Baby Wallaby Kicks Well-Meaning Kayakers In The Head During Sea Rescue

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);

Two kayakers in Australia braved a terrified baby wallaby’s ferocious kicks to their heads while saving it from open water.

The panicked animal’s powerful hind legs repeatedly struck the well-meaning duo as they tried plucking it from the sea off the coast at Noosa, in Queensland, on Aug. 18, reports nine.com.au.

As the boatmen struggled to calm down the creature, who they’d found swimming around in circles, jet skier Jonah Cooper arrived on the scene to help.

Video filmed by a camera attached to Cooper’s aquatic vehicle showed him grabbing the macropod and steering one-handed back to shore.

He then released the wallaby back onto the sand and it hopped off, as if nothing had even happened.

I couldn’t really understand for the life of me how someone in a kayak was going to rescue a wallaby and paddle at the same time, so I thought I’d better provide some assistance,” Cooper told nine.com.au.

type=type=RelatedArticlesblockTitle=Related Coverage + articlesList=55e7f8e8e4b0aec9f3561006,5739e379e4b060aa781ac2e6,55bfa9e1e4b0b23e3ce37513

— 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.

London Replica Goes Up In Flames On Great Fire's 350th Anniversary

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);

LONDON, Sept 5 (Reuters) – Flames once again licked the historic buildings of Britain’s capital as a wooden replica of 17th century London went up in smoke to mark the 350th anniversary of the Great Fire of London.

The Great Fire began at a baker’s shop in Pudding Lane in the early hours of Sept. 2, 1666, and spread rapidly through the wooden structures of the old city.

It raged for four days, ravaging the parts of the city inside the old Roman wall, but surprisingly, only six deaths were reported.

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 old, medieval St Paul’s Cathedral was completely destroyed by the fire, and then rebuilt in its present form following the designs of architect Christopher Wren.

The wooden replica was designed by American artist David Best and built by unemployed young Londoners over several months. The spectacle marked the end of “London’s Burning,” a four-day festival of free art events to mark the anniversary.

(Reporting by Laura Gardner Cuesta; Editing by Stephen Powell/Richard Balmforth)

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_3’),onPlayerReadyVidible);

type=type=RelatedArticlesblockTitle=Related Coverage + articlesList=564bd246e4b06037734ba490,561e6ebce4b050c6c4a39bf3

— 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.

LG V20 might have a weird way to replace batteries

lgV20_2Based on previous leaked photos and diagrams of LG’s upcoming new flagship, the V20, there has been some concern that LG has bitten the bullet and jumped on the non-removable battery bandwagon. This latest leak could give them half an assurance, almost literally. That’s because while the schematics do hint that the LG V20’s battery can be removed, it shows … Continue reading

John Oliver Lists The Habits We Should Actually Ban After Labor Day

John Oliver fully backs the concept of stopping doing stuff after Labor Day.

In fact, the “Last Week Tonight” host wants to apply the ban on wearing white after the first Monday of September to a few more habits. But he doesn’t just want them temporarily gone. No. Oliver wants them banished for good.

There are some things that after this Labor Day we should stop doing, and then never do again,” he said in a segment posted online Sunday. His hit list includes winking and saying “that’s interesting” to someone when it clearly isn’t. 

Oliver also suggested that more holidays should be used as arbitrary points to stop doing things, before revealing what could be prohibited following Thanksgiving and the New Year. 

Check it out in the clip above.

type=type=RelatedArticlesblockTitle=Related Coverage + articlesList=57c8401be4b07addc41169b9,57a8bb3ae4b08f5371f1b1cd,578c770ce4b03fc3ee514a20

— 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.

A Mother And Son Whose Heroin Addiction Bonds Them

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);

Eric, 32, was living with his mom when she found out he was using heroin. “At first she was very angry about it,” he says. “But I sensed that the anger was more curiosity.” So he asked her, “Are you so pissed because you want to try it?” 

He and his mom, Kathy, have been doing heroin together ever since. Watch their story in the video above.  

