Olympic Gymnast Fights Through Tears And A Torn ACL To Help Team Make Finals

It was hard to watch German gymnast Andreas Toba break down in tears soon after he injured his right knee at the Rio Olympics on Saturday. The 25-year-old had torn the ACL in the knee during a floor routine at the men’s gymnastics qualifications, scoring just a 1.366 after he was unable to finish.

Even though he had been able to walk off the floor on his own, many could have rightfully thought that Toba was done then and there. But for the final event of the day ― the pommel horse, an arm-based routine ― Toba decided to fight through the pain for his team, which was right on the bubble of making the finals of the men’s gymnastics team competition. 

Toba successfully completed the routine, which you can watch below, except for an understandably imperfect landing, in which he favored his uninjured leg. After finishing the routine, Toba limped off the floor while he fought back tears and hugged his teammates. The judges awarded him a score of 14.233, good enough for him to lace 32nd out of the 71 classified gymnasts. 

Germany would end up earning eighth place overall on Saturday, making them the last team to slip into the finals, thanks in large part to Toba. 

— 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 Don't We Do Everyone A Favor, And Abolish The Olympics?

Okay, maybe not everyone. Not the movers and shakers who will doubtless profit from the Games’ intricacies, not the brokers, not the travel agencies, not the gougers, swindlers and parasites who come out of the woodwork, and certainly not the swinish IOC sycophants whose snouts are buried so deep in the money trough, they have to force themselves to come up occasionally for air.

Ask the 4,200 families in Rio de Janeiro who were forcibly removed from their modest homes in order to make room for Olympic venue construction. Ask them in Portuguese if they are “proud” to see Brazil host the games (the first South American country to be so honored), and ask if that “pride” offsets being uprooted and discarded.

In the mid-1950s, people rightly protested when a few hundred Mexican-American families were evicted from Chavez Ravine to make room for Dodger Stadium. While this was undeniably an unvarnished power-play orchestrated by the money boys, compared to the international-scale mischief being done in Rio de Janeiro, that Ravine debacle, disgraceful as it was, barely moves the needle.

Also, consider the big picture: If we look solely at the net effects on a host country’s economy, the Olympic Games, historically, have been notoriously disruptive. The last games that didn’t plunder the economy was the 1984 games, held in L.A., and the fact that they managed to come out ahead was largely the result of luck.

Didn’t it take Montreal (site of the 1976 Olympics) something like 25 years to pay off the debt they incurred? Didn’t the good people of Quebec go ape-shit over getting stuck with that monumental tab? In truth, hosting the games is nothing more than a vanity move done in the service of a minuscule percentage of the population.

Moreover, whatever “purpose” the Olympics once served, it has long since been erased, if not flouted. The world is infinitely smaller than it was in 1896, the year of the first games — back when it took Americans two weeks to cross the ocean to compete on foreign soil, and when only a handful of people (mainly students and teachers) could even locate Ethiopia on a map, much less claim to have met a citizen.

Today there are two Ethiopian restaurants in Los Angeles. One of them is right down the road from a Somali cafe, not far from the Ukrainian deli and a Thai take-out that used to be a Turkish coffeehouse.

Alas, the Olympic Games are an anachronism, a throwback to another era. All good things must end, including the Soap Box Derby, the Pillsbury Bake-Off, and the swimsuit portion of the Miss America Beauty Pageant. The world has shrunk. For crying out loud, I get emails from Africa. I correspond with wealthy Nigerian widows asking me to help them recover money (“Dearest Beloved”). I’m still weighing their offers.

Maybe the best argument for abolishing the games is the fact that so many events now feature professional athletes. How repugnant and self-destructive is that? The one aspect that made the Olympics watchable — its amateurism and “innocence” — is now gone. Does anyone honestly get a thrill from watching a group of NBA all-stars demolish a team from Mongolia by 44 points? (“USA! USA! USA!”)

And speaking of money, there’s the $1.2 billion that NBC paid for rights to broadcast the 2016 Games. $1.2 billion? Holy decimal point, Batman! If we wonder why there’s so many commercials, that’s what you get when the network needs to sell $1.2 billion worth of air time to advertisers in order to recoup its investment.

This whole thing distresses me. It bugs me. I think maybe I need a drink. I prefer Reyka vodka. It’s from Iceland.

— 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.

