VLC For Windows 10 Finally Released

vlc-windows-10
One of the post popular media players in the world has finally arrived on Windows 10, albeit in beta. The universal Windows 10 app of VideoLAN’s VLC media player has finally been released, the app won’t be limited to one platform as it’s compatible with all platforms that Windows 10 can be used on, that includes both PC and mobile, as well as the Xbox One and even Microsoft HoloLens.

The universal app is going to offer similar functionality across all platforms, that includes a full media player, media library, and a network browser.

It also taps into Windows 10 features like Cortana to work with voice commands, and has support for live tiles and Continuum when a Windows 10 Mobile powered smartphone is docked.

VideoLAN has also said that the app will get support for Microsoft HoloLens in the future, support for the Xbox One is promised to arrive over the summer. The features and interface will remain the same even if the app is being used on the console or the augmented reality headset.

Bear in mind that the VLC app for Windows 10 is in beta right now so there are likely to be some kinks here and there, but work on the app continues and it will be improved in the coming months as a stable release is finally pushed out.

VLC For Windows 10 Finally Released , original content from Ubergizmo. Read our Copyrights and terms of use.

Why the C-Suite Should Adopt Cloud Technology Now to Stay Competitive and Relevant

2016-06-23-1466693610-8572400-AndrewVest.jpgBy Andrew Vest

Cloud computing is changing the way organizations do business. Compared to traditional on-premise infrastructure, application development, and storage, it’s cheaper, faster and safer.

As director of business development for a company that specializes in cloud solutions, integration, and modernizing data center infrastructure, I see the positive impact cloud computing has on businesses every day, as they take advantage of new billing structures and rapidly available development spaces. As an entrepreneur, I’ve taken advantage of cloud services myself as a way of keeping overhead costs under control and using only the resources I need, when I need them.

Are you ready for the cloud? First, let’s figure out how to tell if you are:

If You’re Thinking About Moving to the Cloud

Executives are always looking for new ways to gain competitive advantages, while IT departments are reevaluating platform strategies and realizing it’s possible to do more with less. Below are the most common reasons they decide to adopt cloud computing:

1. It minimizes the hassle. Want to spend less time working with moving parts? Over time, cloud computing can substantially reduce application maintenance and support. You gain access to on-demand resources rather than having to buy hardware in advance. And, the development environment is elastic, so you only pay for what you use. It has the capacity to stretch (or shrink) to fit your needs. 

2. It saves time. Cloud technology streamlines all stages of the application development lifecycle. You can request on-demand development environments in real time, so your developers won’t have to hoard space to have it available when they need it. They can also make changes, test and deploy in a fraction of the time it takes to accomplish the same with on-premise platforms. 

3. It’s cost effective. As opposed to the old IT procurement process, cloud computing development platforms are based on subscription pricing, so you can start small with almost no costs upfront, and scale from there. Your CFO will love you because, like many of my clients, you can expense it as a service or operating cost as opposed to a capital expense. And, with cloud computing, you can keep operational costs down since no initial software or hardware purchase is necessary. 

4. It offers more storage. There’s plenty of storage available when you are hooked up with cloud tech, and the beauty is, you only use and pay for what you need. You can also upgrade storage capacity anytime the need arises.

5. It’s more secure. When we hear about high-profile hacks, we wonder if our important information is actually safe in the cloud. In truth, many of the concerns are false, and aren’t likely to affect the day-to-day operations of your business. The giants in the cloud computing industry spend billions to make sure your data is safe.

How to Transition Once You’re Ready

Once you’ve decided to adopt cloud computing, where do you go from there? I recommend taking these five steps to ensure the transition is smooth and painless. 

1. Get the tech team’s buy-in before making the switch.

Some IT professionals can feel intimidated and overwhelmed – worried that moving from their current infrastructure to cloud-based tech might just cost them their jobs. But getting them on board and enthusiastic about the move is integral for the switch to be effective.

Involve senior leadership early on to get their input and ensure their buy-in. Let them lead by finding out the team’s biggest concerns and complaints, and addressing them so that everyone feels heard. Enlist those who see the change the way you do to become your internal advocates and help bring others on board.

2. Speak the same language.

With new technology comes new terminology. Make sure you synchronize the team so you’re all using common language, labels and terms.

 3. Utilize free services and resources. 

All major cloud providers like Amazon Cloud, Microsoft Azure, and Google Cloud offer free or inexpensive training, strategy consulting, certification and working sessions. Take advantage of all the free services and resources they offer before you hire a consultant. There are also some great no-cost software options you can integrate with your newly adopted cloud technology, including leading-edge software such as Docker, Chef, and Rancher Labs.

