Let Freedom Ring

2016-07-01-1467335450-8502573-Let.jpg

It’s Thursday evening – the night before an extra long weekend where my family and I, with friends, will be celebrating another 4th of July. And for that, I am very grateful. I’m grateful for:

  • A family I love and that is beautiful and strong
  • Friends who we can laugh and cry and share moments with and who have boys our kids’ ages
  • The time to get away

I could go on but I think you get the point.

There are many things I’m grateful for but I always wonder whether other people are aware of and really think what the 4th of July is about.

Granted, it means different things to different people so I will share with you what it means to me.

It means:

Freedom

Yes, I know another word that means a lot of things to different people. But the 4th of July, especially here in New England symbolizes people standing up for something they believed in. Granted, there was a lot more to it than that but at the end of the day, the saying “Freedom rings” stands true.

Celebration

Overcoming obstacles, not being defeated, making a new home for yourself after fleeing something you didn’t want – those are all things to celebrate.

New Beginnings

All of this trailblazing leads to new beginnings. A future that while unknown may be exciting. And while you may not know what is in store for you, that’s okay.

Building a Home

This is the final piece because once you have freedom for yourself and others, and after you celebrate you have started something new. But you need to make it your own. Like turning your house into your ‘home.’ Taking something that may already exist but really making it your own.

So, on this eve of a long weekend where many of you will go to cookouts, pool parties, weekends away with friends and family I hope you take a moment and ask yourself the following questions:

  • What am I doing with my own Freedom?
  • How am I celebrating all that I have?
  • What new beginnings have come my way? Which one(s) do I want to move toward?
  • What kind of home have I built for myself?

This last question, in particular, is one I will spend more time on in the upcoming weeks. But until then, I leave you with this quote:

“It takes hands to build a house, but only hearts can build a home.” ~ Unknown

— 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.

FIRST COMES LOVE Brings Emily Giffin Back With a Vengeance

Book Review – Jackie K Cooper
FIRST COMES LOVE by Emily Giffin

It has been two years since we last had a novel by Emily Giffin. That is much too long to be deprived of the amazing talents of this enchanting writer. Now at last the wait is over and Giffin’s new novel FIRST COMES LOVE has been released. The bad news is it took so long; the good news is it is worth the wait.

Giffin does not write trivial books. Her stories are deeply affecting and intellectually challenging. Her newest story is a prime example of these traits. In this book we deal with a tragedy within the Garland family. Daniel, the only son of the Garlands is killed in a car accident leaving behind his father, mother and two sisters to deal with their grief. Each deals with it in a unique way and each member of the family’s life is affected to some extent.

Fifteen years after the accident the parents are divorced and Daniel’s sisters Josie and Meredith are plodding through life. Josie is an elementary school teacher who is in her late thirties and unmarried. Her biological clock is ticking and suitable candidates for marriage are nowhere on the scene. Her best friend and roommate is a guy named Gabe and there are no romantic sparks between them. Josie is on the verge of giving up dating for good.

Her sister Meredith always wanted to be an actress but ended up going to law school. She sort of stumbled into it much the same way she stumbled into her marriage to Daniel’s best friend Noland. They have a daughter Harper they adore and Nolan has begun to suggest it is time for child number two. Meredith seems to have it all but down deep she knows it is not enough.

There are enough relationships in this novel to fill five other books but each one is pertinent to the story and each one is developed in a way as to be completely fulfilling. Plus each relationship impacts all of the other relationships directly or indirectly. Kudos to Giffin for it takes a talented and resourceful writer to create a wealth of characters and have them all be fully described for the reader to understand and enjoy.

At its heart FIRST COMES LOVE is a story about sisters. Josie and Meredith aggravate each other like no one else can, yet no one else can love and understand the other as they can. Their relationship is complex but rewarding which is also an apt description of the book.

Two years is too long to have to wait for a new Emily Giffin book but FIRST COMES LOVE brings her back with a vengeance. Tales of sisters have been at the core of other great novels but Giffin turns that relationship upside down and makes her view a fascinating one.

FIRST COMES LOVE is published by Ballantine Books. It contains 400 pages and sells for $28.00.

Jackie K Cooper
www.jackiekcooper.com

— 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 Zika Is Forcing Uncomfortable Workplace Conversations

The Zika outbreak is creating complicated situations in the workplace as bosses, employees and entrepreneurs try balancing health and safety with privacy rights.

The virus, which spread across Latin America and the Caribbean last year, poses severe risks of birth defects in the offspring of pregnant women and couples who are trying to conceive. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention warns pregnant women not to travel any area with Zika, and advises other travelers to take measures to avoid mosquito bites and use a condom during sex.

