The One Glaring Problem With 'Finding Dory'

Pixar just keeps swimming.

After 13 long years Finding Dory, the sequel to Finding Nemo, arrived with a splash this weekend, receiving strong reviews and big box-office returns.

The movie is a treat for us ’90s kids as much as it is for true youngsters; it’s got laughs, tear-jerking moments, and an on-point Sigourney Weaver cameo.

What more could you ask for?

And yet, as I sat watching the expansive underwater seascapes and new cast of oceanic companions, I was seriously taken aback with two characters: Gerald, the sea lion, and Becky, the loon.

Beware, spoilers ahead.

Finding Dory is all about celebrating differences, and differently abled people fish. Dory’s short-term memory loss — both her frustrations with it, and the amazing way it allows her to think — fuels the arc of the story.

The climax of the film comes when Marlin and Nemo, desperately trying to (you guessed it) find Dory, ask each other, “What would Dory do?”

Inspired by her spontaneity and optimism, they eventually make their way back to her with a new found respect for her forgetfulness.

But these other two characters — Gerald and Becky– they’re differently abled, too… and yet they’re not given a voice, they’re the butt of jokes, and they never quite gain respect from their fellow sea dwellers.

Gerald doesn’t talk, is made to look ridiculous with bulging eyes and a unibrow, and is bullied his two fellow sea lions — Rudder and Fluke.

Then there’s Becky who, unlike the other loons, is totally disheveled, doesn’t speak but for weird squawking noises, and is met with open disdain from Marlin and the sea lions.

Viewers took notice of these two lesser-than characters.

Whatever the writers intended, these two characters drew the most laughs from the crowd, all the while undermining the message that differences should be celebrated.

I can’t help but feel that, while the movie was a success, Gerald and Becky will become memes that kids will reference while making fun of other kids.

— 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.

ISIS, Orlando, and the Siren Song of Terror

Investigations are still ongoing in Orlando but it seems that the professed allegiance to ISIS by the shooter, Omar Mateen, was more a detonator than the charge itself. What exploded inside the Pulse nightclub was a volatile mix of rage and instabilities that had been building in the man for a long time. The siren call of radical Islam, coming over the Internet, added an ideological justification, a sense of divine mission and membership into a likeminded band of brothers.

What should be most alarming to the West, however, are not the attacks in Orlando (and San Bernardino) themselves, but the fact that they were done by freelancers, encouraged to murder by electronic messages from half a world away. Unlike in Paris and Brussels, these two attacks required little or no coordination with ISIS leadership. The killers obtained their own weapons and made their own plans. The female shooter in San Bernardino may have had a contact with ISIS operatives, but in Orlando, it seems that Mateen’s connection with ISIS was limited to receiving its Internet messages.

The ISIS Internet threat is about to get worse. For many months now, ISIS has been losing ground militarily in Syria and Iraq; it has lost several of its earlier conquests (including Falluja) and others are now in danger of being overrun, including Raqqa, the capital of the Islamic “state” (or caliphate) it has created in the desert. Western military responses employing limited ground attacks and sophisticated air power have seriously damaged the oil facilities and transport that are ISIS’ economic lifeline and greatly threaten its command-and-control capabilities and its abilities to mass fighters.

In response to these military setbacks, ISIS has stepped up its attacks on soft civilian targets, as in Paris and Brussels, and also perfected its Internet invitations to murder. Both tactics put forth the same message: “We’re still here and we’re still dangerous.” As the West continues to degrade ISIS’ military fortunes on the ground, the group’s Internet messages have become more explicit in their deadly intent. Potential recruits are now called upon to kill non-Muslims any way they can, if not with bullets then with rocks.

It doesn’t matter that its siren song may influence only the smallest percentage of an Internet audience; that audience is so huge that even a small percentage is more than enough. It doesn’t even matter if ISIS Internet recruits are competent; even if the attacks they stage fail, the very fact of an attempt, combined with unpredictability, ramp up fear and anger in the target populations, which is what ISIS wants to achieve. As explained in an earlier piece in this series, a key ISIS strategy is to goad the West to commit its military forces into a climactic ground battle in the Middle East, a necessary step toward its ultimate goal of Armageddon–a fiery end to the world and a glorious entry by the faithful into heaven.