4. Educate and train first. 

Only after you’ve followed the tips above do I recommend paying for pro services or hiring consultants for further training and support.

If you want to start experimenting with cloud computing but you’re not fully ready or don’t want to move completely away from the traditional infrastructure you’re using now, there’s a middle ground. You might benefit from a hybrid approach, which involves linking your current technology to the cloud.

Cloud computing can be a beneficial tool for your business when used effectively — consider these factors before you dive in head-first in order to yield the most fruitful results.

Andrew Vest is an entrepreneur to his core. He’s passionate about building products and connections that people find useful (@Redapt @YEC @preferling @brandbuddee). Andrew is also Director of Business Development for Redapt‘s Applications Modernization & Cloud services. Outside of work, he loves spending time with his wife and son and enjoys doing anything outdoors, from fishing to biking.

— 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.

Why I Remain A Christian

Based on the hundreds of responses I received to my last posting about guns, I began to wonder why I continue to ascribe to a faith that has been so acculturated, at least in America. Most of the responses blamed me for criticizing guns or gun owners, and then criticized my lack of understanding of scripture, although no one found scriptures that supported gun violence. However, they did cite scripture passages that they believed condemned homosexuality or abortion, the two abominations that they believe are responsible for gun violence due to humanity’s fallen nature. I have spent most of my adult life speaking for the minority view when it comes to issues of social justice. Be it capital punishment, homosexuality, gun violence, Palestinian rights, economic injustice — I always seem to be on the “wrong” side of the issues, at least, as some of my Christian friends see it. Truth is, I did not grow up in a liberal household, and I remember even using scripture to defend capital punishment in a tenth-grade World Culture class. However, later that same year, our English class was discussing the recent Kent State shootings, and I was the lone voice in class saying that the National Guard was wrong to fire on the students. Those two instances were the first time I ever took a public stand on an issue and was condemned for it. As life proceeded, I came to reflect on the me that condemned the shootings, and not the me that defended capital punishment. What happened? I majored in Bible and Religion in college and then attended a divinity school where I was challenged by two professors to look more deeply at scripture and tradition to arrive at my idea as to what a Christian ethic looked like. As the years have progressed, I have come to feel more and more certain that the Christian faith was always meant to offer an alternative view for understanding the world. American Christianity, especially, has become so enmeshed with nationalism so as to have its radical meaning tamed so as to fit better with the philosophy of Manifest Destiny that continues to be among the guiding principles of America’s self-understanding. I have met so many courageous Christians who have refused to buy into America’s civil religion that I have chosen their lot as my own. Why? Because I believe that Christ’s message still has the power to transform people and society, and that his commands that we visit the sick, feed the hungry and welcome the stranger remain the most radical precepts for any person of faith. And now that we are faced with a growing appetite for fascism abroad and at home, we need the radical imperative of the Gospel message more than ever. So, as far as Christianity as a faith and profession is concerned, count me in. Still!

— 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.

Active Shooter Reported On Air Force Base In Maryland

U.S. Joint Base Andrews in Maryland was on lockdown Thursday after reports of an active shooter.

On its Twitter account, the military base reported that first responders were on the scene at the Malcolm Grow Medical Facility, and told personnel to shelter in place.

The incident was ongoing as of 9:30 a.m.

“The base was scheduled to conduct an active shooter exercise, however, reports of a real-world active shooter situation were reported,” the base said on Twitter

The base is about 15 miles from the White House and the home of Air Force One.

This is a developing story. Check back for updates.

— 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.

Gwyneth Paltrow Still Can't Believe People Hated Her More Than Chris Brown

Close your eyes and imagine Gwyneth Paltrow and Chris Brown sit before you both perched on separate dunk tanks. It’s your turn to throw. Who do you choose? 

In 2013, Star sent a fastball whirling toward Paltrow’s tank, saddling her with an award even Anne Hathaway didn’t prepare a speech for: Most Hated Celebrity. (Side note: In our hearts, Chris Brown will hold this dishonor for life.)

Paltrow herself admits she was taken aback by the label in a new interview with Stephen Sackur, host of BBC News’ “Hard Talk,” at the Cannes Lions. 

“First of all I was like, ‘I’m the most hated celebrity?'” she said, according to E! News. “More than, like, Chris Brown? What did I do?”

Maybe Goop had become too, well, Goopy at that point. (How many diamond-encrusted truffle shavers does one need?!) Or maybe we were all too obsessed with Jennifer Lawrence to give a former American sweetheart any love. 

“I see where you are coming from, but maybe you just make people feel bad sometimes,” Sackur explained on behalf of anyone who’s seen “Mordecai.” 