“I feel guilty about introducing heroin to my mother’s life,” admits Eric, who says his mom begs him for heroin as soon as she wakes up. “I hate everything about it. You wouldn’t want to introduce this to your worst enemy, let alone your mother.”

Eric, who spends upwards of $15,000 monthly on heroin for both of them, is confronted by Dr. Phil. 

“Who introduced your mother to heroin?” he asks. 

“Me.” 

“Who gives it to her every day?”  

“Me.” 

“Who’s her dealer?” 

“Me.” 

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);

Kathy, 58, says she snorts five or six lines daily. “I’m supposed to be the mother, there’s something wrong here,” she says. “How the hell did I get to this point?” 

Dr. Phil tells Kathy, who rationalizes that snorting heroin isn’t as egregious as shooting it up: “You’re a mother doing heroin with her son … It’s ridiculous. It’s disgusting. You’re doing heroin with your child. That’s a ridiculous excuse for a parent.”   

Are mother and son ready to get clean? Watch Monday’s episode of Dr. Phil check local listings here.  

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

The Gonzo Prose of Ciara Shuttleworth and 4,500 Miles: Taking Jack Back On The Road

2016-09-04-1473027223-3560440-JackandCiara.jpg

Book cover of 4,500 Miles: Taking Jack Back On the Road and the author photo of Ciara Shuttleworth. Photo courtesy of Humanitas Media Publishing and Drew Perlmutter. Book cover photo edited by Pamela Theodotou.

Our battered suitcases were piled on the sidewalk again; we had longer ways to go. But no matter, the road is life. — Jack Kerouac, On the Road

If the Beat Generation was about questioning life and the standard values of society, spiritual exploration, and delving deeply into personal experiences that could have a transformative effect, Jack Kerouac, as one of the core members of this group that came out of post-WWII American reality, was one of its exemplars. His classic, On the Road, has continued to affect generations long after its release on September 5, 1957.

Named as one of the 100 most important English-language novels of the 20th Century by the Modern Library and of 1923-2005 by Time Magazine, the New York Times considered it “the most beautifully executed, the clearest and the most important utterance yet made by the generation Kerouac himself named.”

Having spent a residency at the Jack Kerouac House in Orlando, Florida in 2015, writer and artist Ciara Shuttleworth came to appreciate Kerouac enough that when she was on her way home from Orlando to the scablands of Washington state, she decided to take a Jack Kerouac cut out, “Flat Jack” with her as she took her own road trip West.

Early on, the experience took on a life of its own, influenced by the writer whom she had just come to know much more personally. And as Kerouac had, she wrote about the places, people, and events she experienced along the way. Jack Kerouac’s was enough of an inherent presence, she started to consider him a kind of traveling companion.

The result was 4,500 Miles: Taking Jack Back On the Road, a collection of “gonzo prose” and photographs, later edited for the book by award-winning filmmaker, photographer, and writer Pamela Theodotou, released today by Humanitas Media Publishing, nearly 60 years to the day On the Road was published.

The book has received praise from Bob Kealing, author of Kerouac in Florida: Where the Road Ends, Summer Rodman, President of the Jack Kerouac Project in Florida, and Dr. Brad Hawley of Oxford College of Emory University, who provided the preface to Shuttleworth’s book. Each knows Kerouac’s history and work well, and they were surprised someone of Shuttleworth’s generation could capture Kerouac’s voice so perfectly, especially considering Shuttleworth had not known as much about Kerouac before her residency.

But Shuttleworth’s discernment and talent, and whose work has appeared in The New Yorker, Ploughshares, The Norton Introduction to Literature, and The Southern Review, naturally shone through following immersing herself in the life and work of the man for whom the residency was named.

Below is an interview with Shuttleworth regarding Kerouac, the Beat poets, her experience on the road, and the resulting book that took a year to edit and produce, being both a written and photographic documentation of those 4,500 miles.


What was your first exposure to Jack Kerouac and Beat literature?

