This PSA Urging Organ Donation Will Leave You Bawling Feel-Good Tears

The slam-dunk formula of animals and mortality wrings tears in a new public service announcement underscoring the importance of organ donation.

The PSA, titled “The Man And The Dog,” was created by director Rodrigo Garcia Saiz for Argentina’s liver transplant foundation, according to the advertising publication Little Black Book Online.

In the spot, an elderly man’s four-legged friend is loyal to the very end — and beyond. It’s thought to be inspired by Hachiko, the legendarily loyal Japanese dog who waited at the train station for his master every day until he died.

Garcia Saiz, who’s been called “one of the world’s leading Spanish language commercial directors” by Ad Week, has directed other hard-hitting PSAs worth viewing, including the distracted-driving spot “Discussion” and the anti-bullying spot “Playground.”

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Justice Department: NSA May Need To Begin Winding Down Surveillance Program As Early As Friday

The Justice Department has informed lawmakers that the National Security Agency will need to begin shutting down its bulk collection of Americans’ phone records after Friday if Congress fails to act by then to reauthorize or amend the program.

In a memo, the department said the NSA will need to act “to ensure that it does not engage in any unauthorized collection” or use of the data should the program not be extended by the congressionally mandated June 1 deadline.

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Minneapolis Officer Michael Griffin Accused Of Falsifying Reports After Bar Fights, Assaults

MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — A Minneapolis police officer who allegedly identified himself as an officer and assaulted at least four people while off-duty, then filed false reports, has been charged with federal civil rights violations and other counts in an indictment announced Wednesday.

Michael Lewis Griffin, 40, is charged with nine counts, including allegations that he deprived a person of his rights by using excessive force, falsified paperwork and perjury. “Police officers cannot use their shield as a weapon against innocent civilians,” U.S. Attorney Andy Luger said in a statement. “We will not stand for those who abuse their badge and the public’s trust.”

It wasn’t immediately clear whether Griffin had an attorney who could comment on the allegations. The head of the Minneapolis police union didn’t immediately return a phone message seeking comment on the case.

Griffin, a patrol officer, has been the subject of 22 internal affairs investigations stemming from complaints about his behavior, the Star Tribune reported. Police Chief Janee Harteau told KARE-TV that Griffin is on paid administrative leave.

The incidents cited in the indictment date back to 2010 and 2011.

In the 2010 case, Griffin was outside a Minneapolis nightclub when his friend starting arguing with another man, the indictment says. Griffin was off-duty and in plain clothes but identified himself as an officer.

The other man tried to walk away, but Griffin followed and punched him in the face until he lost consciousness, according to the indictment and court documents. Griffin then told other officers to arrest the man and filed a report saying he had been attacked.

The indictment also says that in 2011, Griffin told a bouncer at another Minneapolis bar that he was an officer and he had four men thrown out of the club. Griffin followed the men outside and called his called his partner to have them arrested.

While outside, Griffin threw one man to the ground, ordered another to walk toward a loading dock area where Griffin kicked him in the chest, then punched and kicked another man in the head, the indictment says.

Griffin allegedly lied when other officers arrived.

The victims in both incidents sued Griffin, and the indictment says he lied in both civil cases. The Star Tribune reported that the cases led to settlements and a court verdict that have cost Minneapolis a total of $410,000.

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

9 Things You Can't Change About Your Partner (So Don't Even Try)

couple fighting retro

Love can move people to do things they never thought possible: Who among us ever believed they’d find someone worthy of sharing an order of fries? That’s the power of love, people.

As powerful as being in a relationship can be, there are some things that even love can’t change — namely who your partner is at his or her core. Below, experts weigh in with nine things you can’t change about your S.O., as hard as you may try.

1. Her relationship with her family.
You know that saying, “You don’t just marry a person; you marry his or her entire family”? It’s 100 percent true, said Karl Pillemer, a professor of human development at Cornell University and the author of 30 Lessons for Loving: Advice from the Wisest Americans on Love, Relationships, and Marriage

“People’s feelings about their own families are deeply ingrained, and they are not likely to alter significantly after you tie the knot,” Pillemer said. “You can come to compromise, but if your spouse and your family don’t get along, pressing for change is not likely to work. Instead, I’d tell you to give your S.O. a free pass to avoid unnecessary get-togethers. Family togetherness is nice, but not at the expense of your relationship with your partner.”

