The next big bit of Samsung technology is going to be very, very tiny. So tiny, in fact, that the company suggests they’ll be leading the way to the product before anyone else – and that’s a big deal. “The ubiquitous nature of smart, connected machines and everyday consumer devices signals the beginning of the next industrial revolution,” said Executive … Continue reading
Two weeks after President Donald Trump announced a commission to investigate illegal voting, Democrats are responding with a new effort to highlight voter suppression and debunk claims that voter fraud is a widespread problem.
The Democratic National Committee will run the Commission on Protecting American Democracy from the Trump Administration, which is setting out to examine efforts that made it more difficult to vote in 2016 and work toward improving access to the ballot box.
Trump has said repeatedly that between 3 million and 5 million people voted illegally in the 2016 election, but hasn’t offered any evidence to support the claim. Voter fraud does exist, but several investigations have already found that it is not a widespread problem. Nonetheless, Trump convened a presidential commission led by Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach (R), who has pushed some of the toughest voting restrictions in the country, to investigate voter fraud. Critics were quick to argue that the commission was a pretext for justifying restrictions on voting.
Former Missouri Secretary of State Jason Kander is set to lead the DNC’s effort. He is also the president of Let America Vote, a group that targets elected officials who make it more difficult to vote.
“I would prefer that there not be a need for a commission to protect American democracy from the Trump administration. But there is,” he told HuffPost. “I think in general what you’ll see is us really mirroring and standing up against the actions of the commission.”
In a statement, Kander accused Trump of trying to tweak the electoral system to his advantage.
“Trump’s presidency has already been a disaster, and he knows that the only way he’s going to win again in 2020 is if he tips the scales in his favor,” he said. “His commission is meant to pave the way for restrictive laws that will allow Republicans to win elections. It’s wrong, it’s a danger to democracy and we’re not going to let it happen.”
I would prefer that there not be a need for a commission to protect American democracy from the Trump administration. But there is.
Former Missouri Secretary of State Jason Kander
DNC Chairman Tom Perez called Trump’s commission “nothing but a sham to justify the GOP’s voter suppression efforts across the country.”
“Instead of listening to constituents and working to earn their votes, Republicans would rather deny them their constitutional rights at the ballot box,” he said in a statement. “Our commission will be ready to counter every move that the Trump administration makes to silence eligible voters.”
The DNC effort will have four staffers to work with state officials and voting rights advocates to protect voting rights, according to The Nation. The DNC previously only had one full-time staffer focused on voting protection.
The Democratic commission is also set to include: Rep. Terri Sewell (Ala.), who is set to be vice chair, Reps. Gwen Moore (Wis.), Joaquin Castro (Texas) and Grace Meng (N.Y.); Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.); Kentucky Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes; California Secretary of State Alex Padilla; Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey; District of Columbia Attorney General Karl Racine; Colorado House Speaker Crisanta Duran; Louisiana State Senator Karen Carter Peterson; and Maricopa County Recorder Adrian Fontes.
— 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.
K.J., a single mom, had been in a relationship with Ben for three years before deciding that enough was enough: He didn’t seem to want to move in together, let alone get married.
“With a broken heart, I went to break it off with him, and in a panic, he asked me to marry him,” she told HuffPost. “Our engagement was more stressful than ecstatic.”
In the end, the engagement didn’t pan out. But she’s not alone; many women and men call off relationships with people they they seriously considered marrying.
A common reason is fear of commitment, according to Elisabeth LaMotte, a couples’ psychotherapist and founder of the DC Counseling and Psychotherapy Center in Washington, D.C.
“Fear of commitment can either be consciously or unconsciously hesitating to take a healthy relationship to the next level because you’re not ready, because you have something to work out in your own life,” LaMotte told HuffPost. “What also could be fear of commitment is a pattern of choosing either unavailable or unsuitable partners, so that as you get closer to committing, it’s clear that it’s just not going to work.”
We asked women who read HuffPost if they’ve ever ended an engagement. Read what they had to say ― and the reasons they called off the relationships ― below.
“When I was a senior in high school, I dated the son of a very prominent member of our church. Both of our families were emotionally invested in our relationship and pushed for an engagement. So naturally, we followed through with their wishes.