Although Paltrow acknowledged how her presence could be off-putting, she stood her ground, as that was never her “intention.” 

“All I can do is be my authentic self, and if you know me, then you know who I am, and that I have fun and eat and am so appreciative for my life,” she added. “But I think there are things about me that make people draw conclusions.”

One of these conclusions she’d like to rebuke is “a sort of Hollywood princess idea.” For many, Paltrow’s affluent lifestyle stymies the connection to her fans, as she is presumed to be too cold, out of touch and, well, just the epitome of privilege. But as she has made clear in other interviews, Gwyneth would like to remind you that she received no support from her famous parents, the late producer Bruce Paltrow and actress Blythe Danner, after college.

“My parents did well, and I was able to go to a fantastic school, and we grew up in New York City, but the minute I left my college to try to pursue acting, my father was really supportive. But he said, you know, ‘You are completely on your own.’ So, he never gave me anything. I never had any supplementation, he never helped me with my rent, I never had a trust fund,” Paltrow said. “So the idea that I am spoiled or that I didn’t work for what I have is just not accurate, but I can see how somebody might have that perception.”

OK, Gwyneth. Maybe we were too quick too judge, but … 

— 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.

10 Tips For How To Choose A Divorce Lawyer

When you are facing divorce, one of the first questions that comes to mind (after OMG, what the @&/$! am I going to do now?!!!) is, “How do I find a good lawyer?” Knowing how to choose a divorce lawyer who will provide you with the legal advice you need, at a price you can afford, and be the right fit for your situation, isn’t easy.

Here are 10 tips to guide you in your search.

1. Decide what divorce process you want to use. This is the FIRST decision you need to make!

You have to decide whether you want to use mediation, litigation, Collaborative Divorce or cooperative divorce. Then you can start looking for a divorce lawyer who is experienced in getting people divorced using that divorce process.

In other words, you have to match the lawyer to the divorce process. Otherwise, you are not going to be satisfied with the result you get in your case.

2. Decide what kind of legal service that you need.
While everyone who is going through a divorce needs legal advice (at least in my humble opinion!), not everyone needs a $500 per hour big city divorce law firm on their case.

If you have a lot of assets, own companies, or have a complicated financial situation, then, yes, you are going to need an experienced lawyer, or law firm, who understands finances and is equipped to handle a complicated divorce.

If you have a short marriage, no kids, no real estate and are not dividing any retirement plans, then you may be able to get by with a simple consultation with a lawyer.

I you don’t mind spending some time, and want to save money, you might even be able to use an online document production website to draft your documents. (The documents won’t be fabulous, but, if your situation is simple and agreed, they may be “good enough.”)

3. Figure out what you can afford. No one wants to pay thousands of dollars (or more) to a divorce lawyer. But, there is such a thing as being penny wise and pound foolish.

You have to balance the level of legal services that you need with the cost of the services that you can afford. And you have to be honest with yourself.

If you own multiple properties and have a six figure salary, you CAN afford a divorce lawyer. The fact that you don’t want to pay a divorce lawyer is really beside the point.

If you are living paycheck to paycheck, have no equity in your home, and nothing in your savings account, getting an expensive, high-powered divorce lawyer just might make you end up in bankruptcy court!

4. Ask around. The absolute best way to find a good divorce lawyer is, was, and probably always will be, word of mouth.

If you know someone who has been through a divorce in the past few years, and was satisfied with their divorce lawyer, get that lawyer’s name.

If you know any non-divorce lawyers, ask them for a referral. Lawyers know each other. Your neighbor who is a real estate lawyer may be able to lead you to an excellent divorce lawyer.

5. Use the internet wisely. Do not get sucked in by the lawyer who has the best website, or is paying to have their ad on the first page of Google!

The internet is best used for gathering information and validating referrals. If someone gives you the name of a divorce lawyer whose website looks like it hasn’t been updated since Al Gore invented the internet (or worse, who doesn’t have a website at all!), that is NOT a good sign.

On the other hand, the law firm that has the most amazing, state-of-the-internet new website, full of professional pictures and slick copy, may not be all that much better.

6. Take lawyer ratings with a grain of salt. Lawyer rating agencies are not infallible. A lawyer who chooses not to advertise, or participate in a particular rating site’s program, may end up being rated poorly, even though s/he may be an amazing lawyer. Their mediocre rating is really only a reflection of the fact that that lawyer has chosen not to be part of the rating program.

Another complicating factor is that, due to ethical restrictions, lawyers in some states are prohibited from participating in legal rating websites.

Finally, you need to remember that people going through a divorce are not happy. Sometimes, even if a lawyer does an outstanding job for them, those people complain. Their rating of their lawyer may have more to do with them, than it does with their lawyer.

