Hasta La Gadget!

To The Woman Who Owned My House,

My family and I looked at many houses during our search for a home to begin the next chapter of our lives. Some were professionally decorated, perfect paint colors and gleaming hardwood floors fit for the glossy pages of a magazine. Some felt like the word “home” would never find a home in my heart as I walked from room to room trying to imagine my family in them. When we first visited your home it was apparent it needed a little TLC, but not enough to turn us off to it. You see, I had already gathered you were recently divorced and had been living in the home on your own with your youngest of three children for a while so I expected some wear and tear to be evident as I imagined touch up paint and home maintenance may not have been at the top of your priorities nor possibly in your budget.

As we walked through your home, I saw the carpet that needed replacing, the walls that needed a fresh coat of paint and the landscaping that needed some sprucing up. I also saw years of love, of life and memories on the walls (your children’s growth chart marked on the door frame in the pantry brought tears to my eyes).

As we continued our home search, we began to refer to your house as “the one with good bones, a solid house with great potential that just needed a little TLC” and came back for a second visit as we moved along in the decision process. With each visit, I began to envision tucking my children in at night, each in their new bedrooms and walking down the hall to the master bedroom to wrap up another full day of living in our new home. I could see us around the table in our new dining room, enjoying home cooked meals and conversation. As I slowly made my way through your home, the picture began to take shape as each scene painted the house as my home. With each step I took, I could more clearly see my family creating memories in each room much like yours did through the years.

At the closing, you rushed in late, looking a bit out of sorts. You ran back out to the car, having forgotten something. I watched you through the conference room window and tried to imagine what you were feeling. I felt sad that the end of your chapter was the beginning of mine as though I was taking something from you that didn’t belong to me.

I suppose that’s just how it is.

Life is an endless revolving door of experiences where one person exits and the other enters. Each compartment only allowing for one person to be fully present in that moment.

You took a deep breath as you settled in across the large, mahogany table from me, and only then did you look at us. In that moment, I wondered what was going through your mind as you took in my husband, myself and our children. Were you taken over by flashbacks of your own family, once intact, as you raised your children in the home that was about to become ours? As you handed the keys over, after documents were covered in ink, I saw tears in your eyes. I wanted to stand, make my way to you and give you a hug. Instead, I simply said, “Thank you. Know that we are excited to make this our home and will create many happy memories in it.”

After we moved in, you and I texted about forwarded mail, trash pickup, etc. You could have ignored my queries as I’m sure you didn’t need to prolong the transition into your new life. I could have ignored your messages when your cat went missing and you were sure she had tried to come “home” once again. We didn’t.

As the weeks came and went, text messages became a bit more personal as we asked each other how we were settling in, how the kids were adjusting, how we were adapting to our morning cup of coffee in a new place. With each new message, I could see the transformation in you as you went from a woman whose life experiences had her doubting her future, hesitantly closing the door on a life lived and taking her first steps into the unknown to a woman who has not only embraced her new place but ultimately her new place in life.

I want you to know that your home has become our home. We have embraced it with love and excitement and already creating memories we will carry for a lifetime. We may have painted, re-decorated and spruced things up a bit, but we were right when we described this house as “one with good bones, a solid house with great potential that just needed a little TLC.”

Apparently, that description fits the prior owner as well.

Sincerely,

The Woman Who Has Made This House A Home

This post originally appeared on Leah’s blog, http://www.littlemisswordy.com as part of the movement #1000speak.

The release yesterday of the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee report does not officially give us new dietary guidelines for Americans just yet. Famously, there is a political element to this process. The scientists making up the advisory committee do just that: they advise. What actually emerges as guidance is determined by the federal agencies in charge, USDA and DHHS.

Over the years, though, as the involvement of politics in our official dietary guidance has become ever more transparent, thanks at least partly to the efforts of Marion Nestle after chairing one such advisory committee, they have also tended to become a bit less heavy-handed. When the report of the scientists is circulated on the Internet, as it now is, the alterations made by politicians are visible to everyone who cares. That makes any serious adulteration of the scientists’ recommendations something of an embarrassment, and rather a liability.

That doesn’t mean there won’t be any changes. Before the committee report is translated into official guidelines, there is a period of public comment — which is a banner that flies over a host of agendas. Some of the commentary will be from public health advocates, but much will be from industry. What exact dietary guidelines will emerge from this gauntlet remains to be seen.

But given that, I like what I see so far. I think the advisory committee has done a stellar job.

Their report, which came off embargo only yesterday, (2/19) runs to 572 pages, so I confess I have by no means read every word yet. But I have been through it enough to get the gist, and the gist is: wholesome foods, in sensible combinations. Amen to that!