Employees may feel that in order to skip a business trip to a country affected by Zika, they’ll have to reveal an early pregnancy or plans to conceive before they’re ready to tell the boss. Before Zika, such conversations rarely occurred in the workplace.

Georgia Beattie, 30, got trapped in just such an awkward situation last year. Beattie owns a successful wine company in Australia and had been invited to speak about entrepreneurship at a United Nations youth conference in Colombia. Though not pregnant, she declined the invitation after consulting with doctors, because she may choose to have a child in coming years.

“There was part of me that thought that I was being overcautious and that I was giving up on an opportunity,” said Beattie, who wants to expand her company into South America. It didn’t help that others on the delegation didn’t seem to consider Zika to be a legitimate health threat, according to Beattie.

“The delegation was predominately men, and it was dampened down to not really be an issue,” said Beattie. “My reason for not going wasn’t taken as seriously.”

 Business travelers, of course, have more opportunities to protect themselves from the mosquito-borne virus than the millions of people dwelling in the affected areas. Though there may be professional consequences, business travelers typically have the option of postponing a meeting or skipping a conference if they’re uncomfortable with the risk.

Still, the threat is real. So far, five babies born in the United States have had birth defects linked to travel to areas affected by Zika, and 265 pregnant women show evidence of an infection, according to the CDC.

“Today” show anchor Savannah Guthrie, who’s pregnant and worried about contracting Zika, put a human face on the issue by publicly discussing her decision not to cover the upcoming Olympics in Rio de Janeiro, one of the worst-hit areas. Several athletes also announced they won’t compete in Rio because of Zika. 

But many employees and bosses might grapple with how to make the decision, or even how to open a conversation. In some cases, a firm’s clients need to be informed, too.

That’s what happened to Anne H., a 31-year-old graphic designer from Richmond, Virginia. She had been asked by her consulting firm to travel to Brazil to meet with clients in April, but learned in January that she was pregnant.

“I wasn’t ready to tell work that I was pregnant yet, because I had some issues early on in the pregnancy, so I just told [my manager] that we were trying and that I wasn’t comfortable taking the risk,” Anne said. “My company is very flexible when it comes to balancing work [and] life, and I’m so incredibly appreciative that I could say I wasn’t going and leave it at that.”

Managers find their options constrained. An attempt to respect the privacy of employees of childbearing age by assigning a trip to an older colleague, or to one who’s announced intentions not to have kids, could run afoul of anti-discrimination rules, said Patricia Anderson Pryor, an attorney in employment law and disability for the law firm Jackson Lewis. “That would create more of a risk liability-wise,” she said. “The government has said you cannot restrict an employee’s opportunities.”

The best course of action for companies, according to experts, is to seek volunteers for travel to areas hit by Zika, and to abide by the evolving guidance laid out by the CDC.

Employees who don’t want to travel shouldn’t have to explain their decision, said Gabby Molinolo, a health and infectious disease specialist for risk management firm iJet International. While pregnant people or those in their childbearing years have the most to fear from Zika, they aren’t the only ones with reason to be wary of the virus; older adults may have weaker immune systems and thus may be more vulnerable to either the infection or complications like Guillain-Barre syndrome, Molinolo explained.

“Giving an option without disciplinary consequence, an option for an out for all men and women without having to explain the reason why … is probably one of the best, more passive and more open approaches,” said Molinolo.

Of course, in some professions, travel may be an essential part of the job, adding yet another factor for consideration in the workplace. Several international airlines have allowed flight staff who are or may become pregnant to request reassignment from routes to areas with Zika transmissions, Reuters reported.

Female members of the U.S. military who are pregnant can request to leave their outpost, delay deployment or return early from deployment, but approval of any of these requests is at the discretion of the servicewoman’s commander.

“This guidance applies only to pregnant individuals,” said Maj Roger Cabiness II, a Department of Defense spokesman. “Other women, including those of childbearing age considering pregnancy, are advised to contact their health care provider as well, and to follow the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines.”

At last count, 15 active duty service members have confirmed Zika virus infections, and two pregnant service members had been relocated away from areas with active Zika transmissions.

It’s unclear exactly what responsibilities fall onto a company if an employee becomes infected during a business trip. Some lawyers said it would be plainly covered by the wide parameters of workers’ compensation programs that entitle employees to medical treatment, a portion of lost wages and other benefits. That program often covers workers hurt on the job, say from a fall or a burn, but It also covers sickness.

Jody Armour, a University of Southern California law professor, said it’s easy to envision a legitimate lawsuit directed at a company by an employee who becomes infected. Asking employees to sign waivers or negotiating additional compensation might reduce the chance of a dispute later, he said. 