Waging war-by-Internet is also very low-cost for ISIS: it doesn’t have to supply weapons or trainings; all it has to do is take credit after the fact. And they can physically run the whole operation from the back of a truck.

HERE’S HOW THE WEST CAN UNDERMINE ISIS’ INTERNET STRATEGY:

Degrade and destroy the caliphate-the ground areas under ISIS control. Continue the current successful military strategies focused on sophisticated air attacks on ISIS key vulnerabilities: the oil fields and transport vehicles that are its economic lifeline, troop concentrations, and command-and-control facilities. Continue to carefully support key local allies, predominantly the Kurds and a re-trained and re-energized Iraqi army.

All of this weakens ISIS militarily, shrinks the areas under its control and drains the ISIS checkbook, undermining its ability to administer a physical domain, including its hospitals, roads etc. Controlling physical territory is an absolute precondition for a caliphate to exist, and establishing its caliphate as the will of God remains a key factor in ISIS’ attraction for potential recruits. As ISIS’ physical domain malfunctions and shrinks, its Internet narrative that it is the engine of God weakens. Our counter narrative must lead potential recruits to ask: ISIS claims to be racing toward establishing a global caliphate–and this miserable patch of sand they cling to is what it looks like?

But the call to join the Islamic State is still going out, and still having a powerful effect on social media and within jihadist circles. The West cannot wait until ISIS is defeated militarily or burns itself out.

Pressure the Saudis. Saudi citizens are still a major funding source for the radical jihadist preachers who supply much of the content for ISIS Internet messages. The US needs to take off the gloves with the Saudis and use our leverage to force them to crack down on funders of radical Islam and the clerics who preach it.

Cyberwar options. The Pentagon has now thrown its cyberwar capabilities into the fight against ISIS, joining the NSA and the other civilian agencies already on the job. While the details are secret for obvious reasons, the military’s six-year-old Cyber Command is now mounting full-scale computer-network attacks, bringing secret American cyberweapons that had been aimed elsewhere, notably at Iran, into the fight against ISIS. The goal of the online campaign is to disrupt ISIS’ ability to spread its message, attract new adherents, circulate orders from commanders, and carry out day-to-day functions, like paying its fighters. The Pentagon’s cyber attacks are also designed to rattle ISIS commanders, who’ve begun to realize that sophisticated hacking efforts are manipulating their data. Potential recruits might also be deterred if they need to worry about the security of their communications with ISIS.

No one expects that hacking into ISIS computers or attempting to block terror-related content could eliminate the ISIS Internet threat completely. We need a major effort to degrade the credibility of ISIS messages by providing effective counter narratives. Simply telling the truth about ISIS’ current military setbacks in Iraq and Syria, as noted earlier, is an obvious step. But much more is required:

Understand why ISIS messages are so powerful in order to develop effective counter narratives. See an earlier blog in this series. ISIS Internet recruiting pitches present a radical, fundamentalist, anti-West, apocalyptic vision that is extremely attractive to many Sunni Muslims, particularly those who are desperate and disenfranchised. The messages start by being warm and welcoming, with stirring imagery and professionally produced footage. They are expertly targeted to appeal to a potential recruit’s sense of adventure, and to offer an attractive cause worth fighting for. The pitches are designed to produce and support a virtual community of ISIS fans, an echo chamber reinforcing the description of ISIS as a social movement devoted to protecting Muslims, to fighting an unfair global system and to returning Islam to a position of power and respect in the world.

The low-hanging fruit for ISIS Internet recruiting are people who feel inadequate, disrespected, full of unfulfilled ambitions, angry at real or perceived injustices, and who are blaming other people or institutions for their woes. ISIS supports their grievances and reinforces their belief that the cause of their frustration is an unfair world. To some of the losers they attract, ISIS appears to offer all they lack–the glitz and glamour of guns, women, and glory, and the feeling of being part of something big and utopian. ISIS offers them purpose on earth and paradise to come.

As Graham Fuller has recently noted, we cannot avoid mentioning Islam in this context–not because Islam is an inspiration for murder, but because radical Islam has become the ideology of preference for some individuals seeking out a “higher cause” by which to justify their frustrations, resentments, fantasies, and even savagery. There will always be deranged individuals filled with hate, compensating for their failures and hopelessness. They will always seek higher justifications, trying to lend dignity to their own wretched state of mind and acts of rage. For many such people, that higher justification is a religion.