2. Whether he’s an extrovert or an introvert.

Opposites attract, but only up to a point: Somewhere down the line, you may wish your introverted partner was a little less inclined stay in for yet another night of Netflix — and he very well might wish you’d reign in your social butterfly ways.

“Your partner’s temperament is one thing you really can’t change,” said Samantha Rodman, a licensed psychologist and dating coach. “One great example is whether they are an extrovert, who relaxes by being around others, or an introvert, who relaxes by being alone. People who marry across extrovert/introvert divide will have to accept their partner’s needs for social interaction, or, conversely, for time alone to recharge.”

3. Her hobbies.
When work or family life gets stressful, hobbies and pastimes are what keep us going. Don’t bother trying to change your S.O.’s favorite activities, said relationship coach and writer Chris Armstrong.

“For one thing, your annoyance over their shopping or World of Warcraft love is probably much ado about nothing,” he said. “Individuality is important — we lose ourselves and lose control if hobbies are lost, plus the relationship as a whole can be harmed in the process. As I’ve told a client, if you know that a hobby is a big part of your S.O.’s life but it’s too much of a time-suck in your eyes, you two probably aren’t a good fit.”

4. His anger issues.
Many of us go into relationships believing we can change or fix things we don’t like about our partners. If the the trait in question is your S.O.’s anger issues, holding on to that belief can be downright dangerous.

“Explosive and disproportionate anger is one of the most common reasons people offer up for their marriages going south,” Pillemer said. “It’s an issue that needs to be taken with the utmost seriousness: Beware of a person who has a bad temper, who seems to get angry over nothing and, in particular, a person whose anger seems out of proportion to the situation. This is one personality characteristic that is almost impossible to change.”

5. Her religious beliefs.
While it’s certainly not always the case, having an interfaith relationship when you’re both deeply religious may prove problematic, Rodman said. Much of the time, the problems doesn’t arise until much later in the relationship, when a couple decides to have kids.

“People who were raised going to religious services frequently will often want to resume this practice when they have their own children, even if they didn’t attend services as a younger adult,” she said. “On the flip side, if your partner is an atheist and agnostic, it’s unlikely they’ll become devout believers just by virtue of being with someone with faith.”

6. His need for alone time.

You want to spend every waking moment with him, but he needs his space. You might read the request as hurtful, but consider the silver lining: Time apart often keeps a relationship fresh while ensuring that you both maintain your individuality, said Armstrong.

“When people are always together, they can feel as though the relationship is the only substantive thing going on in their lives,” he explained. “It can cause resentment. People want companionship but they also want meaningful connections and self-reflection to both recharge and keep their relationship fresh. Attempting to change a partner’s desire for alone time is a non-starter.”

7. Her need to plan every last detail.
You meticulously plan every last detail of your life, from when you’re taking your next vacation to when you want to have baby #1. Meanwhile, he’s a take-life-as-it-comes type. The divide may be endearing at first — you complement each other so well! — but eventually, it might become problematic . In any case, you’re not likely to change each other’s way of thinking, said clinical psychologist Jill Weber.

“Usually it is not a case of polar opposites, but rather a difference in degrees,” she said. “Some people are more regulated and are prepared to pay attention to the details of life while others are more likely to go with what they are feeling in the moment. The conflict plays out in a variety of ways — rules for how the children will be raised, spending and saving or even how to spend a weekend. Marriages where people vary strongly in their tolerance for delayed gratification can deteriorate to a condition where all of the energy in the relationship is going to trying to change the other.”

8. His thoughts on having kids.

If someone you’re seeing tells you in a straightforward way their true feelings on having kids, trust them. Moving forward with a relationship in the hopes that they’ll change their mind once you’re married or otherwise committed is a very risky gamble, said Armstrong.

“It’s perfectly reasonable for someone to say, ‘I can see myself having kids with the right partner’ but this is wholly different than someone going from ‘I don’t want kids’ to ‘I want kids,'” he said. “Some people do not want children because of the financial or time commitment required. Others have no desire because they don’t want to be responsible for another human being. Are they going to change? Not likely. Should you want them to? Absolutely not.”