College. I read On the Road and wasn’t impressed. Or rather, it made an impression: I was turned off by the taking off and leaving the women behind. My father is a chauvinist but somehow raised three daughters who believe they have the same rights and abilities as men. Even in college, when I was getting over a lot of conservative viewpoints, I guess I took offense to On the Road because I didn’t like the idea of being left behind, of not being part of the action. Who knows, really. That was a long time ago. I was reading a lot of Hunter Thompson and Vonnegut and Vollmann and such. I found a lot more to like there. I must have read Ginsberg during that time, too, but I didn’t read Ginsberg with any seriousness until I was in my mid-twenties in San Francisco. And then I went to art school and a mentor, Bruce McGaw, told stories about how he’d worked at City Lights and a painting of his hung behind Ginsberg the first time he read “Howl.” And then I reread the poem and was struck. When Kelly Davio was the editor of Los Angeles Review, she published a poem of mine, “Seven Years in San Francisco,” which was my ode to the 20-somethings of the dot-com-era San Francisco that I lived and loved in. The poem was highly influenced by “Howl.” Ginsberg had beautifully captured his people and time with breathlessly long lines and I wanted to do the same; there was so much said in so little space. I began to understand, finally, in grad school (when I wrote the poem), that the Beats were simply trying to live their lives, counter-culture as they might have been. It wasn’t until my residency at the Kerouac House, however, that I really read Jack’s work, that I started to research and understand Jack (and through him, I suppose the Beats as well).

In the book, you are having conversations with Jack’s ghost…how do you imagine he was the same or different than he is popularly perceived?

My time at the Kerouac House gave me a completely different view of Jack. My perception of him prior to the residency was that he was a masochistic asshole, and I think that’s a common misconception. Jack’s views–and actions and reactions to the world–were dichotomized by his Catholic upbringing and his love for what he was learning about Buddhism, by the stoic, stodgy nature of his mother and the wild relentlessness of the lives of writer and artist friends. He so wanted to be Neal Cassady, but he didn’t have the charm or swagger, nor did he have the needle-loose moral/ethical compass. He wanted to be a good man but couldn’t figure out exactly what that meant. There is so much more I need to learn about and from Jack.

You had a residency at the Jack Kerouac House in Orlando. What was the residency like, and what is the reaction of the community to the residents and residency?

The residency was the best; it will be hard to top. The community is beautiful, embracing. The writing community in Orlando loves the Kerouac House and the residents, gives the residents ample invites to events (to go to but also to participate in). The residency and the warmth from the community were gifts, and my only way of repaying the kindness in any way was to write as much and as well as I could.

What is your favorite line or passage from Kerouac’s work?

Without a doubt: “What is that feeling when you’re driving away from people and they recede on the plain till you see their specks dispersing? – it’s the too-huge world vaulting us, and it’s good-bye. But we lean forward to the next crazy venture beneath the skies.”

This quote means so much to me. I love people and I love spending time with people I love. I also love the leaving. The hoping I’ll see them again. The knowing I have more adventures ahead…

But there is also the end of Big Sur. Many see the ending as sad, but really it’s exactly what this quote encapsulates. It’s a letting go and moving forward. Big Sur doesn’t have an unhappy ending. It’s an emotionally tumultuous book, but in the end he finds resolution. He knows he is moving on and that everyone in his wake will be fine.

What do you think is the influence today from Kerouac and the other Beat writers?

When at the K House, there were weird kids who’d come by. One in particular comes to mind. He came up the steps like he owned the place. I was just going out to write, as I so often did, on the porch, and I startled him. So he kind of scurried off and pulled a pizza box from his trunk, and a sharpie, and a solo cup of whatever he was drinking, and posted up on the lawn to scribble on the box. He was insolent and rude, really confrontational without cause, so I told him that the front of the House wasn’t even where Jack had lived, that he needed to take his things and leave. It disturbed me because that wasn’t Jack at all. Jack was love and curiosity. All the other “pilgrims” who came by the House were definitely Jack’s people; this guy wasn’t.