Specifically, the report uses this language:

The overall body of evidence examined by the 2015 DGAC identifies that a healthy dietary pattern is higher in vegetables, fruits, whole grains, low- or non-fat dairy, seafood, legumes, and nuts; moderate in alcohol (among adults); lower in red and processed meats; and low in sugar-sweetened foods and drinks and refined grains. Additional strong evidence shows that it is not necessary to eliminate food groups or conform to a single dietary pattern to achieve healthy dietary patterns. Rather, individuals can combine foods in a variety of flexible ways to achieve healthy dietary patterns, and these strategies should be tailored to meet the individual’s health needs, dietary preferences and cultural traditions. Current research also strongly demonstrates that regular physical activity promotes health and reduces chronic disease risk.

This is really good stuff. The consensus of the scientists on the committee is, basically, that the theme of healthful eating is clear, but that there is no single variant on that theme that is the obvious choice for all. I like that conclusion both because it is true, and because it leaves people the latitude required to wind up loving the food that loves them back — as my own family does.

The emphasis on plant foods is based both on the body of evidence related to human health, and quite appropriately, on considerations of sustainability. As I addressed in my prior column, whatever the potential merits of a meaty, Paleo diet — they are impractical for a huge population of humanity on a shrinking planet. The Dietary Guidelines for Americans now serve an audience of over 300 million people, and that must figure in the recipe. There is no healthy diet for healthy people on a seriously unhealthy planet. A section in the advisory committee’s report devoted to sustainability is a very welcome addition.

In the fullness of its many pages, the advisory committee report does of course get into the nutrient particulars. The news was leaked in advance of the report release that the current committee has dropped the recommendation for restricting dietary cholesterol intake. That is indeed true, and as I have noted in a prior column, justified in my opinion.

There has been much debate lately about appropriate thresholds for dietary sodium, and the committee was clearly attentive to it. Their conclusion, again appropriate in my opinion, is that most Americans still get more sodium than is good for us, and efforts to reduce prevailing intake should continue. Since roughly 80 percent of the sodium in the typical American diet comes from processed foods, rather than the family salt shaker, a shift to less processed, and more home-prepared foods in general, rather than a fixation on sodium per se, is the right strategy.

Given all the recent noise regarding saturated fat, to which the committee members were most certainly not deaf, one might have expected some change in direction on the topic. There was none, and I again think the committee got it right. Despite the hype, no studies have shown health benefits of increasing saturated fat intake; they have, at best, indicated that when we replace an excess of saturated fat with an excess of sugar and refined starch, we are going sideways. In contrast, intervention trials with both Mediterranean and plant-based diets low in saturated fat have been shown to slash rates of heart disease. The committee thus retained saturated fat as a nutrient of concern, suggesting we limit our consumption. Again, however, the right response is about foods, not nutrients. There is no health benefit in reducing saturated fat by eating Snackwell cookies. There is for most of us a decisive health benefit if we eat less baloney, more broccoli and more blueberries.

The multidisciplinary committee was charged with looking at dietary components from the proverbial soup to nuts, and did just that. Unlike the seemingly competing factions in our culture at present, they felt no obligation to choose one nutrient focus over another. The recommendations rightly recognize the harms of excess sugar and refined starch, while also noting the liabilities of excessive intake of meat, processed meat especially. The recommendations also rightly ignored the distorted arguments and evidence-shopping that have landed books advising against wheat and grains on best-seller lists, but which are belied by the weight of evidence viewed without such bias. To my knowledge, the word “gluten” does not appear in the report.

Finally, there is a certain emphasis in the report on family. Personally, I would have liked that to be even greater, but it’s pretty good. The committee clearly recognized the importance of shared, family dietary practices, and the potential advantages of family meals. A cultural emphasis on families eating well together will speed the dawn of the day that “dieting” dies — and good riddance to it. In the Blue Zones, they don’t diet — they live it. They eat well, in traditional patterns, and live longer and better than the rest of us as a result.

The work of the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee is, in a word, excellent.

We likely still have a long way to go reorienting our culture to a renunciation of quick-fix diets, and an embrace of the tried-and-true fundamentals of healthful eating. In an age of polarized opinions, magnified in the echo chambers of cyberspace, there are a lot of competing dogmas to overcome. Getting past that, and coming together, is an important mission — but perhaps a topic for another day. For today, we at least now have recommendations, and the promise of official guidelines, that emphasize wholesome foods in sensible combinations, rather than isolated nutrients — which for far too long have unbalanced our diets, like a tail that wags the dog.

