17 Romantic Real Wedding Photos That Are Hotter Than Summer

Summer is here! Our readers who tied the knot this weekend know that the best way to beat the heat is to let loose with the ones you love.

Check out 17 photos from their fun-in-the-sun celebrations below: 

If you go to a wedding or get married yourself, hashtag your photos #HPrealweddings or e-mail one to us afterwards and we may feature it on the site!

For more real wedding photos, check out the slideshow below:

— 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.

Creating Our To-Do List: Looking Forward at the United State of Women

This article was posted in Ms Magazine on June 14, 2016 by Denise Dunning, Founder and Executive Director of Rise Up (Let Girls Lead is an initiative of Rise Up, which advances health, education and equity for girls, youth and women everywhere).

“We’re creating a ‘To Do’ list.”

That’s how one of Michelle Obama’s policy advisors described the United State of Women Summit, reflecting on the Summit’s goal of developing a shared agenda for women and girls. Convened by the White House, the Summit is a chance to examine what we’ve achieved in advancing the rights and well-being of women and girls in the US and globally. It’s also a critical time to reflect on what remains to be done, and leverage that momentum to power forward what comes next. Because while much progress has been made, there’s still a whole lot more to do.

As Catherine Russell, US Ambassador-At-Large for Global Women’s Issues, succinctly put it:

I’ve seen first-hand that the issues on the agenda today–from gender-based violence to girls’ education to economic and leadership opportunities for women–aren’t just American issues. They’re global issues.

The United State of Women is the first Summit of its kind, bringing together thousands of leaders working to improve the lives of women and girls in the US and around the world. Leaders from Michelle Obama to Warren Buffet, Oprah and policymakers across the political spectrum are joining leaders from civil society, business, media and government to discuss our ongoing challenges and ensure that making concrete progress for girls and women is central to our joint agenda.

I attended the Summit in my capacity as founder of Rise Up, which advances health, education and equity for girls, youth and women everywhere. During the Summit, I had the chance to speak with some of the most visionary leaders in our field–and a few key themes emerged.

“It is often tempting to think about ‘women’s issues,’ but it is important to note that there is no such thing–what we should be pushing for in every instance is the right for 50 percent of the world to be included and heard on all issues,” Kavita N. Ramdas, Senior Advisor for Global Strategy at the Ford Foundation, shared with me. “Of course, women and girls care about their health, reproductive rights, education and violence, yes, but we also care about effective business, inclusive economies, fair wages, immigration, incarceration and criminalization of the poor, fossil fuels, climate change, nuclear weapons, militarization and gun control. This is our world too and we care about making it more livable, more just, and more equitable for everyone.”

Many of these issues are central to the new United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals, which reflect the importance of women and girls to building a safer and more sustainable planet. Building on this global conversation here in the US, the United State of Women gives us the chance to focus on core issues of domestic and global relevance, including economic empowerment, health, education, violence, entrepreneurship and civic engagement.

One of the Summit’s central themes is the economic empowerment of women and girls, with the recognition that we still have a long way to go. Though the wage gap has lessened slightly, women still earn 79 cents on the dollar compared to men. Paid sick leave, paid family leave, childcare, a livable minimum wage–basic standards in most wealthy countries–too often still feel like a pipe dream here in the US.

“It’s not complicated, “Sarita Gupta, Executive Director of Jobs with Justice and Co-Director of Caring Across Generations, told me. “What is going to help bring millions of women and their families out of poverty, plain and simple, is when women are able to negotiate with their bosses about their terms of work that let them put food on the table, pay the bills and spend time with their loved ones. Just imagine what’s possible if every woman demanded a fair return on the work they do. If every woman in this country had a say in how their work gets done. If we could negotiate for the hours to manage life and work and the pay that sustains our families. Because when we do right by women, everyone wins.”

2016-06-27-1467067861-4165481-StateofWomenBlogPhoto1.jpg

The Summit’s focus on health and wellness includes themes of health care delivery and global health. In terms of progress, the Affordable Care Act has an important focus on improving the health of pregnant women and their newborns. “A right isn’t worth much if you can’t access it,” Cecile Richards, President of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, noted. “Every person must have equal access to reproductive health care.”

Here in the US and on a global scale, ensuring the health of women and girls is still a major challenge. While maternal mortality rates have decreased globally, the US is one of only eight countries in the world–along with Afghanistan and South Sudan–where maternal mortality rates have actually increased, especially among women of color. And globally, 800 women still die every day due to pregnancy and childbirth complications. The majority of these maternal deaths are preventable, but we will only transform these devastating realities by prioritizing and investing in the health of girls and women, everywhere.