I was pretty involved in my school choir and musical theater program. During the production, I became very close to the actor that portrayed my husband. It was our chemistry, the decision that I was much too young to be engaged to anyone and my separation from the church that led me to break the engagement.” ― E. Holloway
“I was engaged when I was 19 years old after dating a guy for six months. About a month after we got engaged, his surgery for a serious medical issue caused him to develop a pill addiction. I watched his attitude and behavior change and decided to call the engagement off three months later.
About a year after our break up, we reconnected and I decided to give him another chance. We dated for another three months before I broke up with him again, and I have never looked back.
I am 25 years old now. I am so glad I called off that engagement and didn’t end up marrying him. That relationship was quite the learning experience for me. It taught me more about myself and what I’m willing to put up with and what I’m not.” ― R.S
“I came home one night and my fiancé had bought an excavator. I didn’t have a problem with the machinery ― he was a contractor.
But the problem was that he was using it to dig out a hole in our newly purchased backyard. Inside the hole there was a refrigerator, on fire. I didn’t know that large kitchen appliances burned.
I just couldn’t stay with a man whose Friday night entertainment was roasting a perfectly good appliance while his friends hooted and hollered. Yes, the police showed up. He told them it ‘accidentally’ fell in and caught on fire. I moved back to D.C. and married another man.
In my defense, the sex was really good. Not-appliance-burning-in-your-waterfront-backyard-good, but, good. ”― Lauren M.
“I proposed to my girlfriend of three years on a trip to Ireland. We had been living together for about two years at that point and went months without having sex. I guess I thought being engaged would change things. We were pretty much glorified roommates.
After a few months I started talking to a woman from Tumblr. She lived in another state but things escalated quickly. I’d talk to her on the phone and lie to my fiancée. I didn’t feel good about it.
Eventually my fiancée became suspicious and confronted me about it, and we broke up. I also quickly ended things with the other woman, knowing I was not in a good place. I stayed single for a while but now I’m with the most amazing woman. Our relationship is polyamorous, which is also something I learned I needed to pursue.” ― Annie K.
“I spent over six years with my ex. We lived together, he bought a ring, our families were intertwined and we had a dog. One day, in counseling, I was reflecting on my life and our relationship, and the progression of abuse I suffered was just staring me in the face. I realized that it was escalating with every day that passed. I knew I wouldn’t want a friend or my sister in a relationship like this, so why was I in it? I felt paralyzed and trapped and like I couldn’t leave.
Then I got hired for a temporary job that lasted four months and allowed me to sail around the world ― literally circumventing the globe. He was planning on going with me but, honestly, the thought of sharing a tiny cabin with him, being in the middle of the ocean… I really believed in that moment that if he came with me, there was a good chance I wouldn’t come back. So I took his name off the itinerary and kicked him out of the apartment. A month later I left on the voyage that I believe literally saved my life.” ― Nicole L.
“We met in graduate school and dated for three years. We started to save for a home and received permission to use my grandmother’s heirloom wedding and engagement rings.
I never second guessed that he was the person I wanted to spend the rest of my life with, until that March when I met someone by a chance encounter. I had literally grabbed my coat and had my hand on the door to leave an event when he ran up to me.
I never did date the man I met by chance, but meeting him was like one of those corny rom-com scenes where they look at each other and the rest of the room seems to fade away. It was a short amount of time before I realized that while [the new guy] wasn’t the perfect man for me or ‘The One,’ he was significantly closer to my perfect match than who I was with. Sometimes it just takes one small moment in time, as small as someone catching you at the door, to completely realign your life.” ― Maria D.
“I had just turned 30 years old; Ben was 40. Although we had been in a relationship for over three years, he wasn’t showing signs of wanting to move in together, let alone propose. With a broken heart, I went to break it off with him, and in a panic, he asked me to marry him.
Our engagement was more stressful than ecstatic. The plan was to put my parents’ diamond in a new setting, and he stalled on it.
We were also in the process of buying a house. Time was of the essence; I had already sold the house I lived in with my kids. But much to my embarrassment, Ben didn’t show up for the appointment to sign the papers to make the home officially ours. Later, he said he was sleeping. It was the middle of the day.