9. Her sense of humor.
Whether or not you both crack up at Louis CK’s potty jokes may seem too minor to make this list, but having a similar sense of humor is more important than you realize.

“Older people I’ve interviewed have told me that some future marital problems can be diagnosed based on the question: ‘Do we think the same things are funny?'” Pillemer said. “Sense of humor is a strong indicator of compatibility. If you laugh at the same things, you are likely to see the world in similar ways. But there’s an even more important reason to take a careful look at your partner’s sense of humor: You will be stuck with it for many, many years. If his idea of high humor involves practical jokes and yours doesn’t, rest assured that you will not find the hand buzzer or the whoopee cushion more hilarious fifty years from now.”

Keep in touch! Check out HuffPost Divorce on Facebook and Twitter. Sign up for our newsletter here.

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

How Many More Wars?

Jeb Bush certainly had a bad week last week, as he struggled to come up with a clear answer to a question he really should have been expecting in the first place. Other Republicans also struggled to admit that the Iraq War was indeed a mistake (which is somewhat understandable, because by doing so they are criticizing a former Republican president). But while the spectacle of Republicans having to admit a big Republican mistake certainly is amusing, there’s an even bigger question which so far has remained unasked: “Knowing all the things we’ve learned in the past decade and a half, what would it take for you to send American troops to fight an overseas war?” This is the real question the voters deserve an answer to. To put it more bluntly: “How many more wars can we expect if you are elected?”

The present situation should be taken as a starting point for this conversation. Already, some Republican candidates have openly called for more American ground troops to be sent back into Iraq to fight the Islamic State. It remains to be seen whether the other candidates will jump aboard this train of thought, in a frenzy of one-upmanship and chest-beating. But all those who criticize President Obama’s handling of foreign policy — which includes the entire Republican presidential field, it almost goes without saying — should really have to detail precisely what they’d do differently. The voters really do deserve an answer to this question, since these people are running to take Obama’s place in the White House.

What should we do differently about fighting the Islamic State in Iraq? Should we fight alongside Iranian militias, or give them air cover? If American ground troops are the answer, then how many of them do you think should be sent, and how close to the front lines should they be? How many American troops will it take to push the Islamic State out of Iraq and stabilize the country? How long are they going to have to stay?

The next questions are obvious: What about Syria? Should we be bombing Syria? On whom, exactly, should we drop these bombs? The government’s forces? The Islamic State? Should American ground troops be sent in to Syria to pacify the situation? Who would they be fighting alongside? Who would they be fighting against? Would overthrowing Assad be part of their mission, or not?

Marco Rubio recently introduced what might be called the “Liam Neeson Doctrine,” stating that Islamic terrorists should just be hunted down and killed, like in a Hollywood movie. He didn’t qualify the sentiment at all. What he (and other Republican candidates) are really talking about is reviving the Bush/Cheney concept of the “Global War On Terrorism” (often shortened to “GWOT”). We’ll fight terrorists anywhere on Earth, to avoid having to fight them here at home (that’s the theory, at any rate).

So beyond the borders of Iraq and Syria, where else should we be taking this fight? How about Yemen? Should we throw our lot in with any of the three groups fighting for power there? How, exactly? Bombing runs? Boots on the ground?

Or how about the failed state of Libya? The Islamic State has become active in Libya, so should we be fighting them there, too? We tried an air war with no ground troops before, and it did succeed in its main objective of overthrowing Qaddafi, but we sure didn’t follow through with any nation-building afterwards. So to really solve Libya, we’d have to not only defeat all the various Islamist militias but also occupy and pacify the country — a project which could take years. How many American troops should be committed to such a mission?

There’s a lot of Islamic terrorism happening in sub-Saharan Africa as well. Should America declare war on groups like Boko Haram? They’re Islamic terrorists too, so wouldn’t they be included in the whole GWOT grand plan? How many countries should American troops invade, realistically?