In the area of education, the Summit highlighted the critical role that girls’ education plays in advancing economic growth and global security. Discussions centered on the importance of early childhood education, STEM opportunities and the challenges facing millions of girls around the world who fight every day for the basic right to attend school. President Barack Obama spoke powerfully during the lunchtime plenary about the social, cultural and economic obstacles that prevent women and girls from achieving their full potential. He asserted that gender equality must be a foreign policy priority and that investing in girls’ education is key to ensuring our collective future. “We know that any country that oppresses half the population, that doesn’t let girls go to school, or give them control of their own bodies, is a society that will not work over the long term,” he said. “We’re encouraging more girls to pursue their love of science, technology, engineering and math. Everybody has a role to play to create more opportunity for women and girls. Even as we make progress at home, we look abroad…. We’re empowering the next generation by investing in adolescent girls and advancing Let Girls Learn to get 62 million girls into school.”

Many conversations throughout the Summit have integrated a focus on violence against women and girls, recognizing the ways in which violence is a global pandemic that affects health, education and equality for women and girls. One out of three women is a survivor of gender-based violence and girls remain uniquely vulnerable to abuse, especially within our criminal justice system. Vice President Joseph Biden summed it up during the Summit’s morning plenary: “Ultimately, we have to give women and girls a greater voice but that’s not enough… every single woman has a fundamental right to live her life free of violence.” Major themes during the Summit included domestic violence, campus sexual assault and trafficking of girls and women, with the widespread consensus that gender-based violence is intolerable and we clearly have to do better.

In the areas of civic engagement and entrepreneurship, the Summit highlights that women hold less than a quarter of elected offices in the US, and are only 4.6% of Fortune 500 CEOs. Enabling girls and women to raise their voices and step into their power in both business and politics is key to the future of our country and our world. “Just three percent of VC funding goes to companies with a female CEO–and that’s not because there’s a lack of women starting incredible businesses,” Elizabeth Gore, Dell’s Entrepreneur-in-Residence, told me. “We’re fighting to give women around the world better access to capital, technology, networks and markets to help them scale and grow. Women are starting more businesses than ever before, and end up investing 90 percent of their income back into their communities. We need to support the women entrepreneurs in the world who are the job creators, idea makers and game changers.”

Today’s Summit highlighted that advancing the health, education and equity of girls, youth and women is central to both achieving our potential as a country and advancing the sustainability of our planet. And while we have made some significant gains, addressing the remaining challenges requires us to rise up collectively with a shared agenda for action.

2016-06-27-1467067893-2878299-StateofWomenBlogPhoto2.jpg

“There’s 5000 women and men in this room,” Oprah said in conversation with Michelle Obama today. “What is the one thing you want us to leave here with? What is the one charge or one offering?”

Obama responded:

The work always continues. We’re never done. We can never be complacent and think we’ve arrived because we’ve seen in recent times how quickly things can be taken away if we are complacent, if we don’t know our history.

The Summit is an important step to ensuring that our whole is greater than the sum of our individual parts. And now it’s time for us all to move forward with our collective To Do list.

________________________________________________________

Dr. Denise Raquel Dunning is the founder and Executive Director of Rise Up, which advances health, education and equity for girls, youth and women everywhere. She teaches courses at the University of California San Francisco, previously worked for the David and Lucile Packard Foundation and served as a Fulbright Scholar in Honduras. She has a PhD in Sociology from the University of California Berkeley, a Master’s in Public Affairs from Princeton University and graduated Summa Cum Laude from Duke University.

Rise Up creates a better future for girls, youth, and women. We strengthen leadership, invest in innovation, build movements, and amplify voices to achieve large scale change.

Rise Up unifies the power of Let Girls Lead, Champions for Change and the Youth Champions Initiative, to benefit 115 million girls, youth, and women globally.

— 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.

Love Unexpressed Is Waste

I have never been in a long-term relationship — or an LTR as it’s abbreviated on the interwebs. This is not an admission that should really be altogether shocking, considering I’m still in my 20s and only came out to my family a couple years ago. While I was closeted, any shot at an LTR was limited by the lack of honesty that would have inevitably resulted. This did not prevent me from dating, and sometimes even dating steadily, but without living my truth, I couldn’t assist another in living theirs.

Those shackles no longer exist. I now go about life as freely and openly as one can. I don’t hide behind Facebook privacy settings or choose my confidants with precision.

I have gone through various phases regarding men. There have been times where I wanted all of them, and there have been moments I would’ve killed for just one. Sometime this year I realized the “just one” phase I’m currently overcome by has a permanent feel.

I’m not the kind to spend a great deal of time delving into astrological signs. I am told, though, that, as a Leo, my drive for loving and protecting others is strong- part of a leadership mentality or some such. I have always found myself holding leadership roles, often times when I didn’t even seek them. I spearheaded numerous independent productions throughout high school and college, and I have managed to find ways to lead in a city full of followers. I am independent and stubborn, but I feel empty and depressed if I go too long without community.

Family is the ultimate community; ‘the ties that bind’ I believe is the old saying. I would say this basic thirst goes farther than Leos; we, all of us, want to feel like we are part of a larger, interconnected network of people- a support system for the ages.