On Rediscovering My Dream of Writing

2016-08-07-1470598055-2229536-5896998xsmall.jpg

I started writing my first novel about twenty years ago. It took more than half a decade to complete. Back then, I used to spend my lunch break in a tiny bookstore near my job (I worked as an administrative assistant for a busy medical practice). I’d buy the latest issue of Writer’s Digest Magazine the minute it came out. Each issue felt like a secret only I knew about. The magazine was filled with advice from authors I loved, authors who (I was convinced) had the potential to help me fulfill my dream of being a novelist–authors like Stephen King (my then-favorite writer) and Terry Brooks (my second favorite) were featured beside headlines like, “The Ten Rules Successful Writers Always Follow!”

I was about twenty-two at the time and I held on to every single copy for more than a decade. In the mid nineties, I began working as a marketing writer for a web development shop. At first, I mostly answered the phone, but occasionally I got to write actual copy. The job kept shifting until I eventually found myself in the role of Director of Internet Marketing. That was the decade I got married, the decade I learned what stock options and an IRA were, the decade I was invited to participate in meetings instead of plan lunches for them. I felt like a grown up for the first time in my life.

By then, my novel was done. A friend and fellow writer edited it for me. I incorporated her changes and submitted it to one publisher, Tor (with no agent – I’m not sure I even knew what an agent was at the time). I’d chosen Tor because my newest favorite writer, Tad Williams, had just released a book called Otherland which blended fantasy and reality together in a way I’d never seen before. So, I thought an editor at Tor would like my book which was a fantasy about Eros, the Greek God of Love screwing up at work and being forced to live among mortals until he could relearn the meaning of love.

This was written before books like Twilight and The Lightening Thief bent the rules, bringing fantastical and/or mythical characters into the present world alongside ordinary people. Tor Books publishes fantasy. They’d published Otherland. That pretty much encompassed my entire decision-making process when choosing them. I printed out my 500 page book, put it in a cardboard box with an SASE enclosed (remember those?) and hoped for the best.

Three months later I received the manuscript back with a form rejection letter. I put it in a drawer where it remains to this day. I was tired of that novel and tired of working towards my dream of being a novelist, or so I thought. Looking back, I took that rejection as proof that I wasn’t worthy of the likes of Stephen King, Terry Brooks or Tad Williams. I didn’t have a thick skin. I let one rejection beat me. I threw out all my old issues of Writer’s Digest.

I buried the dream beneath many things including a new baby and my surprise career which now involved directing a department of 4 or 5 people and traveling to various companies to pitch new business.

I wore the role of middle manager uncomfortably. I missed my baby while I was at work, plus I’d never wanted to climb any kind of corporate ladder. In fact, I hated corporate life so much that my first book was devoted to making fun of it (I’d imagined Mt. Olympus as a corporation with Zeus as a sociopathic CEO). My daughter was 4 months old on September 11th, 2001 and I watched the buildings come down on a television set in the break room of my office, then I drove home to be with her, crying all the way. I got laid off a year later after the Internet bubble imploded, and I’ve been freelancing ever since (about 14 years).

I never stopped wanting to be a novelist. I was just distracted–by becoming surprisingly successful at a job I never really wanted in the first place, by having children and, again, by finding surprising success at my own home business. I continued to write through the years, but not fiction. I blogged and wrote articles for web sites (either my own or other people’s) about a variety of topics but mostly work and parenting.

I found happiness in self-employment. I told myself writing blog posts and occasional poems was fulfilling enough for me. But, really, it wasn’t.

In 2012, my 11-year-old daughter got cancer. That became my unyielding focus and I wrote about it in a way I’d never written about anything before. Many people read that blog (it’s now offline) and followed her journey. People told me my writing was beautiful. They were riveted to every blog post and with each update, they got to know me better, they got to know my daughter. I asked for help the only way I knew how, by writing about it.

After six harrowing months of treatment and heartache, my daughter had a liver transplant. She was in remission. I saw my life clearly for the first time in years, realized I wasn’t happy with blog posts and occasional poems. I wanted to write novels, but I was afraid. That fear–crystallized by that rejection letter from Tor–that had been there all along. I’d been lying to myself. The cancer was behind us (briefly) and suddenly I realized how much damn time I’d been wasting, afraid to write because I didn’t want to fail at the one thing I’ve always wanted to do. So, I wrote my second book.

Twenty years had passed since the days when I’d eagerly bought each new issue of Writer’s Digest and dreamed of seeing my books in Barnes and Noble. I was 41 and had no connections to the literary or publishing world. All I had was the Internet, like ever other aspiring writer.

And things are sure different. Border Books is gone. Tiny bookstores are also mostly gone. Amazon reigns and somehow Barnes and Noble remains. E-book readers–something I used to dream about–are now ubiquitous (I love mine) which theoretically makes reading more accessible, but the sheer volume of books published each year combined with the fact that people were reading less, poses a huge problem for writers. How can people find us amid the clutter of new books?