“You could argue that your employer knew they were sending you into a grossly, excessively risky situation, so they should be treated not just as an accident, but as willful wrongdoing by your employer,” said Armour.

— 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.

ACLU Blasts Orange County DA Office For Refusing To Release Public Records In Informant Scandal

LOS ANGELES — The ACLU of Southern California is demanding that the Orange County District Attorney’s Office turn over public records related to a jailhouse informant scandal, or the organization intends to take them to court, according to an ACLU letter sent Thursday to the OCDA’s office.

A set of letters provided to The Huffington Post, the most recent from Thursday, reveals that the civil liberties organization is “deeply” troubled by the lack of accountability and transparency from the beleaguered OCDA office. 

“There is an overwhelming public interest in the information we requested,” ACLU SoCal staff attorney Brendan Hamme writes in the letter. “It is, therefore, deeply troubling that your office refuses to make public the policies and practices that were in place and failed to prevent these constitutional violations from occurring, documents bearing on the scope of the violations, and the policies and practices that your office has pledged to adopt to prevent future violations.”

In early March, the ACLU made a records request under the California Public Records Act for information stretching back 30 years, including about policies and procedures related to allegations of prosecutorial misconduct, disclosure of evidence, procurement of interviews with defendants who already had an attorney and use of informants, and policies and practices the DA’s office says it has put in place in response to the allegations of misconduct. 

By the end of the month, Deputy DA Denise Hernandez and Assistant DA Ebrahim Baytieh responded to the ACLU letter. The office provided the ACLU with about 300 pages of materials, some already public, but largely rejected the civil rights organization’s substantive requests for records linked to the informant scandal. They argued the request is “overbroad” as is, but also said that for some requests, either no records exist at all, they could violate copyright if released, or that they don’t exist in a searchable or producible format. 

The ACLU, in today’s letter, is demanding that the office turn over the records it has requested and has offered to engage in a dialogue with the OCDA regarding the request to help sort out any issues with the breadth of the request. But the organization says it will be “forced to litigate and a court will sort out properly exempted documents from those you are required by law to produce,” if the OCDA simply further rejects the request.

The OCDA says it fully cooperated with the request and provided any and all records in its possession and subject to the state public records act to the ACLU.

The OCDA’s office has been under fire for almost three years for its involvement in mishandling evidence produced from a secret jailhouse informant program that has allegedly violated the rights of countless defendants. Assistant Public Defender Scott Sanders, who first unearthed the informant network, has been arguing since 2013 that a tainted snitch network in county jails has existed in secret for decades. Sanders argues that county prosecutors and police have violated multiple defendants’ rights by illegally obtaining, and sometimes withholding, evidence gleaned from jail informants.

For years the OCDA’s office has denied that an informant program existed in the county, but earlier this month they finally acknowledged that an informant program does indeed exist in the county, and sheriff’s deputies actively “cultivated,” “recruited” and “utilized” informants and rewarded them in exchange for their information. Additionally, a new trove of secret notes kept by sheriff’s deputies about jail inmates and informants surfaced in recent months, shining new light on the informant program.

Across the country, law enforcement authorities deploy informants to help bolster a case — a tactic that’s perfectly legal, even when the snitch receives something in exchange. But Sanders alleges that in some Orange County cases, the sheriff’s jailhouse informants held recorded and unrecorded conversations with inmates who were already represented by lawyers — which is a violation of an inmate’s right to counsel. Prosecutors allegedly took damning evidence gathered by the informants and presented it in court, while withholding evidence that could have been beneficial to the defense — which is a violation of a defendant’s right to due process.

Sanders’ discoveries have caused multiple murder cases in the county to unravel, even resulting in some accused murderers having their sentences vacated. Last year, the misconduct from law enforcement and prosecutors in one high-profile case led to Superior Court Judge Thomas Goethals ejecting the entire DA office from the mass murder trial. He then turned the case over to California Attorney General Kamala Harris, who is still investigating the allegations of misconduct.

Earlier this year, a group of former prosecutors and legal experts called on the U.S. Department of Justice to conduct a full investigation of the DA’s office and the sheriff’s department over the informant program.

Orange County District Attorney Tony Rackauckas has maintained that no one in his office intentionally behaved inappropriately in relation to the jailhouse informant program. He, too, has invited the DOJ to investigate his office’s practices in that area.

It remains unclear exactly how many cases may have been affected by tainted informant evidence, but Sanders has argued that every case involving a jailhouse informant in Orange County over the last 30 years deserves to be re-examined.

