When the world uses an iPhone for a few days, bad things start to pop up. As much research as Apple puts behind a product, there is still no accounting for real world problems (you can make your jokes about real world problems and Appel products int he comments section below, thanks). With the iPhone 6, a bit of compromise … Continue reading
It’s Bazinga time!
Season 8 of “The Big Bang Theory” premiered on Monday night with two episodes back to back.
In “The Locomotion Interruption,” Sheldon makes his triumphant return to Pasadena, California, after weeks of riding trains across the country. And by “triumphant,” we mean he got robbed again and Leonard and Amy had to drive to Arizona to pick him up. In addition, Howard confronts Stuart about his weird relationship with Mrs. Wolowitz, and the two end up making awkward fatherly comments to each other.
Then, in “The Junior Professor Solution,” Sheldon gets promoted but now has to teach a class, and Howard ends up taking it after nobody else signs up. This leads to Sheldon trying to constantly outsmart him and Howard being the most disruptive student ever. Also, Amy becomes the popular girl she always wanted to be by taking advantage of the conflict between Penny and Bernadette about Penny’s new gig as a pharmaceutical rep.
Both episodes were hilarious, but here are 8 of the best Bazingas!
1. Sheldon just wants some pants
Image Source: Parangarico
2. Penny makes the first Bazinga about her hair
Image Source: swedishfishrule
3. Sheldon’s idea of being romantic
Image Source: sandandglass
4. Raj’s views on tinted windows
Image Source: drsheldoncoopers
5. Bernadette knows the perfect job for Penny
Image Source: theflavourofyourlips
6. Sheldon’s idea of the ultimate soldier
Image Source: YouTube
7. Howard just being a great student
Image Source: rubyanjel
8. And finally, Amy acting all popular
Image Source: YouTube
What was your favorite Bazinga from the premiere?
“The Big Bang Theory” airs Monday at 8:00 p.m. ET on CBS.
Being married to a therapist, my husband has participated in his fair share of parenting strategy sessions.
Ok… maybe MORE than his fair share. (This would be an appropriate time to bestow a little sympathy on spouses of therapists everywhere.)
One of our initial co-parenting talks took place while I was still pregnant with our first child. While he sipped his beer and I sipped my hot tea, I explained that we were going to avoid using labels with our future kiddo. Instead of latching on to good or bad descriptors (like smart or uncoordinated) and putting our child in a metaphorical box, I encouraged my husband to give our kids good ol’ fashioned unconditional love. (I love you. Period.) We would focus our compliments on our child’s efforts and not on their attributes, I explained. My husband agreed. We shook on it.
I was going to prepare us to do this parenting thing, by golly.
The labels that I did not prepare us for are what I call the big box, or diagnosable labels, such as Autism, ADHD, allergies, learning disabilities and chronic illness.
I wasn’t avoiding discussion of these labels… it just didn’t occur to me to bring them up. I think I assumed (since I was taking my pre-natal vitamins, of course!) that we would never have to use any of these stigmatized descriptors. There was admittedly a bit of pride and stubbornness mixed in there. But ultimately, I subscribed to the “Why worry until it happens?” philosophy, which I strongly recommend to any expectant or new parent.
So I didn’t worry… until my son was about 3 years old. That was the age when we began to notice some troubling behaviors that we couldn’t ignore. Aidan had the loudest voice in the room, but couldn’t tolerate loud noises himself. He was downright violent with his new baby brother, but was extremely sensitive to touch and rough clothing. Teeth brushing, nail trimming, haircuts and doctor’s appointments were always accompanied by prolonged, blood-curdling screaming. His favorite activities involved burrowing himself into couch pillows or throwing toys around the house. I won’t even go into the bizarre toilet training challenges we were having.
At his 3-year wellness check, when his pediatrician asked, “How are things going?” I almost burst into tears as I listed off the struggles we were dealing with. That was the first time that I heard about Sensory Processing Disorder, a condition that is often diagnosed along with Autism and ADHD. I went straight home and dove headfirst into SPD books and the Internet. Within a few weeks, Aidan’s diagnosis was confirmed and he began participating in bi-weekly OT sessions, or what he considered to be fun gymnastics in a place we called the “Playhouse.”
No time was wasted — we were ready for some help. I surprised even myself with my rapid acceptance of the SPD diagnosis when I so vehemently rejected labels in the past. Looking back, there were three reasons why adopting a label for our son saved our little family:
Most parents that I know feel SO MUCH pressure to get everything “just right” and raise kids who are relatively perfect. Sometimes letting go of our fear of labels and acknowledging issues when they arise can open the floodgates for support and information.