Having an agent is now mandatory to get a book in front of a traditional publisher, but the Internet makes it super easy to query agents. Agents are, therefore, inundated with queries (hundreds each week). The glut of new books being published both independently and through “The Big Five” publishers is also an obstacle, as is the disappearance (or absorption) of small publishers. Querying has itself become an art form, one that I’ve had to learn from scratch.

This is the what I came back to after that lone rejection letter drove me away. But, even so, I wrote a book–a middle grade fantasy that was 120,000 words which I soon learned was FAR too long for the age group. I split it into two books and queried, queried, queried about 30 agents. Only half responded, all with rejections (though a few had encouraging things to say about my writing). I started out determined not to let the rejections get me down, but…

It was too much for me. I took to my bed and sobbed. By then, my daughter’s cancer had returned and I wasn’t sure I would ever have the strength to pick myself up and reignite my dream. I couldn’t bear the thought of receiving one more rejection letter. So I ended up self-publishing both books (parts 1 and 2) in 2014. I didn’t sell many books, but I did learn a lot. I learned I gave up too soon. I learned I don’t have a thick skin and probably never will.

I learned that I still love writing–I still have the dream. I learned that there’s nothing more important than doing what you love most in the world because time is not limitless. I learned to love my business again, because 1) I’m good at it and 2) it pays for stuff–my house, my food, my car–and because it allows me the time to write.

So where am I now? I’m working on the third revision of my fourth novel (if you include that first book I wrote twenty years ago, which I do). I’m writing it because I love to write, but I’m not going to lie–I want to make a living as a novelist. I’m not sure that’s possible, but there’s no shame in dreaming.

Every day I ask myself, “why do I write?” What is the point? Agents are over worked and cynical. Reading material is easily accessible and often free. Attention spans are shorter (thank you, Internet). My dream of writing novels in a room filled with books–hunched over my computer, my window half-open and overlooking a lake surrounded by willow trees…well, it’s as real as real as Hogwarts, as the Raggedy Man, as Narnia and Oompa Loompas. That is, it feels like fiction.

Often…it feels hopeless, but it also feels worthwhile. It keeps me connected to a younger version of myself, before heartache bent the shape of my life into something unrecognizable. When I die, I’ll leave a trail of words behind me and I think that means I realized a tiny bit of my dream. In the end, that’s what matters.

This post was originally published on my blog at under the title, An Honest Look At My Dream of Being a Novelist.

— 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.

Leslie Jones’ Olympic Hilarity Got Her A Ticket To Rio From NBC

As we all discovered this weekend, Leslie Jones is a master Olympics commentator

In fact, she’s so great, NBC has invited her to the games to join their team for coverage in Rio. Producer Mike Shoemaker caught wind of Jones’ commentary on Twitter and promptly encouraged fellow producer Jim Bell to get the actress out to Brazil to join the rest of the team covering the massive sporting event. 

Jones replied to make sure the offer was serious: 

Bell assured her someone at the network would be in touch, and told the rest of us to hold tight. It’s unclear what, exactly, Jones’ role would be if she does go to Rio, but we’ve reached out to a representative for the comedian for more information. 

We really hope this becomes a reality, so we get to see more of this: 

This: 

This: 

And this: 

For more Olympics coverage:

— 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.

Turkey's President Erdogan Holds Gigantic Rally In Istanbul

ISTANBUL, Aug 7 (Reuters) – President Tayyip Erdogan told a rally of more than one million people on Sunday that July’s failed coup would be a milestone in building a stronger Turkey, defying Western criticism of mass purges and vowing to destroy those behind the putsch.

The “Democracy and Martyrs’ Rally” at the Yenikapi parade ground, built into the sea on the southern edge of Istanbul, was a show of strength by Erdogan, who has been angered by European criticism of his combative response to the coup and by U.S. reluctance to hand over the man he accuses of masterminding it.

Banners in a sea of red Turkish flags read “You are a gift from God, Erdogan” and “Order us to die and we will do it.” It was the first time in decades that opposition leaders joined a rally in support of the government, with pockets of secularists, nationalists and others alongside his core Islamist supporters.

“That night, our enemies who were rubbing their hands in anticipation of Turkey’s downfall woke up the next morning to the grief that things would be more difficult from now on,” Erdogan said of the July 15 abortive coup, drawing parallels to times past when Turkey was occupied by foreign forces.

“From now on, we will examine very carefully who we have under us. We will see who we have in the military, who we have in the judiciary, and throw the others out of the door.”