By drawing potential recruits into a fantasy world on the Internet, ISIS channels their rage toward “anti-Islamic forces” that dominate the world and keep Muslims down. The only way to alter their dismal situation, ISIS tells these people, is to join the battle to establish a caliphate and transform the world.

Enlist moderate Muslims to develop and broadcast an effective counter narrative to ISIS messages. Why does ISIS demand the existence of a caliphate? Why do they believe it is necessary to kill or enslave those they regard as infidels? Why does its apocalyptic ideology appeal to recruits from all over the world? Questions like these need answers, and the way to start is by examining the origins and convictions (and contradictions) of ISIS ideology. This examination must come from within Islam itself.

In justifying even their most brutal actions, ISIS leaders are proud to quote texts from the Koran and/or cite actions condoned or urged by the Prophet during that bloody period when Islam was surrounded by enemies and fighting for its life on the Arabian Peninsula.

By far the majority of Muslims, however, oppose ISIS and do not interpret the Koran the way ISIS does. They already have an alternative narrative, a narrative of peace, love and tolerance, based on completely different interpretations of their holy writ and on other actions by Muhammad, especially in the early period just after, as Muslims believe, the holy texts were handed down to him by God. Muslims following the ISIS interpretation of the Koran is as if Christians and Jews decided to base their spiritual practices on the most violent and intolerant parts of the Old Testament and ignore everything else.

Extremist ideology, however, has spread within some Muslim communities, especially in Europe. It’s a grave problem that Muslims must confront without excuses. Moderate Muslims need to redouble efforts, begun after 9/11, to ensure that their vision of a more tolerant and inclusive Islam prevails. Their leaders must take up the sensitive and complex role of monitoring aberrant speech and behavior in their own mosques and speaking out against not just acts of violence, but also against those interpretations of Islam that are incompatible with the Islamic values accepted and practiced by the vast majority of Muslims.

We need to find ways to discreetly support Muslim leaders who are already reaching out to their communities to confront the problem of young people attracted to violent extremism. Low-key government support is already in place for pilot programs in cities such as Minneapolis, Boston and Los Angeles to forge connections among community-based groups, schools and public agencies for everything from soccer leagues to job-training programs. Much more can be done.

Do a better job of protecting ourselves. It’s impossible to talk about the carnages of San Bernardino and Orlando without talking about obvious ways those carnages could have been limited if not prevented. My list includes:

1. Reinstate the ban on assault weapons, the weapon of choice for mass murderers. These are military weapons and their only purpose is to kill as many people as possible in the shortest possible time. A skilled shooter with the kind of weapon used in San Bernardino and Orlando can fire a half-dozen rounds a second.

2. Limit the size of gun magazines. The Orlando shooter had hundred-round magazines, meaning he only had to switch magazines once, leaving almost no time for any brave people there to tackle him before he could reload.

3. Forbid gun sales to anyone on the government’s terror watch lists and to anyone with a documented history of mental disorders or domestic violence.

4. Determine which of your state and national legislators oppose common sense measures such as these–and vote them out of office in November.

Finally–as a US Foreign Service Officer I was involved in wars and revolutions for years. I know that sometimes the violence out there is tribal. Sometime it’s a struggle for resources. Sometimes it’s a bareknuckle contest for power. And sometimes it’s motivated by religion, which is the hardest kind of violence to understand and deal with. “God-led” violence can never be defeated by military force alone because the messianic ideals that drive it are bullet proof. The war the West needs to wage against ISIS is as much psychological as it is military. We need to listen, reflect, learn from experience and proceed with caution. We have a long way to go.

You can find my previous three blog pieces on ISIS here

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

CEO Explains How To Defeat Donald Trump Without Without Stooping To His Level

“What are we going to do about Trump?” That’s a question Salesforce chief executive Marc Benioff gets a lot these days from other CEOs and entrepreneurs, he told The Huffington Post.

His answer is unwavering: “If you want to defeat Donald Trump, and you’re that upset about him, then you should support Hillary Clinton, which is what I’m doing,” Benioff said.

An increasing number of business leaders are starting to openly criticize the reality star and presumptive GOP nominee, but Benioff’s strategy takes a higher road. The 51-year-old, already widely known for his social activism, hasn’t made negative comments about Trump and instead devotes resources to supporting his opponent. 