Then there’s an even bigger problem to contemplate. All the Republican candidates seem to disagree with President Obama’s attempt at diplomacy with Iran, some stating they’d unilaterally pull out of any Obama-negotiated Iranian deal “on Day One.” Each of these candidates should be asked to explain, in detail, exactly what it would take for them to go to war with Iran. “War” in this case includes “bombing their nuclear facilities,” which many Republicans seem to have an interest in doing. So they should be asked: How do you think Iran will respond to such an act of war (hint: the answer is not “They would not retaliate at all”)? If Iran tries to close the Strait of Hormuz, would we then launch a naval or ground war against them? How many American troops is that going to take?

When you add all these up, it’s clear that Republicans making good on bellicose campaign promises would be a costly thing for America. We’re going to need a whole bunch of Liam Neesons, to put it another way.

But I really shouldn’t be making snide jokes. Going to war is a serious thing. Sending in American pilots or ground troops is part of the job of being president — the most serious part, in fact. All those currently running for this job should be asked what their criteria would be for committing American lives to a fight. Instead of “gotcha” questions over the Iraq War, these are the questions I’d really like answered.

What would it take for any future president to conduct drone warfare? On which countries should we be dropping bombs from unmanned aircraft? Which countries should American pilots be flying bombing missions over? Into which countries should American ground troops be sent? These are all valid questions to ask about the situation as it stands right now, not as it stood back in 2003.

There are no easy answers to these questions. There is great risk in almost all of these options. On a scale of U.S. involvement, every choice carries future problems. Arming a group of foreign fighters can backfire, as it did with the Taliban. Bombing from drones can actually create more jihadi fighters than it kills, as has happened in Pakistan. Using American air power without ground troops can succeed militarily but fail badly afterwards, as happened in Libya. Ground wars can be won by American troops but also lead to failure in the aftermath, as happened in the first few years of the Iraq War. Occupying a country can be a long hard slog with no good outcome ever achieved, again as shown in Iraq.

I’m not saying I have answers to any of the questions I’ve posed here. They’re tough questions, I admit. But then, I’m not running for president. I’m not auditioning for the job of deciding what the answers to all these questions will be, if I’m elected.

Republicans have pushed back on the “Knowing what we know now, would you have sent troops into Iraq back then?” question, since it is not only hypothetical, it is actually an impossibility (absent a working time machine). Nobody making any decision can have knowledge of the future while making it. But there are plenty of other hypothetical questions which are entirely valid — questions about what America should do now, or in the near future. None of these questions involves time travel. “What would you do now?” or “What would you do if you became president?” are both completely reasonable lines of questioning for any presidential candidate.

America deserves to know, from each and every candidate (in both parties), what it would take for them to enter our country into a war — either a war that is currently ongoing, or a future war with a new adversary. I’m waiting for the media to wake up and realize this, now that they’ve had their fun with Bush and his floundering answer on Iraq. More important than “Which past wars would you have started?” is a much more critical question for our country’s immediate future: “How many more wars will America enter if you become president?”

 

Chris Weigant blogs at:
ChrisWeigant.com

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Become a fan of Chris on The Huffington Post

 

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

How To Build The Only Five Campfires You’ll Ever Need

The most fundamental outdoor skill is also often one of the most misunderstood. Learn these five campfires and you’ll be able to cook food, scare off wild animals, stay warm or just have a bonfire on the beach. They’re simple, but everyone can probably learn something here.

Read more…




"I Can't Afford Not to Have That Money": The Worst PayPal Horror Stories

Yesterday, PayPal agreed to pay customers $15 million for ripping them off over the past few years. After I wrote about it, reader horror stories started flooding my inbox and comments.

Read more…




Get Software for Designing Rockets and Piloting Drones, Free From NASA

You can get over 1,000 free programs from NASA, thanks to the second release of NASA’s online software catalog, which debuted last year . The catalogue includes every piece of software that NASA built for itself, ranging from project management and inventory programs to design software for rockets and crewed spacecraft.

Read more…




Ancient Cannibals Smothered Their Meals in Bone-Staining Spices

We know that, over history, humans have eaten each other. But we now know more about how ancient cannibals liked to dine: They spent lots of time prepping elaborate feasts with actual recipes calling for exotic ingredients.

Read more…




Here's The View From The New Tallest Building In The Western Hemisphere

The observatory atop the 1,776-foot World Trade Center finally opens next week. But the view from the tallest building in the US (for now ) is not the only stunning vista that will greet visitors.

Read more…