“Public trust in Orange County’s criminal justice system has been eviscerated by revelations of thirty years of systemic constitutional violations,” Hamme told The Huffington Post. “The time has come and gone for the Orange County District Attorney’s Office to adopt transparency and accountability as its guiding principles, but their abysmal and evasive response to our Public Records Act request only raises further questions of exactly what they are hiding from the public.”

— 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.

Making College (More) Affordable: One University's Moves To Put Inflation In Reverse

Let’s agree that college affordability has become a hydra-headed monster. How do we count the ways? The seemingly inexorable rise in tuition. The rise in student loan default rates. The sheer weight of student debt. The vast differential in endowments among institutions. The limited reach of Pell grants and other forms of financial aid for students in need. The dearth of merit scholarships.

According to the College Board, average published tuition and fees at private nonprofit four-year colleges and universities increased by 11 percent in 2015 dollars over the five years from 2010-11 to 2015-16, following a 14 percent increase between 2005-06 and 2010-11 (http://trends.collegeboard.org/college-pricing/figures-tables/tuition-and-fees-and-room-and-board-over-time-2005-06-2015-16).

Last March, a leading private university in Southern California announced its tuition for the 2016-2017 academic year will surpass $50,000 for the first time in its history, making it one of the most expensive universities in the nation and indicative of a growing trend: sticker shock at colleges just about everywhere. And private colleges are hardly alone: public schools are quietly hiking tuition at an even higher rate. What were once imminently affordable schools now place more of a financial strain on current students.

Against this backdrop, my institution — Los Angeles-based Woodbury University, a diverse, 132 year-old liberal arts campus that focuses on business, architecture, design and a host of other creative disciplines – will raise undergraduate tuition just 3 percent. That’s lower than the university’s average annual increase of 4.5 percent over the past five years. At the same time, we have markedly increased institutional merit-based aid to qualified undergraduate students, by up to 33 percent. Our annual $20,000 Judith Tamkin Presidential Scholarships, for example, will be granted to five of our highest achieving academic students.

While one institution does not a trend make, Woodbury’s experience in seeking to arrest runaway college costs is telling, even instructive. When coupled with our 4X Freshman Guarantee Program announced last year — including “Graduation in Four Years” and “Full-Time Employment within Six Months of Graduation”– plus a 2X Transfer Guarantee Program for students transferring from community colleges, the combination of cost control plus these first-in-the-state Guarantees provide a very attractive return on investment for our students.

So how do we arrest the rise in college costs in a systemic, sustaining way? In my view, affordability is intimately linked to vigorous, accountable governance. During a recent conference of the Association for Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges, I joined Lawrence N. Hurwitz, Chair of the Woodbury Board of Trustees, to chart the future course of the institution. The conference’s major themes — optimizing Trustee engagement, creating a healthy Board culture, and a solid Board-President relationship – provided a fitting backdrop for that process.

Small, private non-profit liberal arts and professional colleges are under enormous pressure, from falling enrollment to questionable return on investment and the career readiness of graduates. These concerns must lead to closer working relationships between Presidents and their Boards of Trustees.
Our institution is a salient example. With its geographic location at the heart of the Southern California creative economy – amid such companies as Disney, Warner Brothers, NBC and Cartoon Network – our enrollment peaked in 2012 and is now roughly 1,400 students. The chair of our Board has called for “creative change leadership, ” including a collective effort among faculty, staff and the Board on increasing enrollment, and a greater focus on engaged and informed Board governance.

Our Board of Trustees has already altered the dynamic between the Board and the Administration in a host of areas: heightened focus on revenues and expenditures; increased involvement in selecting the Administration leadership team; greater emphasis on brand and reputation; more meaningful metrics to track institutional performance; and tapping the expertise of Board members to help with special projects, such as facilities planning and bond funding.

The essence of Woodbury’s improved Board governance is open discourse and assistance with solving both internal and external problems — internal issues, such as understanding shared governance and curriculum innovation, and external matters, including Title V and Title IX compliance.
Responsive governance means addressing perhaps the biggest issue of all: ensuring that our university is within reach for those students who want to attend and who are capable of excelling academically and professionally. The degree to which we can do that will unlock solutions to the other challenges we – and so many institutions – face: attracting students, retaining faculty and staff, enriching the student experience, and ensuring for every stakeholder a respectable return on investment in private education.

David Steele-Figueredo is President of Woodbury University in Burbank, Calif.

— 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.