One day, filmmakers stopped by and one, Ashley, had her baby along. I was instantly taken with them and gave them a tour, directed them to the back stoop for accurate recreation photos. They stayed for some time and I held the baby, Miles (I’m usually not taken with babies, but he was and is something special). I wrote a poem about him that night. I am in touch with his mother. I believe that most of the people who came to the House came because Jack wanted me to meet them for one reason or another.

Jack’s influence is still prevalent. For better AND for worse. There are those who understand how complex he was, how his writing was everything to him. And there are those who use their love for what they believe he was as an excuse for bad behavior.

The stream-of-consciousness style has led to a lot of poor writing, but those who understand the amount of work he put in before writing like that…have benefited. I write 90% of my work in my head before it hits the page, so I understand Jack’s process a bit.

Ginsberg would have loved social media. Ferlinghetti probably faired best out of all, was a powerhouse for publishing works that otherwise may have stayed in drawers, but City Lights is more of a quiet library now than a hopping literary meet-up place.

I doubt the Beats will ever vanish; they will always be important. There are those who love Hemingway and those who love Kerouac. I lean more toward Kerouac now. He was one of the greatest American writers of all time. If he were still alive, he’d be floored by that, and I tried to capture that in the book.

How would you describe the book, and what were the nuances you thought were important to include?

Nuances… His kindness. His curiosity for the world. Definitely the internal chaos, the battle between dichotomous selves. In a college art class, I read about masks made in an ancient culture to show the two sides of the face with relevance put on the difference between the two: one side showed the side others recognize us by, and the other showed our true self and our death wish. I wish I’d kept the essay so I could quote from it and give it credit.

As is true with many of my writer/artist friends, I live a large portion of my life in my head. A friend recently told me that I’ve hand-crafted a beautiful world for myself and it’s nice when I let other people enter it. While I tend to be very careful who I let into that world, and when, and even how much or often, Jack was guilty of the same thing…only he wanted/needed to have as many people move fluidly through as possible. Depression hit him hard any time he wasn’t either writing (as quickly as possible) all he’d experienced or out experiencing. But he was a wallflower in many ways, a watcher. He thrived off the chaos created by others and was drawn to those who created extraordinary experiences for him (whether he lived vicariously through them as a viewer or actually participated). In that way, he was a historical writer–he wrote of his time, and he wrote it as fiction so it wasn’t necessary to be accurate…and so he could make himself a little larger in the stories. What my book does is turn things around on him. I made him the instigator. I was his sidekick, his co-conspirator. He was in the spotlight and yet he still shied away, still tried to watch me as if he’d go back to the typewriter and fictionalize our adventure.

The book was an opportunity to take an extended amount of time with a writer I’d newly come to respect, to ask him questions, to drink with him, to drive for miles within the confines of a car. There was no escape for either of us. This wasn’t taking a writer I admire out for drinks or dinner; this was living with him for two weeks.

How was the trip back to Washington state from your residency? Any nuances or thoughts that don’t appear in the book that you’d like to share?

Jack was ever-present. I would not have taken as many photos had he not been along. I wouldn’t have taken the time to stop so often, to explore, to see the landscapes I traveled through as clearly. I knew I was writing this book but had no idea what the content would be, what I would write. While on the road, it would occur to me what Jack would do, so I’d do it. I took notes in a small Moleskine.

But even my interactions with people were different than they may have otherwise been. I had to look back at my experiences with people I visited and decide what could and could not be written about. A colleague from grad school–the visit was the only downer of the entire road trip. I should have left as soon as I walked into the depressed vibe of his house. Having Jack to bounce that off of–downplaying it in the book despite Jack believing I shouldn’t have. But knowing that Jack understood that, that he’d downplayed his role in events (or the events themselves) so as to not upset his mother. I wasn’t worried about upsetting anyone; I simply didn’t see the point of making a deal out of it or making this guy feel bad for something that ultimately had no impact on my life. The book was about Jack rather than my reconnections or connections with people, so I tried to stay true to that while writing the book.

