

Or, when you’re about to troll your exes on Facebook after ingesting massive quantities of unmentionable substances (or even do so stone sober, if you prefer) a hand slaps you square in the face as the voice of HAL from 2001: A Space Odyssey informs you, “It’s time to move on.” Before you realize what’s happening, you’re handed a pint of Ben and Jerry’s laced with a sedative and HAL then instructs you to, “Take this. Call me in the morning.”

Or perhaps, to keep hashtag overuse to a dull roar, compulsive hashtaggers will unexpectedly find their computers or phones bursting into flames (without harming anyone in the process, of course) whenever they exceed their allotted amount (deemed ample by all emotionally stable consenting adults) of hashtags for the year. They could receive an email shortly thereafter with a subject line — #usethehashtagwiselydummy.

But I’m just tossing out semi-formulated ideas for you, Facebook. Feel free to let your imagination flourish — locusts, cholera, the black plague, etc. Just don’t make it something uninspired.

In all sincerity, I’ll never understand why we don’t give Facebook and other corporations the proverbial finger in unison — and feel good about doing it — especially when it involves a new app which everyone seemingly hates and numerous questions and concerns regarding one’s privacy exist. Sadly, it seems to be a trend in everything from consumerism, to politics, to personal relationships.

One of the best lines from the season two premier of Orange is the New Black comes when a plane full of inmates heading to an undisclosed location attempts to discern what part of the country they are flying over. Upon spotting a mountain, one concludes, “I think we’re in the Midwest.” “There’s no mountains in the Midwest,” retorts another. “Just corn. And plains. And a sh*tload of white people who don’t vote in their best interests.”

If only it were a phenomenon uniquely affecting the Midwest.

Plane Makes Unscheduled Landing Due To Alleged Masturbator

A cross-country flight from Boston to Los Angeles had to make an unscheduled landing in Omaha, Nebraska, because one of the passengers was allegedly masturbating.

Doug Adams, 26, was removed from the Virgin Airlines flight he was on Monday morning after the plane made an emergency landing because of a patient having a “medical emergency.”

Witnesses said that Adams had a hospital bracelet on his wrist and appeared to be on drugs.

A police report obtained by NBC Bay Area stated that Adams, of Woodside, California, “masturbating in flight and later tried to open an exit door.”

Los Angeles-based filmmakers Sam Slater and Paul Bernon, who were sitting in the row in front of Adams told CBS Los Angeles said the suspect kept mumbling about not trying to be violent, and how he didn’t want to be a violent person.

“We’re sitting in the front row, and we’re both a little concerned and watching what’s happening,” Slater told the station.

Bernon said the situation seemed to escalate after Adams returned from the restroom.

“When he came out of the bathroom, he sat back down, he was arguing with the woman next to him, said he didn’t want to sit next to her,” Bernon told CBS Los Angeles. “He got back up, told the attendant he wanted her to move, and at that point they paged to see if there was a doctor on board.”

A doctor took Adams’ blood pressure and the flight crew cleared a row in the back of the plane and isolated him from other passengers.

“He at that point was fidgeting and began to remove the plastic covering from the emergency exit door, and tried to pull to open the door,” Slater said. “Fortunately, there were a couple of Boston police officers on the flight that were there to help as well. And that’s where we realized that we weren’t going to make it to Los Angeles and we had to land in Omaha.”

When the plane landed in Omaha, he was led away in handcuffs, MyFox8.com reports.

He was taken to a hospital for observation, ABC7 News reports. The rest of the passengers arrived in Los Angeles shortly after noon.

The Omaha Police Dept. has not responded to HuffPost inquiries about whether Adams has been charged.

Tourist Snapshot: Meeting Visitors From All Over The World Just a Block From My Office

2014-09-24-IMG_1310.JPG

Tourists take photos in front of the White House.

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The thought came to me on my way to work one morning. I was speed-walking through Lafayette Square and past the White House, dodging tourists as they took snapshots of each other.

I looked around at the army of other drones on their way to work in the office buildings in the area. And then I thought: What if, instead of treating tourists as an obstacle, we slowed down and appreciated them?

Tourists have been one of the best and worst parts of living in D.C. the past five years. I love that I can walk down the street and see people from all over the world who are excited to be in “my city.” I hate that I can get stuck behind a busload of eighth-graders while I’m running to catch a Metro train.

norriswarton

The Norris-Warton family from England, Jackie, Ben, Amberley and David, was visiting D.C. for just 48 hours.