The parade ground, built to hold more than a million people, was overflowing, with the streets of surrounding neighborhoods clogged by crowds. One presidency official put the numbers at around five million and the event was broadcast live on public screens at smaller rallies across Turkey’s 81 provinces.

Since the coup bid, Turkish authorities have suspended, detained or placed under investigation tens of thousands of people, including soldiers, police, judges, journalists, medics and civil servants, prompting concern among Western allies that Erdogan is using the events to tighten his grip on power.

Erdogan vowed to rid Turkey of the network of U.S.-based cleric Fethullah Gulen, whose followers in the security forces, judiciary and civil service he accuses of orchestrating the attempted power grab and of plotting to overthrow the state.

Erdogan said he would approve the restoration of the death penalty if parliament voted for it, a move which would sink any hopes of European Union membership. Shrugging off EU concerns, he said much of the rest of the world had capital punishment.

Gulen – an ally of Erdogan in the early years after his Islamist-rooted AK Party took power in 2002 – has denied any involvement in the coup, which came at a critical time for a NATO “frontline” state facing Islamist militant attacks from across the border in Syria and an insurgency by Kurdish rebels.

In a rare appearance at a public rally, military chief Hulusi Akar said the “traitors” behind the plot would be punished and he thanked civilians for their role in putting it down. Many of the more than 240 people killed on July 15 were civilians who tried to prevent the takeover of power.

The leader of the main secularist opposition, Kemal Kilicdaroglu, said a “new door of compromise” had been opened and that politics must be kept out of the mosques, courthouses and barracks. “There is a new Turkey after July 15,” he said.

“FREEDOM OR DEATH”

Erdogan, a polarizing figure seen by opponents as intolerant of dissent, invited the heads of the secularist and nationalist opposition parties to address the crowds in a display of national unity in defiance of Western criticism.

“We’re here to show that these flags won’t come down, the call to prayer won’t be silenced and our country won’t be divided,” said Haci Mehmet Haliloglu, 46, a civil servant who traveled from the Black Sea town of Ordu for the rally.

“This is something way beyond politics, this is either our freedom or death,” he said, a large Turkish flag over his shoulder and a matching baseball cap on his head.

Turkey’s top Muslim cleric and chief rabbi also attended. But the pro-Kurdish HDP, the third-largest party in parliament, was not invited due to its alleged links to Kurdish militants, prompting anger on social media from its supporters.

The brutality of July 15, in which rogue soldiers commandeered fighter jets, helicopters and tanks, shocked a nation that last saw a violent military power grab in 1980. Even Erdogan’s opponents saw his leadership as preferable to a successful coup renewing the cycle of military interventions that dogged Turkey in the second half of the 20th century.

“Erdogan has been brutal and unfair to us in the past, but I believe he has now understood the real importance of the republic’s values,” said Ilhan Girit, 44, a musician and CHP supporter, carrying a flag of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, founder of the modern secular republic.

A convoy of nationalists on motorbikes passed as he spoke.

Such solidarity may not last. There are already opposition concerns that the restructuring of the military lacks parliamentary oversight and is going too far, with thousands of soldiers discharged, including around 40 percent of generals.

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);

WESTERN CRITICISM

The extent of the purges in Turkey, which has NATO’s second largest armed forces and aspires to membership of the European Union, has drawn criticism in the West.

In comments published on Sunday, the leader of Germany’s liberal Free Democrats said he saw parallels between Erdogan’s behavior and the aftermath of the Reichstag fire in 1933, portrayed by the Nazis as a Communist plot against the government and used by Adolf Hitler to justify massively curtailing civil liberties.

Turkish officials have angrily rejected suggestions that the purges are out of proportion, accusing Western critics of failing to grasp the magnitude of the threat to the Turkish state and of being more concerned about the rights of coup plotters than the brutality of the events themselves.

Amid the cooling of ties with the West, Erdogan is due to meet Russian President Vladimir Putin on Tuesday in St Petersburg for talks intended to end a period of tension after Turkey downed a Russian fighter jet near the Syrian border last November.

“At the talks with my friend Vladimir, I believe, a new page in bilateral relations will be opened. Our countries have a lot to do together,” Erdogan told the TASS news agency in an interview published on Sunday.

In Washington on Sunday several hundred people clad in red and waving Turkish flags gathered in front of the White House in support of Erdogan and to demand that U.S. President Barack Obama deport Gulen to Turkey.

“He (Erdogan) has made some mistakes but he is not a dictator,” said Okan Sakar, 35, a Turkish tax inspector currently studying in the United States.

