Hasta La Gadget!

In a remarkably short time, Bernie Sanders and his revolutionary movement have become a stunning influence in American politics. Sanders supporters have won 22 state primaries, gained about 45 percent of convention delegates, contributed 228 million dollars to the campaign through 2.5 million donors, and gathered together in rallies in numbers approximating a million and a half enthusiasts. It is a force that can potentially reshape American political life — but will it hold together after the 2016 campaign comes to an end in July of 2016? That is a “berning” question for the Sanders camp and for politicians generally.

The Sanders movement is composed of roughly 12 million supporters who voted for him in the Democratic primaries. This aggregate of adherents is in part an electorate and in part a movement. Mass movements rarely function within political parties and their leaders ordinarily keep their distance from established party structures. The Sanders phenomenon is different and unique; it’s a hybrid of an electoral party campaign and popular insurrection, intertwined. That makes it hard to figure out and slippery to prognosticate about.

We know something about the makeup of this maverick group from voting statistics. Predominantly, the group is young — a recent Tufts University study reporting that a larger number of young people under thirty voted for Bernie than for Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump combined. A second key feature is that it has a high proportion of independents, people who typically avoid a party affiliation. Bernie supporters also lean toward the white and male demographics. Otherwise, they are a diverse and polyglot group with critical differences across many dimensions. They vary in their specific political outlook and goals, previous electoral participation, and sophistication in politics. Their ranks include liberals, progressives, radicals and socialists.

In more descriptive language, they can also be depicted as:

– Democratic Party regulars who supported Sanders in order to nudge Hillary to the left and reform the Party, with or without Hillary in the White House.

– Democratic Party regulars (like the Progressive Democrats of America) who wanted to transform the Party, specifically by means of a Sanders presidency.

– People with loose but continuing ties to the Democratic Party, some of whom have wanted the campaign to reform the Party marginally and some of whom wanted the campaign to transform the Party drastically in a progressive, populist direction.

– Young people and students looking for new and more powerful policies to address their issues — crushing college debt, low salary jobs, climate change anxieties, etc.

– Young people and students taken with Bernie’s ideals and wanting to change the world.

– Young people and students who were following the latest trend among their peers, without much depth, as in the days of the student movement of the 60s.

– Socialists and radicals of disparate shadings who have thought Bernie could advance some of their agenda (economic equality, free college) and provide scaffolding for promoting socialism.

– Socialists and radicals of disparate shadings who viewed Bernie supporters as a pool of dissidents who were potential recruits for their organizations.

– People who were attracted to Sanders because he ran a campaign to keep money out of politics, shunning super pacs and corporate funders.

– People who were attracted to Sanders because they viewed him as an honest, ethical, and genuine figure in American politics.

It’s obvious that there isn’t substantial representation among supporters from African-American and minority ethnic groups and from organized labor, with important exceptions — African American influentials like Cornel West and Benjamin Jealous and unions like the Communication Workers of America and National Nurses United. Whatever Sanders does in the future, engaging these groups broadly has to be a high priority.

There are no doubt additional ways of slicing and describing the Bernie pool of supporters. The depiction above should be sufficient to show that this is not by any means a unified collectivity. Should Bernie lose the ultimate nomination in late July in Philadelphia, as is fairly destined, this diverse collectivity is all but certain to fragment substantially. We’re already seeing that split in the strife between Hillary stalwarts and the Bernie-or-Bust crowd.

Only continued forceful leadership by Bernie can hold his band of revolutionaries together. Followers have consolidated around Bernie’s message, his persona, and the common task of getting him elected — against the odds. Without the concentration on gaining an election victory, splinters are bound to develop — socialists vs. progressive Democrats, independents vs. party regulars, older moderate Democrats vs. radical millennials. The goal and the approach that Bernie chooses as the focus of his leadership will attract some of his cohorts and turn away others. The strategic options he has include keeping both feet in the Democratic Party, keeping one foot in and one foot out, or keeping both feet out. I’ll describe them and give my preference.

The Party establishment and media pundits are driving Bernie toward the “keeping both feet in the Party” option. Implant yourself firmly in the Party, push for a strong platform statement, nab a prime time speech at the convention, and advise your supporters to vote for Clinton and defeat Trump. In taking that tack, Sanders could get a high level administrative appointment and be well-placed to promote the policies he favors through the party apparatus. This would keep the Party regulars among his supporters with him and bring in some others also. But those on the left, and many others, would abandon him for kowtowing to Hillary Clinton, giving aid to a neoliberal candidate, and bolstering a status quo corporate party wedded to maintaining the dominance of the billionaire class.