An American Coup

It was not so much that he made America great again, but when Donald Trump was elected president on November 8, 2016 he transformed the United States in ways that few, including he, could have imagined.
Right from the start establishment politicians and pundits just never understand Trump. He was consistently derided as having no chance. First it was that his repeated insults against John McCain, Megyn Kelly and women, immigrants, or Muslims that would doom him. But with each insult his fame only grew. Then it was the claim that he could not win in Iowa but he did. Or that his loss in Wisconsin would doom him. Or that his tirades against the media, his name calling of Hillary Clinton, or even selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate would surely kill his campaign. Back in June of 2016 as stories mounted about how little money he had raised, or that Clinton had double digit leads in some polls, he was still dismissed. Nat Silver, the whiz kids of political money ball, said that Trump had barely a 20% chance of winning and who could doubt the person who had so brilliantly declared that Clinton was a cinch to win the Michigan primary .
Even as late as the July Republican convention, despite the riots and arrests outside and one final push by party elites to use the rules to oust him, some thought that Trump would not get the nomination. But he did.
Trump’s success was in exploiting fear, prejudice, and ignorance. These are the core elements of what most advertising does-appeal out our vanity insecurities, and fears. Trump as the consummate salesman understood that. But he also exploited the failures of the Republican and Democratic parties which for the last generation or more has sold the public on free trade, globalization, and open borders, saying that it would benefit us all. Somewhere along the way these promises did not add up and mainstream national journalists, living in New York City, socializing on the upper east side, and vacationing in the Hamptons, for some reason just did not realize that average people were not reaping the benefits of NAFTA and free trade. Perhaps they were too busy attending or covering the six figure speeches Hillary Clinton was giving to Wall Street to notice that most people were making less money now while working harder than they did twenty years ago. Yes as F Scott Fitzgerald once said, the rich are different-they do have more money-but with money comes attitude and Trump played on resentment toward them and the elitism that they, the media, and the Washington establishment all represented.
Trump also understood they way that politics and entertainment had converged. Politicians no longer campaigned and the media no longer covered politics-both were marketed. Trump understood the for-profit spectacle that politics had become and which the news industry wished to deny but depended on. He knew that CNN, MSNBC, and the rest could not resist a good headline and that if he dropped a comment-no matter how outrageous-the media would pick it up and it would fill the news cycle for an entire day. Trump thus understood how getting headlines for him also meant the media would get ratings. They were trapped, and forced to market the presidential elections on Trump’s terms.
But Trump also benefitted from running against for many a hugely unpopular and uninspiring candidate who was the face of the establishment and status quo in a year where neither was a plus. Clinton struggled to win the Democratic nomination against an aging self-described socialist who never considered himself a Democrat until he decided to run for president. Clinton should have easily defeated him, but her difficulties revealed how poor of a candidate she was. She started a race with 70% approvals and a 50%+ lead over Sanders only to see it disappear. Some of it yes was sexism. No doubt there is about 30% of Americans who will never vote for a woman and thus Clinton faced problems from the start. But she also had many other problems they were not the result of sexism but self-inflicted.
At the end of the day Clinton had no narrative for her campaign. It was all about breaking the glass ceiling and being the first female president. That did not cut it with young people, including women, who preferred someone who shared their politics and not simply their gender. Additionally, whatever narrative Clinton had was one that was either too conservative for an emerging Millennial generation of voters, or one that harkened back to her husband. In so many ways she was still running, as she did in 2008, for Bill’s third term. Yet times had changed and what was once thought of as good public policy in the 90s was no long seen the same in 2016.
Hillary-a once youthful Republican turned New Democrat turned sort of progressive during the 2016 primaries and then back to a centrist Democrat who tried to appeal to Republican voters-was perplexed why no one trusted her. This perplexity was also shared by her core supporters-women over 40-who saw in every criticism of her sexism. Yet what was also perplexing in the campaign was why Democrats supported her, let alone women or even people of color. Clinton who supported the death penalty, fracking, TPP and globalization , and a militaristic foreign policy, (at least until the primaries), and in the past who supported welfare reform, her husband’s crime bill, and oppose marriage equality until recently, hardly seemed like someone who Democrat or women should support. Given her positions, it is wonder why she was a Democrat and why so many women who considered themselves progressives supported her beyond the fact that she was a woman. Clinton had a narrative problem along with an identity problem-voters did not trust her and did not like her for sexist and legitimate policy reasons.
Yet Clinton was supposed to win according to pundits and politicians. But she did not. She selected Tim Kaine from Virginia and played conventional politics in a year when the normal rules of politics changed. Similar to Frank Skeffington in the Last Hurrah who never understood how the New Deal had changed politics and therefore was clueless to how the old rules of campaigning had changed. Clinton campaigned like it was 1992 again, just like she did in 2008.
The election came down to a core of swing states again, with Ohio and Florida again decisive. The media and Clinton were distracted by Trump’s huge negatives and by how well she was doing in the popular vote and fund raising comparatively. She went toe-to-toe negative campaigning but in the end Trump was able to dig deeper, go nastier, and insult better than her. He knew fear, prejudice, and ignorance would make the difference. Benghazi, her e-mails, and all the other rumors around her stuck along with the image of Crooked Hillary. In the end, Clinton, like Gore in 2000, won the popular vote by racking up huge majorities in Democrat states, but she lost among swing voters in swing states, handing the Trump-Palin ticket an Electoral College victory.
Trump’s January 20, inauguration and swearing in were a made for TV event. The inauguration ball and swearing in was held at the Trump International Hotel at 1100 Pennsylvania Ave in Washington, newly remodeled and just down the street from the White House at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. The cost of doing both was billed to the taxpayers and Trump of course profited from it, serving also Trump champagne and steaks. At his swearing in he also announced that Air Force 1 would be sold to save tax payer money, replaced with a Trump charter jet that would be rented by the government from him.
Trump’s inaugural speech-or rant-was exactly what was expected from him. He said that his first order of business would be to expel all Muslims from the US, along with deporting all immigrants from Mexico. He also renounced NAFTA and all the free trade agreements with China and issued a 40% tariff on their goods. He issued orders suspending enforcement of Obamacare and declared all EPA orders null and void. Palin was put in charge of a special task force on energy and the environment, and he declared all federal lands open to mining and drilling for oil. Drill Baby Drill was now the official policy of America.
Trump thought he could simply push through want he wanted but with a Republican House and Senate that flipped to the Democrats, he found that they were less they willing to do his bidding. He insulted in bipartisan fashion but it did little good. As the economy began to tank Trump saw his approval rating slip more. Legal challenges to his orders and actions mounted, coming from both Congress and citizens. The cases began to choke the federal courts, necessitating Supreme Court review. But since the death of Scalia the Court was operating one justice shy and it did not look as if Trump was going to be able to get through his judicial appointments.
But whatever one can say about Trump he finally achieved the impossible-he got the Democrats and Republicans to agree on one thing-his impeachment. Fed up quickly with his presidency there was bipartisan agreement to impeach him. By the time Trump was to be impeached Palin had already resigned. Trump was without a vice-president and his impeachment was for self-dealing and disregarding the Constitution and the Supreme Court which had declared many of his act illegal. This left Paul Ryan as the successor. Except Trump refused to leave office, defying both the Congress and the Courts.
But Trump’s troubles did not stop there. Following up on comments he made during the campaign, he ordered th US out of NATO. He ordered troops out of Japan and South Korea, and he torn up the nuclear agreement with Iran. Early on much of the career diplomatic staff at the State Department had resigned, leaving the US with few trained officials. Trump named almost all of his friends as ambassadors, but they shared a common Trump trait-no diplomatic tact. Soon the US was rhetorically fighting with everyone-even Great Britain who elected their own Trump like figure after Brexit, and President Le Pen in France. Tensions escalated in the Middle East as reaction to the Muslim US ban kicked in and domestic and international terrorist attacks against the US mounted. Tensions with Iran, China, and North Korea reached a fever pitch, and finally Trump began talking about nuclear weapons to be used to resolve all these disputes.
Finally the day came. Trump ordered the military to act or face removal. With the Joint Chiefs of Staff worried about what Trump would do next, and seeing that Congress and the Courts were unable to restrain him, they did they only thing they thought patriotic to save the United States.