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

'Suicide Squad' Kills Box Office Competition With Massive $135.1 Million Debut

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);

LOS ANGELES, Aug 7 (Variety.com) – “Suicide Squad” smashed records, scoring a colossal $135.1 million debut despite suffering some of the worst reviews of the year.

That sets a new high-water mark for an August launch, lapping “Guardians of the Galaxy’s” $94.3 million bow. It also ranks as a new personal best for star Will Smith, trumping “I Am Legend’s” $77.2 million debut in 2007.

The action spectacle is also resonating with foreign crowds. “Suicide Squad” earned $132 million overseas from 57 territories, bringing its global total to more than $267 million.

“It bested anything that we could have expected,” said Jeff Goldstein, Warner Bros. distribution executive vice president. “The marketing campaign was brilliant and the performances by the cast, starting with Will Smith, Margot Robbie, and Jared Leto were just extraordinary. They’re fun and wicked and fans enjoy it.”

“Suicide Squad” has been one of the most hotly anticipated films of the summer. Buzz on the film has built steadily since Warner Bros. released a teaser trailer at last year’s Comic-Con that highlighted Jared Leto’s grill-sporting Joker and Margot Robbie looking demented in pigtails as Harley Quinn. However, the studio was caught off guard by the fusillade of withering reviews and their were concerns that the poor reception would dampen the opening numbers.

And boy were those reviews awful. The Wall Street Journal’s Joe Morgenstern called the film “…an all-out attack on the whole idea of entertainment,” New York’s David Edelstein branded it “the worst of the worst,” and MTV’s Amy Nicholson dismissed the picture as “two hours of padding.”

Audiences appeared to like the film better than critics, handing the film a B+ CinemaScore. Younger consumers appear to like the film better than older moviegoers, with audiences under the age of 18 giving it an A rating. The question is will “Suicide Squad” show some endurance?

“There’s a major disconnect with between what the critics are saying and what audiences are seeing,” said Goldstein.

“Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice,” the previous entry in DC Comics’ series of interconnected superhero films, was also a critical piñata. It managed to overcome the bad notices to debut to $166 million, but the poor word-of-mouth caught up to the film in its second weekend, pushing receipts down by nearly 70 percent.

There are signs the hostile reviews are already hobbling “Suicide Squad.” The film dropped sharply on Saturday, falling 41 percent from its Friday numbers, although it should be said that those grosses include Thursday pre-show results.

The studio has a lot riding on “Suicide Squad.” It spent $175 million making the picture, including tens of millions on reshoots. But the cost isn’t the only concern. DC is struggling to generate the same level of excitement for its stable of Batman, Superman, and other Justice League fixtures that Marvel has managed to stoke for its movies about costumed avengers. It needs more of its films to be beloved as well as financially successful.

Production on the film was reportedly rushed with writer and director David Ayer having less than two months to turn a script around. The film centers on a team of super villains who are recruited for a black ops mission by the U.S. government.

Men accounted for 54 percent of “Suicide Squad’s” opening weekend audience, with more than half of the audience clocking in under the age of 25. Warner Bros. released the film across 4,255 locations. Imax accounted for 381 of those venues, and the big screen company comprised $11 million of the first weekend gross.

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_2’),onPlayerReadyVidible);

The weekend’s other new release, EuropaCorp’s “Nine Lives,” died a quick death. The story of a ruthless executive (Kevin Spacey) who gets transformed into a cat, coughed up $6.5 million, and managed to score even worse reviews than “Suicide Squad.” Spacey barely promoted the movie, which was the brainchild of former EuropaCorp CEO Christophe Lambert, who originally envisioned the film as a high-concept comedy before repositioning it as a family film. Ousted from the company last February, Lambert died of lung cancer in May. He was 51 years old. “Nine Lives” cost just over $30 million to make.

Last weekend’s champ, Universal’s “Jason Bourne,” dropped 62 percent in its second frame, topping out at $22 million. That was strong enough for a second place finish and brings the spy sequel’s domestic haul to $103.4 million.

STX Entertainment’s “Bad Moms” snagged third place in its second weekend, picking up $14.2 million. The raunchy comedy about a group of mothers who rebel against pressures to be perfect parents has made $51 million since opening, a healthy return on its $20 million budget. Universal’s “The Secret Life of Pets” nabbed fourth place with $11.6 million. The family comedy is one of the year’s biggest hits, having made $319.6 million during its run. Paramount’s “Star Trek Beyond” rounded out the top five, earning $10.2 million to push its stateside gross to $127.9 million after three weeks.

— 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.