-fin

David L. Katz, MD, MPH, FACPM, FACP eats well, and has three dogs; so there you go.

Director, Yale University Prevention Research Center; Griffin Hospital

President, American College of Lifestyle Medicine

Editor-in-Chief, Childhood Obesity

Follow at: LinkedIN; Twitter; Facebook

Read at: INfluencer Blog; Huffington Post; US News & World Report; About.com

Author: Disease Proof

The 87th annual Academy Awards on Sunday will honor Hollywood’s biggest achievements of the year, but many have already taken note of who’s been left off of the nomination list: namely, non-white actors, directors and writers.

The problem of overlooking black cinema is something that’s been going on since the beginning of the film industry. But while the prestigious Hollywood ceremony continues to wrestle with diversity issues, New York’s Museum of Modern Art is highlighting rare footage from the earliest known feature film with a black cast, in a show titled “100 Years in Post-Production: Resurrecting a Lost Landmark of Black Film History.”

The introspective exhibition, which opened at the museum in October and runs through May 3, examines 101-year-old unedited film footage starring legendary entertainer and theater performer Bert Williams. What makes it all more interesting, the project’s lead curator, Ron Magliozzi, told The Huffington Post, is that the work is on display at the same time as the 100th anniversary of Hollywood’s first blockbuster film, “The Birth of a Nation.”

D. W. Griffith’s “The Birth of a Nation,” released in February 1915 and adapted from Thomas Dixon Jr.’s novel The Clansman: An Historical Romance of the Ku Klux Klan, is an overtly racist movie that went on to make history as the first major box office hit. Despite this historical feat, many have decried the motion picture for its scenes celebrating the founding of the Ku Klux Klan in the south.

As Magliozzi notes, the silent film’s MoMA debut is a testament to its authenticity in comparison to D. W. Griffith’s controversial motion picture. Both movies were filmed at about the same time. The MoMA footage is the work of two white filmmakers, Edwin Middleton and T. Hayes Hunter, and one black filmmaker, Sam Corker Jr. The negative for the unreleased and untitled film, which was meant to be a romantic comedy, has been in the museum’s archival collection since 1938, and it began going through a restoration process in 2004.

“To me, it’s remarkable that this film was made in 1914, and it turns up now when it’s the 100th anniversary of ‘Birth of a Nation.’ And our film is a testament to what a slander the Griffith film was,” Magliozzi said. “The performances are very sophisticated and very normal, very authentic, and very real feeling when you watch them. Whereas the Griffith film was very minstrelsy and racist stuff that it’s appalling. So that within itself is amazing to us.”

“Our film wasn’t released, we think, because of ‘Birth of a Nation,’” he added. “For this film to make a profit, they have to play it before large white audiences, and it’s apparent that the producers of our film in 1914 said, ‘There’s no way that we’re going to get an audience for this film with everyone going to see ‘Birth of a Nation.’ So we’re not going to release it.’ So I think the issue of how the films in theater have to attract audiences to make money is something that the producers in Hollywood today think about, the same way they did 100 years ago.”

“Things haven’t changed that much, and that’s the reason why we wanted to put this exhibition on at MoMA at this time, to show you in a sense how little has changed in one way,” Magliozzi said. “It’s the same issues: ‘Is something going to be profitable?’ and ‘Is the subject of the film going to make money to large multi-cultural audiences?’”

In addition to worrying about potential viewership and revenue, the directors of the footage on display at MoMA were likely also thinking about another issue related to black actors portraying love and affection on the silver screen.

“The romance in Bert Williams’ film is very adult. It’s a romantic comedy, with two mature adults having a sexual relationship with a long kissing scene in the film,” Magliozzi said. “And that’s one of the reasons they weren’t going to release it back in 1915, because in that period romantic relationships between black characters had to be comic. If they weren’t funny, they weren’t going to be acceptable. It was a fact.”

(See the kissing scene below.)

It’s a problem that still hasn’t gone away. According to a series of 2011 studies conducted by Indiana University telecommunications professor Andrew J. Weaver, white audiences are still biased when it comes to black leads in romantic films. Weaver concluded in his studies that “the higher the percentage of black actors in the movie, the less interested white participants were in seeing the movie” and “white participants exhibited a clear preference for films with white romantic couples over both interracial and black romantic couples.”

Magliozzi noted that the filmmakers were likely aware of this issue back in the early 1900s. “I just read a quote where Sam Corker Jr., one of the directors for our film, said in 1909 that his play wasn’t going to get staged because it’s too much serious romance between the black characters — they needed to make their relationship ridiculous, otherwise his play isn’t going to get produced,” he said. “So to me, our film shows the level of accomplishment that black performers had achieved. A level of talent and their abilities as actors was as good 101 years ago as it is today.”