After coming out, I discovered just how deep and beautiful my own support system was. Family members I had spoken little with over the years came forward to express their love and acceptance. One of those dearest to me shared their own sexual orientation with me, the first family member with which they had done so. Going beyond my blood relatives, I occasionally get messages from old friends and colleagues, even strangers, asking for help or just saying they believe in me. There’s nothing really remarkable about my journey, but uniqueness shouldn’t be a requirement for expressing love to others.

My appreciation for this unit of people has been in a constant state of growth throughout recent months. Before, when my personal life was shrouded in secrecy, isolation was far more common for me. As a result, my internal well-being often suffered. This is no longer an issue.

Instead, I am now slowly been discovering my own capacity to love. Love is a word I write about frequently. This is intentional. It is what I believe to be the most important word in the English language. It is a banner of strength and a deafening weapon of pain. It moves us forward and holds us back. Without its existence, no life would be worth living. With it, each life is more complex. In the end, it is the greatest, most powerful tool we have in our utility belts. How we choose to use it determines its effect on others.

Which brings us to my “just one” discovery. Through a series of both fortunate and unfortunate events, I’ve found just how much love I have to give. It is frightening. I find it frightening because I know it’s there, and I know the potential for greatness that exists within. Great love, as I explained above, can cause great pain. Wasting it can be the ultimate heartache. In silence, the likelihood of hurt increases exponentially. Expressing feelings allows for peace and purity. Therefore, wasting love is bottling it up and keeping it from others.

In perhaps the gayest reference I will make today, Dolly Parton had a 1970s hit called “The Bargain Store,” which I may consider to be the most poignant of her many compositions. The song compares an individual to a nickel-and-dime shop, and there is one line that says “I’ve wasted love, but I still have some more.” In order to discover the immense capacity I have to love, I wasted some. But I still have some more.

— 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.

Donald Trump Walks Back His Muslim Ban — Again

Donald Trump’s campaign spokeswoman on Monday revised the presumptive Republican nominee’s proposed ban on Muslims entering the U.S. for the second time in three days, saying Trump is dropping the word “Muslim” from the policy and focusing on immigrants from “terrorist nations.”

“It doesn’t matter where you’re coming from, except for fact that the terrorist nations, which is something he is adding to this policy to make it more clear, that if you are coming from a hostile nation and you can not be vetted, absolutely you should not come into this country,” Trump spokeswoman Katrina Pierson said on CNN. 

The change to Trump’s proposed ban on Muslims is the second since Saturday, when the campaign said Trump no longer supports a blanket ban on all Muslim immigrants, and wants to single out Muslims from “terror states.” Trump told reporters he “would be fine” with Muslims from Scotland, for example.

Pierson’s comments show a further shift in the policy, removing all mention of Muslims. Pierson, however, insisted that removing “Muslim” wasn’t a revision.

“There has been no change. Mr. Trump still wants to stop individuals from coming into the country who cannot be vetted,” Pierson said.

Trump in December proposed a “total and complete shutdown” on Muslim immigration, in response to a terrorist attack in San Bernardino, California. He reiterated the proposal following this month’s gun massacre in Orlando, Florida, and advocated a complete immigration ban from countries with a history of terrorism against the United States.

As is typical with Trump’s policy proposals, it’s unclear what the revision means and whether he will stick by it. When pressed by CNN’s Brianna Keilar on Monday, Pierson did not elaborate on details of the policy, and didn’t specify which countries the ban would include.

“Mr. Trump is going to be refining his policy, putting out more specific details, which everyone has been asking for, but there has been no change,” Pierson said.

Keilar repeatedly asked Pierson if, by de-emphasizing Muslims, the revised immigration policy’s standards would apply equally to Christian immigrants, for example. Pierson dodged the question.

“If you are coming into this country and you cannot be vetted, then you should not be allowed in until you can be vetted,” Pierson said. “It’s not rocket science.”

Editor’s note: Donald Trump regularly incites political violence and is a serial liarrampant xenophoberacistmisogynist and birther who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims — 1.6 billion members of an entire religion — from entering the U.S.

— 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.

Elizabeth Warren Wows Ohio

Either Elizabeth Warren just made Hillary Clinton’s vice-presidential choice a lot harder or a lot easier, depending on how you see her strategic decision-making process and how much chance you think a Clinton/Warren ticket has of becoming reality. Warren appeared onstage with Clinton today and the Massachusetts senator wowed the Ohio crowd, proving without a shadow of a doubt she is unquestionably the best “attack dog” the Democrats have against Donald Trump. But is this enough for Clinton to select Warren as running mate? Or, perhaps is it too much? In other words, is there a danger that Warren could actually upstage the presidential candidate? And even if Hillary knows Warren is the best anti-Trump weapon around, will Clinton’s choice ultimately hinge on this criterion or not?

