Hasta La Gadget!

Amazon aims to promote digital reading around the world and has established a new program called Kindle Reading Fund to achieve that goal. The Fund will be in charge of donating Kindle e-readers, Fire tablets and ebooks to various recipients, such as…

Gigabyte has introduced their latest graphics card, the GeForce GTX 1060 Xtreme Gaming 6G. As part of the Xtreme Gaming series, this top-end graphics card is packed with 1280 CUDA Cores, a 192-bit memory interface, a core/boost clock of 1620MHz/1847MHz (Gaming Mode), a core/boost clock of 1645MHz/1873MHz (OC Mode) and a 6GB of GDDR5 memory set @ 8164MHz (Gaming Mode) / 8316MHz (OC Mode).

Equipped with Gigabyte’s WindForce 2X cooling system (w/ 2x 100mm unique blade fans – effectively enhancing the air flow by 23% over traditional fans), the GeForce GTX 1060 Xtreme Gaming 6G provides 1x dual-link DVI-D, 1x HDMI2.0b and 3x DisplayPort1.4 output ports.

Unfortunately, there’s no word on pricing yet. [Product Page]

The post Gigabyte GeForce GTX 1060 Xtreme Gaming 6G Graphics Card Introduced appeared first on TechFresh, Consumer Electronics Guide.

NARAL Pro-Choice Colorado’s mission is to protect abortion access and to oppose any and all attempts to limit it. In Colorado there is a 2016 ballot measure, Amendment 69, that has the good intention of universal healthcare, but a serious policy flaw that it cannot fund abortion care as written. While Amendment 69 does not outlaw abortion, it places a financial burden on women currently covered for abortion care under private insurance; coverage lost if this measure were to pass.

It is our basic guiding principle that abortion is a central component of reproductive health care and this is why NARAL Pro-Choice Colorado opposes Amendment 69, also known as ColoradoCare.

Why would Amendment 69 restrict access to abortion care? Because in 1984, Colorado voters passed a constitutional ballot measure that explicitly bans any public funds to be used for abortion care. NARAL Pro-Choice Colorado has outlined the issues with the Colorado Constitution’s Article V, section 50 in our press statements.

ColoradoCare would be established as a “political subdivision” of the state, therefore prohibited from providing coverage for any abortion services to women except when continuing the pregnancy would endanger the life of the pregnant woman.

There is a lot of misinformation around abortion care, so let’s be clear. About 89 percent of all abortions in the US occur in the first trimester, but women who find they are unable to carry a pregnancy to term may need to access care beyond the first trimester. Those procedures, while relatively rare, are also very costly. Insurance currently covers most of these procedures in our state, but would NOT be able to if ColoradoCare was implemented in state law as drafted. More than 550,000 women of childbearing age in Colorado – who, today, have insurance coverage for abortion services as part of their contracted benefits, will lose access to abortion coverage benefits if Amendment 69 passes.

It has been suggested that if voters approve this ballot measure in 2016 that it would overturn the current funding restriction. We believe that is false. A more recent ballot initiative that is constitutional does not automatically repeal something currently in our constitution unless it is specified. Amendment 69 is general, and not only lacks specific protections for abortion care, but is silent on the issue.

One of the more disturbing arguments we’ve heard is that abortion rights proponents should remain neutral despite these serious policy concerns, and work it out later. This amounts to nothing more than asking women to “wait our turn” while more important issues are considered. Comparing the relative importance of one health care issue over another is bad policy and bad politics. Women – and women’s health care – have been asked to take the back seat, and our answer is NO.

Leaving women’s medical coverage in limbo or up to the Colorado Supreme Court is not a viable option. In a legal environment where abortion rights have been limited by legal action in many states, it is a great risk to expect women to put aside a central component of our healthcare and equality. In a state where we have protections in the current health care system,. It is unacceptable to risk the loss of coverage for so many women, and outrageous to expect an abortion rights organization to be quiet.

We’ve heard from detractors that because Amendment 69 will guarantee access to birth control and because abortion is “elective” that our concerns are unfounded. That doesn’t cut it, and it misses the point entirely – abortion care should not and cannot, be separated from comprehensive health care for Colorado women.

Experts agree: according to the American Congress of Obstetrician Gynecologists, “Safe, legal abortion is a necessary component of women’s health care.” Amendment 69 does not include it. It cannot add it, hope for it or make us wait to fix it later.

Here is an example of the kind of feedback we have been getting:

“If NARAL really cared about Colorado women’s access to abortion, it would be campaigning for the repeal of Amendment 3 the Ban on Public Funding of Abortion Act, not opposing Amendment 69. Amendment 69 also known as Colorado Care would provide more access to prenatal care and gynecological services which in turn would reduce the necessity for abortions.”

The reality of abortion care is that 46 percent of pregnancies in Colorado are unintended, so all the prenatal health care in the world won’t eliminate the need to provide abortion care, even in the very best of circumstances.