Good Olde Things

2016-08-06-1470521750-4784140-RyanPhipps.001.jpg

“Dear fellas, I can’t believe how fast things move on the outside. I saw an automobile once when I was a kid, but now they’re everywhere. The world went and got itself in a big damn hurry.”

-Brooks (The Shawshank Redemption, 1994)

A DYING BREED

As far back as I can remember, I have always enjoyed eating in restaurants in department stores. Spots like these are a dying breed.

When I lived in the city of Pittsburgh, there was a diner right around the corner from our house on the South Side. It seemed an obvious choice for breakfast in the morning, but instead I’d get up a little earlier and ride my bike downtown to eat at the Tic-Toc Cafe’ in the basement of Kaufmann’s.

Now living in Manhattan, I literally live right on top of a diner, but I prefer to walk a few blocks over to a department store near me and eat in the restaurant there.

Why? Because it’s stuck at a specific place in time… and I like that.

There’s a thin residue of “oldness” there. It’s in the food, the clientele, the staff, and even the decor.

It’s probably psychosomatic, but when I am there I slow down. I relax. I take time to think. I even (which is anathema to this INTJ) engage in smalltalk with the other patrons about the “good old days.”

I find myself strangely transported back to a time and place where these kinds of behaviors are encouraged, protected, and even “normal.”

What a different world we live in today- a world that I am as much a part of as anyone. Maybe I am alive in the wrong spot in history, who knows?

DARWINISM AND TRENDS

There’s a strange kind of Darwinism ever at work in the world.

We see it in greater measure with each passing generation.

We want things faster. We want things cheaper, and we don’t want anything that asks for too much of our time or attention.

Soda fountains gone the way of the dinosaur in favor of canned, flavored soda that can be picked up at any roadside stand.

A decades-old piece of handmade furniture placed out on the street with the garbage, replaced by one made out of particle board and nylon, crafted on an assembly line in a matter of minutes.

The home-cooked-meal which we never have time for, so we settle for the microwave dinner- prepped, packaged, and ready in under five minutes!

SLOW SOULS

All I know is that I long for more “slow” things in my life- and I don’t think I am alone in this.

All that is trendy seems to fall out of trend as quickly as it rose.

Timelines are collapsing quicker than they ever have before in history.

It’s no wonder Jesus said,

“What good is it for someone to gain the whole world but lose their soul?”

(Matthew 16:26)

He’s not talking about the afterlife. He’s talking about quality of life, right now.

He’s admonishing us to slow down and cherish this.

I want that in my life.

I also know that by striving for it, I won’t get everything that I want when I want it.

And there is great tension in this.

Selah.

— 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.

Entire Russian Team Banned From Participating In Paralympic Games

Russia’s entire athletic delegation has been banned from the 2016 Paralympic Games in Rio de Janeiro. 

The International Paralympic Committee on Sunday announced Russia’s suspension due to a widespread doping scandal. The IPC board’s decision was unanimous. 

“This decision has placed a huge burden upon all our shoulders, but it’s a decision we’ve had to take in the best interests of the Paralympic Movement,” IPC President Sir Philip Craven said in a statement. 

The ban was anticipated before the announcement as part of the fallout from Team Russia’s massive Olympic doping scandal. 

A World Anti-Doping Agency panel last November released an explosive report that accused the Russian government of helping its athletes cheat doping tests. The WADA later hired Toronto lawyer Richard McLaren to conduct an independent investigation into Russia’s program; the so-called McLaren Report, released in July, concluded that Russia’s ministry of sports helped manipulate doping tests so that drug-enhanced athletes would be sure to pass them. 

Russia’s Paralympic athletes have historically been among the top contenders in the world games. During the 2012 Paralympic Games in London, Russia ranked second overall in the gold medal count, placing only behind China. 

Russia has three weeks to appeal the IPC’s decision. If the ban is upheld, it will mark the first time an entire country’s delegation has been barred from the games, according to The Wall Street Journal.

Other Russian athletes competing in Rio narrowly managed to escape the fate now facing their Paralympic counterparts. Just weeks before the start of the Olympic Games, the International Olympic Committee announced there would be no blanket ban on Russia’s athletes. 

Athletes were tested on an individual basis and 271 of 387 were ultimately cleared to participate in the games. 

“Ultimately, as the global governing body for the Paralympic Movement, it is our responsibility to ensure fair competition, so that athletes can have confidence that they are competing on a level playing field,” Crave said. “This is vital to the integrity and credibility of Paralympic sport, and in order to achieve this it is fundamental that each member abides by the rules.”

The Rio Paralympics, in which athletes with disabilities compete in sports that include wheelchair fencing, swimming and taekwondo, start Sept. 7.