Today our son is a 4th grader who, for the most part, has outgrown his sensitivities. We still make sure he gets plenty of sleep, healthy food and consistent routines. We still throw in sound-blocking headphones when we’re going to see fireworks or a concert. Just like other parents, we limit his screen time and make sure he gets regular exercise.
If you asked Aidan about Sensory Processing Disorder, he would say, “Huh?” He doesn’t identify himself with that label. As far as he knows, he is a typical 9-year-old who occasionally drives his parents completely crazy. Mission accomplished in our opinion. The label we used to understand and help our child is the last descriptor he would use to define himself. And that is the kind of label our family can buy into.
NEW YORK — Earlier this month, Linda Sarsour and a colleague were standing outside the Arab-American Association of New York headquarters in Bay Ridge, Brooklyn, when a man started chasing them down the street.
“He picked up a New York City Department of Sanitation trashcan and threw it at us,” Sarsour, the director of the AAANY, told HuffPost Tuesday. “Thank God we weren’t hit.”
The man then called Sarsour, who is Muslim and wears a hijab, a “f***ing Arab.”
“I’m gonna cut your head off and see how your f***ing people feel about it!” the man screamed, according to Sarsour. She said the threat was undoubtedly a reference to the beheading of American journalist James Foley by Islamic State fighters in Syria, which had happened only two weeks before.
The rise of the Islamic State this summer, as well as the conflict in Gaza, Sarsour said, have contributed to the recent spate of violence against Muslims in New York City. Since July 1, there have been at least 14 hate crimes against people in the city’s Muslim community. In 2013, only seven such crimes were reported.
And that, Sarsour says, is why the last thing New Yorkers need to see is the incendiary, Islamophobic ad blitz that will appear in the city’s public transit system this week.
City religious leaders and a large group of elected officials joined Sarsour outside City Hall Tuesday morning to publicly condemn the ads, all of which equate Islam with the terrorism committed by groups like the Islamic State and al Qaeda.
Standing w/ @lsarsour & colleagues in govt condemning & calling for rejection of hate ads against Muslims on transit pic.twitter.com/ViU4nkzYBn
— I.Daneek Miller (@IDaneekMiller) September 23, 2014
“These ads are vile, hateful, indecent and only serve to fan the flames of intolerance,” Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) said in a statement Tuesday. “They have no place in a civilized society and should be resoundingly denounced throughout the four corners of our great and diverse city.”
The ads are the work of author and activist Pamela Geller, who paid $100,000 for what she described to the Daily News last week as an “education campaign” to raise alarm over the “problem with jihad” and Islamic Sharia law. Geller is a noted and prolific Islamophobe whose organization, the American Freedom Defense Initiative, has been listed by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a hate group.
One of Geller’s ads shows two photos side by side — on the left, a photo of a British man in a recording booth wearing a red tracksuit, and on the right, a picture of James Foley and his black-clad executioner, moments before Foley’s death. The man pictured on the left is suspected of being the same person as Foley’s killer. “Yesterday’s moderate is today’s headline,” reads the ad.
Another ad shows a photo of Adolf Hitler sitting with Haj Amin al-Husseini, a former grand mufti of Jerusalem active in the 1920s and ’30s. The two men are smiling at each other. The text of the ad reads, “Islamic Jew-hatred: It’s in the Quran.”
The ads will appear on 100 city buses and in two subway stations, including the busy Columbus Circle station in midtown Manhattan.
“Hiding behind the veil of the First Amendment to spew hate is pure cowardice,” New York City Councilman Mark Levine, chair of the council’s Jewish Caucus, said in a statement. He was joined outside City Hall Tuesday by Jeffries and a slew of other elected officials, including public advocate Letitia James, Comptroller Scott Stringer and City Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito.
“It’s shocking and upsetting that the [Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s] policies force them to allow for such an incendiary anti-Muslim ad on our buses and in our subway stations,” Levine continued. “These types of propaganda only divide us and ratchet up already increasing animosity.”
The MTA, however, has little choice in the matter. A 1998 federal appeals court ruled that ad space in the city’s subways and buses counts as a “designated public forum,” which means the agency can’t restrict what’s written.