You come from a creative family, and you are not just a writer and poet, but an artist. How is being involved with multiple media a benefit to the different kinds of work you do?

As far back as artists go, they have been scientists, mathematicians, and writers in addition to making art. It’s only been recently that we separate so strictly. We are a young species. Perhaps things will swing back in the other direction.

While my father raised us with an iron fist, one thing he never tried to tamp down was our creativity (that and athleticism). Poetry and art have always been a part of my life. I chose painting and drawing first because I didn’t want to be a poet. Anything but. I didn’t want to infringe on my father’s territory, but I also didn’t want to live the constant rejection that poets live. Friends tell me how great my publication history is, but if they looked at it as a rejection vs. acceptance batting average, they might be appalled. Hahaha! You have to be thick-skinned to attempt to put your work into the world. At the end of a year, however, I don’t look at how many rejections I’ve had. I only look at the wins. And I’ve been lucky to have wins every year.

I always wrote while in the painting studio. I do math equations in my head while running. I geek out on science articles. Writing is something I’ve always done. It’s akin to breathing in my family. So the writing comes first. But if I had all the time in the world, I’d also paint and draw every day. I’d research science curiosities. I’d help my sister make more films. Hell, maybe I’d even relearn guitar.

The summer after college, I was too heartbroken to paint. But I wrote. I wrote every day. And I’ve written almost every day since. When painting, I don’t think; I only feel. What I’ve discovered is that on my best days of writing, the same is true (most days I don’t write anything worth using, but who cares?). I love the smell of oil paint, the feel of a carbon pencil on cotton paper, the white canvas or page filling with a moment or emotion captured. How is writing any different? These colors and words have existed for a long time. Poetry is the one written art form that can capture what a painting can. It is bare-bones, stark, beautiful or macabre, nuanced. It can capture so much with so little. It’s a secret language that you only have to feel to understand.

What have been your other inspirations as a writer, and as an artist?

I usually say the Pacific Ocean is probably my biggest inspiration: the immensity, the life within, the lore, the miles it stretches between people and places… But that’s a cop-out answer and in truth, my biggest inspiration is my family. My younger sister, the filmmaker Jessi Shuttleworth, and I continue something started in childhood: we make up stories about people. We can sit anywhere and create entire lives for the people moving by us. We watch faces and body language. We create conversations between couples.

I am captivated by people. What we do out of fear or love. How poorly we communicate. What we are willing to fight for, to love in spite of better judgment.

Franz Wright’s The Beforelife is the book that made me believe I should take my writing seriously. His work, more than any other writer’s, has influenced how I look at and think about poetry.

Your work has appeared in many publications and literary journals in the last years. What do you find is the current state of the literary community and such journals and publications in the public sphere–are they, and the content that appears in them, as popular as they have been in the past? Have the audiences/readers changed? What kind of reaction have you received from them?

Online publications have become important. While I still prefer the printed journals, I believe my non-writer/academic friends are more likely to follow a link to read a poem I have online rather than buy a print journal (if they can even find it if they aren’t in an urban location with good bookstores).

There are also journals like Tahoma Literary Review that are both print and online, which pleases me greatly because of the larger audience they cater to in that way.

The people who post every couple years that poetry is dead are fools. Poetry is thriving. It is transforming and transmogrifying (yes, it is changing in good and bad ways, as it always has). The work that matters and will last is the same as it has always been–the work that speaks to/of the human condition, to/of our time, to/of love and loss, to/of base emotions. Great art has always held a mirror up, regardless how many viewers refuse to see themselves, who turn away.

There is a lot of political poetry out right now because this is a political time, particularly regarding racism in America. Political poems are tricky because the poet should never TELL the reader how to feel, and yet the poet can persuade the reader in a direction through showing, through imagery. There is an audience for these poems that hasn’t been there for other poetry. And that is a good thing because poetry (art of any kind) has always been at the forefront of change. Poets/artists have always been willing to take more risks.