7. Find a lawyer who is experienced in family law.
This is not the time you want to talk to your cousin’s boyfriend’s uncle who specializes in estate planning, but is willing to do you a favor and handle your divorce.

You need a lawyer who regularly works in divorce.

That doesn’t mean that you can’t hire a sole practitioner who does other things besides divorce. You just don’t want to hire someone who only handles one divorce every couple of years.

8. Interview at least 2 or 3 lawyers before you choose a divorce lawyer. Going to two or three different lawyers’ offices and telling your story over and over again can be exhausting. It’s tempting to want to just hire the first lawyer you meet.

Resist the temptation. Take the time to meet at least two different attorneys.

Why? Different lawyers have different perspectives. You may get two very different views on how you should handle your case. Then you can choose the attorney who recommends using the approach you are the most comfortable with.

9. Make a list of questions to ask BEFORE you interview any one.
It’s normal to be nervous when you go talk to a lawyer, especially about something as personal as divorce. It’s also normal to be super-emotional when you are going through a divorce.

Both of those factors make it more likely that, once you are in an attorney’s office, you will forget what you wanted to ask… and you won’t remember until after you are back home.

Making a list of the important questions you want answered makes it much more likely that you will actually ask, and get an answer to, those questions.

10. Go with your gut. The first nine factors are all very logical and rational. But, when you meet a particular lawyer your gut starts screaming “Run!,” then do yourself a favor. Listen to your gut.
If you are not sure what your gut is saying, here are a few hints.

The lawyer who is right for you will not make you cry.

The lawyer will talk in words that you understand, and will not make you feel stupid or unimportant.

If you leave an interview with a lawyer and don’t feel like s/he heard a word you were saying, that is NOT the lawyer for you.

Finally, trust yourself. If you walk out of a lawyer’s office and you have that kind of nauseous, uneasy feeling that you get when something is not right, then maybe s/he is not the right lawyer for you.

So, how to choose the divorce lawyer who will be best for you? Use your head, but pay attention to your gut.

Are you unsure of what questions to even ask a prospective divorce lawyer? CLICK HERE to get your FREE List of questions to ask a divorce attorney.

— 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 'Hamilton' Founding Fathers Move On–Will We Love Their Replacements?

2016-06-28-1467136465-1569079-Hamilton4.jpg

By Jil Picariello, ZEALnyc Theater Editor, June 30, 2016

I just saw Hamilton for the third time.

Don’t hate me.

I don’t have any inside connections and I certainly didn’t spend the fortune being demanded for re-sale tickets (with Lin-Manuel Miranda and Leslie Odom, Jr.’s recent announcements that they are departing the show on July 9, prices for the next couple of weeks have just rocketed to heights that put the eyesore skyscraper (skysore eyescraper?) on West 57th Street to shame).

I saw the show at the Public very early in its downtown run last year. And then again on Broadway last summer while still in previews. And then again at a recent Sunday matinee, with an out-of-town guest, who bought the tickets back in September.

All this Hami-bounty has given me the unique opportunity to see, in the major roles, two Alexander Hamiltons, two George Washingtons, two John Laurens/Philip Hamiltons, two Peggy Schuyler/Maria Reynoldses, and–count ’em–three King George IIIs.

While it’s very hard to be objective, especially after having memorized the cast album and read the book Hamilton: The Revolution in one sitting, I can happily report that the show is, for the most part, casting-proof. Talented performers may bring something different to the role, but that can be a good thing. So take a breath, all of you who won’t get tickets until 2019.

But for me it is very difficult, almost impossible, not to miss the brilliantly talented people I fell in love with. Lin-Manuel Miranda is Alexander Hamilton, right down to his very DNA, and while his alternate, Javier Muñoz, brings a manly sexiness, a devil-may-care charm, and even an occasional dark glimmer to the role, he’s missing the almost shambling casualness of Miranda. As the man who created the role in every possible way–the words, the tunes, the persona–and has lived with it for more than six years, Miranda doesn’t play Hamilton, he is him. Miranda brings both ambition and insecurity, and his lack of poise rings true to the penniless orphan who’s come to make his way in a new land. It also makes him endearing. We root for Miranda’s Hamilton because, despite his brilliance and erudition, he needs our support. Muñoz seems like a winner from the start.

His strength brings different shadings to the role. Because he seems more confident, more powerful, his fall is in some ways even more painful. We cry for Miranda’s Hamilton because we have been rooting for him. We weep for Muñoz’s ending because it seems so much more unlikely, despite the fact that we know what’s coming.