Following the film’s run at the renowned New York City museum this spring, it is scheduled to be featured at the Smithsonian Museum and the San Francisco Silent Film Festival in June. It will then premiere in Europe in October and be released on DVD by the end of 2015.

WATCH:
(function(){var src_url=”https://spshared.5min.com/Scripts/PlayerSeed.js?playList=518660574&height=381&width=570&sid=577&origin=undefined&videoGroupID=155847&relatedNumOfResults=100&responsive=false&relatedMode=2&relatedBottomHeight=60&companionPos=&hasCompanion=false&autoStart=false&colorPallet=%23FFEB00&videoControlDisplayColor=%23191919&shuffle=0&isAP=1&onVideoDataLoaded=HPTrack.Vid.DL&onTimeUpdate=HPTrack.Vid.TC”;if (typeof(commercial_video) == “object”) {src_url += “&siteSection=”+commercial_video.site_and_category;if (commercial_video.package) {src_url += “&sponsorship=”+commercial_video.package;}}var script = document.createElement(“script”);script.src = src_url;script.async = true;var placeholder = document.querySelector(“.js-fivemin-script”);placeholder.parentElement.replaceChild(script, placeholder);})();

Laura Gaskill, Houzz Contributor

Looking for an alternative to cartoon character decor? There are tons of ways to put a personal stamp on a kids’ space, and they don’t need to be costly. From a bunk-bed fort to wall art, these projects and ideas are sure to get your creative juices flowing.

Creative Ways to Tame the Mess in Kids’ Bedrooms

1. Tepee. Kids can use it as a pretend house for dramatic play or get cozy inside and read books — either way, it’s sure to become the focal point of the room.

2. Chalkboard door. Requiring less commitment than a full chalkboard wall (but just as much fun), a chalkboard door gives kids permission to draw on the walls… always a hit!

3. DIY zigzag wall color. Use a straight edge to draw a zigzag border about halfway up the wall, then it tape off. Fill in the lower portion with the wall color of your (or your child’s) choice for a creative, yet easy, DIY upgrade.

4. Fort bunk. This bunk comes kitted out with a built-in fort feature, but you could whip up your own version using a top bunk and a sheet. Keep it simple or (if you have a sewing machine) add a few extra features like a window, a door and pockets for bedtime reads.

5. Open-concept play kitchen. Rig up a play kitchen with a modern twist by installing a few open shelves at child-height and stocking them with mini grocery store basics. Attach handles and pulls to the edge of a play table and paint the surface to approximate the look of a stove, and hang wee oven mitts.

6. Washi-tape wall art. Get creative with that craft store favorite, washi tape, and stick a one-of-a-kind scene right onto your child’s wall. It should peel off easily, but test a small piece in an inconspicuous spot before getting started, just to be sure.

Make Playtime Exciting With New Kids’ Toys

7. Suitcase storage. Vintage suitcases make sturdy, portable storage containers for everything from dress-up clothes to storybooks. Slide one or two under the bed, or stack them to make a side table.

8. Candy-colored decor. With white walls acting as a blank slate, feel free to pile on bright ice cream and candy-store hues, like hot pink, lemon yellow and vibrant turquoise. Cheerful prints and whimsical details like buntings and dream catchers will appeal to pint-size tastes.

9. Rolling cart storage. Have art supplies, will travel! Tote crafting necessities like markers, paper, crayons and more in a wheeled storage cart for easy access, no matter where your little one wants to set up shop.

10. Retro couch. A love seat or small-scale sofa makes a comfy spot for reading books with a young child — and older kids will love having a “grown-up” hangout spot for chatting with friends. Go with an unfussy fabric in a dark print, so you can relax about those sticky fingers.

11. Framed textiles. Looking for a quick and affordable way to fill a wall with art? Textiles make an unexpected addition — and they’re the perfect way to use up just a square of a beloved but damaged pillow cover, blanket or rug.

12. Pegboard wall. You’ve likely seen pegboards used in the kitchen to hold pots and pans (thanks to Julia Child’s famous example), but why not use one in the little one’s room, too? You can hang (and rearrange) artwork, shelves, baskets, cups of art supplies and more on this hardware store workhorse, and you’ll never need to make another nail hole.

13. Clipboard art display. A few rows of basic boards outfitted with bulldog clips transform a blank wall into a creative display space for a rotating collection of your child’s art. Put up just a few or install rows all the way up the wall, depending on how much gallery space your budding artist needs.