Ben made another appointment to sign. The morning of the new appointment, I called him and said I would be busy that day looking for a different house, this one just for me and the kids.
To this day, ten years later, he has still never married. But I’m happily married to my best friend David ― also a single parent ― who I met just a few months after calling off the engagement.” ― K.J.
These stories have been edited and condensed.
— 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.
In yet another setback for the Trump administration, a federal appeals court in Richmond, Virginia, on Thursday refused to lift a nationwide injunction that halted a key provision of President Donald Trump’s revised travel ban on six predominantly Muslim nations.
The ruling is the most bruising the White House has suffered in its attempts to defend the ban, as it was rendered by 13 judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit — which deemed the case important enough to skip the usual three-judge process that the vast majority of cases go through.
“Congress granted the President broad power to deny entry to aliens, but that power is not absolute,” wrote U.S. Chief Circuit Judge Roger Gregory in a ruling that largely upheld the original block on the travel ban.
The decision clears the way for Trump to appeal to the Supreme Court, a move he promised when the first version of the travel ban was shot down. The appeal never materialized — the administration chose instead to start from scratch and reissue a tamer version of the executive order.
The watered-down version — which removed Iraq from the list of barred countries and eliminated the ban on Syrian refugees — no longer applied to permanent residents and had a delayed rollout, all in hopes of avoiding the detentions, chaos and protests unleashed by the first order.
These tweaks were intended to make the travel ban more palatable to the courts. But Trump’s campaign promises and anti-Muslim sentiment kept dogging the administration, and federal judges in Hawaii and Maryland couldn’t help but take that history into account in assessing the travel ban’s legality. Both courts concluded that Trump’s own words, and those of his surrogates, tainted the executive order with unconstitutional animus against a religious group.
“The president has never repudiated the statements he made on a Muslim ban,” said U.S. Circuit Judge Robert King earlier this month when the 4th Circuit heard the case. King and other judges specifically pointed to Trump’s own campaign website, which once called for a “total and complete shutdown” of Muslims entering the United States, as relevant evidence for the purpose behind the executive order.
The Trump administration, for its part, has insisted that the president’s words shouldn’t be used against him, and that courts should be careful not to look behind the chief executive’s motives or second-guess his broad authority to set immigration policy.
“The order before this court has been the subject of a heated and passionate political debate,” a Department of Justice lawyer said during oral arguments before the 4th Circuit. “But the precedent set by this case for this court’s role in reviewing the president’s power at the borders will long transcend this debate and this order and this constitutional moment.”
This is a developing story and will be updated.
— 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.
For reasons of its own, the feisty dictionary Merriam-Webster decided to feature “inanition” as its word of the day on May 25, 2017.
The noun describes “an exhausted condition,” more specifically “the exhausted condition that results from lack of food and water” or, secondarily, “the absence or loss of social, moral, or intellectual vitality or vigor.”
Thanks to the online dictionary’s justified reputation as a sly political commentator and watchdog, followers were quick to see shade cast by the selection:
Others made more direct political connections:
Who knows what motivated Merriam-Webster to highlight “inanition” at this moment in history Thursday? We can only speculate.
There’s certainly no confirmation that this feature was meant to tweak President Donald Trump for his reported belief that exercise depletes the human body’s finite reservoir of energy; or for the claim that his “Islamic terrorism” dogwhistle during a recent speech was a flub (”he’s just an exhausted guy,” a White House official told CNN); or for his previous criticism of Hillary Clinton as “low energy,” a claim which now strikes many as hypocritical.
The list of possible reasons goes on: Maybe the featured word was random. Maybe it was intended to serve as a reminder to hydrate during the upcoming warm summer months.
Maybe it was a wink of solidarity to those who feel fatigued by the constant flood of scandalous leaks coming from the White House and the repeated attempts by the administration and Congress to gut healthcare programs, environmental protection measures and other federal programs that many rely on for health and survival.
One thing we do know, however, is what “inanition” means. Thanks, Merriam-Webster!
type=type=RelatedArticlesblockTitle=Related… + articlesList=5926d38fe4b0265790f58a10,58c6a89ce4b054a0ea6bf9f9,58346dc7e4b058ce7aacff38,58077a96e4b0b994d4c2c33f,5910804fe4b0e7021e9961d0,590a0966e4b0bb2d087448d4,58e4f43be4b0d0b7e1669e07
— 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.