A few years ago, the MTA tried to block Geller from posting ads that called enemies of Israel “savages.” The MTA argued that the ads violated its policy against “demeaning language.” Geller filed a lawsuit, and a judge ultimately ruled in her favor, saying that Geller’s ads were free speech protected by the First Amendment.
“If you read the court decision on this, our hands are tied,” MTA spokesman Adam Lisberg told the Daily News.
Still, the MTA does have a regulation prohibiting ads that “incite or provoke” violence. That’s why, in Geller’s latest ad buy, the agency rejected this ad:
“The MTA concluded it was reasonably foreseeable that displaying the advertisement would imminently incite or provoke violence or other immediate breach of the peace, and so harm, disrupt, or interfere with safe, efficient, and orderly transportation operations,” the agency said in a statement. “Under the MTA’s viewpoint-neutral advertising standards, the agency can prohibit advertisements that violate that standard.”
Geller is now suing the MTA over the rejection.
Daneek Miller, the only Muslim member of the New York City Council, told HuffPost Tuesday that he and other council members are hoping to find a way to allow the MTA to reject ads like Geller’s. He also said that he and his colleagues are in the “infant stages” of developing an ad campaign of their own to counter Geller’s.
Miller added that other members of the city council will continue to speak out against the ads.
And indeed, Councilman Brad Lander did so at Tuesday’s press conference, arguing that Geller’s ads were an affront to one of New York’s sacred places — its subway system.
“The New York City subways are truly an extraordinary place, where Orthodox Jews, devout Muslims, hipsters, atheists, communists, Republicans — everybody goes to work every day and stands close by each other and shows a kind of dignity and respect and tolerance that not just makes this city function but that makes this city beautiful,” Lander said.
“Whatever’s going on around the world — the ethos of the subway, that’s the ethos of New York City,” Lander continued. “We won’t tolerate those hateful ads. We want them down. We stand together. We stand against hate.”
Geller did not respond to a request for comment Tuesday.
Sarsour, the director of the AAANY, told HuffPost that public officials in New York should also stand against “government policies that send the same message” as Geller’s ads, such as the NYPD’s surveillance of Muslim communities.
Environmentalists have long opposed the use of Styrofoam in the food service sector, going as far as banning it in cities like New York. But the virtually-indestructible material may be cropping up in a much bigger way in the coming years. And, as contradictory as it sounds, Styrofoam’s resurgence may actually be a good thing for the environment.
According to Leigh Overland Architects, a design concept called insulted concrete form (ICF) employs a Styrofoam-like material (similar to the one used to make coolers) as a building block for homes. The blocks are stacked on top of one another and then held together with concrete to create houses that, according to Overland, seal out the elements and cut utility bills in half.
“Wood frame construction’s been around for hundreds of years. The time has come to build with a product that’s not going to only last for decades, but will last for centuries,” Overland told Connecticut’s New 12 earlier this month.
In an email to The Huffington Post, Overland explained that ICF-based homes cost nearly the same as wood framing. Though you may not save money up front, you likely will save on energy conservation as ICF prevents air from seeping through the corners and studs you’d find on a wood home. Custom home builder Andy Ellis agrees. “The building materials are about the same. The real savings comes to the consumer. It doesn’t take any more time to build or cost any more material wise to build this custom home than any other traditional stick built home,” Ellis told Time Warner Cable News.
Style wise, the possibilities are endless, Overland says. His case in point? A recreation of an eighteenth-century Scottish castle in New Canaan, Connecticut. Take a look at the property below and check out more on how ICF is used in the video above.
Have something to say? Check out HuffPost Home on Twitter, Facebook, Pinterest and Instagram.
**
Are you an architect, designer or blogger and would like to get your work seen on HuffPost Home? Reach out to us at homesubmissions@huffingtonpost.com with the subject line “Project submission.” (All PR pitches sent to this address will be ignored.)
Some people will do anything to save the life of an injured animal — like the woman who found an injured bear near her home and gave it CPR.
However, it didn’t turn out like she hoped — or expected — as this clip from “Outrageous 911,” a new series debuting Sept. 24 on TLC amply demonstrates.
@media only screen and (min-width : 500px) {.ethanmobile { display: none; }}
Like Us On Facebook |
Follow Us On Twitter |
Contact The Author
Caroline Wozniacki forgot a teeny-tiny thing from her runner-up finish at the U.S. Open: her winnings.
Thirty minutes after leaving the Open in Flushing, Queens, for her apartment in Manhattan on Sept. 7, Wozniacki zoomed back to claim her $1.45 million check, The Wall Street Journal reported. What’s more, the player didn’t inquire about an extra $500,000 in sponsorship incentives that kicked in for her strong showing before she lost to Serena Williams in the final, the Journal noted.
