Hasta La Gadget!

PHOENIX, March 30 (Reuters) – Arizona’s Republican governor, Doug Ducey, said on Monday he has signed into law a controversial measure blocking women from buying insurance that includes abortion coverage through the federal healthcare exchange.

The fiercely debated bill also requires doctors to tell women they could possibly reverse the effects of a drug-induced abortion, a claim that critics have called “junk science.”

The measure cleared the Republican-controlled state legislature last week, largely along party lines.

“The American people overwhelmingly oppose taxpayer funding of abortions, and it’s no different in Arizona, where we have long-standing policy against subsidizing them with public dollars,” Ducey said in a statement after signing the measure on Monday. “This legislation provides clarity to state law.” (Reporting by David Schwartz in Phoenix, Arizona; Writing by Eric M. Johnson; Editing by Eric Beech)

LOS ANGELES (AP) — A University of California, Berkeley soccer player who disappeared after leaving a weekend party was killed by a car as he ran across a Los Angeles freeway, police said Monday.

The 19-year-old freshman, Eloi (eh-loy) Vasquez, died early Saturday on eastbound Interstate 10 about a mile from the University of Southern California after he was seen leaving a fraternity party, the California Highway Patrol said.

A woman said a man ran in front of her and she was unable to avoid hitting him, said Officer Edgar Figueroa, a CHP spokesman. The man was struck just east of Vermont Avenue. The investigation is ongoing.

Vasquez was pronounced dead at the scene. He was not carrying identification, which set off a missing persons search until the coroner could identify him.

Vasquez, who was on spring break in Los Angeles, had left the party to take a walk with no money and no wallet, family and police said.

His mother, Wendy Margolin, said he later called a friend, telling her he was lost and in trouble.

The family had offered a $100,000 reward for information about his whereabouts.

“Needless to say, we are heartbroken, we are devastated upon finding out this news,” Wesley Mallette, associate athletic director at the Berkeley campus, said at a news conference.

“Eloi Vasquez was a wonderful young man, a fantastic student athlete, dedicated and devoted to everything he did.”

Vasquez’s soccer teammates at Cal were informed of his death at a more than hour-long meeting.

Vasquez had traveled with other teammates to Southern California for the break and was supposed to return Monday for the start of second semester, coach Kevin Grimes said.

“Eloi was a wonderful teammate. He was very close to all of his players. Our guys are grieving pretty hard right now,” Grimes said.

Vasquez, a freshman midfielder, had hurt his knee during the year and was still recovering from surgery in December.

His coach described him as one of the hardest workers on the team, who always stayed after practice. His youth soccer coaches would have to change the lock on the equipment shed to ensure he didn’t work too hard on his own, Grimes said.

“When you combine his talent level with that mentality it was a safe bet that he was headed to the MLS” – the U.S. professional soccer league, Grimes said.

This week I had the great privilege of attending a screening of Jennifer Siebel Newsom’s latest film, The Mask You Live In, which embarks on a powerful exploration of the truth and consequences associated with modern masculinity in America. If you are unaware of this remarkable filmmaker, make note, as she is on course to becoming one of the great filmmakers of our time. This film is the second in a trilogy series that Siebel Newsom and her team have embarked upon. Her first film the groundbreaking Missrepresentation, widely acclaimed at Sundance, sparked a global education and empowerment conversation on the impact of pervasive media stereotypes and distorted messaging that negatively impacts the development of girls and young women. Both films are harrowing documentaries that artfully intertwine expert commentary layered with thoughtful images and deeply personal narratives, in what is becoming Siebel Newsom’s signature style.

In peeling back the layers of what brings us to the current state of masculinity in America, Mask begins with the pain so many young boys and men experience and carry in isolation starting very early on in life. Legendary coach and author Joe Ehrmann‘s story and unmistakable voice fill the opening scenes with an all too familiar narrative of his five year old self being told by his father, “Don’t cry, be a man.” One of the most damaging phrases in our culture and yet an all too common socialization tool that is inflicted upon generation after generation of young men. The story then details Joe’s journey and numerous others from every race and ethnic background dealing with similar boyhood experiences of shame, fear, isolation and shunted emotions.

“He wears a mask, and his face grows to fit it.” —
George Orwell

The systemic internalization and blocking off of all emotion as the film warns inevitably leads to pent up frustration, anger and oftentimes violence against oneself and others. The stats Mask weaves in throughout are shocking and detail the dramatic rise in the just the past few years in bullying, rape, murder, and in particular mass murder by young men should be warning enough that we as a society aren’t doing enough. As a society we are failing our boys and young men.