The “one-foot-in-and-one-foot-out” approach embodies the stance Sanders has had as an Independent who serves as a member of the Democratic Caucus in the Senate. He could operate within the Party (trying to alter it drastically at the same time), but also support hundreds of down-ballot progressive candidates, both candidates affiliated with the Party and change-oriented newcomers. He would concurrently promote issue-oriented community groups to bring an end to police brutality, raise the minimum wage, stop gender inequality, aid the homeless, and push for climate justice. Sanders could set up a national independent action organization composed of his members and drawing on the campaign structure to promote those objectives. Howard Dean, after the 2004 campaign, established Democracy for America along similar lines — without much impact in his case. The dual approach of working in the Party and outside of it would probably attract the largest cross-section of Sanders’ campaign supporters.

The “both feet out” posture means that after the election Bernie would embrace the independent party posture that has dominated his long-time political career. He would opt for building a third party with a strong democratic socialist component, as has been urged by Jill Stein of the Green Party and Seattle City Councilperson, Kshama Sawant, of Socialist Alternative, and others. That involves carrying over the impressive campaign infrastructure he has produced to build a true and unambiguous left presence on the American political scene. This approach would attract left and radical components among his adherents, young people, and also restless and disenchanted elements across the rest of his supporter spectrum. Party loyalists and moderates would certainly pull away.

The Sanders campaign has legitimized socialism and political revolution as part of the dialogue of US politics and established the most fertile grounding, possibly ever in American politics, for creating a viable third party. The campaign has generated supporters in the multi-millions, a striking army of volunteers, dedicated staff, an astonishing number of small donors, highly sophisticated campaign technology, and that famous momentum. In all probability, Sanders will select the second option I described involving an inside/outside strategy. That would likely have the highest comfort level for him, given that in recent years he has combined running as an independent with active participation in the Democratic Caucus.

The third option, constructing a new independent party, would be more contentious, intense, and difficult to carry forward. But arguably, it would have the strongest impact on revitalizing and humanizing American politics. The Democratic Party, considering its intermeshed dalliance with Wall Street, is a dubious vehicle for taking the Sanders program much beyond a lofty-sounding platform statement. Sanders, an avowed democratic socialist, frequently laments that the US is the only Western democracy deficient a universal health system. But it is also the only one that is absent an organized left in its political life — limiting the range of policies the nation can mount and the choices citizens have about how to address their problems. As an ardent advocate for correcting the first deficiency, it would be entirely fitting for Sanders to seek also to remedy the other one.

With Permission of LA Progressive

— 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.

Being a parent is super easy if you aren’t one. Wait, what? Well, before I had kids, I was great at giving advice about parenting. If I could go back in time, I would slap Pre-parenting me and set the record straight. This is the hardest job on the face of the earth. I said a lot of things prior to being a Mom.

Here are 10 of the things I said I would never ever do.

1. Give my kids Junk Food: I was going to make my own baby food. I was going to be 100% natural. I tried. I really did, but that policy was just too strict for my house. I have found myself in the check out line at the grocery store with three screaming kids, right next to the Snickers bars and Kit-Kats on a weekly basis, and 50% of the time, I give in. Not proud, just honest.

2. Give in to a crying baby: I am a firm believer in “Crying it out,” it is just much easier said then done. I would put my first child down in his crib and sit at the door and cry as he cried. I would wait until my husband left the hallway to run in and check on him. It did get easier to let the others cry it out, but that was mostly because I was just too damn busy doing other crap to go in and check on them.

3. Be the last one at pickup: I remember always be the last kid to get picked up from school or sports practice. It was so embarrassing. I always thought that my parents “forgot” me. I never really thought about the fact that they were super busy and they got me as soon as they could. I have actually been on my way home and gotten a call that both my husband and I “forgot” to pick up our son. Talk about turning a shade red, I was so embarrassed. We had miss-communicated and he was the last one to be picked up from daycare. Guess what, he survived, and so did I.

4. Let my kids sleep in my bed: I said over and over again that kids in the bed was a bad idea. I was not going to share my space with the kids. I would get up and walk them back into their beds. NOT A REALITY. At 2:00 a.m. I was not about to drag my tired ass out of bed to put them back in their own bed. I have managed to survive 9 years of children in my bed, so I guess it worked out in the end.