Benioff was supporting Clinton long before it was clear that Trump would emerge as the presumptive Republican nominee, he pointed out. He hosted a fundraiser at his home in San Francisco earlier this year that he said netted $500,000 and has donated $2,700 to her campaign.

“I’m not supporting her because I’m against Trump,” he added, noting that he believes deeply in Clinton’s positions. He first came out in support of the candidate in March during an interview on CNN.

“She supports equality for all, including gender equality and pay, which is important to me,” Benioff told HuffPost. “She supports LGBT equality, which is important to my employees. I think she has the right economic policies and she is the most experienced candidate for the job. She’s more likely to do the right thing than anybody else.”

Benioff earned widespread recognition last year after publicly announcing there was a gender pay gap at his software company and that he would fix it. He then revealed he’d spent $3 million giving out raises to employees to ensure fair pay.

He’s since become a corporate leader on gender pay equity and a number of companies have followed suit, announcing their own pay audits. In January, he urged other chief executives to stop turning “a blind eye to what’s happening in their own corporations” during a conference call organized by the White House.

The chief executive also led a successful campaign to beat back several state laws that sought to legalize discrimination against LGBT people, earning wide acclaim and a profile in The Wall Street Journal, which credited him with kicking off a “new era of corporate social activism.”

Though the political activism that puts him in line with the Clinton campaign took shape over the last two years, he has long partnered with the Clinton Foundation on other philanthropic endeavors. In 2014, he donated $3.5 million to Too Small To Fail, an early childhood education campaign founded in part by the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation. The donation fostered a literacy program at the UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospital Oakland that helps low-income mothers teach their children to speak, read and sing.

“It’s been a huge success story,” Benioff said of the joint venture with Clinton’s charitable organization. “She realizes that a child’s health and education and fundamental ability to be a success starts prenatally.”

Not all his fellow CEOs are taking the speak-no-evil route when it comes to Trump. On Wednesday, venture capitalist Chris Sacca, an early Twitter investor, and billionaire Marc Cuban took part in some Trump bashing on Twitter.

And earlier this week Airbnb CEO Brian Chesky said Trump was on the wrong side of history when it comes to his policies on immigration.

Don’t expect Benioff to follow suit.

Honestly, I’m not [worried about Trump],” he told HuffPost. “I don’t think there’s any way Donald Trump will be president.”

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.

This Republican Senator Wants To Stop The Census From Counting Immigrants

Louisiana Sen. David Vitter (R) has put forward legislation that would require the U.S. Census — for the first time in American history — to identify non-U.S. citizens.

The two-term senator hopes to attach an amendment to the Commerce, Justice and Science Appropriations Act that would mandate the Census Bureau add two new questions to the 2020 survey. One asks whether a person is a U.S. citizen, and the second asks about the legal status of their residency. If the bureau refuses to include these questions, it would lose all its funding, according to the terms of the amendment.

Vitter, who is retiring this year, wants all non-U.S. citizens enumerated in the 2020 decennial count of the population. This way, non-U.S. citizens could be excluded from a Census count that determines the allocation of some $400 billion in yearly federal spending, as well the apportionment of US representatives, which happens every 10 years.

Population data collected by the Census is used to guide a range of societal decisions. Besides the distribution of federal funds, it impacts infrastructure projects at the local, state and federal levels, and informs the building of roads, hospitals and schools so that there is sufficient infrastructure to support the entire population. The data also helps guide the reapportionment of congressional districts.

Vitter, who has proposed the same amendment two previous times, argues that it is unfair to allow non-U.S. citizens, “especially illegal aliens … to take advantage of federal benefits that are meant for U.S. citizens.”

Adding questions that filter for citizenship and legal status, Vitter hopes would allow demographers to subtract non-U.S. citizens from calculations that are used to make various economic, social and political decisions.

Opponents of the amendment, however, argue that adding these questions would be intrusive and discourage both undocumented and documented immigrants from taking the Census all together, inevitably producing false population counts that compromise the usability of census data.

Discouraging non-U.S. citizens from being counted, or excluding their count, would not mean they no longer live in the country, of course. But it would mean that public policy wouldn’t take the actual population into account, which would likely cause severe infrastructure problems. It would be difficult for decision makers to execute informed plans for infrastructure development such as the short- and long-term need for new schools or hospitals in a district, as well as accompanying funding.