Vice-presidential picks are made for any number of reasons. The selection can be made for geographical reasons (to help the candidate carry a battleground state, for instance), or even to balance one region of the country with another. The choice can be made for demographic balance, such as the selection of Dan Quayle or Sarah Palin (Quayle was young, offsetting George H.W. Bush’s age; Palin was female). These are usually framed in terms of balancing the ticket — shoring up a candidate’s weakness by offering a stabilizing factor as a running mate. But sometimes these calculations are ignored and a more personal choice is made. Bill Clinton picked Al Gore in 1992, which surprised many because it was a ticket of two Southerners. Sometimes the decision just boils down to the personal preference of the candidate, no matter what the wonky vote-predictors tell them they should do.

Elizabeth Warren would unbalance the ticket in two major ways, but she’d provide an overwhelming amount of balance on a third, which might make up for it. The selection of Warren would mean the first all-female ticket in American history from a major party. This already worries many Democrats (even staunch Hillary supporters) who are skeptical that the electorate is ready to vote for two women to lead the country. Warren doesn’t add anything in the realm of geography, either, as both candidates would hail from the Northeast. In fact, this is actually an argument against choosing Warren, because Massachusetts has a Republican governor who would get to select Warren’s temporary replacement (before a special election was held). If this tilts the balance of power in the Senate, even for the first few months of a Clinton presidency, it could hobble her ability to press her agenda at the very start of her term.

But the upside would be an ideological one. No other veep choice would enthuse supporters of Bernie Sanders more than Elizabeth Warren (other than Hillary picking Bernie himself, which is not very likely to happen). Warren would be seen as a big check on Clinton’s tendency towards going easy on Wall Street by millions of Bernie voters. Even before Bernie Sanders announced his candidacy, if you’ll remember, there was a massive “draft Warren” effort to convince her to launch her own presidential bid. These Warren supporters eventually drifted over into Bernie’s camp (after the thousandth time Warren unequivocally said “I’m not running”), so for many of them Warren was actually their first choice. Seeing her on Clinton’s ticket would be a big reason for excitement for many, to put it mildly.

The big question that ran through my mind watching today’s video footage, however, was whether this might be too much of a good thing for Hillary Clinton to accept. Wildly cheering crowds for the vice-presidential candidate — which are nowhere near as enthusiastic for the top of the ticket — can be awkward. John McCain learned this, after seeing Sarah Palin’s adoring crowds. If Hillary Clinton did choose Elizabeth Warren with the hope that Warren would provide some enthusiasm, then she’d have to be prepared to assume the role of “being presidential” and by doing so let Warren be the main foil to Donald Trump (with as many crowd-pleasing attack lines as possible). As long as Clinton accepts this from the start, it could work out fine. But if there’s any tinge of “Warren’s crowds are bigger than Clinton’s” (either from disgruntled campaign staff or from the candidate herself), this could lead to some resentment.

The biggest question is whether Hillary Clinton trusts Elizabeth Warren and has the confidence that she could step into the presidency at any time. That’s always what the personal part of the selection process boils down to. There have been whispers that Warren and Clinton don’t exactly like each other all that much, but now there are counter-rumors that they have personally bonded over being grandmothers together (which sounds suspiciously like a focus-group-tested line, if I ever heard one). Both Clintons have always valued loyalty very highly, and Warren famously was the last female senator to endorse Clinton (at the very end of the primaries, when it essentially made no difference).

The Clinton camp has indicated it is heavily vetting only three candidates at this point (although they leaven this with caveats about looking at a “much longer list”). Warren is one, and the other two are Tim Kaine and Julián Castro. All agree that Castro, currently in President Obama’s cabinet, is destined for political stardom in the Democratic Party sooner or later. He would bring two demographic strengths to the ticket: he’s young, and he’s Latino. He hails from Texas, which is probably not possible for Democrats to pick up (even this year), but he would definitely provide a healthy dose of balance to the ticket. The first woman in the White House might have the first Latino vice president at her side — that’d be doubling down on the historic nature of this campaign for Democrats.

Then there’s Tim Kaine, currently in the Senate but previously Virginia’s governor and head of the Democratic National Committee. He is (by his own admission this weekend) “boring.” To say he’d be the safe choice is an understatement. He’s white, male, a Southerner, and he could virtually guarantee that Virginia’s 13 Electoral College votes wind up in the Democratic column. The current governor of Virginia is not only a Democrat, but also a Clinton acolyte, so Kaine’s Senate seat replacement wouldn’t be a problem. If Clinton chooses Kaine, it will be to “triangulate” the general electorate, in the same way her husband used to so effectively do. Kaine would be seen by moderates, independents, and even Republicans disgusted with Trump as a fairly soothing choice and definitely not some sort of radical candidate. Clinton would be gambling that the Democratic base (including all the Bernie supporters and lots of Latinos) are already sufficiently behind her and need no further enticement to vote for her. Kaine, it almost goes without saying, would never be in danger of upstaging Clinton in front of a crowd.