If this writer had more knowledge about the ballot initiative process in Colorado, they would know that a successful “Yes” ballot campaign could cost upwards of $10 million, and take several years to plan. NARAL, in coalition and at great expense, successfully defeated personhood ballot measures in 2008, 2010 and 2014, so we have some experience in this area. Sometimes, policy and electoral processes aren’t as clear cut as simply supporting an ideological idea. NARAL Pro-Choice Colorado firmly believe this funding ban must be overturned, but it will not be in time to work cooperatively with Amendment 69.

While we strongly support the goal of improved healthcare for all Coloradans, and many of our members individually support the idea of universal health care, Amendment 69 not providing guarantees to affordable abortion access means it is not truly universal.

— 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.

News of John McLaughlin’s death last week took me back twenty-seven years to the time when he moderated A Matter of Life and Death, a TV show that Ward Sylvester and I produced that was seen by large audiences in more than 200 television markets.

Tommy Zeigler, an Orlando furniture store magnate, had been convicted of murder in the deaths of four people in his store fourteen years earlier. Zeigler claimed that his store had been robbed by black stickup men who then shot the victims. Sylvester and I hired two teams, each with a producer and a reporter to investigate the case. One team was to try to prove his innocence, the other to prove his guilt. Both teams were led by experienced journalists: Ike Pappas for the defense and Ron Gollobin for the prosecution.

I had hired David Frost to moderate the show but at the last minute he got ill, dropped out and returned to England. I turned to Larry King but Burt Reinhardt, my successor as head of CNN, refused to release him. Then the light switched on and I contacted John McLaughlin. It took 50,000 dollars to get him up to New York and run the show but he was worth every penny.

The show was planned to run for two hours and McLaughlin had to handle at least a half-dozen participants, some from the defense others for the prosecution. Additionally, because Zeigler had changed his mind and refused to appear on camera from Orlando, we brought up Zeigler’s two defense attorneys. They were not cheap and both demanded rooms at the Plaza for themselves and their wives.

Preparation was not easy — the producers who worked with Pappas were particularly difficult, absolutely certain that he was not guilty. Gollobin’s team was just as certain that Zeigler was a murderer. After McLaughlin had agreed to come onboard, that battle was settled, and, as I remember it, only Gollobin and Pappas appeared live on the show. They were of course joined by Zeigler’s lawyers and it was McLaughlin’s job to control the adversaries. He performed superbly, shutting up both sides if they got too loud and managing to keep some semblance of order.

Ziegler’s lawyers vigorously fought for his innocence, so vigorously that McLaughlin stepped in and sent them packing. He then summarized the results and clearly indicated that he thought Zeigler was guilty as hell.

All through the program, votes had been coming in from the audience on a 900 number. The audience at first indicated he was guilty but by next day, the final vote came in and the verdict was innocent by a roughly 65 percent-35 percent margin. I didn’t believe it then and neither did McLaughlin but it was a first rate show and both of us were satisfied.

Now, I mourn his death and wish I’d once occupied a chair on The McLaughlin Group.

— 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.

BY BETH BROOKE-MARCINIAK
AND DONNA DE VARONA

Beth Brooke-Marciniak is Global Vice Chair, Public Policy, EY, the force behind EY’s Women Athletes Business Network, a former Purdue intercollegiate basketball player, and Title IX scholarship recipient. Donna de Varona is a multi-gold winning Olympic Champion swimmer, the force behind the Women’s Sports Foundation, an early and catalytic advocate for Title IX, and lead advisor to EY’s Women Athletes Business Network. Together, they watched history being made in Rio as women increasingly show their strength in the sports arena and remind us of the transformative power of sport. Below, they explore the role of public policy, and specifically Title IX, in extending the opportunity sport provides to more women globally.

The good news story.

The Summer Olympics inspire us. They motivate us. For a few weeks every 4 years, we focus on achievement, hard work, pain, glory, and defeat in stunning athletic competition. And this year, we cannot miss the good news story of not just of one athlete, but of a whole group of athletes–women.

Every Olympics has witnessed the increased participation of women, and this year we were almost at parity. Nearly half (46 percent) of the Olympic athletes this year were women, up slightly from the 2012 games in London (44 percent). Compare this to 23 percent in 1984 and 34 percent in 1996. Every year more women compete, more women become part of the Olympic Movement, and more women are able to achieve their dreams. And, for the Youth Olympics in 2014 in Nanjing, 48 percent of the young athletes were girls. That’s good news.

For women members of the US Olympic team in particular, there is a lot to celebrate. Just four years ago during the 2012 London Olympics women comprised more than half of the US delegation, capturing a majority of overall medals (56 percent) and the majority of gold medals (63 percent). This year they continued to stun in gymnastics, swimming, basketball, boxing, rowing, triathlon, wrestling, cycling, and shooting. Again, they captured a majority of the US medals (54 percent) and nearly two thirds (61 percent) of the US gold medals.

Continuing a winning streak that dates back to the 1996 Atlanta Olympic Games, the women’s basketball team won a 6th straight gold medal as the games were coming to an end. On August 13th, in the premier rowing event, the 8s (eight-person team), the women’s team out powered the competition to earn a 3rd consecutive gold and their 11th straight international competition victory.