In the end, I like and respect and applaud Muñoz’s performance. But I love Miranda’s. I don’t think that’s because either performance is better or worse than the other. It’s because Miranda is the Hamilton I fell in love with. Muñoz may be brilliant, but he’s not my man.

Of course, for those of you seeing Hamilton for the first time now, or next year, or in 2027, Muñoz–or whoever replaces him–will be your man. And your first love.

Andrew Chappelle, understudying the John Laurens/Philip Hamilton role usually played by Anthony Ramos had an appealing confidence that sometimes went too far. Ramos has a youthful energy and boyishness that suits both roles, while Chappelle comes across as a near-arrogant frat boy (those “two pints of Sam Adams but I’m working on three” really suit him). Since it doesn’t look likely that Ramos will be leaving the role any time soon, we won’t get a chance to see of the rough spots of Chappelle’s performance will smooth away with time.

Nicholas Christopher, as His Excellency George Washington, doesn’t capture the stature and gravitas of Christopher Jackson, but wins your heart in his beautiful “One Last Time,” delivering a touching and expressive performance. And Alysha Deslorieux is a less dark, less predatory Maria Reynolds, but the fact that she seems as much victim as perpetrator brings new and different shadows to her role. If only her voice was as passionate and silken as Jasmine Cephas Jones’s. Both performers, like Chappelle, are understudies, not replacements, but both have a lot to offer.

The problem, for the viewer, when you see the same show with an original cast and later with replacements, is that it feels, inevitably, like the new people are imposters. In the mind of the second (or third) time visitor, the cast is not only trying, in this case, to be Alexander Hamilton or George Washington or John Laurens, but that they are also trying (and, of course, failing) to be Lin-Manuel Miranda or Christopher Jackson or Anthony Ramos. Their performance can be brilliant, but you can’t erase first love from your viewing of it.

Which brings us, of course, to the monarch. My King George III the first was Brian D’Arcy James at the Public. He left the downtown run after just a couple of months to take a lead role in Something Rotten and was replaced by King George III the second, Jonathan Groff, who moved with the show to Broadway, and was nominated for a Tony for the role. King George III the third was Andrew Rannells, who briefly replaced Groff last fall, while Groff filmed the final installment of his TV show, Looking. When Groff left for good in April to begin filming David Fincher’s new Netflix series, Mindhunter, Rory O’Malley, a Tony nominee for Book of Mormon, stepped in as King George III the fourth. (Can someone please stop offering Groff so many good TV shows? Broadway needs him.)

2016-06-28-1467136642-1570262-JonathanGroff.jpg
Jonathan Groff as King George III

I can’t comment on Rannells, whose five-week run I missed, but I can say that King George is as close to casting-proof as a Hamilton (or maybe any) role can get. He’s so damn silly and witty and you’re so desperate for a laugh and so excited to see him arrive that there’s almost nothing he can do wrong. Having said that, I can pick my favorite, and, as you might expect, it’s my first love. Brian D’Arcy James played the King with such vaudevillian minimalism that every arched eyebrow, every curled lip, every shoulder shrug was brilliantly, irresistibly perfect.

Jonathan Groff brought a boyish charm to the kingdom, coming across more like a petulant King Joffrey than a powerful King Arthur. But he did charm nonetheless. And Rory O’Malley, while still superb comic relief, delivers a slightly blander, slightly less winning performance. It’s like Groff, only dialed down a smidgen. It’s still a hoot, and still wonderful. But like what often happens in the hereditary monarchy itself, each generation seems a tad paler, a touch watered down.

2016-06-28-1467136882-165690-HamiltonCast.jpg
Full cast – Hamilton

So build a time machine and go back and see the show at the Public in January of 2015. And if you can’t do that, get yourself a ticket for 2019 and know that since you’ll be seeing it for the very first time you will fall in love with it, and all the performers, and never know for a minute what you might have missed. Just like King George III the first, second, third, and fourth, it will serve you well.

Photo credits: Joan Marcus

Jil Picariello is ZEALnyc‘s Theater Editor, and writes frequently on theater and culture.

Read another one of Jil’s features: Sense and Sensibility is a pure Bedlam delight

If you’re interested in “Monday morning quarterbacking,” read Christopher Caggiano’s feature: The 2016 Tony Awards – Who Won and Who Should Have Won.

For all the news on New York City arts and culture, visit ZEALnyc Front Page.

— 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.