Poetry matters most to non-regular-readers at weddings, funerals, presidential inaugurations, and other poignant times. What political poetry is doing is bringing in readers who would otherwise not be reading poetry. Which is good for poetry and good for the world.

The singer Beck has said in interviews that his albums are so diverse because when he goes to make an album, he thinks, “What am I not hearing right now that I want to hear?” I write about love and lost love and limerence because these are things I want to read more about and am not. I am currently most curious about how we deal with love and loss, with how many relationships look good on the outside but are broken (why do we project gold when inside is shit? why not simply leave? why are people so scared to be alone?).

Anything else you think it is important to include about the book, yourself, your past work in leading up to this?

I am grateful to Humanitas Media Publishing for contacting me two days into my road trip with Jack. Without the book offer, I would not have taken half the photos I took, would not have had the companionship Jack gave me (I so often asked myself what Jack would think of situations, people, the landscape, etc.).

There is a sense of wonder about Jack–I’m not the first to feel this way and won’t be the last. It is important to note that Flat Jack’s responses to my questions are based on the research I did, the conversations I had with people who have researched him. The exchanges between us are truly gonzo, but my intent was to be as true to Jack Kerouac as I possibly could.

4,500 Miles: Taking Jack Back On the Road was released today, September 5th, and will be available in hardcover, softcover, Kindle, and iBook. Further information may be found via http://www.humanitasmedia.com.

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

Des Moines' city council is trying to 'opt out' of 'Pokémon Go'

The City Countil of Des Moines is working hard to cut down on its residents’ access to Pokémon Go, even going so far as to make attempts to “opt out” of the game.

MOSS-Ep.65

function spottoonResize(){
jQuery.ajax({
type : “POST”,
async : false,
url : “https://www.spottoon.com/huff/height”,
dataType : “json”,
data : {book_no : jQuery(“#book_no”).val(),ch_no : jQuery(“#ch_no”).val()},
success :
function(data, statusText, xhr){jQuery(“#ifSpot”).prop(“src”,”https://www.spottoon.com/huff/view?book_no=” + jQuery(“#book_no”).val() + “&ch_no=” + jQuery(“#ch_no”).val());
jQuery(“#ifSpot”).prop(“height”,data[“height”]);
}
});
}
document.addEventListener(“DOMContentLoaded”, spottoonResize);

Updated every Monday

Copyright ⓒ 2015 RollingStory Inc.

— 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.

Catholics Must Honor Labor

Catholics must honor labor. This has been a steady teaching of the Popes for at least the last century and a quarter. Catholicism, after all, rejects the nasty individualism that characterizes so much of the modern world, in favor of a philosophy of the common good. Catholics realize that we as individuals prosper only when everyone prospers. Catholics understand that the economy only thrives when all of its constituent parts succeed. And Catholics know in their hearts that when some persons suffer, all are diminished.

This awareness can be traced back at least as far as Pope Leo XIII (reigned 1878 to 1903). Leo became Pope at a difficult moment in Church history. His immediate predecessor, Pius IX, had fought a losing battle to maintain control of the Papal States. As a result, Leo’s temporal realm no longer extended over much of central Italy, but was now encompassed within the walls of Vatican City.

Faced with new circumstances, Leo chose to reinvent the papacy as a voice of morality and conscience to the world. And the issue he chose to make his own was the rights of labor.

1891 was a dangerous year. Europe was governed by reactionary forces. Monarchy had overstayed its welcome, but it still pressed heavy upon society. The Industrial Revolution, meanwhile, concentrated great wealth in a few hands while impoverishing millions. A hint of violent revolution was in the air. Assassination was even seen by some as a means of legitimate resistance.

Leo XIII responded to this moment of crisis with his encyclical Rerum Novarum. Its Latin title — Rerum Novarum translated means “On Revolution” — captured the mood. The Pope did not wish to side with the revolutionaries. Still, he spoke movingly of the plight of the working classes. “Relations” between workers and employers, he wrote, had changed, resulting in “the utter poverty of the masses.”