“I have enough to eat, buy nice shoes,” she told WSJ. “For me, it’s about the tennis and the trophies. I’m not motivated by money.”
While $1.45 million is certainly a large sum, Wozniacki could probably get by without it. As of Sept. 22 the 24-year-old Dane stood 11th on the all-time Women’s Tennis Association career earnings list, at nearly $18.4 million.
And according to Australian site News.com.au she raked in $11 million in endorsements during 2013 alone.
h/t For The Win
If Congress doesn’t stop the U.S. war in Syria, the bombs raining down on Syria will likely be the beginning of another open-ended, multi-billion U.S. war in the Middle East. The American public can help stop this war the same way it stopped U.S. war in Syria last year: flooding Capitol Hill with the message that people in the U.S. don’t want another war in the Middle East.
Congress has not yet signed off on waging a protracted war in Syria or in Iraq. The “People’s Branch” can still stop the Obama administration from wreaking more death and destruction in an already explosive part of the world.
Despite What You May Have Heard, Congress Didn’t Approve War
Before leaving for recess last week, Congress gave a short-term approval for the Administration to arm and train Syrian rebel groups. However, various members of Congress spoke out in staunch opposition to the plan, and even many of those speaking in favor of the move did so reluctantly. In the end the authorization approved was included in a stop-gap spending bill to fund the government through December 11.
More than a third of the House voted against arming the Syrian opposition, and other members voted for it only on the condition that restrictions were included on the president’s plan. Those restrictions included the disclaimer that nothing in the measure to aid the Syrian opposition “shall be construed to constitute a specific statutory authorization for the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein hostilities are clearly indicated by the circumstances.”
While this vote has been widely misreported in the media as a blank check for U.S. war in Iraq and Syria, in fact what Congress approved was a two and a half month probationary period for the president to arm and train rebel groups, with various limitations attached.
This means that after Congress returns from the elections, foremost on the agenda will be the question of whether Congress renews its approval for the president to continue arming and training the opposition past December 11.
3 Reasons to Stop U.S. Bombs in Syria:
Lawmakers must also go further, and weigh in to stop the U.S. bombing of Syria and Iraq. This war only escalates the bloodshed for three very clear reasons:
1) Bombing is Killing People, Including Civilians: The president’s new war in Syria, launched without congressional authorization or approval from the United Nations, has already escalated the bloodshed. U.S. airstrikes in Syria have reportedly already killed civilians, including children.
2) Bombs Can’t Destroy IS, but Bombs Can Recruit for IS: The Islamic State cannot be bombed out of existence. In fact, the Islamic State was bombed into existence by the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq unleashing widespread sectarian violence that continues to ravage Iraq today. The Syrian civil war continued to fuel the rise of IS, and IS has only expanded since the U.S. renewed airstrikes in Iraq last month.
While bombs can’t destroy IS, bombs can help IS recruit new fighters and financial support from Syrians and Iraqis willing to resort to violence to oppose U.S. military intervention. As my colleague Colonel (ret.) Lawrence Wilkerson and I have pointed out, every additional U.S. bomb is a recruiting bonanza for the Islamic State.
3) Every Bomb Lengthens the War, Delays a Political Solution to End Violence: Ultimately, the only way to stop IS from continuing to gain power is to secure a political settlement to the related but separate crises in Syria and Iraq. Bombing will only harden opposition in the Syrian regime, the armed rebel groups, and even among the population at large to seek that political solution.
A political solution to end the bloodletting in will require engaging all relevant stakeholders in the Syrian and Iraqi crises respectively.
In Iraq, that means engaging tribal and other local leaders in Sunni-majority provinces that have long been marginalized by the U.S.-backed Iraqi government. It’s important to engage leaders that have clout in Sunni-majority areas of Iraq where the U.S.-backed Iraqi security forces have committed grave human rights violations, stoking widespread resentment against both the Iraqi central government as well as U.S. military intervention.
In Syria, a political settlement will require engaging internal and external parties to the conflict, including, Iran. The U.S. has blocked U.N. efforts to include Iran in the Geneva II negotiations on ending the violence in Syria, which has only made matters worse. Foreign policy expert Phyllis Bennis has long made the astute observation that the war raging in Syria for years is actually a conflagration of six wars. One of those six wars is a proxy war between the U.S. and Iran.