— 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.

Market Lessons from Brexit

It was hard to miss the panic among investors over Brexit — the British electorate’s surprising vote to leave the European Union. And what did you do? Hopefully, nothing. That’s what I advised before the opening last Friday in a bulletin to subscribers of my free newsletter (sign up at TerrySavage.com).

Yes, global growth is likely to slow as a result of Brexit. Yes, the strong dollar is bad for U.S. business, as it will make it more difficult to sell products overseas. Reduced sales and declining profits are bad for job growth — and for stock prices. And, yes, maybe you (and your adviser) should review your investment strategy now that things have quieted down.

But the most recent market panic (and subsequent recovery) demonstrate the importance of having an investment plan — and sticking to it in a crisis. Here are three lessons from the market.

Risk happens fast! It’s an old Wall Street saying. And here’s another bit of street wisdom: Risk is the price you never thought you’d have to pay.

The time to think about risk is not in the middle of a crisis. Risk must be calculated in advance, or after things settle down and you’ve had a demonstration of how your heart races when risk becomes apparent.

Thinking about risk is more than an exercise in calculating how much you could win, or lose, if the market goes to unexpected extremes. Obviously, you could win a lot, or lose it all. But the real analysis is around what happens to your life if you do sustain immediate steep losses.

Will you be forced to sell stocks at huge losses to fund your lifestyle — or your required minimum distributions from an IRA (based on prices at the previous year-end)? Or can you ride it out, knowing that you won’t need that money for many years until you retire?