These are the three choices the Clinton camp has said they’re now intensely vetting. One is a populist firebrand who already has millions of nationwide supporters who love her dearly (and fervently) — and who is already proving she’s the best weapon the Democrats have against the Republican nominee. One is a handsome young Latino who is quite likely to run for president himself at some point in the future, and who is also capable of inspiring crowds with his oratory. Either of these choices would be historic in their own way. Then there’s a white male from the South who could carry his home state. Kaine is the safest of safe choices, but when he introduces himself to a national politics-watching audience with the admission that he’s “boring,” he’s likely not going to be an inspiring choice or (for that matter) an effective attack dog against a loose-cannon candidate like Donald Trump.

Of course, at this point, none of us knows who Clinton will pick (perhaps this is all a feint, and she’ll select a dark horse that nobody’s currently paying any attention to?), and nobody knows exactly what she’ll be thinking when she does decide. But the pros and cons of the selection calculus of the current shortlist are pretty easy for all to see. Warren’s audition today showed she is the most capable person to take the fight to Donald Trump. Nobody else really even comes close. If that’s what Hillary is looking for, she really needs to look no further. But Hillary Clinton may have different criteria when making her choice, and other factors may weigh more heavily when she does decide.

 

Chris Weigant blogs at:

ChrisWeigant.com

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

— 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.

Another City Just Enacted A $15 Minimum Wage

WASHINGTON — District of Columbia Mayor Muriel Bowser (D) signed legislation Monday that will gradually hike the city’s minimum wage to $15, the latest in a string of victories for the union-backed Fight for $15 campaign.

At a signing ceremony at a D.C. pizzeria, Bowser argued that cities should lead the way in raising the minimum wage, just as they have in recent years.

“City councils and mayors can get the job done when it’s not done in Congress,” Bowser told a crowd of supporters and union members.

D.C.’s minimum wage had already been slated to rise from its current $10.50 to $11.50 per hour later this week. Under the new law, it will continue to increase each year, until it hits $15 in 2020. After that, the rate will be adjusted annually according to an inflation index. The schedule of hikes will put the wage floor in D.C. — one of the country’s most expensive cities — far above the federal minimum wage, which remains $7.25.

It was only 2 1/2 years ago that the D.C. Council passed a different bill that would increase the minimum wage by more than $3 an hour, and tie it to inflation in perpetuity — one of the most liberal measures in the country at the time. But in a sign of just how far the minimum wage debate has moved since then, city lawmakers took up a new, more aggressive proposal this year that would boost the wage floor more rapidly. 

Not long ago, the thought of a $15 minimum wage was practically unimaginable. But labor unions and worker advocacy groups have had tremendous success pushing ambitious plans through city councils and state legislatures, despite strong opposition from business groups that say such an unprecedented wage floor will hurt employment. Seattle, San Francisco and Los Angeles all have passed $15 laws, as have the states of California and New York.

Like in Seattle, D.C.’s minimum wage plan succeeded in large part because of the threat of a ballot measure. The plan signed by Bowser on Monday will have only a modest minimum wage increase for tipped workers, rising from its current $2.77 to just $5 per hour before tips (employers are obligated to make up the difference if tips don’t put a worker over $15). Labor groups wanted $15 for all workers, and could have put such a measure before voters. In a win for the city’s restaurant industry, Bowser and members of the council precluded that with the legislation signed Monday. 

The minimum wage tends to poll very well, and voters in many liberal cities have not shied away from $15. Delvone Michael, director of D.C. Working Families, said a ballot measure likely would have succeeded, taking the fate of the minimum wage out of legislators’ hands.

“Without pressure from working families, the council would not have acted,” Michael, whose group campaigned for the ballot measure, told The Huffington Post. “Sometimes it takes people to show the council the way.”

Michael said the raise for restaurant workers was a “step in the right direction,” though not as significant as backers had wanted. The city’s bars and restaurants launched a campaign aimed at beating back a dramatic rise in the tipped minimum wage, which is lower than the normal minimum wage in the majority of states. The industry warned that a $15 minimum wage would effectively end gratuities for servers and bartenders. Labor activists have been campaigning to end the tipped minimum wage at the federal and local levels, arguing that it creates a two-tier system and exacerbates income inequality.

The effects of the D.C. minimum wage law will be vast. The Economic Policy Institute, a left-leaning think tank, says the law would boost the hourly pay of roughly a fifth of the city’s private-sector workers. The D.C. Chamber of Commerce, meanwhile, has predicted that employers would cut benefits and reduce hiring to compensate the higher wages they must pay.  

One local business that wasn’t buying that argument was &pizza, the D.C.-based pizza chain that hosted the bill signing. Liam Patrick, the company’s CFO, told HuffPost that &pizza, which has 15 locations in the area, campaigned for $15 because it already paid above minimum wage, and managers felt they could stand to pay more. Asked if that was a lonely position to stake out as a business, Patrick laughed and said, “There’s not that many that want this to happen.”

“Your employees really fuel the growth of the brand and not everybody sees it that way,” Patrick said. “We think that over the long term, you will grow and you will build your restaurant through your employees. Paying them the bare minimum doesn’t cut it.”

— 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.