— 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.

Chaka Khan Returns to an adoring Atlanta Audience at the Cobb Performing Arts Center

2016-08-07-1470604062-6081520-CHakaKhanPoster.JPG

The electrifying sound of the singer Chaka Khan has been a familiar voice on the airwaves since she
first burst onto the scene with her raucous version of the Stevie Wonder song “Tell Me Something Good,” which she performed with the group Rufus back in 1975. Ms. Khan can sing a melody, but it is her gutsy delivery and her ability to hit and hold high register, combustible screams with an intensity matched by few others that has set her apart. Over the years, this now sixty-three-year-old grandmother who can still strut it with the best of them, has consistently produced hits, garnering a total of ten Grammys and over a dozen other nominations in the process.

Ms. Khan is not without her jazz credentials. She made her forays into jazz with an early album titled Echoes of an Era from 1982 where she played standards with a band made up jazz giants Joe Henderson, Chick Corea, Stanley Clarke, Lenny White and Freddie Hubbard. She also did an enjoyable pop/jazz album in 2004 titled ClassiKhan where she played with a studio jazz group and was backed up by the London Symphony Orchestra. Her funky 1991 “I’ll Be Good to You” was a Grammy winning duo produced by Quincy Jones and featuring the inimitable Ray Charles. She showed moxie in 1989 joining legendary trumpeter Miles Davis on stage for Michael Jackson’s “Human Nature” at the 1989 Montreux Jazz Festival.

Throughout her career, however, the singer has had her difficulties with substance abuse. After the recent death of her friend Prince, she publicly announced she was entering a rehab program with her sister for her addiction to pain medications.

Ms. Khan’s return to the Cobb Performing Arts Center this past Friday was the restart of her previously postponed summer tour and I’m sure there was some trepidation, but the nearly sold out crowd couldn’t have been more welcoming to the singer. Her band was made up of her musical director Melvin L. Davis on bass, guitarist Rob Bacon, keyboardist Tracy Carter, keyboardist Jessie Millner and the ubiquitous drummer Ronald Bruner Jr.. Backup vocalists Tony Scruggs, Audrey Wheeler and Tiffany Smith lent important support throughout.

The band opened with “Do You Love What You Feel” laying down the groove to the Rufus classic that had Ms. Khan coming out in a shimmering black outfit, knee high boots and that famously wild mane of hair. Ms. Khan waved and threw kisses to the crowd as she came on stage. You could sense she was feeling her way through the first song as her voice seemed a bit tenuous and somewhat off key, but her backup chorus did an admirable job carrying her water vocally until she got her bearings.

Like a true professional Ms. Khan charged ahead with “Feel for You” her 1984 hit that was written for her by Prince. She slowed it down a bit resurrecting her 1980 hit “Papillion” gaining a bit more confidence with each passing song. There is no doubt this woman can still sing and she showed no indications that her ability to reach and hold her powerful vocal range was compromised, although in truth at times her delivery was sometimes slightly ahead of the band.

The program proceeded with “What cha going to do for Me” another song from her days with Rufus, which had the revved crowd standing, dancing and singing to the music. You could feel the love that the audience sent Ms. Khan’s way and she received it gratefully, at one-point affirming to them that “God was good” and that she was glad to be on the other side of her experience.

The concert continued with her hits “Everlasting Love,” “Love Me Still” (which she strangely commented she wrote with an idiot-her co-writer on this was Bruce Hornsby) and “Sweet Thing” which again had the crowd dancing in their seats.

At this point Ms. Khan went off stage for an extended break and the band played an instrumental version of her 1985 hit “Through the Fire” with ardent vocals by the three powerful singers Ms. Scruggs, Ms. Wheeler and Ms. Smith. Still without Ms. Khan, the band then went into an ill-advised, but perhaps necessary, improvised funk version of Dizzy Gillespie’s “A Night in Tunisia.” They used an extended vamp, each member of the band given too much time to individually solo to no apparent point. At one point a vocoder/guitar section by Mr. Bacon had me thinking I had been catapulted back in time to a drug induced Peter Frampton concert. Gratefully Ms. Khan returned in another outfit and proceeded with a tenuous version of “My Funny Valentine” which nonetheless reconnected the audience

The crowd endured, there was no way they were going to give this woman anything but love. This was as much about redemption as it was about music. It was as much about supporting a longtime friend as it was about listening to the music that you grew up with; and what music she has given us. Ms. Khan responded with” Tell Me Something Good,” the song that catapulted her to fame over forty years ago. This one was the one everyone had been waiting for and it got the audience singing along, dancing and clapping wildly. She finished the set with her 1978 hit “I’m Every Woman” and was called back on stage to receive an award from the City of Atlanta naming Friday August 5, 2016 as Chaka Khan day in the City. The crowd erupted as she did her encore singing her 1983 Grammy winning hit “A’int Nobody.”