Diversification is important. Owning different kinds of assets in different proportions is not a recipe for beef stew. It is a recipe for peace of mind. This is not a question of just being “in” or “out” of the market. It’s about having assets that typically move in different directions from the stock market — or not at all — and in the appropriate proportions.

Part of diversification is safeguarding what I call “chicken money” — money you cannot afford to lose. Chicken money belongs in low-yielding, no-risk investments like bank CDs, money market funds or Treasury bills. It may seem foolish to leave cash in investments earning almost no interest. But chicken money has an important role in your financial plan. It lets you sleep at night! More importantly, it lets you ride out the volatility in the stock market without panic.

Owning a counter-investment to the stock market, such as gold, can also provide a balance that lets you ride out stock market volatility. You can own gold stocks, gold share mutual funds, and exchange traded fund (ETF) such as GLD to easily create this exposure to gold in your investment portfolio.

Discipline is essential. Did you have self-discipline in the midst of the panic? It’s easy to see the right path in hindsight but far more difficult to stick to your plan in a crisis. And that’s the essential ingredient: a well-made plan gives you the courage to avoid panic.

If you understand risk and your own tolerance for it, if you hedge your bets by having liquidity and profit potential in crisis, and if you can stick to your plan when everyone is panicking, you are well positioned to be a financial winner in the very long-term. And that’s The Savage Truth.

— 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.

This GOP Senator Is Open To Supporting Hillary Clinton

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) is open to the possibility of supporting presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, a woman she respects despite her “very different philosophies” when it comes to politics.

In an interview on former Obama advisor David Axelrod’s podcast, “The Axe Files,” Collins spoke about the time she spent alongside Clinton in the U.S. Senate. She said she respected the former Secretary of State and admired her “real effort to reach out to members on the other side of the aisle.”

“Not just moderates like me, but conservatives as well,” Collins said. “She was good to work with, I had a very good relationship with her in the Senate working on Alzheimer’s in particular, but also on some economic development issues.”

Collins went on to praise Clinton as “diligent” and “very well-prepared,” and criticized presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump’s persistence in labeling the candidate “Crooked Hillary.”

“I don’t like that Donald Trump calls anyone names. I think that that is un-presidential and not worthy of the kind of public discourse that we should have,” she said on the podcast. “I think that demeans her accomplishments, and as a woman, I am particularly concerned when someone demeans the accomplishments of a person who has done a lot in her life, even if I don’t agree with that person.”

In June, Collins first told The New Yorker’s Ryan Lizza she’d be open to supporting Clinton — even though, at the time, she said she didn’t anticipate voting for her in the fall.

“I’m not going to say never, because this has been such an unpredictable situation, to say the least,” she said.

Collins still hasn’t announced any official plans to support either candidate, but said she’d be looking at both candidates’ running mates in the coming months.

“I want to just look and see what happens. This evolves daily. There are surprises daily,” she said. “It’s going to be very important to me who Donald Trump chooses as his running mate. That is arguably the most important decision that a candidate can make. And I’ll be very interested to see who Hillary chooses.”

Listen to the entire interview 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.

These Are The People Who Lost Their Lives In Istanbul's Airport Attack

Turkey observed a day of national mourning this week to grieve the deaths of 44 people in the triple-suicide bombing at the nation’s largest airport. 

Turkish officials blamed Tuesday’s attack at Istanbul Ataturk airport on the Islamic State militant group, and detained 22 suspects in police raids. No group has claimed responsibility.

The death toll has risen to 44 people, including 19 foreign nationals from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Tunisia, Uzbekistan, China, Iraq, Ukraine and Jordan, among others. Hundreds were injured.

With flags at half-staff, funerals for some victims were held.

Here are some of the people who lost their lives in the airport massacre:

Ferhat Akkaya, 42

Ferhat Akkaya was the airport to bid farewell to a friend who was going on a trip, according to the The Wall Street Journal. Ferhat, whose funeral was held Thursday, left behind three children, the The Associated Press reported.

Hüda Amiri, 8; Kerime Amiri, 24; Meryem Amiri, 14; Zehra Amiri, 16

Hüda Amiri, 8, was killed outside the airport terminal while waiting for a taxi after returning from a family trip, according to CNN. Her three aunts, Kerime, 24; Meryem, 14; and Zehra, 16; died during the attacks as well. Amiri’s grandmother and another aunt were wounded.

“She was very lovely,” the little girl’s father reportedly said while standing next to her casket. “I lost her.”

The eldest aunt had been preparing for her upcoming wedding, NPR reported, which is why her family was traveling.