When Owning Gold Was Illegal in America: And Why It Could Be Again

2016-06-28-1467073847-6259725-a.png

(source)

In 1933, Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected president of the United States by promising to end the Great Depression, which had driven the national unemployment rate up to 25% and gutted the economy.

During his presidential campaign, FDR promised to lower government spending and taxes, and balance the budget. Once in office, he did the exact opposite. FDR’s government spent more in an effort to create jobs and increase consumer demand. He raised taxes to fund the hike in spending, as well key government services. All of this was meant to stimulate the economy while assisting struggling American households, in order to bring the nation out of the depths of the economic depression that had begun with the 1929 stock market crash.

FDR quickly realized, however, that he could not print enough money to pay for his spending program, even by increasing taxes. The Federal Reserve Act of 1914 limited the amount of money that could be printed by the government. All Federal Reserve notes (paper money) had to be backed by 40 percent gold owned by the Federal government. In other words, for every dollar printed, the government needed 40 cents of gold in the bank.

2016-06-28-1467073418-1488454-1.jpg

(source)

FDR Outlaws Gold
One of FDR’s first acts as president, therefore, was to declare the fact that Americans were withdrawing their gold and currency from the beleaguered banking system “a national emergency.” He ordered all banks to close from March 6-9 “in order to prevent the export, hoarding, or earmarking of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency.”

Because he believed this action was not sufficient to prevent runs on banks and the resulting drain of gold from the system, on April 5, 1933, one month after taking office, Roosevelt used the powers granted to the president by the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917 to make gold ownership illegal. He issued Executive Order 6102, which made gold ownership–both in coins and in bars–illegal for all Americans and punishable by up to ten years in prison. Anyone caught with gold would also have to pay a fine of twice the amount of gold that was not turned over to the Federal Reserve in exchange for paper money.

2016-06-28-1467073400-7159983-2.jpg

(source)

Americans Required to Hand Gold Into the Government
All Americans were required to turn in their gold on or before May 1, 1933 to the Federal Reserve in return for $20.67 of paper money per troy ounce. Americans who did not turn in their gold were subject to arrest on criminal charges and faced up to 10 years in federal prison. An exception was made for dentists, who could own up to 100 ounces. Proclamation 6102 also prohibited the use of gold in contracts. This was upheld by the Supreme Court on March 1935, in what were called the Gold Clause Cases.

2016-06-28-1467073384-8373208-3.jpg

(source)

Millions of Americans waited in long lines to hand in their gold. Many photos from this era are often cited as examples of people getting their money out of the banks when in fact, they were simply turning in their gold in accordance with FDR’s new laws.

With gold and paper money now separated, FDR was able to increase the federal deficit by issuing bonds (debt) in exchange for paper money. He used the paper money raised through government bond issues to pay for the many government programs he initiated as part of his New Deal program.

Sadly, FDR’s New Deal did not end the Great Depression. Instead, in 1937, the stock market collapsed by 90 percent and unemployment soared. Then, in the 1970s, the U.S. government removed the last remaining restraint on federal government deficits.

Nixon Ends The Gold Standard
At that time, foreign countries could exchange dollars they received through international trade for gold held by the American government, at $32 per ounce. In 1971, gold started to pour out of the U.S. government’s stockpile due to large deficits in both the federal budget and the trade balance. At 9 PM on August 15, 1971, President Richard Nixon gave a televised speech to the nation, announcing that he was taking the dollar off the “Gold Standard.” This move enabled the dollar to float freely against other currencies, and removed the final obstacle to ballooning federal deficits and trade imbalances.

The prohibition against owning gold wasn’t uplifted until 1974 when President Gerald Ford– unaware that it was a federal felony to own gold–saw sound-money advocate Jim Blanchard on TV raising a bar of gold and asking from his wheelchair: “Why can I not own this?”

2016-06-28-1467073365-8894719-4.jpg

(source)

Ford signed proclamation Pub.L. 93-373, which legalized gold ownership and also made it legal to include gold clauses in contracts, effective 1977. Ford failed, however, to reestablish gold as a back up to government fiat or the American dollar.

Deficits Climb and the Dollar Falls
As a result, deficits continued to mount. Today, the U.S. federal deficit is at $19 trillion with another $70 trillion in off-balance-sheet debt, which can be triggered if certain individuals or institutions renege on debts that the Federal government has guaranteed. The purchasing power of the U.S. dollar has precipitously declined, as well.

2016-06-28-1467073347-2180955-5.jpg

(source)

Do Today’s Presidential Candidates Think the Same Way?
To hear several U.S. presidential candidates remark that “we can always print more money” is disturbing. It was that line of thinking–first with FDR and later with Nixon–that instigated today’s mounting deficits and the dollar’s declining purchasing power. Printing more money is fraught with the very real risk of creating high rates of inflation that will destroy the purchasing power of the dollar further, and potentially damage every American’s savings and the livelihoods of people living on fixed incomes such as Social Security.