"We Will Not Be Part of this Unjust, Immoral, and Illegal War": Remembering the Fort Hood Three

Fort Hood Three Press Conference | Zinn Education Project: Teaching People's History
By Derek Seidman

Fifty years ago today, on June 30, 1966, dozens of people assembled in the basement auditorium of the Community Church in mid-town Manhattan for a big announcement. Journalists and photographers were there, and so were key leaders of New York’s antiwar left, such as A.J. Muste and Dave Dellinger. Stokley Carmichael, the chairperson of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) who had recently begun to popularize the phrase “Black Power,” also showed up. All of them gathered to hear the words of three soldiers, Privates David Samas and Dennis Mora, and Private First Class James A. Johnson. The trio had been stationed at Fort Hood, Texas, and they had just been informed they were going to Vietnam. They were given a 30-day leave before they had to embark. The G.I.’s convened the press conference to perform a bold act: they intended to refuse their orders to go fight.

By June 1966, the U.S. had already been entangled in Vietnam for close to two decades, but its military aggression had taken a turn towards major escalation when President Lyndon Johnson began to send hundreds of thousands of ground troops beginning in 1965. This was accompanied by the onset of a three-year bombing campaign in the north. Antiwar protest grew almost right away, with two mass demonstrations in 1965. By mid-1966, it was clear to many that the war wasn’t going away, and antiwar organizers, mostly long-time pacifists, students, and old radicals, began to deepen their commitments and try to broaden their coalition to include new constituencies.

One of these constituencies was soldiers. Antiwar organizers in New York had consciously sought out refusers and veterans to speak at their events. The most famous antiwar veteran up to that point was probably Donald Duncan, who served as a Green Beret in Vietnam. But civilian organizers saw military personnel mostly as moral symbols whose presence in the movement could help disarm hawkish, pro-war opponents who red-baited protesters and criticized them as being against the troops. The notion that the antiwar movement might actually organize soldiers, or that they could help soldiers organize themselves, was yet a faint idea. It would take the actions of the troops themselves, of G.I.’s like Samas, Mora, and Johnson, to crack open the possibility for a G.I. movement.

Fort Hood Three The three G.I.’s had prepared a statement to read to the assembled crowd in the church auditorium. “We have decided to take a stand against this war, which we consider immoral, illegal, and unjust,” they declared. They planned to report to the Oakland Army Terminal, “but under no circumstances” would they embark for Vietnam, even if their refusal resulted in courts-martial. They spoke not only for themselves. “We have been in the army long enough to know that we are not the only G.I.’s who feel as we do. Large numbers of men in the service do not understand this war or are against it.” They explained how the soldiers around them became resigned to going to Vietnam. “No one wanted to go,” they said, “and more than that, there was no reason for anyone to go.”

They criticized U.S. support for the government and military of South Vietnam, and they questioned the entire purpose of the war itself. In the army, they said, “No one used the word ‘winning’ anymore because in Vietnam it has no meaning. Our officers just talk about five or ten more years of war with at least half-million of our boys thrown into the grinder.” The three young men agreed on one thing: “The war in Vietnam must be stopped.” The time for talk was over. They ended their statement: “We want no part of a war of extermination. We oppose the criminal waste of American lives and resources. We refuse to go to Vietnam!”

The three G.I.’s first met at Fort Gordon, Georgia, where they were stationed before they were reassigned to the 142nd Signal Battalion of the 2nd Armored Division at Fort Hood. They bonded over their shared critique of the war. They all had opposed the war before entering the army, but now, with shipment to Vietnam looming, the stakes were much higher.

All three came from working-class backgrounds, and they all had some college education. Mora was Puerto Rican, Samas was Lithuanian and Italian, and Johnson was African American. “We represent in our backgrounds a cross section of the Army and America,” they said. Mora was from Spanish Harlem and was a member of the Du Bois Club, a youth group connected to the Communist Party. He had participated in protests against U.S. foreign policy in Vietnam, Guatemala, and Puerto Rico. A classmate described him as “a socialist who’s interested in the Marxist way of thinking.” Mora’s links to the New York left proved helpful when the three troops decided to act on their consciences.

After being ordered to Vietnam, the soldiers decided together that they would refuse. During their leave they hashed out a strategy and reached out to a lawyer. With Mora’s connections to the antiwar left, they sought out civilian allies. They contacted leaders of the Du Bois Club and the Fifth Avenue Vietnam Peace Parade Committee. Antiwar leaders Dave Dellinger and Fred Halstead met with the G.I.’s, and together with famed pacifist A.J. Muste, they all agreed to use the Parade Committee, perhaps the most important antiwar coalition at the time, to mobilize support for the three. They also agreed to use their refusal as a call to organize more G.I.’s against the war.

Fort Hood Three Press Conference Group | Zinn Education Project: Teaching People's History

This was the beginning of a civilian-soldier alliance that would help sustain the wave of G.I. protest to come. The organizers in New York worked to mobilize broad, national support for the soldiers. They formed the Fort Hood Three Defense Committee and sent out fact sheets to their contacts across the nation. They lined up support for the G.I.’s on the west coast, and they reached out to luminaries like Carmichael.