And though there are so many elements of this film that haunt you, there is much hope weaved throughout that Siebel Newsom deftly uncovers and brings home by showcasing the amazing efforts of extraordinary teachers and mentors who work with the kids everyone has given up on. They are some of the most remarkable human beings I have ever witnessed captured on film. They are providing safe spaces, camaraderie and the tools to help adolescent men not only share their emotions but a safe space to connect with one another, a brotherhood of sorts that will shape them in a positive way for the rest of their lives. When I look at the amount of money we in America spend on our prisons compared to programs like this I wonder where the hell are our priorities? We should be embracing, elevating and compensating extraordinary local leaders like these teaches and mentors Siebel Newsom highlights so they not only never stop what they are doing but so that their efforts can be replicated and scaled in every city across America. We need an army of these teachers, mentors and coaches engaged in a massive collective effort if we are ever to right this ship.

Where We Take The Conversation From Here

When I asked men who attended the screening what their main takeaways were and if anything surprised them, they universally said that while they weren’t surprised by what they saw the real revelation was in the new awareness they now have that this is something that needs to be surfaced and talked about. Men don’t talk about these issues and as a society we’ve looked the other way. That has to stop. This film is the perfect way to initiate the conversation in your home, community, and workplace.

The Mask You Live In is the first comprehensive film study on the state of masculinity in America. It is a film every young man and grown man, everywhere, must see. Especially if they are fathers, coaches, teaches, and mentors. This film, like Missrepresentaion, makes you think for days and weeks thereafter. They are stark warnings that compel the audience to look inward, have a conversation and then be part of the solution in whatever way you can. You are compelled to action. And when I say compel, I mean anyone who watches either of these films cannot walk away unchanged. And for that I am personally grateful and hope Seibel Newsome and the The Representation Project never stop what they are doing.

What You Can Do Now

 Join & Support the Movement — Learn more at TheRepresentationProject.org; Sign up to receive updates, insights and new learnings.

 Host a Screening — in your home, community, and/or workplace and start the conversation

 Read and Buy Extra Copies of Joe Ehrmann’s brilliant book, Inside Out Coaching, and give one to every young man, father, coach, and teacher that matters in your life.

It is rare that a week goes by when we don’t hear a story warning us that robots are going to be taking our jobs. (For example, here , here, here .) This is bizarre even as measured by a standard of economic reporting that allowed an $8 trillion housing bubble to grow largely unnoticed.

The basic point is a simple one: there is no real evidence that robots are displacing workers on any substantial scale. The other part of the story that makes the robot discussion so annoying is that the Federal Reserve Board is actively debating policy that has the explicit purpose of taking away people’s jobs and almost no one seems to care.

Starting with the robot part of the story, we do have a measure of the rate at which robots and other technologies are displacing workers. It’s called “productivity growth.” This measures the rate of increase in output for each hour of workers’ labor. If robots were displacing workers on a large scale then we should be seeing very rapid productivity growth since it would mean that we are able to produce the same amount of output with many fewer workers.

In fact the data show the opposite. Productivity growth has actually been very slow in this recovery. Since the recovery began in the summer of 2009 productivity growth has averaged 1.2 percent a year. In the last two years productivity growth has been less than 1.0 percent annually.

By comparison, productivity growth averaged 3.0 percent annually from 1995 to 2005. In the post-war Golden Age from 1947 to 1973 productivity growth also averaged almost 3.0 percent annually. Given the recent rates of productivity growth, it is hard to imagine that we will have to worry about productivity growing too rapidly any time soon.

Furthermore, we used to think that productivity growth was a good thing. In the Golden Age years of rapid productivity growth the unemployment rate averaged less than 5.0 percent. Unemployment averaged less than 4.0 percent in the four years at the end of the 1960s.

Workers shared in the benefits of rapid productivity growth with rapid wage increases. Higher wages meant increased consumption, which created demand for the greater levels of output made possible by productivity gains. Workers also took some of the gains in the form of more leisure, as workers got more and longer vacations.

At this point, the data indicate that we should be more concerned about slow productivity growth than fast productivity growth. But even if productivity growth were to speed up, this should allow for higher wages and an improved standard of living for workers, not the sorts of things we ordinarily fear.

The robots may not be likely to take our jobs, but there is a real risk that the Federal Reserve Board will. There is a regular drum beat in the business press about the need for the Fed to start raising interest rates. In fact the Fed itself is telling us to expect higher rates, the question is how much higher and how fast we get there.

The ostensible rationale for a rate hike is that we face a danger of the economy growing too rapidly and pushing the unemployment rate down too low. Lower rates of unemployment increase the bargaining power of workers, especially those at the bottom of the wage ladder. More bargaining power would lead to more rapid wage growth, which in turn could lead to higher rates of inflation. So the Fed would effectively be preventing workers from getting jobs in order to ensure that wages don’t rise more rapidly.

