Microsoft has long been championing TV white space internet for use in places conventional types of connections don’t reach, even in places that don’t even have access to electricity. After a pilot program that brought white space broadband to some A…
Like most other areas of life, driving is becoming an increasingly “smart” activity, mostly due to the connected nature of modern life. We’ve seen some systems crop up lately that aim to provide drivers with more data on their driving habits, and among them is the new Akolyt, a smart sensor that plugs into a car’s OBD connector and gathers … Continue reading
Long before Black Lives Matter became a rallying cry for justice, the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense was demanding a similar call to action with “All power to the people.” The new documentary Black Panthers: Vanguard of a Revolution reminds us that unfortunately, so much has not changed over the years.
Listen up, immigrants of Indian origin! Y’all close down all the Indian grocery stores and restaurants in the United States. Stop watching those mushy, melodramatic Bollywood movies on American soil. No need to subscribe to those Indian TV channels, or follow Indian media. Playing Indian music at home that you grew up on? Shame on you! You are now an American! You must sever all ties to your roots, traditions and heritage!
Absurd? But that is precisely what Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal recently suggested. In a prepared statement obtained by POLITICO, which (at the time of this writing) was scheduled to be delivered at the conservative Henry Jackson Society in London, Jindal states:
“I do not believe in hyphenated Americans.” The statement further quotes him as saying, “My dad and mom told my brother and me that we came to America to be Americans — not Indian-Americans.” And, “If we wanted to be Indians, we would have stayed in India.”
The fact that Jindal tries his level best to amputate his Indian identity in service of his naked political ambition is old news to those who have followed him. And yet, the above comments are outrageous, even by his standards.
It is one thing to say immigrants must do more to assimilate. I am right there with Jindal up to this extent of the thought. Many Indians come to America only to cocoon themselves in their native environment. Geographically, they may have moved here, but practically and psychologically they exist in a self-created, mini-India. That’s a loss for both the immigrants and the host country.
But then, for Jindal to suggest that one must also go on to disown their native roots, heritage and culture is a slap on the face for both Indian and American sensibilities.
What exactly is Jindal asking us to do or not do when he advocates dropping the “Indian” part of our hyphenated lives? Is there, according to him, a certain code by which one is considered a “true,” unhyphenated American? What disqualifies me from being that fabled American? What behaviors and practices are approved to be certified as a true American? Does affiliation with a Hindu temple or with a Mosque disqualify me? Can I attend one of those loud Indian weddings before I will be shouted down as a traitor?
Jindal offers, “I am not suggesting for one second that people should be shy or embarrassed about their ethnic heritage.” Make up your mind, sir. You are saying don’t be shy of your heritage, but are you also suggesting wipe it out entirely — don’t be hyphenated?
“I am explicitly saying that it is completely reasonable for nations to discriminate between allowing people into their country who want to embrace their culture, or allowing people into their country who want to destroy their culture, or establish a separate culture within,” offers Jindal further into the same prepared statement.
So, which American culture does he want everyone to embrace? Do African-Americans subscribe to the same “American” culture as Jewish Americans? Does subscribing to a monolithic White Anglo Saxon Protestant Culture makes one an ideal American? Which culture produces the ideal American? Isn’t a Charlie Manson or a Timothy McVeigh far less American than an M. Night Shyamalan or a Kalpana Chawla?
Jindal may argue, if the original European settlers could melt into the American melting pot, why can’t newer immigrants? But history tells us there wasn’t exactly a beeline to the melting pot. Initially, there were enclaves of English, Spanish, Portuguese, Irish and other settlers. There were attempts to preserve their native cultures. And it is conceivable that they would have succeeded if the technology of the times allowed 24/7 engagement with the cultures they left behind, as is the case today.
The Governor’s disgraceful comments are equally offensive to American sensibilities. If he can hear himself over his blind need to pander to the far right, he might see how much he sounds like the Taliban when he says people should fall in step with a singular culture of the land. The very notion that countries should band around such a monolithic culture seems like a concept that belongs to the Middle Ages. How quintessentially un-American is such a notion! Isn’t the very crux of being American that you are free to practice whichever cuisine, culture and religion that you wish — so far as it is ethical and moral?
Granted, good citizenship also requires assimilation so that one has a stake in and contribution to the commons. But, as stressed earlier, there is a vast difference between encouraging assimilation and asking immigrants to wipe out their customs and heritage. It’s not as if I will somehow not be able to enjoy and appreciate a good episode of House of Cards on television if I am doing it over chai and samosa instead of coke and popcorn. Or that being Hindu will prevent me from pledging allegiance to the country I chose to live in, not only for the rest of my life in, but that, in all likelihood, will be the motherland of my descendants.