All this represented an important turning point in the antiwar movement. Dellinger wrote that the peace movement had been “slow” in the past to “carry its message to the soldiers.” David Samas echoed this point. “It often seems that the peace groups are united against the soldier,” he wrote. “The G.I. should be reached somehow. He doesn’t want to fight. He has no reasons to risk his life. Yet he doesn’t realize that the peace movement is dedicated to his safety.” The three G.I.’s and their antiwar allies were heeding Samas’ words and showing the potential for a new path: soldiers and civilians, in alliance, working together to take the peace movement into the army’s ranks.

Aims of the Fort Hood Three Defense Committee | Zinn Education Project: Teaching People's History It was opposition to the war that drove the three soldiers to act, but their critique of racism and support for the Civil Rights Movement were also major motivations. They were some of the earliest antiwar protesters to really connect opposition to the war abroad to the fight for racial equality at home. “We know that Negroes and Puerto Ricans are being drafted and end up in the worst of the fighting all out of proportion to their numbers in the population,” they said at their press conference, “and we have firsthand knowledge that these are the ones who have been deprived of decent education and jobs at home.” In a speech he was scheduled to give, Johnson discussed the “direct relationship between the peace movement and the civil rights movement,” and he drew a connection between the Vietnamese and African-American struggles. “The South Vietnamese are fighting for representation, like we ourselves,” he wrote. “[T]he Negro in Vietnam is just helping to defeat what his Black brother is fighting for in the United States.”

Johnson also highlighted the contradiction for Black soldiers who were asked to fight abroad while being denied equal rights at home. “When the Negro soldier returns, he still will not be able to ride in Mississippi or walk down a certain street in Alabama,” he wrote. “His children will still receive an inferior education and he will still live in a ghetto. Although he bears the brunt of the war he will receive no benefits.” Nor was it just these three G.I.’s who were connecting the dots between racism and the war. Their act of protest occurred within months of Muhammad Ali’s draft refusal and the rise of the Black Panthers, who connected colonialism abroad to racial oppression at home. Martin Luther King Jr. would soon speak out against the war. “We were taking the Black young men who had been crippled by our society,” King would later declare, “and sending them eight thousand miles away to guarantee liberties in Southeast Asia which they had not found in southwest Georgia and East Harlem.”

After that June 30th day when the G.I.’s publicly declared their refusal to go to Vietnam, they were transformed into a cause célèbre. But it wasn’t just sympathizers in the peace movement who were paying attention to them. The police went to Samas’ home and urged him to retract his statement, and they spoke to his parents to try to pressure him to back down on his refusal. Samas stood firm in his decision. “They have attempted to intimidate the three of us in one way or another,” wrote Samas. “But we have not been in the least shaken from our paths.”

On July 7, 1966, the three G.I.’s were once again scheduled to speak to supporters at the Community Church. Nearly 800 people turned out to the event. On their way there, however, Samas, Mora, and Johnson were stopped by the police and swooped away to Fort Dix, New Jersey. Unable to give their speeches, members of their families stepped in. James Johnson’s brother read his talk, and Dennis Mora’s young wife read her husband’s statement. Meanwhile, the army fretted over how to handle the detained G.I.’s. Fort Dix Commanding General J.M. Hightower told the army’s chief of staff that he had “sufficient evidence” to charge the three with “uttering disloyal statements with intent to cause disaffection and disloyalty among the civilian population and members of the military forces.” He decided, however, to issue movement orders to the soldiers to leave for Saigon on July 13. This would be their last chance at avoiding punishment. “Should orders be disobeyed,” Hightower wrote, “appropriate action will be taken.”

LEFT: Family members of the Fort Hood Three demonstrate at Fort Dix on July 9. RIGHT: A.J. Muste confronts Fort Dix authorities at demonstration.

The orders to ship out actually came down on July 14, 1966. The young men were told they must go to Vietnam. They refused. In doing so, they became one of the very first examples of active-duty G.I. refusal during the Vietnam War, and certainly the most visible to date. They also became something more than just three soldiers. To the antiwar movement, they were now the “Fort Hood Three.”

The Fort Hood Three were court-martialed in September of 1966. In defense of their refusal, the soldiers argued that the war in Vietnam was illegal. The military refused this argument, and all three were convicted for insubordination. Samas and Johnson each received five years in prison at Fort Leavenworth. Mora received three years. All appeals would fail, including one to the Supreme Court, though the army would later reduce Samas’ and Johnson’s sentence to three years.