5. Let my kids eat school lunch: I always hated school lunch. I ate it almost everyday as a kid. When I was older I packed my own lunch. I was going to be the Mom who packed everyone’s lunch every day and made sure to pack a napkin with a love note on it. I am lucky if they are sent with lunch three days a week, and the love note may or may not be my wadded up snotty tissue from my bathrobe pocket.

6. Bribe my kids to listen to me: I felt that bribes were the lowest form of parenting. Well, I must currently dwell in Hell, because I bribe on a daily basis. “Did you clean your room? No Dessert if you don’t clean your room, and it’s ice cream tonight.” I am too tired to read the proper parenting book to get the job done, so I will bribe my a$$ off to gain ground each day.

7. Yell and Scream like a lunatic: I grew up in a household of screamer’s. Everyone yelled at everyone for everything. I am not a fan of yelling. I do however lose my “Mommy sh*t” at least once a day. It is bound to happen with three kids, and I try to keep it at a level that will not cause future therapy visits. Although, I am sure I will be paying for that as well.

8. Sweat the small stuff: I was going to be a proactive parent who cared about the big picture. I wanted to always focus on what really mattered. It’s amazing how fast the walls close in when you are in the trenches of parenting. I know this sounds dramatic, but the daily grind can wear you down, and the small stuff becomes a mountain before you know it. For example, keeping the house clean. It seems like a small task, but it is daunting. I finished cleaning my house one day only to find myself face to face with a turd on the couch. After spending two hours cleaning, it was a bit devastating to find a fresh turd on the couch. Sh*t really does happen.

9. Give in to their demands: I have been known to have a bit of a rough exterior. I believe that you work for your things and it is not beneficial to have them given to you. I want to make sure my kids know the value of hard work. At the same time I can’t seem to walk out of a store without buying something for each kids, almost every time We go out, and it is so hard to say “No” to three repeating parrots who continue to squawk until you whisper scream “Fine, put it in the cart and be quiet.”

10. Drive a Mini-Van: I was going to be the cool Mom who held tightly to class and sophistication. Bawahahaahhaha. That lasted about 10 minutes. To be honest, I love my mini-van. It is super awesome and it doubles as a super sweet party van on the weekends. Me and six of my closest friends can bar hop all night in that sexy ride.

So in the end, I do a ton of stuff I admittedly said I would never do. I do it to survive. I do it to remain sane. I do it because life happens. Don’t beat yourself up for the choice you make to keep your family moving. Remain calm and parent on my friends.

Meredith is a work-from-home mother of three who writes about the inappropriate side of marriage and motherhood on her blog at That’s Inappropriate. Follow her on Facebook YouTube 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.

“You hear footsteps and there’s nothing there,” said a woman who owned a haunted house at 11051 Bennett State Road in Forestville, New York. “Voices, muffled music, a ball bouncing, claws across the floors,” she told a local newspaper in 2012. “One night I heard a blood-curdling scream. I’ve actually seen a little girl in the house.”

Eventually, the family moved out – many states away. Now, American Homeowner Preservation, the mortgage holder, is preparing to list the home for sale.

Paranormal investigator John Zaffis featured the 200-year old home on his SyFy reality program Haunted Collector in 2012. What they found is startling.

It started with the Haunted Collector team’s discovery of a 19th-century leech jar in a secret compartment in the attic. Doctors of the time kept jars of leeches, to be used in bloodletting.

While recording their attempts to communicate with the spirits causing the haunting, Zaffis asked the spirit’s name and heard the name “Jerome” whispered back. A reading from their EMF pulser seemed to confirm some type of activity at the same time that the voice was heard.

After some digging through the town’s records, the team unearthed that the house had been owned in the mid-19th century by the reverend James Bennett, whose family resided there for several generations. His son Jerome died at the age of 27 from tuberculosis, a disease that was often treated by placing the afflicted in a separate room from the rest of the family, and bloodletting the patient with leeches.

The final dagger? Jerome Bennett, along with most of his family, was buried in Pioneer Cemetery, right next door to the home.

With all that evidence, let’s assume that the house is inhabited by the supernatural. While some people might suggest we ignore that detail in marketing the house, we’re going to do the opposite: we’ll candidly point out the home’s troubled history.

That’s for two reasons:

First, a Forestville-area agent, Jon Steiger, pointed out that while New York state’s laws may not require a seller to disclose that a house could be haunted, the weird stories about the home are “readily available to anyone doing a Google search of the property address.” In other words, there’s no hiding it.