Obviously, celebrating one’s heritage is not at odds with assimilation. Identity, ultimately, can’t be reduced to a mathematical equation as Jindal suggests. Being 100 percent American does not mean you have to be zero percent Indian, or the other way around. As Anjali Enjeti writes in an article in Khabar (“Mixing Colors,” June 2014), about her multicultural identity:
[Culture]… is a choice, an aspiration, a deep-seeded appreciation of all of the distinct parts that make a person whole. And culture doesn’t expire. It is not conscious of ethnic percentages. At the end of the day, I am fully Austrian, Puerto Rican, and Indian, no matter how much or how little I express those cultures in my day-to-day life. The countries of my ancestors, no matter where I live, will always reside in the home of my soul.
If Jindal does not believe in hyphenated Americans, is he now going to campaign against Cinco de Mayo celebrations? Saint Patrick’s Day Parades? Kwanzaa? Passover?! Ultimately, this is not just about righteousness, but also about deciding which is a more desirable society: one that is bland, insular, parochial and monolithic. Or, one that is dynamic, diverse, colorful and inviting (such as… well, the United States of America)?
Unfortunately, the term “shared” is such an inexact state of being and only through first deciphering how the driveway is actually owned can the mutual obligations for maintenance be precisely determined.
To force your neighbor to share in the upkeep and maintenance of a driveway or, better yet, to force your neighbor to pay for the entirety of the driveway maintenance is a complex proposition. To do this, you should first look to the deeds for all of the properties sharing the driveway. Typically, the deeds will show how the driveway is owned. There is only a true sharing of the driveway when there is a separately deeded right for the ownership of the driveway, in addition to both neighbors’ ownership of their individual properties, and as such, the driveway is titled in the neighbors as tenants-in-common or joint tenants. In this situation the driveway can be thought about in the same terms that one would view a lobby of a condominium with respect to ownership responsibilities and permissive use.
The typical shared driveway is not generally owned by both neighbors jointly, as previously described, but instead, one neighbor usually owns the driveway while the other neighbor will hold an easement to use the driveway, or a right of way over such driveway. Here, the owner of the driveway is considered to have the servient estate whereas the easement-holder is considered to have the dominant estate. The dominant estate has rights that exist on top of that of the property owner who must, in turn, moderate his own rights for the purpose of serving the dominant’s intended use. In consequence to the owner’s subordinated rights, and as New York’s highest court has explained, “ordinarily, a servient owner has no duty to maintain an easement to which its property is subject.” Instead, the servient landowner only has a passive duty not to interfere with the rights of the dominant easement-holder. As a result, maintenance and snow removal would typically fall on the shoulders of the easement-holder (a.k.a dominant estate), by default, who has a corresponding duty to keep the easement in sufficiently good repair so as to avoid harm to the servient landowner’s property.
A properly drafted deed should obviate the need to understand these default rules because such a deed should spell out the respective duties and limitations of the parties’ rights with respect to the driveway. The deed should go so far as to speak in terms of the specific maintenance obligations of each neighbor by explaining if the dominant estate-holder’s rights are just to use the easement as a passageway, or, instead, if the dominant estate-holder can maintain the easement with such things as plantings, fencing, paving, etc.
A properly drafted deed should allocate the costs and decision-making powers of the neighbors so that there is no ambiguity as to the neighbors’ ability to co-exist into the future. More particularly, the deed should unequivocally state if the servient landowner is completely excluded from use of the driveway existing for the benefit of the easement-holder, or if both the servient and the dominant estate can use the driveway in a shared manner. The latter being the default rule if the deed is silent as to this issue. In such a situation and absent an express agreement to the contrary, all persons benefited by an easement must share ratably in costs of its maintenance and repair.
Assuming that both the servient and dominant estates actually utilize the driveway, the ownership rights will be looked at as an easement-in-common by a court when allocating the costs of maintenance. As a consequence either neighbor can take initiative to maintain the driveway. However, a neighbor can only look to the other to share ratably in its repair if that neighbor, who is undertaking the repair, gave the other neighbor both adequate notice of the repair issue sought to be addressed and a reasonable opportunity to participate in deciding how the repair is made. Thereafter, the neighbor, who is undertaking the repair, must ensure that the repairs were performed adequately, properly and at a reasonable price. Failure by the neighbor, who is undertaking the repair, to satisfy any of these obligations will prove fatal in any subsequent claim upon the other neighbor to share in the cost of maintenance of their shared driveway.
