Former 'Top Gear' Star Involved In Serious Car Crash

TV presenter Richard Hammond has crashed an electric super car in Switzerland while filming for his TV show “The Grand Tour.”

The former “Top Gear” star was airlifted to a hospital, but he did not sustain any major injury and was conscious upon exiting the totaled vehicle, a Rimac Concept One, representatives confirmed Saturday.

The car burst into flames after the 47-year-old got himself out safely. Nobody else was involved in the crash.

“The Grand Tour” Twitter account released a statement:

The statement reads:

Richard Hammond was involved in a serious crash after completing the Hemburg Hill Climb in Switzerland in a Rimac Concept One, an electric super car built in Croatia, during filming for “The Grand Tour” Season 2 on Amazon Prime, but very fortunately suffered no serious injury. Richard was conscious and talking, and climbed out of the car himself before the vehicle burst into flames. He was flown by Air Ambulance to hospital in St. Gallen to be checked over revealing a fracture to his knee. Nobody else was in the car or involved in the accident, and we’d like to thank the paramedics on site for their swift response. The cause of the crash is unknown and is being investigated.

“The Grand Tour” costar and fellow former “Top Gear” host Jeremy Clarkson tweeted Saturday about witnessing the incident:

Hammond previously had a serious crash in 2006 while filming “Top Gear,” which caused brain injuries.

The Amazon Prime show “The Grand Tour” is essentially a continuation of “Top Gear.” In 2015, the BBC fired Clarkson after he committed “an unprovoked physical and verbal attack” on a crew member. After the ousting, the hosts decided to start a new show.

Marketing for this Amazon Prime iteration of the show involved crashed cars across the globe as seen below: 

— 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.

Toddlers Die After 'Intentionally' Left In Car By Teenage Mom: Sheriff

Two toddlers are dead after authorities in Texas say their mother intentionally left them inside of a car for more than 15 hours as she hung out with friends on Tuesday night.

Amanda Hawkins, 19, was arrested on two counts of abandoning or endangering a child following the tragedy involving her young daughters, the Kerr County Sheriff’s Office announced Friday.

Sisters Brynn Hawkins, 1, and Addyson Overgard-Eddy, 2, were initially described as in “grave” condition after taken to a hospital in Kerrsville by their mother and a 16-year-old boy on Wednesday. There, their mother told hospital staff that the girls collapsed after smelling flowers at a lake, Sheriff W.R. “Rusty” Hierholzer said in a release.

“They thought maybe they got into something poisonous,” Hierholzer recalled the mom’s story to Fox San Antonio.

He said the story, however, quickly started to fall apart.

An investigation by the police and child protective services found that Hawkins had intentionally left the girls overnight in her car while at a friend’s. Around noon the next day she found them unresponsive in the car, Hierholzer said.

“Some of the witnesses said that they could hear the kids crying outside and told her to bring them in but she didn’t want to,” he told KENS 5.

Instead of immediately seeking help, Hierholzer said the mom bathed them and redressed them. She allegedly told authorities that she didn’t want to take them to the hospital “because she didn’t want to get into trouble.” According to Fox San Antonio, someone talked her into taking them to a hospital.

Around 5 p.m. the next day, they were taken off ventilator systems and died, Fox San Antonio reported. An autopsies of the bodies are currently underway.

“This is by far the most horrific case of child endangerment that I have seen in the 37 years that I have been in law enforcement,” Hierholzer said in his statement.

Hierholzer said charges against the girls’ mother may be upgraded because of their deaths. It will be up to a grand jury to decide. The 16-year-old boy may also face charges.

HuffPost has reached out to Hawkins and her family and will update when a response is received.

— 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.

Easy Time Hacks To Take Back Your Day

Two years ago, I had the honor of being part of the Washington Post Time Hack Project. I was one of a handful of coaches who were paired with readers struggling with work-life balance. It was fun to help individuals from around the world and from every age group to take back control of their time and their life. The Time Hack Case Studies and Top 10 Time Hacks provide some tangible tips to help you take back your time.

The first order of business for taking back your time is to acknowledge you have the power to do so. With a schedule packed full of work hours, childcare and household responsibilities, and a myriad of other tasks, it is too easy to feel a slave to your schedule. One of the main reasons we feel stress with a busy schedule is we allow ourselves to be the victim of time and responsibilities. What we need to do is to run our schedule, not to let it run us.