Second: While there are some cases of homes plummeting in value when ghosts were discovered, there’s also reason to believe that a haunted house might in fact be worth more than an untroubled house. It’s a theory, but here’s the rationale: a haunted house-and especially one next door to a cemetery-is worth more because of its potential to generate income for its owners.

Thrill seekers would likely pay a premium to spend the night in a room, or even rent the whole house. A Colorado hotel whose long history of supernatural activity inspired the Stephen King movie “The Shining” offers tours that detail all the creepiness, as well as overnight stays in Room 217, “the most active” place for the building’s spirits. And on airbnb, there’s a page that showcases haunted rentals, everywhere from a small town in New Mexico to a castle in Russia.

And around Halloween, when interest in anything spooky spikes, a bona fide haunted house could generate significant income. Americans spend over $7 billion each year on candy, costumes and activities related to Halloween. Teens and young adults, ages 18 to 34, are the most common demographic pursuing Halloween activities, and by one expert estimate, there are more than 1,200 Halloween attractions that charge admission, attended by an average of 8,000 people.

An entrepreneurial homeowner could turn the house and the story of Jerome Bennett into a legitimate haunted attraction. There’s nothing ghastly about it. How many people would prefer to get their Halloween dose of spookiness from an authentic “haunted” house – next to a cemetery, no less! – than from a manufactured attraction like a haunted cornfield?

Built in 1820, the house was once handsome. The two-story main wing features shuttered windows and a roof supported by heavy trim which likely once capped a pair of Greek Revival-style columns that would have bracketed the front of the house. They’re gone, but traces remain visible, suggesting that the house had a grander appearance in the distant past. A one-story wing projects off the side. The house has suffered severe neglect inside and out which new owners would need to remedy, but “this was once a beautiful home and could be once again,” Steiger, the real estate agent, said.

The leech jar was removed from the house, and the Haunted Collector episode ended with the then-owners thanking the show’s host for bringing peace to the house. Nevertheless, the eerie stories linger-regardless of whether the ghosts themselves do.

Of course, it’s also possible that someone buys the house simply to rehab and maintain it, and let the Bennett family rest in peace. Whatever the motivation, though, the value of owning a truly haunted house is really all in the buyer’s mind. Some might argue that’s also where the ghosts are.

— 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.

I’ve been living with a condition called cerebral palsy for nearly 31 years now. It’s a disease most commonly resulting from a birth injury and it can’t be passed on genetically, which explains why my twin sister doesn’t have a disability. The life I’ve lived to this point has certainly been a full one, filled with its share of ups and downs, and as much as people give me credit for being an inspiration and maintaining a determined attitude, even I’ll admit growing up was tough. See I grew up a sports fan, but going through school I often times found myself on the sidelines in gym class and at recess. I simply could not participate the way I wanted to, and sometimes, my peers and teachers just thought it wasn’t plain safe to play.

Little did I know that years later, having cerebral palsy would lead to other challenges. The physical pain and distress, constant physiotherapy, surgeries and rehabilitation programs represented the most obvious hurdles, while being able to fit in socially, find employment, meet a woman, and even now living independently represent the kind of ongoing obstacles that most able-bodied people may never totally understand.

As human beings, regardless of ability level, we’re all predisposed to looking for the path of least resistance in life. When you do have an added, lifelong challenges however, searching for those paths becomes all the more crucial.

Over the years I’ve found my way around, and learned how to accelerate the completion of tasks and activities that used to take me a lot longer to complete, either with or without help, and yet there were so many missed opportunities along the way. Social programs that may have helped me as a kid that my parents didn’t know about, strategies for interacting socially that my peers with disabilities seemed better at implementing, and of course being able to advocate for myself and for others, or at least being able to build a platform for the disability community that can change our future as a collective group.

That last part is the key, because proving your independence, your level of intelligence, your business acumen and your ability to stand neck and neck alongside the average able-bodied majority is a full time job that doesn’t end until the day you die.

Sometimes I sit around and wonder what my life would have been like had I been able to utilize the knowledge and life experience I have now, and been able to apply it to my life as a young teen. One thing I always wish I pursued more was the opportunity to take legal action and be compensated as a result of my diagnosis, as many people with cerebral palsy (often times via their parents) both in the U.S. and Canada have successfully filed lawsuits against medical professionals for wrong doings that led them to a life with cerebral palsy.