Opponents also argue that Vitter’s amendment is a direct violation of the Constitution. In a recent press release, Howard Fienberg, the director of government affairs for the Marketing Research Association, points to the 14th Amendment, which states that the “decennial Census should count ‘the whole number of persons in each state'” to determine accurate apportionment of House seats. Furthermore, he finds that there is no reference to citizenship or immigration status in the amendment.

Terri Ann Lowenthal, co-director of the Census project, says it’s not the questions that are unconstitutional, but rather that “the unconstitutionality comes from trying to exclude a certain population from the apportionment base.”

The amendment could be considered this week, along with a proposal being offered by Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), which threatens to cut $140 million dollars from the Census to keep spending at the 2016 level — a move that opponents argue would derail modernization of the Census and end up costing taxpayers an additional $5 billion.

However, senators have shifted focus in the wake of the Orlando shooting to amendments on gun restrictions and are likely to forgo the Census amendments. But even if they’re not considered, it’s still possible that an amendment similar to Vitter’s could be reintroduced at a later time. Senate Republicans have a history of attacking the Census.

This is not the first time Vitter has made a short-sighted attempt to track immigrants. During his failed run for governor of Louisiana in 2015, Vitter alerted the Department of Homeland Security when he discovered a Syrian refugee thought to be residing in the state was “missing.” Soon after Vitter sounded the alarm, officials confirmed that the man had filed the proper paperwork and relocated to Washington D.C. to be reunited with family.

 

— 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 Pastors and Politicians Engage In Hate-Filled, Irresponsible Rhetoric: It Further Agitates The Flames of Perverse and Virulent Bigotry

As most of us are still trying to process the senseless, horrific tragedy that recently occurred in Orlando, politicians, segments of the media, clergy and good ol’ regular common folk wasted no time weighing in on the psychological wreckage, the carnage and the searing level of emotional destruction that has resulted from this most unfortunate event.

By now, anyone who has a pulse is aware that, on June 13, Omar Mateen went to a gay dance club on Latin night, initially had a drink at the bar and later opened fire, killing 49 people and wounding scores more. The atrocity ignited ample amounts of racist and homophobic commentary from both predictable and unusual quarters.

Presumptive Republican Party nominee Donald Trump, ever the pitiful opportunist, declared to his right wing base and non-supporters for that matter that he was right on target when it came to his perception of radical Islam terrorism. He shamelessly suggested that President Obama harbored a sympathetic attitude toward terrorists and furthered his call for an absolute ban on Muslim immigration without providing any concrete specifics on how such bans would have prevented the killer, who was an American citizen, from carrying out his sinister plan. This is typical Trump behavior–loud, bloviating, accusatory, self-righteous speech that is virtually absent of any substance.

The fact is that Trump was hardly alone in his racist and xenophobic rhetoric. He was joined in company by Roger Jimenez, a Baptist minister who heads a church in Sacramento. Jimenez unleashed a vicious, disgraceful homophobic tiradehttp://www.cbsnews.com/news/sacramento-baptist-pastor-roger-jiminez-post-orlando-anti-gay-preaching/ arguing that it was “great” that 49 pedophiles were killed. Not content with espousing such odious remarks, he further commented that, “If we lived in a righteous government, they should round them all up against a wall, and blow their brains out.” Wow! Advocating for the brutal murders of men and women who happen to harbor a sexual orientation that you disagree with? Appalling! There has been recent speculation that Mateen may have, in fact, been either gay or bisexual himself. Moreover, some psychologists have made the argument that he was likely consumed by his own self-hatred and denial.

To be sure, there are a number, perhaps many, of religious people of varied faiths who oppose gay marriage or a gay lifestyle for personal reasons. More than likely these people tend to be over 55 years old. Yet, it is highly unlikely that they would equate gay men and lesbian women with pedophilia or encouraging the sanctioning of gays and lesbians to violent and sadistic forms of murder. Indeed, recent polling has demonstrated that the majority of Americans, especially those under 50 (this includes large numbers of Generation X’ers like myself and millennials), including a sizable number of conservative Christian millennialshttp://www.pewforum.org/2016/05/12/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/
,support gay marriage.