Could the Federal government ever move to seize gold from American citizens again? When the government nationalized gold coin and bullion nearly 80 years ago, it gave Americans less than a month to turn in their gold. It’s hard to imagine this happening again, but it’s important to be aware of the very real history of gold confiscation in the U.S. and to be conscious of the economic pressures that could make a president decide to take such action again.

Special thanks to Naomi Shah for research contributed to this article.

— 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.

Spare The Rod And Educate The Child

It’s a little known fact in modern day America that corporal punishment at school is still practiced in 19 states of the union. A recent study identified seven culprits, Mississippi, Texas, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Tennessee, and Oklahoma who make up 80% of its application right now in the United States. No surprise, when it comes to “children of color,” they don’t spare the rod. According to the Office of Civil Rights, Department of Education, African-American children are twice as likely to be subject to “in-house corporal punishment” in schools. Oh dear. Is this yet another reminder of the racist past? Yes, of course it is. But along with mass incarceration, and the school-to-prison pipeline, it’s also another shocking indictment of our racist present.

Then there’s that pesky term. What do they mean by “in-house corporal punishment”? The Department of Education defines it as “paddling, spanking, or other forms of physical punishment imposed on a student.” “Paddling” is done with a “paddle” – a wooden instrument that looks like a child’s cricket bat. I’d seen them before, in old comedies like “Animal House” (Kevin Bacon gets six degrees of paddle from his satanic frat house buddies), and “Catholic Boys” (a sadistic monk torments his pupils with a customized model). But when it comes to the cane, the schoolmaster’s traditional rod of discipline and punishment, the paddle is a joke by comparison. Growing up in England, during the 1970s and 1980s, I have my own memories of its use. None of them, I hasten to add, are any good.

The first time I got caned was at Mosspits Lane Primary School in Liverpool — a seat of learning that famously expelled John Lennon of the Beatles when he was five years old. It was a hot summer’s day. The kids were having a grass fight on the school field at playtime. A teacher saw us and shouted out. It was the headmaster: a fish-eyed robot in a tin grey suit that was neither new nor in fashion. We were summoned to his office and beaten on the palm of the hand, ten times, by a slim bamboo cane that he whipped (abracadabra!) out of a steel filing cabinet. I felt the full force and effect of every blow and bit my tongue rather than cry out. It was a lesson in cruelty I shall never forget.

My second experience of “in-house corporal punishment” was at Douai, a Catholic prep school near to London. Almost immediately, aged 12, I noticed that beating children was so much the norm as to be part and parcel of the school’s curriculum. Boys were thrashed by monks and teachers for a variety of petty offences – stealing a block of Perspex from the science lab; swearing in the dorm before lights out; and, in one horrific instance, a gap-toothed kid with learning difficulties threatened with “three of the best” for “dumb insolence.” He spewed with fear and burst into tears. It didn’t save him from the humiliation and degradation of the teacher’s cane.

One punishment from boyhood stands out in particular. Three lads from my class got summoned for a caning after some high jinks on the rugby pitch. The penalty was “six of the best” from our Headmaster, Father Wilfred, a human wombat who wore striped pajamas under his cassock to keep out the cold. Forget the English stiff upper lip. They awaited the punishment with dread. Nothing hurt more than a beating from Father Wilfred. My younger brother once described the ritual. In the center of his office, there was a wooden chair with a bible on it. You bent over, eyes on the bible and took your beating like a gent. Afterwards, this being England, you shook hands with the Headmaster and said, “thank you” (however, there were instances of boys telling Father Wilfred to “fuck off,” my brother included).

Later, after gym class, I saw their tortured bodies in the locker room. Their rears were blistered black and blue. And they had been thrashed so hard you could even see the grooves of the cane on the butt cheeks. My mind was swimming with questions. How could a fully-grown, civilized, educated and seemingly benign old priest turn robot and thrash a child so hard? Where were the social workers? Nowhere. This was a fee-paying boarding school. Parents approved of the regime. It was character building and many of them had gone through it themselves. They weren’t going to call in the social workers, or send letters of complaint to Father Wilfred for beating on their kids.

Soon after, the cane was banned in England. Good riddance. The marks of a schoolboy beating heal, but the mental scars never really go away. But many years on, afar and asunder from youth, you don’t expect to wake up in the freest and most enlightened country in the world (that’s America, folks,) to discover that corporal punishment at school is alive and kicking. What’s amazing is that no one in the media has really addressed the issue. Thankfully, it’s a different story up on the hill. Deadlocked politicians jabber and filibuster about the pros and cons of a ban on physical discipline at school. It’s about time too.

Spare the rod and spoil the child? No. Spare the rod and educate the child. The United Nations and the American Academy of Paediatrics both say that corporal punishment should be avoided at school. In a statement, the American Federation of Schoolteachers said, “…it teaches students that violence is acceptable.” And research by the American Psychological Association identified the physical discipline of schoolchildren as a leading cause of future mental health problems and antisocial behavior. They are right. Beating children traumatizes children and it does more harm than good. And what gives a civilized, rational and highly educated adult the right to beat a child in 19 states of the union? The law. Fortunately, it’s a well-known fact that laws can be changed.