So in an effort to see tourists in a new light, I decided to try something new for a month. I would take a deep breath, linger a moment longer and offer to take a group (or individual) photo for some tourists each day as I pass the White House. Those photos often morphed into a conversation, however brief.

I saw a woman from Chicago who was struggling to take an awkward White House selfie — fixing her hair, tilting her chin, smoothing her dress and trying to get just the right parts in the frame — and I offered to snap a photo for her.

I chatted with a middle-aged couple from Mainz, Germany, who had bought 10 guidebooks before making their trip and took their photo by the fence.

I used some rudimentary hand signals to communicate that I was offering to take a photo for a woman who spoke almost no English. She was wearing blue jeans and appeared to be about age 40. After I snapped a shot of her with the White House in the background, she was able to tell me she was visiting from China.

After a month, I had made 22 stops to meet tourists, and 10 of these people or groups were from outside the United States. I had taken 21 tourist snapshots in front of the White House: eight with people’s point-and-shoot or SLR cameras and 13 with smartphones. (One couple wasn’t taking photos when I approached; we just started chatting.)

I met a number of interesting people. David Law, the head of corporate finance in Africa for an international bank, was in town for the President’s Young African Leaders Initiative. When I first saw him, Law was standing in the hot sun in front of the White House, wearing a suit and taking a picture on his iPhone. “How did you know I was a tourist?” he asked me. Let’s be honest. Not a lot of D.C. businessmen pause to admire the White House.

Law had been across Lafayette Square at the Hay-Adams hotel to check on arrangements for a YALI event scheduled there. That night, he was headed to the British Embassy.

Law travels often for his job. He was in D.C. for just two days but said he always tries to see a bit of the cities he’s visiting. He doesn’t want to look back when he’s older and say “I’ve traveled to all these countries and didn’t see anything while I was there,” he told me.

A family from a coastal town in southern England was also eager to chat after hearing I was a journalist. Jackie Norris-Warton said one of the most curious things she had noticed in the U.S. was how pro-Israel the nation’s media coverage was of the conflict between Israel and Hamas. She felt Americans weren’t getting a full picture of the suffering of innocent people — and children — in Gaza.

Norris-Warton was there with husband David, son Ben, 16, and daughter Amberley, 10. David’s schedule as an airline captain allowed the family just a couple of days in D.C. Ben, his father noted, is interested in studying international law, adding importance to the trip for him.

But I discovered not everyone on vacation feels they have the leisure time to talk to a stranger. A number of the groups I photographed couldn’t tell me much more than where they lived before scurrying off to stay on schedule. A couple from Italy said they had to catch up with their tour group. The father of a family from Illinois mentioned they were “trying to do everything we can in four days” before hurrying to their next stop. A teenager with a family from San Jose, Calif., was distracted by the arrival of a motorcade and pulled her parents away to watch. (No, it wasn’t the president this time.)

andersen

Jon and Jessica Andersen from Hilliard, Ohio, were visiting Washington, D.C., for a week. Though both had been to the District when they were younger, this was their first time visiting together. Jon was excited to see Ford’s Theatre, and Jessica thought the tour of the inside of the White House was great.

Others looked at me warily when I offered to take a photo for them. I could only imagine what they might be thinking: Why are you helping me? Are you going to run off with my camera? Is this a trick?

As a tourist myself at times, I understand the resistance to making a new best friend with a stranger in another country (or even state). Look up travel tips, and you’re sure to find a warning about pickpockets and hucksters in any country or big city. Yet, talking to locals can elevate the experience. Instead of just seeing the monuments, you can find an authentic educational and cultural experience.

When I spent a few days traveling on my own in India in 2011, one of my most fascinating days was when I allowed a local boy I met on the street to lead me around Jaipur for an afternoon, pausing to see a men’s prayer circle and to enter a busy Hindu temple — things I likely wouldn’t have done on my own. (My mom, who might not have heard about this until now, will be happy to hear that I had my safety in mind and was insistent we stick to highly populated areas of downtown.)

After 30 days of meeting White House tourists, I do have a new appreciation for the visitors I pass on the street each day.

Someone once told me you should move from D.C. when you reach the point that you take the monuments (and Capitol and White House) for granted. Luckily, I still find myself admiring them as I pass by and pausing to snap a photo on a particularly gorgeous day.

Of course, that doesn’t mean I won’t complain to my friends about the group of five tourists walking slowly and taking up the entire sidewalk at the end of the day as I rush to catch my bus home.