Ms. Khan is well on her way back to full strength and reclaiming her status as one of the finest R & B singers of our generation. She will be continuing on her tour with stops in Atlantic City, NJ, Houston, Tx and Asheville,NC.

— 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.

Law Professors Defend Use Of Preponderance Standard In Campus Rape Cases

A group of more than 90 law professors from at least three dozen different universities signed onto a white paper, to be released Sunday, defending the U.S. Department of Education’s guidance on how colleges should handle sexual assault cases.

Specifically, the law professors focus on how much proof is needed to determine whether a student accused of sexual assault is guilty in the eyes of their college or university. 

A “Dear Colleague” letter released by the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights in April 2011 was considered a wake-up call for schools to honor their obligation to handle sexual violence involving students under the gender equity law Title IX.

However, some groups have said a portion of the letter ― which told schools to use the “preponderance of evidence” standard in adjudicating sexual assault allegations as code of conduct violations ― amounted to issuing new regulations without going through a legally required process. It’s currently the subject of three federal lawsuits against the Education Department

The preponderance standard essentially means an accused person can be found guilty if the adjudicator or panel believes there’s a 51 percent chance the allegations against the individual are true. In other words, a jury would rule based on whose side they believe more.

“The national debate over campus sexual assault often deals with pretty deep and complicated legal issues, even for lawyers,” said Nancy Chi Cantalupo, a Barry University School of Law professor who organized the white paper.

“I wanted to help provide a resource to the public about one of those deep and complicated issues, to put the issue in the context of Title IX’s legal history and of our legal system as a whole,” Cantalupo said. “Many people seem to think of the law as just one kind of law: the criminal law, but there are many other kinds of law, including civil rights law.”

The preponderance standard is used in civil lawsuits. In criminal courts, there’s a higher standard to establish someone’s guilt: “proof beyond a reasonable doubt,” meaning there’s hardly any chance the accused person isn’t guilty. 

Organizations like the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, the American Association of University Professors and national fraternity groups have argued the preponderance standard is too low and doesn’t provide enough protection for accused students. 

But the white paper from the law professors argues that this is a civil rights issue, and the preponderance of the evidence standard is one that’s always used to adjudicate discrimination claims under other civil rights statutes, like the portions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that prohibit discrimination based on race and harassment in the workplace.

The department is responding to the overwhelming evidence that a culture of male sexual entitlement permeates college campuses and that women suffer disproportionately.
Katharine Baker, Chicago-Kent College of Law

If the Dear Colleague letter had expressed permission for other standards of evidence, the professors say, it would’ve “approved treating sexual violence and harassment victims differently from all other victims of all other discrimination prohibited under our nation’s anti-discrimination civil rights laws, and done so without any justification for that differentiation.”

There appears to be no concern about “the use of the preponderance standard of evidence in handling allegations of racial harassment on campus,” the professors wrote. And students accused of sexual assault who are suing their universities, claiming they were treated unfairly, will have their lawsuits determined under the preponderance standard, should they go to trial. 

Chicago-Kent College of Law’s Katharine Baker, one of the organizers of the white paper, said the professors wanted to speak out because of the confusion caused by media coverage of sexual violence on campus. 

“There is a mistaken tendency to assume that the Department of Education is policing rape on college campuses and should therefore use the background norms of criminal law as an appropriate model for adjudication procedures,” Baker told The Huffington Post. “In fact, the department is responding to the overwhelming evidence that a culture of male sexual entitlement permeates college campuses and that women suffer disproportionately from having to live, study, and try to learn in that environment.” 

At least 90 law professors from more than 35 schools signed the paper as of Sunday evening, but the organizers expect more to add their names.  

You can read the professors’ white paper in full below:

DV.load(“https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3005988-Title-IX-amp-Preponderance-White-Paper-Signed.js”, {
width: 610,
height: 400,
sidebar: false,
container: “#DV-viewer-3005988-Title-IX-amp-Preponderance-White-Paper-Signed”
});

Title-IX-amp-Preponderance-White-Paper-Signed (PDF)

Title-IX-amp-Preponderance-White-Paper-Signed (Text)

 _______

Tyler Kingkade covers higher education and sexual violence, and is based in New York. You can reach him at tyler.kingkade@huffingtonpost.com, or find him on Twitter: @tylerkingkade.

— 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.