The fact is that for a big chunk of my life, I grew up with two sisters in a single-parent household. My mother gave us the best she could and I can’t say we missed out on much, but there were times where mom, nor anyone else for that matter, could do anything to help me with my unique challenges, and I can’t help but think that having a nice sum of money in the bank to help me out throughout my whole life could have made all the difference.

I’m not a vicious or vengeful person by any means, and it’s too late for me to file a birth injury lawsuit at my age anyway, but it might not be too late for you or your child to pursue justice if you’re living with cerebral palsy or another lifelong birth injury.

That’s why when I was recently presented with the opportunity to interview Jonathan C. Reiter, a New York injury lawyer with plenty of experience dealing with birth injury cases, I couldn’t pass it up. So in the spirit of helping youth with cerebral palsy (and their parents) explore the possibility of getting a much needed head start in life, I’ll leave you with some of the important tidbits of legal information I learned in spending an hour with him. By no means is this article a complete guide to any shot you or your parents may have at making a case in court, but I hope it inspires you to think critically about your options. So without further ado, here’s what I learned from Jonathan.

Parents! Watch Your Child’s Development Closely

This tip is strictly for moms and dads dealing with an infant/baby. It goes without saying children are supposed to be able to lift their own head up, crawl and walk as they grow. If any of these milestones lag behind, or if the walking appears to be abnormal that may be a problem. To watch for this is something any responsible parent would do, but what most parents may not know is that it’s never too early to consult a lawyer. Jonathan suggests that the sooner parents seek advice the better.

“Parents should get an evaluation done, because that way they will be able to set their mind to rest, because it affects the parents as well. The child isn’t doing well, the child is having problems. Then it becomes something in parents mind’s where they ask themselves, “What did I do wrong”, which 99.9% of the time it shouldn’t be in their mind, but that doesn’t mean it’s not there. It really helps to get closure, to have somebody independent look at the records, an expert that a lawyer can retain.”

Collecting and Understanding Scientific Evidence Is Key

The health of a newborn is judged based on the APGAR scoring system, which evaluates a child’s appearance, pulse, grimace, activity and respiration. Jonathan told me that in a court case, these five scores would most certainly be reviewed, as well as the acidity level of the child’s blood at birth, along with a long list of other potential scientific pieces of evidence unique to an individual case. It goes without saying, neither you nor your parents should be doing the data collection or interpretation it on your own. Find professional help. Birth injury cases in both the United States and Canada can be worth many millions of dollars.

Your/Your Child’s Cerebral Palsy Doesn’t Have To Be Severe For You To Have A Case

As I’ve experienced firsthand, and as Jonathan echoed during our chat, even a mild birth injury can have a significant impact on your life. It affects one’s ability to fit in, find employment, and just generally enjoy life. Part of the reason my parents never pursued legal action is because I can walk on my own, am cognitively at the same level as my peers and business partners, and am generally independent. But as Jonathan put it, “even when a child’s obstacle in life is something as simple as being able to run to first base during recess, it can have a profound impact on their quality of life.”

Take Action Before You/Your Child Turns 18

As I mentioned in the introduction, it’s a little too late for someone my age to pursue any legal action or receive compensation as it relates to living with cerebral palsy myself. Jonathan let me know that in most states, a child is considered an adult at 18. Once they are legally an adult, making a claim in court is no longer acceptable. Make sure you read up on statutes of limitations in your state to find out if you/your child can still explore the possibility of pursuing a case.

Aside from the above points, the big picture message I came to understand through my conversation with Jonathan is that the whole point of pursuing legal action is to be able to set yourself or your child up to have the best quality of life they possibly can. A team of qualified life care planners, doctors, a good attorney, and the people that care about you the most can work together to plan out everything you’ll need for your entire life, and no matter how minuscule or major those needs may be, you owe it to yourself and your children to explore your options.

No matter what anyone tells you in life, if there’s one thing I’ve learned from having cerebral palsy for the last 30 years, it’s that nobody will advocate for yourself with a greater passion and resolve than you! So get informed and do the best you can, whether that means fighting for what you deserve in a court room, finding a career, starting a family, becoming an activist for change, or even just giving it your best effort to make it to first base, whether you have to crawl, walk, run or wheel!

— 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.

Last year, researchers estimated that California had lost 63 trillion gallons of water over the course of 18 months of drought. Now, a huge reservoir of underground water—three times bigger than engineers thought—has been found under California. But it still won’t solve the state’s drought troubles.

Read more…