Leo did not wish to deny the right of private property. On the contrary, he sought to create the conditions in which all might enjoy that natural right. All who labored had a right to just remuneration, sufficient to support a family, to provide for savings, and to take time away from work.

And a principal means for achieving this goal was labor unions. Leo praised “workingmen’s associations” and encouraged them to aim to attain improvements in “body, soul, and property” (para. 57). Unions, furthermore, were obliged not just to seek a just wage for their active members, but to ensure the well-being of those members now too old, too ill, or too badly injured to work (para. 58).

Succeeding generations of Popes have built on Leo’s sturdy foundation. The circumstances of 1931 were every bit as grim as those of forty years before. It was the heart of the Great Depression. The market had failed, the world’s financial order lay in ruins, poverty and unemployment were endemic, and revolutionary movements of the right and left — Fascism and Communism — were on the march.

Pope Pius XI in his encyclical Quadragesimo Anno — “On the Fortieth Anniversary” — responded to the crisis by once again urging economic justice. And, once again, organized labor was seen as a necessary part of the remedy. Pius XI praised the efforts of the “workers associations” that had sought to improve the lives of their members, and had special words of praise for the clergy who assisted “to bring Leo’s program to full realization” (para. 33). Even while he discouraged labor unions from associating with Communism, he urged them to work ceaselessly to achieve a fairer distribution of economic resources.

Saint John XXIII revisited these themes in 1961 in his encyclical Mater et Magistra. The world was once again confronting danger. The Cold War hung heavy like a choking fog. Still, in the West, a relative degree of economic stability might be found.

Good Pope John wished to stir Catholics out of their complacency. He stressed the universality of humankind, and spoke of Catholic obligations to the betterment of the entire world. Surveying the global scene, John XXIII expressed solidarity with the “millions of workers in many lands and entire continents condemned through the inadequacy of their wages to live with their families in utterly subhuman conditions” (para. 68).

Even in developed countries, John added, many workers continue to receive “a rate of pay inadequate to meet the basic needs of life” (para. 70). He called for a reduction of inequality. He even recommended that employers share ownership of their workplaces with their workers in partnership arrangements (para. 75).

In 1981, Saint John Paul II offered his first response to Leo’s summons on behalf of social justice in his encyclical Laborem Exercens. He stressed the centrality of work to the very essence of what it means to be human. Human beings are meant to work, but this did not mean that humans should suffer in unremitting toil. Work should be a means of achieving fulfillment, a way of developing one’s skills and gifts, even a form of self-expression. Every type of labor, furthermore, is worthy of dignity and should be regarded and treated as such.

Portions of Laborem Exercens might even shock a contemporary capitalist audience. Labor, he announced, enjoyed “priority” over capital (para. 12). “Rigid capitalism” had “to be reformed from the point of view of human rights” (para. 14). And the rights of labor, he insisted, constituted a category of the “fundamental rights of the person” (para. 16). In this context, John Paul II warmly endorsed labor unions. “They are indeed a mouthpiece for the struggle for social justice” (para. 20).

Ten years later, following the fall of the Soviet Union and the conclusion of the Cold War, John Paul II returned to these themes in Centesimus Annus (1991). Like his predecessor John XXIII, John Paul II urged wealthy Catholics to take account of the laboring poor, both in their home countries and around the world. Poverty and marginalization, he feared, presented grave threats, blighting the lives of millions and endangering world order in new ways.

John Paul II, furthermore, urged his audience to “struggle against” “an economic system” that “upholds the absolute predominance of capital” (para. 35). He spoke against both unfettered capitalism and state socialism, and recommended instead a system marked by social justice and a solicitude for even its humblest members.

Most recently, Pope Francis has addressed these themes in his Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (2013). The unbridled quest for wealth and riches, he warned, constituted a form of “idolatry” (para. 55). In today’s economy, Pope Francis observed, human beings have become expendable. They have worth only insofar as they produce economic goods and services. Today’s economy, Francis admonished, not only oppresses and exploits (para. 53), but it does something even worse. It renders disposable whole classes of persons — the elderly and the vulnerable.