The cold, hard truth is that, while Jimenez may view himself as a man of God, the fact is that his incendiary, odious, callous rhetoric is far from Christian in its message. As far as I am concerned, such rhetoric is reprehensible and morally indefensible. Jimenez represents the antithesis of genuine Christianity. Trump and Jimenez are two peas in a pod. They both are saying the same thing. They only differ in the weapons they have decided to employ for their carnage.

Trump and Jimenez aside, they are hardly alone in their disgraceful behavior. Some people do not hesitate to make pathetic excuses for people like Omar Mateen and others of his sadistic ilk for engaging in human atrocities, rationalizing the dispositions of such mentally unhinged madmen as they use the cause of ideological differences as the primary reason for such behavior. By doing so, they are helping to normalize hate, violence, intolerance and deviancy. This in and of itself is sad.

On the brighter side of things, there were hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of people (including politicians) who responded to this incomprehensible tragedy by donating blood at blood banks, reaching out and comforting family victims, providing monetary contributions and denouncing the hate-filled rhetoric. This is reassuring. These are the men and women who epitomize the real Judeo-Christian spirit. They represent genuine humanity. God bless them.

Elwood Watson, Ph.D. is a professor of History, African American Studies and Gender Studies at East Tennessee State University. He is the co-author of the forthcoming book Violence Against Black Bodies (Routledge Press, 2017)

— 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 Is America's Joffrey Baratheon

When you play the game of thrones elect a president, you pray Donald Trump doesn’t win or you become an expat and/or die. 

The similarities right now between Westeros and Washington, D.C., are all too real, and DesignCrowd, a company that connects small businesses with graphic designers, took that idea to the next level.

They’ve superimposed some choice presidential candidates onto the bodies of beloved (and less than beloved) “Game of Thrones” characters.

With Donald Trump as the Night King and Ted Cruz as Ramsey Bolton, “Game of Thrones” literally resembles the horror show that is our political system.

You might ask why Trump is also depicted as High Sparrow and King Joffrey and other icky Westerosi. We’re going to assume that’s because he’s as inherently loathsome as all of them combined. 

Which candidate do you think matches best with a “GoT” character? Put your comments 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.

The implications of large IoT ecosystems

IoTgraph The Internet of Things genie is out of the bottle and growing at an accelerating pace. According to Gartner, 6.4 billion connected things will be in use worldwide in 2016, up 30 percent from 2015. This number will soar to more than 20 billion by 2020. Here are some of the changes we’ll face as IoT becomes more ingrained in our lives — and how the tech community is getting prepared… Read More

The 10 Best Books For Little Introverts

This article first appeared on QuietRev.com

One of the wonderful things about raising introverts is that there are lots of books for every age range that totally get it. Herman Melville’s 1853 Bartleby, the Scrivener has a main character with an infamous line that is arguably the best capture of the introvert experience: “I would prefer not to.” Not that he can’t or won’t, but that he’d rather not. There are introverts like myself who interact with large groups of people for work, and then there are others who are shy and feel totally awkward. There are some who like reading, and then there are those who are into computer games, knitting, or some other solo activity. We may all have vastly different preferences, but the thing that connects all introverts is that we all periodically must say “no, thanks” because we relish our quiet time.    

As Papa to an ambivert 6-year-old and a 2-year-old who is still figuring it out, I am always on the lookout for books that offer an alternative narrative to what our culture tells them is true. Adventurers don’t always have to be loud and constantly surrounded by people. Nerds can solve crimes quietly.

Books are magical portals, and no matter what kind of kid you have—introvert, ambivert, or extrovert—the 10 fictional books listed below for 8-12-year-olds will thrill them:

 

  

Love Quiet Revolution’s parenting articles? Listen to Quiet—our new podcast for parents and educators of quiet kids hosted by bestselling author Susan Cain. We’ve also developed a Parenting Quiet Kids online course, including expert advice, tools, and strategies. Take our free quiz to learn more!

2015-02-04-Joni_Blecher_150x150.jpg
This article originally appeared on QuietRev.com.

You can find more insights from Quiet Revolution on work, life, and parenting as an introvert at QuietRev.com.

Follow Quiet Revolution on Facebook and Twitter.

Also on HuffPost: 

— 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.

The J.R. Smith Redemption Tour Reaches Its Peak

It’s hard to remember now, but there was once a time when Earl Joseph Smith III was not universally beloved.