 

Ertan An, 39

Ertan An, a translator, was at the airport to accompany a tourist group. He left behind a child and pregnant wife, BBC and AP reported. A Facebook profile that appears to be An’s shows that he originally was from Istanbul.

Gülşen Bahadır

Gülşen Bahadır worked at the airport. 

“What has my daughter done to them?” Bahadır’s mother wept at her funeral, according to AP. The news service reported that Bahadir was 28, while the BBC said she was 21.

In a Turkish Facebook post just days before her death, Bahadır spoke out against war and evil.

Fathi Bayoudh, 58

Fathi Bayoudh, a Tunisian military doctor, was waiting at the airport to pick up his son, a former fighter for the so-called Islamic State. Bayoudh had reportedly spent weeks in Turkey trying to secure freedom for his son, who had been detained for allegedly joining ISIS. 

Mustafa Bıyıklı, 51

Mustafa Bıyıklı was one of three taxi drivers who were killed, AP reported. He left behind three children.

“There is no justice,” Bıyıklı’s daughter, Oznur Buzakci, said. His coffin was wrapped in a Turkish flag.

 Abdülhekim Bugda, 24

Abdülhekim Bugda had recently started working as a ground service worker at the airport, according to AP. He used Facebook to assure family and friends that he was safe when gunshots erupted Tuesday, but was killed later.

“In the morning, we received the news that he [had been] severely injured and hospitalized,” relative Adil Batur reportedly told Turkey’s state-run Anadolu Agency. “We went to the hospital and he had died. How did he get there? … We still can’t understand this.”

Zeynep Çizmecioğlu, Mahmut Çizmecioğlu

Zeynep Çizmecioğlu and Mahmut Çizmecioğlu, who were married, both worked at the airport, the Turkish outlet Hurriyet Daily News reported. Many friends paid their respects on Facebook.

Mahmut Mert

Mahmut Mert worked for Turkish Airlines, The Mirror reported.

Yasin Ocal, 25

Yasin Ocal was mortally wounded in the attack, and died in the hospital on Thursday, according to Andalou Agency, which reported his age as 25. Australia’s ABC News reported that Ocal worked at the airport and was 26. The network said he had been married for just a year.

Umut Sakaroğlu, 31

“My nephew fired at the terrorist first,” Umut Sakaroğlu’s aunt reportedly told Anadolu Agency. “He tried to kill him. After that, the terrorist fell down on the floor, pulled the pin and detonated the bomb.” Sakaroğlu has been hailed as a hero for his bravery.

Ercan Sebat, 41

“They’ve torn out my lungs,” Ercan Sebat’s weeping mother said at his funeral, AP reported. “They tore to pieces my rose of a son, they dashed my spirit!”

Habibullah Sefer, 24

In the photo above, relatives of Habibullah Sefer pay their respects beside his coffin in Istanbul on Thursday. 

Sondos Shraim, 25, Rayan Shraim, 3

Sondos Shraim and her son, Rayan, who were Palestinian, were in Turkey for a vacation with her husband, who was wounded, according to NPR. Also killed in the blast was a family friend, Nisreen Melhim, who was traveling with her husband and 3-year-old daughter, AP reported. 

Siddik Turgan

In the photo above, Siddik Turgan’s daughter cries out as her father’s coffin is carried away at his funeral on Wednesday.

Ethem Uzunsoy

Ethem Uzunsoy was a ground-service worker at the airport, BBC reported. His Facebook profile notes that he was from Istanbul originally, and lived there.

 

Authorities also have identified the people below as killed in the attack: 

Çağlayan Çöl, 27

Muhammed Eymen Demirci, 25

Erol Eskisoy

Yeni Ise Girmisti

Murat Güllüce

Nısreen Hashem Hammad, 28

Yusuf Haznedaroğlu, 32

Özgül Ide, 21

Göksel Kurnaz, 38

Adem Kurt, 32

Nisreen Melhim, 28

Mahmut Mert 

Larisa Tsybaklova, 46 

Hüseyin Tunç, 28

Siddik Turgan

Serkan Türk, 24

Abrorjon Ustabayev, 22

Ethem Uzunsoy

Merve Yigit, 22

Ali Zülfikar Yorulmaz

Erol Eskisoy

This article will be updated as more information about the victims becomes available.

— 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.

Spotify cries foul again over Apple’s anti-competitive ploy

spotify-980x420Apple has been known to exercise an iron hand when it comes to apps in its iTunes Store, sometimes rejecting updates or even entire apps based on what some claim to be whimsical or downright anti-competitive rules. That is the picture that Spotify is painting in a letter addressed to Apple’s general counsel over Apple’s recent rejection of an update … Continue reading