Siesta Beach in Sarasota, Florida is the best beach in the country right now, according to the prestigious annual rankings from “Dr. Beach.”
Every year, Florida International University professor Stephen P. Leatherman, aka Dr. Beach, ranks U.S. coastlines on 50 criteria including water temperature, sand quality and upkeep of the natural environment. Siesta Beach is the only one to top his rankings twice in their 26-year history: It previously won the honor in 2015.
Siesta Beach beat out shorelines in Hawaii, California and elsewhere with its fine, white sand and a recent $21 million makeover that resulted in more picnic areas, more parking spaces and a new playground.
And of course, the water here looks gorgeous at any time of day:
Here are the top 10 beaches for 2017, according to Dr. Beach:
— 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 majority of the Senate Democratic caucus is backing a bill that would raise the federal minimum wage to $15 just two years after a comparable bill introduced by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) received scant support from his colleagues.
Thirty of Sanders’ colleagues in the caucus joined the former presidential candidate in formally introducing the bill on Thursday, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), ranking member on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. By contrast, just five senators co-sponsored Sanders’ 2015 bill raising the minimum wage to $15.
Schumer and Murray announced their support for the bill at an April press conference. At the time, however, the bill enjoyed the support of 23 other senators ― just shy of a majority of the Democratic caucus.
“The time is long overdue for us to raise the minimum wage, which is now, at the federal level, $7.25 an hour, which I think under any definition is a starvation wage,” Sanders said at a Thursday press conference on the bill’s introduction.
“We have got to raise the minimum wage to a living wage,” he said. “And what we are here to say is that living wage is $15 an hour.”
Sanders was flanked by Senate and House co-sponsors, including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), as well as low-wage federal contract workers from Good Jobs Nation, an offshoot of the labor union-backed “Fight for $15” campaign. Reps. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) and Bobby Scott (D-Va.), the ranking member on the House Education and Workforce Committee, are introducing an identical companion bill in the House.
Sanders was able to attract the support of party leaders and other more moderate colleagues by extending the phase-in period from 2020 to 2024, assuaging fears that a rapid increase would result in job losses. The largest hike in pay would occur right away if enacted, with the law lifting the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $9.25 this July.
The federal minimum wage has not gone up since 2009, when former President George W. Bush approved the last of several gradual increases.
But after the Service Employees International Union launched the “Fight for $15” movement in 2012, a growing number of cities and states have adopted the $15 minimum, making it a major benchmark for progressive activists. Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle and the state of New York are all in the process of raising their minimum wages to $15.
Of course, with Republicans controlling the White House and both chambers of Congress, there is virtually no chance that this legislation will be considered, let alone pass. Democrats are instead using the bill to show the public what they would do if they had power, with a particular eye on their restless progressive base, which would like to see the party embrace Sanders-style economic populism.
— 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.
An Austin-based movie theater has angered men for offering a women-only screening of the upcoming “Wonder Woman” film.
In a Facebook post Wednesday, the movie theater announced the special screening, with a link back to an innocent and enthusiastic post about the event on its website.
“The most iconic superheroine in comic book history finally has her own movie, and what better way to celebrate than with an all-female screening?” the announcement reads. “Apologies, gentlemen, but we’re embracing our girl power and saying ‘No Guys Allowed’ for one special night at the Alamo Ritz.”
Like clockwork, angry men of the internet responded by calling the theater sexist for hosting a women-only screening of a movie that’s empowering for women.
One man commented, “Apparently ‘equality’ is only selective nowadays … How about a ‘men’s only’ showing of a movie or is that not how equality works?” Another offended gentleman said that it was “wrong,” and that he will “never set foot in [the] theater again.”
Check out some of the comments below.
And regardless of the fact that the theater is hosting dozens of other screenings for the film, some men on Twitter were also quick to take offense.
Alamo responded to many of the commenters, even the angry ones, encouraging them to think twice about why this might be an exciting event for many women:
We hate to lose your business, and it’s certainly your right to campaign against us. Humor us ― give it a day or so and consider this notion (it’s true, we promise): that the event is really just supposed to be a fun way for female fans of a comic book character that’s important to them symbolically to see a movie they’re excited about. There’s no political agenda intended, honest.