There was a time when we didn’t speak of “J.R.” Smith lifting small children in the air, or discuss his presidential aspirations. Instead, we chose to focus on questions like “What does ‘You trying to get the pipe?‘ mean?” or “Is Rihanna speaking honestly when she says Smith has been hungover during playoff games?

J.R. Smith, at one point, wasn’t greeted everywhere with raucous cheers from adoring fans, but with questions about why he unties opponents’ shoelaces during games, or why he tweeted and then deleted a photo of a butt, or why he hit Glen Rice Jr. in the groin, or just this month, in the middle of the NBA Finals, why his team launched a Kickstarter to get him his own reality show

But that’s all in the past now. J.R. Smith can no longer do wrong. He is an NBA champion, one who walks among the people of Cleveland like a king walks among his people. 

But he is more than that now, too. He is not just their leader, but our leader, our king, our eyes and our ears. J.R. Smith has reached the mountaintop, and he’s never coming down, do you hear us? Never. 

Parade is insane … let’s go cavs

A photo posted by JR Smith (@teamswish) on Jun 22, 2016 at 9:41am PDT

— 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.

Organic Farming Could Feed The World, If Only We Would Let It

When it comes to organic farming, many in the agricultural industry are on board in theory, if not in practice. And that’s largely because of low crop yields.

For many years, the prevailing perception has been that organic farming — which avoids synthetic pesticides or fertilizers, antibiotics and GMOs, and aims to preserve natural resources and biodiversity — cannot produce the sort of yields needed to provide food for the world’s population.

While a new report from researchers at the Friends of the Earth admits that crop yields are, on average, currently smaller with organic farming than industrial farming, that doesn’t have to be the case. 

The report, released Tuesday by the D.C.-based environmental advocacy group, goes on to argue that crop yields shouldn’t be the only metric by which we should evaluate any given crop’s success.

In a conference call Tuesday, John Reganold, a professor of soil science and agroecology at Washington State University, said a crop’s yield is just one of four metrics by which it should be considered sustainably productive.

Equally important, he argued, is whether a crop is environmentally safe, economically viable to the farmer and socially responsible — by paying its workers well, for example.

“For any farm to be sustainable, it must meet each and every one of these four sustainability criteria,” Reganold said by phone Tuesday.

When organic farming practices are compared to conventional practices using all four of those metrics, the FOE report argues, the organic practices hold an advantage considering their resilience to increasingly pressing agricultural challenges, including climate change and water scarcity.

“Increasing the proportion of agriculture that uses sustainable, organic methods of farming is not a choice, it’s a necessity,” Claire Kremen, a conservation biology professor at University of California at Berkeley, writes in the report. 

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){‘undefined’!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if(‘object’==typeof commercial_video){var a=”,o=’m.fwsitesection=’+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video[‘package’]){var c=’&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D’+commercial_video[‘package’];a+=c}e.setAttribute(‘vdb_params’,a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById(‘vidible_1’),onPlayerReadyVidible);

The report addresses another belief the organization characterizes as a myth — that increased food production is needed to feed the growing world.

Research published in the Journal of Sustainable Agriculture in 2012 found that the world’s farmers already produce enough food to feed 10 billion people. The Economist reported similar findings in a 2011 report.

Despite that tremendous productivity, an estimated 795 million people on earth — about one in nine people — do not have enough food to lead healthy, active lives, according to the U.N.’s World Food Programme.

The reason for that gap, according to World Hunger: 10 Myths author and Small Planet Institute director Frances Moore Lappe, is that hunger has less to do with supply and more to do with poverty and a lack of equal access to land, water and other necessary resources.

Thus, any solution to the problem would also need to address these issues — but Moore Lappe argued conventional agriculture only exacerbates them. As an example of this, the report cited the poverty wages to immigrant farm workers, an estimated 67 percent of whom rely on some form of government assistance.

“The real root of hunger is a scarcity of democracy,” Moore Lappe said Tuesday.

So what’s the fix? Even though sales of organic foods are on the climb, organic farming still only represents about 0.7 percent of U.S. farms — so there’s a long way to go toward these practices becoming more mainstream. In order to get there, the report suggested U.S. policymakers increase their spending on research, education and technical assistance for organic farmers.

While the USDA did increase its spending in this area in 2014, researchers argue it is not enough to keep pace with consumer demand as organic farms look to expand their operations and impact.

— 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.