— 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.

Sorry, Bro, But I'm Not Your Bro: Rules For Bros

The bros are cackling. Maniacally.

This is what happens now. I say something to my teenage sons — nothing intended to evoke a cackle, mind you, but an ordinary exasperated mom question along the lines of, “Will you two please look at my face-hole when words are coming out of it?” — and suddenly they’re both doubled over, sputtering catchphrases from some private joke or meme while I stand there blinking and confused.

I have mixed feelings about this. I used to long for the day they’d stop fighting and form a brotherly alliance. It’s finally happened, which is a good and important thing. Private jokes and cackling fits bode well for the solid lifelong sibling relationship my husband and I had envisioned for them. What I didn’t anticipate was how bro-ish the whole situation would get. (My husband, for the record, is not cackling but is definitely stifling a snicker.)

I suspect their attitude is partly my fault. You reap what you sow, and I’ve been planting punchlines for so long that apparently now I am one. Turnabout is fair play, right?

Well… not exactly. Part of growing up is understanding that different rules apply in different relationships. What is OK in the locker room is not OK in a work environment (unless you happen to work in a locker room, which seems highly unlikely, not that there’s anything wrong with that). My sons need to learn that they can’t treat bosses and grandmothers and customer service people the same way they treat their bros. And guess what, guys? I AM NOT YOUR BRO, BRO.

So, a bit of training is in order. As a non-bro of the respect-your-elders variety, I am entitled to certain courtesies, such as:

  1. When I say a bro’s name, bros shall respond, “Yes?” [Note: Silence and “WHAT?!” are not acceptable alternatives.]
  2. When I ask a bro to do something, the bro shall reply in the affirmative (see above) and actually do it. Like, right then and not “In a minute,” “After this game,” and (definitely not ever) “When I get to it. Calm down.”
  3. I should not experience, with any of my five senses, any bro bodily functions or the products thereof.
  4. When I attempt to initiate a conversation with a bro, that bro should look at my face-hole and make sounds back with his face-hole (preferably words) until the conversation comes to a natural end, which shall not include bleeps, bloops, vibrations, or any other pocket computer interruptions.
  5. And, most importantly, bros in mixed company (that is, a place including both bros and non-bros) shall follow all standards of public decency and non-bro behavior. If any bro is asked to leave a mixed-habitat (primarily including, but not limited to, Chipotle and the living room), all bro phones, laptops, and gaming systems shall be confiscated until proof of gentlemanly restraint is demonstrated.

I’m trying, but I need your help. When you encounter a pack of teenage bros in the wild, don’t ignore them. Get your mom face ready and shoot them a “Seriously?!” or “C’mon, guys” look. And make sure they’re looking at your face-hole.

Peyton Price is a Babble contributor and the creator of Suburban Haiku. You can follow her ongoing battle of the bros on Facebook and Twitter.

— 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.

Judge Rules Mississippi Clerks Can't Use Religious Beliefs To Deny Same-Sex Marriage Licenses

(Reuters) – A federal judge on Monday ruled that clerks in Mississippi may not recuse themselves from issuing marriage licenses to gay couples based on religious beliefs, despite a bill passed by the state legislature intended to carve out that exception for them.

U.S. District Judge Carlton Reeves said that the recusals on religious grounds granted by the state’s so-called “Protecting Freedom of Conscience from Government Discrimination Act”, or House Bill 1523, violated the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark 2015 ruling legalizing gay marriage.

The Supreme Court’s decision is commonly referred to as the “Obergefell” case after lead plaintiff James Obergefell.

“Mississippi’s elected officials may disagree with Obergefell, of course, and may express that disagreement as they see fit – by advocating for a constitutional amendment to overturn the decision, for example,” Reeves wrote in his 16-page ruling, which came in response to a lawsuit filed by the Campaign for Southern Equality.

“But the marriage license issue will not be adjudicated anew after each legislative session,” Reeves wrote. Mississippi is among a handful of Southern U.S. states on the front lines of legal battles over equality, privacy and religious freedom.

Reeves has not yet ruled on other provisions of the state legislation, which is expected to become law on Friday and also contains a set of religious objections provisions that have been challenged in four separate lawsuits.

But Mississippi’s lieutenant governor, Tate Reeves, quickly slammed the ruling in a written statement.

“If this opinion by the federal court denies even one Mississippian of their fundamental right to practice their religion, then all Mississippians are denied their 1st Amendment rights,” Reeves said. “I hope the state’s attorneys will quickly appeal this decision to the 5th Circuit to protect the deeply held religious beliefs of all Mississippians.”

A spokesman for the Campaign for Southern Equality, meanwhile, said the group was “delighted” with the decision and expected the judge to rule in their favor on its challenges to the entirety of the HB 1523.

(Reporting by Dan Whitcomb; Editing by Bernard Orr)

— 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.