Another Twitter user pointed out that the men’s complaints were futile ― the original women-only screening has apparently already sold out, prompting the theater to add more shows.
In a statement to HuffPost, Alamo representatives were enthusiastic about the screening and inspired by the “wrath of trolls” to continue providing an exciting experience for women ― and Alamo now plans on expanding the women-only screening options in its theaters nationwide.
“We are very excited to present select, women-only Wonder Woman screenings at Alamo Drafthouse,” said Morgan Hendrix, Alamo Drafthouse creative manager, in the statement. “That providing an experience where women truly reign supreme has incurred the wrath of trolls only serves to deepen our belief that we’re doing something right. As a result, we will be expanding this program across the country and inviting women everywhere to join us as we celebrate this iconic superheroine in our theaters.”
Representatives for Alamo also told HuffPost that proceeds from the ticket sales for their D.C., Austin and Dallas screenings will be donated to local women’s charities.
H/T Flavorwire
— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
When Darious Bland became a single father seven years ago, he was at a loss as to how to go about doing his daughter’s hair. He’s since picked up a few tricks, and now the Alabama native is sharing them with his fellow dads.
On May 21, Bland held a hair workshop titled “Can Daddy Do My Hair?” in Hunstsville, AL.
The event allowed 12 dads to come with their 3- to 10-year-old daughters as Bland guided them in navigating the understated difficulty of styling black hair.
“These dads are learning a lot; not only about hair but what many moms go through,” he told WHNT. “They didn’t understand the frustration that mothers have to go through while doing their daughters’ hair.”
Videos of fathers doing their daughters’ hair have made their rounds on the internet throughout the years. And an April BBC News video showed health and well-being guru Khembe Clarke hosting a similar event for black fathers in England.
As for Bland, he admits he still has a thing or two to learn.
“I’m learning how to do flat twists, bantu knots, I want to learn how to braid,” he said.
For those who couldn’t make the workshop, Bland also posts video tutorials on the event’s Facebook page.
— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
WASHINGTON ― Progressive members of Congress on Thursday unveiled their own plan to overhaul the nation’s crumbling roads, bridges and waterways ― an ambitious proposal that dwarfs plans offered both by President Donald Trump and Senate Democrats.
The so-called “21st Century New Deal for Jobs” invests $2 trillion over the next 10 years to make badly needed repairs to the nation’s transportation, water, energy and information systems. It contains several progressive priorities, including the use of Davis-Bacon prevailing wage standards, maintenance of racial and gender equity in hiring, focus on low-income communities and carbon-free energy production.
Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), who spearheaded the effort, said the plan would employ 2.5 million Americans in its first year.
“This is how we take our country back. This is how we do job creation,” he said at a press conference organized by the Congressional Progressive Caucus on Capitol Hill.
Unlike Trump’s $1 trillion infrastructure plan, which prioritizes tax incentives to fund infrastructure projects by a 5-1 margin, the progressive initiative relies directly on public investment. The CPC says it would be paid by the closing of unspecified corporate tax loopholes, a new tax on Wall Street transactions, and by repatriating funds held by U.S. companies overseas.
While Trump has yet to release his promised infrastructure plan, its broad outlines look very different from the wish list offered by progressives. The president’s proposal is said to include only $200 billion in public spending. The remainder of the initiative is said to rely on private tax incentives meant to spur investment in infrastructure projects. Such funding mechanisms, known as public-private partnerships, often involve privately financed toll roads.
Deficit-averse Republicans in Congress are unlikely to consider a big spending proposal. The progressive infrastructure effort, rather, attempts to offer a clear contrast between Democratic and Republican policies ahead of the 2018 midterm election.
“President Trump has suggested that he will address the infrastructure gap. His ideas, however, are insufficient. They are riddled with fancy and unnecessary gimmicks, and laced with tax breaks for his wealthy friends,” the CPC says. “We cannot afford to accept a plan like this that helps Wall Street investors, but leaves ordinary Americans behind.”
— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
This is site is run by Sascha Endlicher, M.A., during ungodly late night hours. Wanna know more about him? Connect via Social Media by jumping to about.me/sascha.endlicher.