U.S. must de-escalate its tensions with Iran to help save lives in Syria. The preliminary agreement to reign in Iran’s nuclear program demonstrates that Washington and Tehran can work together to help make the world a safer place. Excluding Iran from the negotiating table will not stop the destructive role that Tehran, along with Washington, have played in Syria. The U.S. should capitalize on Tehran’s influence with the Syrian regime to help save lives in Syria.
There are other steps the U.S. can take to counter the Islamic State through non-military solutions, but it will first require an end to the bombing, and the beginning of working toward a political solution.
Urge your members of Congress to take a stand against bombing Syria, and another protracted U.S. war in the Middle East.
After an announcement today there can be no confusion that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau takes the dangers of looming consumer debt seriously. I am encouraged by the focused effort by the CFPB to help more students to have their student loans forgiven after ten years.
Director Rich Cordray gave a presentation in which he said, “Student loan debt is one of the most significant burdens facing our young people, and it certainly hits close to home for a growing number of Americans.”
He went on to say the domino effect of student loan debt is real, and it is spreading. It is hard to erase this debt quickly – paying it back may take many long years and prevent people from achieving other financial milestones.
Tuition costs have risen rapidly. Student loan debt has risen even faster, and default rates have increased in tandem. Graduates are facing a job market that has not fully recovered from the recession. It is clear that a weak labor market and rising student debt are putting the squeeze on young people. The Bureau estimates that more than 7 million Americans are in default on over $100 billion in student loan balances. For those who default early in their lives, the hit to their credit report makes it harder to pass background checks to get a job, let alone to buy a home.
At the same time, household formation is a key driver of economic growth. Yet young people today are not forming new households at the same rate they once did. Many live with their parents or share space longer with their peers. The homeownership rate for young people peaked before the financial crisis and by the first quarter of this year was down more than 15 percent. This is very troubling because most first-time homeowners are young people who drive the market for home purchases.
These spillover effects are not limited to the housing sector. Student debt burdens can get in the way of young people buying a car, starting a small business, or saving for retirement. The CFPB is deeply concerned about how debt influences career choices by acting as a barrier to public service for a rising share of student loan borrowers. This may cause shortfalls in key roles such as teachers, healthcare workers, public safety personnel, and other public service professions. In underserved rural and urban communities, shortages in critical skills hamper the local workforces. By some estimates, the country will need over 400,000 new teachers, 150,000 new social workers, and 1,000,000 new nurses by 2020 – a daunting task even under the best of circumstances.
Ensuring that the next generation of African American college graduates is in position to help address these shortages is a big piece of the puzzle. In this country, many people of color work in the public sector as teachers, social workers, first responders, healthcare providers, and other critical areas of responsibility that improve our overall quality of life.
But African American college graduates are also more likely to carry above-average levels of student debt. More than four in five have to borrow to pay for college, taking on nearly 15 percent more debt than their peers. So rising levels of student debt may hit communities of color the hardest, keeping some of our best and brightest young people from giving back to society and denying our country the benefits of their public service. – Source
With the cooperation of both the Peace Corps and Americorps, these two groups will work closely with the CFPB to help educate participants about how their time and experience with those groups can help lead to or count towards the forgiveness of their student loans under the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program.
For those entering some form of public service, as defined here, or facing a mountain of student loan debt after school and have been smart enough to avoid private student loans, the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program from the U.S. government has the power to allow student loan payments to be as low as zero dollars per month and to be completely forgiven after 120 zero dollar payments.
Picture: Hon. Sempala with “just married” same-sex couple | Photo: Kristina Lapinski© 2014.
Imagine a Ugandan Parliamentarian, fresh from signing a petition to bring back the Anti-Homosexuality Act (AHA), walking down the Castro marveling at all the rainbow flags, awestruck by the notion of a “gay” neighborhood.
She walks up the stairs of San Francisco City Hall to encounter a “just married” lesbian couple, at first thinking they were mere bridesmaids, and then being told they were brides. She congratulates the couple, takes a “selfie” with them, and exchanges email addresses.
She is moved to tears when hearing Harvey Milk’s story for the first time, while standing in front of his bust at City Hall.
She has never seen gay people or lesbians show public affection before. Later that day she commented, “I saw the joy in their eyes — everyone should have the right to such happiness.”
In December 2013, Honorable Nabilah Naggayi Sempala, woman Member of Parliament for Kamapla, had purposely stayed away from Parliament avoiding the vote for the Anti-Homosexuality Act (AHA). However in August 2014 she signed a petition in support of bringing the Bill back to Parliament.