The Fort Hood Three Defense Committee continued to mobilize support for the G.I.’s after their conviction. They raised funds, spread awareness of the case, paid for newspaper ads, and circulated petitions. Sponsors of the defense committee included Tom Hayden, Stokley Carmichael, Harvey Swados, Noam Chomsky, Floyd McKissick, and others.

Some in the labor movement also rallied behind the soldiers. James Johnson’s father was a steward with the Retail, Wholesale, and Department Store Workers Unions (RWDSU). District 65 of the AFL-CIO had a Peace Action Committee that mailed a leaflet to members with the headline: “Jimmy’s Son Needs Your Help.” The flyer explained that “Jimmy Johnson is a 65er” who “takes his job and his union seriously,” and asked for readers to contribute to the G.I.’s defense fund and write to them with letters of support. Al Evanhoff, Assistant Vice President of District 65 of the RWDSU, put out a supportive statement. “As a trade unionist,” he wrote, “long ago I learned the fact that an injury to one is an injury to all.” Evanhoff criticized the war and pledged to form a defense committee for the Fort Hood Three.

This support from sections of the labor movement is worth noting, because it flies in the face of the conventional narrative that pits workers against the antiwar movement. While some union leaders and members were certainly pro-war, others opposed it. Major unions like the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), and powerful labor leaders like Walter Reuther criticized the war. Many locals and rank-and-file members were antiwar, and working-class people overall were more likely than the college-educated affluent to be against it. G.I. and veteran dissent would soon become one example of working-class antiwar protest to make a mark on history.

The support for the soldiers was translated into song by Pete Seeger, the famous Old Left troubadour. In his lyrics, Seeger paraphrased David Samas:

We’ve been told in training that in Vietnam we must fight;
And we may have to kill women and children, and that is quite all right;
We say this war’s illegal, immoral, and unjust;
We’re taking legal action, just the three of us.

We’ll report for duty but we won’t go overseas.
We’re prepared to face court martial, but we won’t fight for Ky.
We three have talked it over, our decision now is clear,
We will not go to Vietnam, we’ll fight for freedom here.

When the three soldiers were finally released after serving their time, the Hunter College Du Bois Club hosted a celebratory homecoming for them. It was called “Salute the Ft. Hood Three,” and Pete Seeger, Ossie Davis, Dave Dellinger, and others attended. The G.I.’s came out of prison, still, as supporters of the antiwar movement.

They also came out of prison to see a rising G.I. movement flourishing all around them. Hundreds of active-duty service members had joined the antiwar movement by the late 1960s. Some, like the Fort Hood Three, refused to go to Vietnam. Underground G.I. newspapers circulated throughout the military, and off-base coffeehouses were springing up around the nation. Antiwar soldiers marched, protested, petitioned, and formed their own groups to try to organize their fellow troops. Civilian support networks and legal defense organizations were aiding this rising tide of soldier dissent. And the G.I. movement had not yet reached its peak.

Little of this was true when David Samas, Dennis Mora, and James Johnson refused to ship to Vietnam on June 30, 1966. But a few years later, it was a reality. The Fort Hood Three set an example that others followed, and David Samas, Dennis Mora, and James Johnson emerged from their time in prison to see firsthand the G.I. movement that they helped to create.

Derek Seidman is an assistant professor of history at D’Youville College in Buffalo, New York. He is currently writing a book on the history of soldier protest during the Vietnam War. To reach him, or to see a version of this article with citations, contact him at seidmand@dyc.edu.

© 2016 The Zinn Education Project: Teaching People’s History. Learn more about the Zinn Education Project and how you can help bring people’s history to the classroom.

— 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 Grilling Tools You Need

For more food drink and travel videos visit www.potluckvideo.com

The Fourth of July has a lot of meaning, but when it comes to food there is really only one thing you need to focus on: grilling. But while you might think you have everything covered in the cooking department, the real test comes from having the right tools.

But luckily we have you covered. We got grilling expert Meathead Goldwyn – the author of the bestselling Meathead – to give us his go-to’s on the grill. From pans to thermometers he has has advice for every corner of your grill.

So what are you waiting for? Watch the video above to learn everything you need to know.

For more great food, drink and travel videos make sure to check out Potluck Video’s website, head over to our Facebook page or follow us on 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.

With 'James Madison' You Can Cheat On Your Spouse With A Founding Father

Remember Ashley Madison, that website dedicated to letting married people cheat on their spouses? How despicable! Is that what America has become? What would the Founding Fathers think??

Eh, don’t answer that last one. Comedian Brendan Fitzgibbons already has! 

Introducing: “James Madison,” the cheating site that pairs you up with one of America’s founders.

— 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.