Humans, Pope Francis declared, were not made for the market, but the market was made for humankind. It should seek to be inclusive and to promote human flourishing. It must never become an economy that “kills.”

As American Catholics contemplate Labor Day, they should reflect on this papal legacy. As a century and quarter of papal teaching reminds us, we must all honor labor and work for social justice.

— 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.

What Christians Need to Learn from Mother Teresa

2016-09-05-1473054226-5264031-MTheresa_5170422.jpg
©World Vision 1980

This weekend, Mother Teresa was canonized as a saint by the Catholic Church. It is remarkable that this humble woman who stood barely 5 feet tall became a global celebrity, sought out by heads of state and venerated by just about everyone on the planet. What attracted people to her was the quality of her character and her remarkable ability to love the unloved. And yet, the Christian faith that Mother Teresa so embodied has become increasingly scorned by non-religious Americans in the 21st century.

In his recent column in The New York Times, Nicholas Kristof asked a very provocative question: “What Religion Would Jesus Belong To?” Kristof contrasts the cultural and political battles that Christians have been known for over the past several decades with the character of Jesus, and opined that if only Christians would seek to be more like Jesus, they would inspire and attract a watching world.

Kristof writes that he finds nothing inspiring in the trappings and rituals of religion, but the selfless believers sacrificially serving others in the world’s toughest places “fill me with an almost holy sense of awe.” He adds, “Now that’s religion.”

He makes a good point. Christians today in America are more often known for harsh judging, stridently enforcing doctrines, and seeking political power to legislate Christian values. All the things Jesus wasn’t about.

No wonder the world celebrates Mother Teresa. She was beloved by people of all faiths — Hindus, Jews, Muslims, and her fellow Christians — as well as rock stars, politicians, and atheists. She was admired universally for her unselfish concern for the poor.

When someone was in need, Mother Teresa didn’t see race, gender, creed, or economic status; she saw a brother or sister to help and love. She never judged people. She wasn’t even trying to change society. Her compassion for the destitute and dying launched the Missionaries of Charity, now active in 139 countries, but her focus was on individual action — a smile, a kind word. “We can do no great things,” she said, “only small things with great love.”

If all Christians, or even most Christians, acted like Mother Teresa, letting their love and the character of their lives demonstrate their beliefs, our Christian faith would be more attractive and compelling.

I’m not saying we all join religious orders and move to the slums. But there’s plenty of room for improvement in how Christians resemble Jesus, the source of love and proof of love, who never judged or labelled people and never allowed himself to be dragged into the politics and power plays of his day. While continually speaking about his Father’s love, Jesus healed, included, and encouraged the “lost sheep” — no matter what kind of lives they had lived.

The key is simply to more deliberately imitate Jesus. We need to be better at love — especially loving those who may not seem worthy of our love.

If Christians were to embody the verse 1 John 4:19, “We love because he first loved us,” how different would our communities and world look? A lesson from Mother Teresa is that there is a constant need for “small things with great love” in our daily lives. This can start with being kind to the retail clerk and the coffee barista or serving in a soup kitchen or women’s shelter just across town. It can extend to giving to support children and families living in extreme poverty around the world.

Loving like Jesus starts with seeing every person as made in the image of God and precious to the Creator. Just that — leaving our biases, fears, and politics aside. And it is practiced by following Jesus’ straightforward directions in Matthew 25: feeding the hungry, giving the thirsty something to drink, welcoming the stranger, clothing the naked, visiting the prisoner. Mother Teresa saw Jesus “in the distressing disguise of the poor,” and we can also see him in the refugee, the former child soldier, the AIDS sufferer.

In a world of conflict, inequality, and rampant distrust of “the other,” Mother Teresa’s brand of humble yet radical love is in short supply. It’s not just for saints and Nobel Peace Prize winners. The more we Christians demonstrate our faith through acts of love, the more we reflect the compelling love of our God, who “so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16).

— 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.