Much to the dismay of the LGBTI community in Uganda, the perceived ally seemed to change her stance, seemingly endorsing her support in a videotaped press conference that followed.
I called Hon. Sempala directly. She told me that she had signed the petition under extreme pressure, emerging from a shadow cabinet meeting, to the waiting arms of press and opposition, with fellow MP’s from the majority ruling party, NRM, insisting that if she did not sign the petition in that moment, she would be “working against the people and not for the people.”
After speaking to her at great length, I realized that her insider perspective would be most valuable toward dissecting the complex milieu surrounding the AHA. I invited her to San Francisco, on her way back from a conference in San Diego, to meet with politicians, leaders and to engage in dialogue at a forum open to the public, through the pilot organization I am directing, The San Francisco Africa Leadership Institute (SFALI).
Before extending the invitation, I checked in with prominent and also grassroots members of the LGBT community in Uganda; not one criticized the event, some endorsed it and a few submitted questions that they wanted answered publicly.
When we spoke on the phone, Hon. Sempala told me that she believed that her already controversial seat was at risk, as well as her personal safety, and with hardly much time to think, she signed the petition, and was ushered into a press conference where she, in her words, “cynically” noted that she was “pleased if the Bill came back, only if it were to include heterosexual males who practiced sodomy with their wives.” She informed me that she realized that Parliament would never support such an extension to the AHA. She felt that in effect, her caveat was the best she could do to nullify her perceived support.
Sempala said that she regretted her political acquiescence. She reiterated this in the forum in San Francisco.
Many were disappointed that she did not show courage, and that she gave in, politically, to the pressure. “She is no hero,” noted a disgruntled Ugandan LGBT human rights defender, “but maybe she did it for politics. I still hope she is our friend.”
The Bill has been a political tool used for years by Ugandan politicians, to suit their purposes, tapping into its huge popularity amongst the Ugandan populace.
By virtue of the passing of the Act and President Yoweri Museveni’s assent, it is clear that the forces within Uganda and abroad, seeking to thwart its initial passage, were unsuccessful. In many instances we may have added fuel to the fire or provided the impetus for what became America vs. Uganda. (See TIME interview with Nicholas Opeyo.)
Sempala’s appearance in San Francisco gave us important behind the scenes insight, created bridges and provided Sempala with a deeper understanding of LGBT people. She took a risk being here – speaking openly on American soil does not serve Sempala’s political career and may actually work to hurt her.
The dialogue and meetings with women leaders and a Californian politician proved to be an edifying experience for all involved. While the ultimate result will remain to be seen, she provided much useful information and engaged in critical dialogue; we opened doors and established bridges.
The path of a woman MP is complex and much different to male counterparts in the Ugandan patriarchal Parliament, and the Sempala visit helped us understand these challenges and complexities, all of which should be carefully considered when some lean toward applying western neo-colonialist impositions on Africa.
Sempala is one whose reflections assert that she believes strongly in human rights for all, and who made a momentary political choice that stings and hurts those she really would prefer to help. I see former President Bill Clinton as a friend who had to make difficult and shameful political choices, which served to sting and hurt those he would like to have helped. (Circa the ’90s DOMA and DADT.) I certainly would not have withdrawn my Clinton support because of his political choices, given the alternatives, any more than I would refuse to dialogue with Sempala. It is also important to note that the political realities between an American President and a Ugandan Parliamentarian are much different — the latter’s life would be at stake in a city where mob-justice is not uncommon.
Hon. Nabilah Naggayi Sempala insists that her visit to San Francisco was life altering.
She commented on how difficult it is for people in Uganda to get to know LGBT people, because people do not come out for fear of anti-gay retaliation. She said meeting gay couples was a special eye opener and noted that if more could have this experience, it could dispel the myths and lies about LGBT people.
I see Sempala as a credible and valuable ally, desperately trying to survive a torrid political realm. Given this deeper understanding and through further bridge building, there is much global advocates can do to avert the played out neo-colonialism that has served only to harm, rather than to help.
For a more detailed version of this post, more pictures and to see the SFALI’s video clips of Melanie Nathan interviewing Hon. Sempala at the Forum please click here.
This is site is run by Sascha Endlicher, M.A., during ungodly late night hours. Wanna know more about him? Connect via Social Media by jumping to about.me/sascha.endlicher.