If you don’t have an agreement concerning the maintenance of a shared driveway with your neighbor, before going to court, you should invite your neighbor to enter into such a private agreement and thereafter file it with the deed, at the county clerk’s office, as a covenant and restriction that runs with the land. This type of agreement will not only avoid your instant conflict with your neighbor, but it will also prevent future neighbors who are living at your properties from existing with the same type of ambiguity, as to the rights and responsibilities for driveway maintenance, that created your conflict in the first place. As a consequence, it will enhance your property’s value.
Adapted from this Lieb Blog post
I’ve debated with myself for some time over whether I should write about my past body image issues. I’ve definitely had a few, but I’ve always felt like no one really wants to hear a skinny girl talk about feeling unattractive. And, I get that. “Skinny privilege” is definitely real, and regardless of how many feelings of inadequacy I’ve experienced, its a fact that our society frequently values thin bodies over thick ones.
Last summer, cellist Dane Johansen hiked 580 miles across the northern rim of Spain. His plan was to record the Bach Cello Suites in the churches that line the ancient pilgrimage route known as the Camino de Santiago and turn the experience into a documentary.
“I figured if anyone happened to show up in the churches while I was playing, that would be OK,” he said. “But I wasn’t planning on doing public recitals.”
The Spaniards had other ideas. When he got off the plane, Johansen discovered that his trek had been announced. “In town after town it was advertised as a concert,” he said. “I got to the first church and discovered hundreds of people waiting.”
Johansen, who will be the guest soloist at the Anchorage Symphony Orchestra concert on Saturday night, was born in Fairbanks. He’s the grandson of the late University of Alaska engineering professor Hendryx Woodrow “Woody” Johansen, for whom that town’s Johansen Expressway is named. His father, Tony, was an engineer, his mother, Gail, a violin teacher. “I have three sisters, all violinists,” he noted.
My mom was a Playmate and Hugh Hefner’s girlfriend from 1976 to 1981. When I was growing up in L.A. as a kid, I spent a lot of time at the Playboy Mansion. My mom first brought me there in 1988, when I was 3 months old, and I’ve been going back ever since. I’m what they call a “Mansion baby.”
Hats off to researchers in California. They’ve taken what appears to be a big step toward the development of a cure for hair loss, a condition that affects 50 million men and 30 million women in the U.S. alone.
The scientists, working at the Sanford-Burnham Medical Research Institute in La Jolla, Calif., showed that stem cells derived from human skin can be used to grow hair–at least in mice.
“The method is a marked improvement over current methods that rely on transplanting existing hair follicles from one part of the head to another,” Dr. Alexey Terskikh, an associate professor at the institute and a member of the team of researchers who demonstrated the experimental technique, said in a written statement. “Our stem cell method provides an unlimited source of cells from the patient for transplantation and isn’t limited by the availability of existing hair follicles.”
In other words, unlike conventional hair transplantation and other hair restoration treatments now in use, the technique could–at least in theory–grow lots of hair on the heads of men and women who are completely bald.
That would be a very big deal.
“If this approach is proven to work in humans, it will change existing treatments radically,” Dr. Nicole Rogers, a dermatologist and hair transplant surgeon in New Orleans, told The Huffington Post in an email.
Dr. Marie Jhin, a dermatologist in San Francisco and an adjunct clinical instructor at Stanford University, echoed that assessment. If the treatment pans out, she told HuffPost Science in an email, it “absolutely would be a breakthrough.”
But Rogers said there have been many “fits and starts” over the years as researchers have worked on other promising hair-restoration techniques, adding that the Sanford-Burnham researchers face many challenges–including replicating their results in large-scale human trials.
The technique exploits the ability of human pluripotent stem cells to turn into almost any other cells in the body. Terskikh and his collaborators turned these cells into the dermal papilla cells that regulate the formation and growth of hair follicles, and showed that these grew hair when injected into mice.
Human dermal papilla cells are unsuitable for conventional hair transplants because they cannot be obtained in necessary numbers and they quickly lose their hair-growing potency, according to the statement.
Terskikh wouldn’t hazard a guess as to when, if ever, the experimental technique might be available for use in humans. The next step, he said, would be to find a partner to fund future research.
A paper describing the research was published Jan. 21, 2015 in the journal PLOS One.
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.