14. A home for books. A bookcase with house-like doors hides clutter and can even stand in as a mod dollhouse. Craft your own take on this by painting (trace first) simple window, door and roof shapes on the outside of a plain cabinet.

15. Wire name sign. Pick up a spool of flexible wire at a craft store, and bend and twist it into the shape of your child’s name. No wire? You could use an old wire hanger from the dry cleaner, or even twisted-together pipe cleaners. Make the sign as big or as small as you like, and pin it to the wall for a personal touch that’s easy on the budget.

16. Pretty patchwork headboard. Give a simple toddler or twin-size headboard a more personal look and a bit more comfort by draping a well-loved vintage quilt over it. To make it permanent, sew seams along the edges to make a slipcover that can be removed for laundering.

17. Loft with slide. Looking for a bigger change? You can’t get much bigger than this awesome double-level loft with a ladder and slide! What little one could resist that?

_____

More:

Revamp Your Child’s Bedroom With New Furniture

12 Disney-Worthy Kids’ Rooms

Browse Thousands of Inspiring Kids’ Rooms on Houzz

Inspiring Book Nooks Welcome Young Readers

American slavery ended in the awful carnage of the Civil War. But to conclude Abolitionism was a failure that made no contribution to abolition of slavery (or to the cause of civil liberty) would be a grave mistake. Abolitionists divided between those who rejected political action and those who embraced it, between those who thought the Constitution was an agreement with Hell and those who read it as outlawing slavery, at least in all the federal territories.

The political abolitionists embraced the Declaration of Independence’s claim that “all men are created equal.” They read the 5th Amendment’s guarantee that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law to mean that slavery in federal territories was unconstitutional. As the Liberty Party Platform of 1844 put it, “all attempts to hold men as property within the limits of exclusive national jurisdiction ought to be prohibited by law.” The Liberty Party got only a tiny vote in 1844, but in 1848, the political abolitionists joined others in the Free Soil Party. Its platform had very similar language, and the Free Soil Party got a substantial popular vote. The Republican Party platforms of 1856 and 1860 contained very similar language.

Many political abolitionists joined the Liberty and Free Soil coalitions and the Republican coalition that elected Lincoln. These parties favored a policy of federal containment and roll back of slavery in federal territory, not immediate federal abolition in the original slave states. Still, they saw slavery in the slave states as an evil that should be eliminated. In 1860, about half of the Republicans in the House of Representatives had endorsed Hinton Helper’s book. The Impending Crisis, advocating state by state abolition of slavery in the South. Circulation of the book in slave states was a crime.

Containment did not mean the Liberty, Free Soil, and Republican parties were not in favor of abolition of slavery, any more than containment of Communism in the 1950s meant that the United States was not anti-Communist.

The great contribution of the abolitionists, political and anti-political, (and the Southerners who demanded opening all federal territory to slavery and who demanded that Northern states silence abolitionists) was to put the issue of slavery and civil liberty squarely on the political agenda. At first Northern mobs broke up abolitionist meetings and attacked abolitionist newspapers in an effort to suppress anti-slavery speech. In Alton, Illinois abolitionist Elijah Lovejoy was killed defending his newspaper press from a mob.

Abolitionists and more and more Americans reframed the slavery issue as one of civil liberty, free speech and free press. Many non-abolitionists in the North rallied to support free speech rights of abolitionists. As these people saw it, slavery threatened the liberty of Northerners as well. In the South, meanwhile, in 1856 and 1860, laws and mobs made campaigning by Republicans impossible.

In 1856, the Republican Party advocated free speech, free press, free territories, free men, and Fremont. In 1860, a Republican resolution in the United States Senate said freedom of speech and press on slavery and “every other subject of domestic and national policy should be maintained inviolate in all the States.” Thanks in part of the efforts and sufferings of abolitionists, slavery and its relation to civil liberty were squarely on the political agenda.

In 1862 Republicans in Congress outlawed slavery in the District of Columbia and in all federal territories—realizing the promises of the Liberty Party, Free Soil, and Republican Party platforms. In 1864 and 1865 debates on abolition of slavery, Republicans recounted attacks on free speech of abolitionists.

The Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantees of privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States and equal protection and due process for all persons–and its attempt to require states also to respect the liberties in the federal Bill of Rights–where part of the legacy of the political abolitionists. Of course, the legacy of slavery was not fully extinguished in 1865. Still, Abolitionists made a major contribution to the struggle for liberty.

Michael Kent Curtis teaches at Wake Forest University School of Law. He is the author of “Free Speech: The People’s Darling Privilege: Struggles for Freedom of Expression in American History,” among others.

Note: Here’s a recent article with a somewhat different perspective.