Why are American women so particularly strong?

The catalyst.

Certainly, part of it is that we are a wealthy country, capable of investing in our athletes. They are strong because over the years we have provided them with the opportunity to be strong – and they have flourished.

But it is more than that. It’s also about public policy – and a specific public policy: Title IX. Title IX, in place since 1972, requires us to invest in male and female athletes equally. Title IX prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, in any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance — fortunately for the development of women’s sport, this law also included athletic programs.

And what a difference it has made. Since 1972, thanks to increased funding and institutional opportunities, there has been a 545 percent increase in the percentage of women playing college sports and a 990 percent increase in the percentage of women playing high school sport.

The benefits.

Girls who play sport stay in school longer, suffer fewer health problems, enter the labor force at higher rates, and are more likely to land better jobs. They are also more likely to lead. EY research shows stunningly that 94 percent of women C-Suite executives today played sport, and over half played at a university level. Competition — celebrating wins, surviving losses, requiring teamwork, rewarding persistence, resilience and discipline, these are the experiences we need in leaders and these are the experiences they gain in sport.

But encouraging women in sports isn’t just good for women and good for business, it’s good for countries. Supporting women in sport leads to stronger women, stronger communities, and stronger economies. Research from the Peterson Institute argues that investment in girls and sport has significant development payoffs and contributes to economic growth overall. Sport empowers women and contributes to gender equality globally. And, if we were to empower women in our economies, according to McKinsey research, we could add an astounding $12trn to the global economy by 2025.

Peterson also found that increased access for women to education and the labor force is correlated with more success at the Olympics — more medals! And, most importantly, this attention can lead to a kind of “virtuous cycle” where national pride mixed in with an enhanced perception of women can lead to changes in public policy.

This year, India’s two medals were won by women — in wrestling and badminton. According to one account, the victories “lifted a nation’s spirit,” creating a sense of national pride. Imagine what this nation of more than 1 billion people could do with sustained investment in sport? And what these women, and more more like them, could do if they received an equal amount of that investment?

The programs, the policy.

Overall, it’s impressive what’s being done to support women and girls in sport now. At the beginning of the Olympic Games, one program stood out. “One Win Leads to Another,” sponsored by UN Women, the IOC and Always, the P&G brand that brought attention to waning confidence in girls as they hit puberty (about half drop out of organized sport) through their #likeagirl campaign. “They are creating an ambitious community-based program to give adolescent girls living in poorer communities an opportunity to practice sport, learn new skills and create positive bonds with a social group that will support them.” The program has already started in Rio and plans to touch the lives of more than 2,500 girls aspiring to be Brazilian athletes. Its expansion to other countries will become part of the “Rio Legacy.” For the partners, including UN Women, it supports the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), a globally negotiated set of UN development goals that includes achieving gender equality and empowering all women and girls by 2030.

To be sure, there are a host of impressive programs designed to support getting girls into sport globally and keeping them there — many of them sponsored by Western companies and the international development community. It’s a transformative investment.

That’s great.
Now let’s do more.

Let’s combine these efforts with support for public policy to guarantee equal access and equal funding. Let’s support a public policy campaign to make these programs more sustainable. Let’s support a Title IX-like approach.

While it may seem like a blunt instrument now, Title IX took time. It’s been 44 years since the federal law was enacted and court cases still exist to equalize funding and opportunities. But, in sum: what a difference.

The exact same policy may not work in every developing country context, but certainly the focus on securing access, opportunity, and the funding, legally, can double-down on the gains we are already seeing. And we should start as soon as possible.

This is the lesson of Title IX.

The global leap – a tie to the Sustainable Development Goals?

The UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), signed on to by 193 countries, include 17 goals, one of which is ensuring achieving gender equality and empowering all women and girls globally (Goal 5). What better way to do this than to systematically include targets around funding opportunities for women in sport? Goal 17 is creating a powerful partnership with global business to help with supporting and financing of the goals. How do we, as a business community, support a public policy approach to the issue? And a focus on sport?

In addition to the US, some countries are already doing this. Spain has passed a series of Presidential decrees supporting women’s equal access to sport. Tanzania’s Sport Development Policy required the establishment of women’s sporting programs and facilities. UN conventions, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and even the UN Charter committed the 193 member countries of the UN to equal economic, social, and political rights for women, including access to sport. More than 8,000 companies have signed the UN Global Compact to support attaining the global goals. But these agreements are not binding.

Can’t we do more?

The new SDGs recognize the importance of public policy for attaining gender equality broadly and specifically call for reforms that give women equal rights to economic resources and the pursuit of enforceable legislation for the promotion of gender equality. Let’s systematically make the tie to women’s access to sport, and specifically, sustained funding for sport. Funding drives equality. Equality drives growth. Advocating for a Title IX-like approach can lock in the proven win sport offers girls and women, a proven win it offers the countries they come from, and a clear win for all of us.

Thank you Title IX.

The views reflected in this article are the views of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the global EY organization or its member firms.

— 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.