In short, the Fed is quite explicitly threatening workers’ jobs with its rate hikes. Unfortunately, due to the state of economic reporting, there are probably few people in the country who recognize this fact. The media has not been telling people that the Fed might take away their job, or at least has not put the issue in a way that most people would understand that this is the point of a Fed policy of raising interest rates.

This failure by the media is especially unfortunate since the Fed’s interest rate is a policy decision that can be easily controlled: the Fed has the option to set a higher or lower interest rate. By contrast, it’s not clear what we would do about robots, if it turned out to be the case that robots were actually leading to mass unemployment.

So next time you hear someone blabbing about how robots are going to take away our jobs tell them to can the science fiction and get back to the real world. The immediate threat to jobs is the folks are the Federal Reserve Board who want to raise interest rates. And as far as we know, none of them are robots.

This week, the U.S. has a chance to lead an international coalition into an agreement that would guard against any attempt by Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon. However, the decades since the Iranian Revolution in 1979 are littered with missed opportunities to resolve differences between the U.S. and Iran, including on the nuclear issue. With political capital expended to keep the negotiations afloat, particularly in Washington, and the list of issues to be resolved shrinking, these negotiations have steadily risen in importance. As a result, failure or the rash rejection of a breakthrough by Congress or Iranian hardliners could result in irreparable damage to the diplomatic track, with profound consequences for an already chaotic region.

We may never see a pair of U.S. and Iranian Presidents more willing to expend the political capital necessary to reach a nuclear deal. President Obama famously distinguished himself on the campaign trail in 2008 by vowing to sit down with any world leader without preconditions, including Iran, and has turned an Iran nuclear deal into what could be the chief foreign policy goal of his second term. Secretary of State John Kerry and other top U.S. diplomats have also spent countless hours doggedly pursuing a deal that balances between the political imperatives of Washington and Tehran.

In Iran, President Rouhani campaigned on a platform of moderation and outreach to the West. Rouhani was the lead nuclear negotiator for Iran between 2003-2005, which resulted in Iran freezing its enrichment and implementing the IAEA’s Additional Protocol. Rouhani’s foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, also has a successful track record of negotiating with the West, playing a critical role in the effort to form a new government for Afghanistan at the Bonn conference in 2001. Over the past year and a half of intense negotiations, Rouhani and Zarif have kept Iran’s skeptical Supreme Leader united behind their efforts to reach a deal, preventing counterproductive divides in Iran’s political elite.

Now, with the political scales tilted heavily in favor of diplomacy, failure could eliminate diplomatic prospects for the foreseeable future. Escalation will be the name of the game if negotiations fail, as lead U.S. negotiator Wendy Sherman articulated in October. Congress would pass sanctions and President Obama might not put up much of a fight. Iran would expand its nuclear program and limit the access of international inspectors. The sanctions regime would fray or potentially collapse, diminishing U.S. leverage over Iran. Tacit cooperation in Iraq to counter ISIS militants could end, with dangerous consequences.

If diplomacy fails, President Obama would likely resist the reinvigorated calls from neoconservative circles to attack Iran, but he has less than two years remaining in office. Prominent Republicans weighing Presidential runs have already staked out a hardline position by warning Iran that they would undo any potential multilateral nuclear agreement “with the stroke of a pen.” Democrats, as well, could be scarred by failure and rush toward a hawkish position. Whereas a multilateral agreement would constrain the next President from returning to the escalation route, an advancing Iranian nuclear program and the lack of diplomatic prospects would tempt many of Obama’s potential successors to consider the military option, regardless of the consequences. Those who have dreamed of attacking Tehran ever since the fall of Baghdad are banking on such an opportunity to renew their case for yet another disastrous war.

It has been ten years since the European 3 (the United Kingdom, France and Germany) had a golden opportunity to constrain Iran’s nuclear program. Those talks fell apart largely due to the George W. Bush administration’s insistence that any agreement result in Iran eliminating its entire centrifuge program. As a result, Iran went from hundreds to 20,000 centrifuges as economic pressure escalated but failed to achieve any strategic goal. Now, diplomacy has once again halted the Iranian program’s advance and could lead to a historic breakthrough that reshapes the U.S.-Iran relationship, cuts off Iran’s pathways to a nuclear weapon and averts a disastrous war. If an agreement falls through, however, getting through another ten years without a war, an Iranian nuclear weapon, or both would likely prove more challenging than reaching the diplomatic inflection point that the parties now face in Lausanne.