This post is part of the Third Metric Challenge series. We invite you to find a creative way to incorporate the pillars of the Third Metric (well-being, wisdom, wonder and giving) into your life and share your story. To submit a post, email thirdmetric@huffingtonpost.com.

The Fate and Future of Black Athletes: It's On Us

In 2009, Sports Illustrated reported that 78% of NFL players file for bankruptcy or face financial hardships two years after playing their last game and that 60% of NBA players face a similar fate within five years of retirement. Black athletes are the overwhelming majority of players in both leagues. A year ago, a University of Pennsylvania study highlighted an issue which continues to plague Black males and ultimately, our country: a significant disparity in graduation rates between Black and White student-athletes. Black males dominate the rosters in big-time college sports as well.

2014-09-24-NSAKentuckyGraduation.jpg

The Penn study illuminates the racial inequities in big-time college sports that are longstanding and pervasive. While representing approximately 2.8% of full-time undergraduate students, Black males constitute 58.4% of the football and 60.8% of basketball team in Division 1 sports. The overrepresentation of Black males is no surprise to anyone who has watched college football or men’s basketball recently. Similarly, no one who has studied race in big-time college sports is surprised by the racial inequities in graduation rates.

One of the causes of the bigotry and discrimination in sports is the stereotyping of young Black males as “athletes or nothing.” One of the big contributing factors to the stereotyping in sports — and in all industries — is the young men are steered/steer themselves into a sports track and neglect their own personal development. In many ways, sport highlights, and then minimizes, Black males in ways similar to how our response to domestic violence minimizes women.

In order to respond to the root causes of the bigotry and discrimination, and enhance the NFL’s response to domestic violence and sexual abuse issues, the league (and the NBA and NCAA) needs to support the development and delivery of programming that will equip student-athletes, from a young age and over a multi-year period, to not only adopt an academic and life balance, but to model it as standout athletes; to advocate it among non-athlete peers; and to use their influence among peers to remove any obstacles to achievement in the path of a Black male or female classmate seeking to excel academically and join the ranks of the successful. The programming should also include a train the trainer aspect, with the end goal of combating the “young Blacks are only athletes” stereotyping in society.

It is shocking that these trends are so pervasive yet the American public (including institutional leaders, the NCAA, athletics conference commissioners, the NBA and the NFL, sports enthusiasts and journalists) has not done more in response to them. Why hasn’t the lingering and persistent disparity in graduation rates across the board provoked the collective outrage of the American public, especially Black folk, to take a stand against the exploitation?

In contrast, the Ray Rice domestic violence incident has put domestic violence front and center on the consciousness of the American public.

There have been 56 incidents where NFL players have been “arrested for and/or charged” (not convicted) with domestic abuse since 2006. According to the National Domestic Violence Hotline and the National Sexual Violence Resource Center more than 77,000 calls about domestic violence went unanswered just in 2013 because of a lack of resources. While the NFL is not mathematically a “haven for domestic violence,” and Ray Rice is not the face of domestic violence, pressure from women’s rights organizations like NOW the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence and No More has led to a long term commitment by the NFL to help all people affected by domestic violence.

Before the Ray Rice incident, the silence around domestic violence and sexual assault issues was deafening and deadly. The response of the media, the public, sponsors and women’s rights groups to domestic violence in the NFL has been swift and undeniable. In addition to appointing four (white) women to serve as senior advisers on domestic violence issues, the NFL is providing resources to the National Domestic Violence Hotline and the National Sexual Violence Resource Center to support their response to the issues.

Wouldn’t it be just as productive if the outrage a few incidents of domestic violence involving NFL players has provoked could be channeled to truly hear and address the long-suffering cries for help by so many Black student-athletes?

The lack of response to the exploitation of Black student-athletes lies at the doorstep of Black leaders, the Black media and former Black athletes who appear to have accepted as normal the widespread inequities that are cyclically reproduced in most revenue-generating college sports programs.

Studies suggest that domestic violence often is caused by feelings that develop in athletes who are exploited by a system that prioritizes profits: low self-esteem, inferiority in socioeconomic and educational background, and drug abuse.

Perhaps NOW and NCADC can leverage the NFL’s attention into support of programming in youth sports to equip student-athletes to develop “whole,” better equipped to make sound decisions. It could be a real and powerful deterrent to future domestic violence issues in sports.

Stayed tuned for my next blogs, that will include a look at the double standard in sports, the negative (media) image and public perception of Black athletes, the failure of Black leadership in sports, and the impotency of the NFLPA.

You can contact Everett Glenn of ESP Education & Leadership Institute at 562.619.8460 or eglenn@thensa.org