The initial step to taking control of our schedule is to consciously create our schedule. How often during the day do you say “I have to . . .” Just changing the wording to “I choose to . . .” can move the power from the schedule to you. When you feel you “have to” to do something, you are a victim, a slave, a drone of the responsibility. When you choose to take action, you are in the driver’s seat. Blame, anger, and stress are removed through consciously choosing how you spend your day.

This is more than just word choice. Being conscious about your time is more than taking responsibility for what you are choosing to do, but it is also choosing to do – and not to do – certain things. Look at everything on your list and really consider if you are consciously wanting and choosing something – or does it feel like an obligation. I was speaking to a small business owner the other day who was overwhelmed by the amount of work on her schedule. However, when we delved into each item, we discovered that many items were actually obligations, not business necessities. She felt compelled to take on additional work for her clients, for which she was not receiving compensation. Yet, “as a good business owner,” she felt she had to do these things. Not true. Once we sorted through her actual responsibilities and removed the obligations, she suddenly had a reasonable schedule.

Once you have pulled unnecessary obligations off your schedule, look at what is left. Look for items which you feel responsible to complete, but may not be the best use of your time and resources. An example of this comes from a woman taking care of an elderly relative. She chose to help her relative, but between doctor’s visits, trips to the grocery story, doing laundry, and ordering prescriptions, her days were filled with caretaking. In this case, we looked through the list of caretaking to-do’s and separated them by things she wanted or needed to do, and those things which were more easily taken care of by others. Doctor’s visits were something she definitely wanted to attend in order to monitor her relative’s health. But there was no reason she had to spend an hour a week going to the grocery store. Peapod or other delivery services could ensure the task was done – just not by her.

Take a look at your schedule for this week. What are things you truly want and need to do? What obligations can you remove from your list? What responsibilities can be more easily taken care of by someone else? Then embrace what is left on your schedule as those things you are actively, consciously choosing to do. Notice how you feel you have more time, and less stress, throughout your day.

— 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 Bernie Sanders Movement Sees Light At The End Of The Tunnel

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);

CHICAGO ― Last June, with the presidential primary season all but officially over, around 3,000 supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) gathered for the first-ever People’s Summit in Chicago to co-mingle feelings of elation and defeat.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was slated to be named the party nominee at the Democratic National Convention the following month. Many supporters indulged a fantasy of Sanders winning over superdelegates at the last minute to tip the scales in his favor, while others who resigned themselves to Clinton’s victory were simply ecstatic that a candidate running on a platform of democratic socialism came this far.

Though everyone agreed their diverse grassroots movement would forge ahead and grow stronger, few predicted it would ultimately be in resistance to a Donald Trump agenda, rather than a Clinton one.  

The result was especially frustrating for the progressive partisans sometimes known as Berniecrats. The disaster of a Trump presidency could have all been avoided, they thought, if Democrats had nominated Sanders, a true voice for the “forgotten men and women” Trump claimed to champion. That the Democratic National Committee put a thumb on the scale for Clinton was an especially sore point.

Anger soon gave way to organizing. Buoyed by the rallying cry-turned-cheeky internet meme “Bernie would have won,” activists, under Sanders’ guidance, vowed to carry on the legacy of his campaign with a bottom-up democratic socialist takeover of American politics.

Those efforts have started to bear fruit, with progressives in the Sanders mold notching victories at the state and local level ― or making important inroads in the electorate.

In May, former Sanders delegate Christine Pellegrino won a seat in the New York state assembly by flipping a district Trump had won by 23 percentage points. A week before, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Sanders supporter Larry Krasner won the Democratic nomination for district attorney ― all but ensuring a general election win in the heavily blue area ― on a solidly progressive platform of criminal justice reform. Other pickups include a mayoralty in Jackson, Mississippi, and city council wins in nearby Meridian and South Fulton, Georgia.

Consequently, when the 2017 People’s Summit began Friday in Chicago, it was not only bigger and stronger, it had a feeling that lacked from the year before: Vindication.  

type=type=RelatedArticlesblockTitle=Read more… + articlesList=593ada6de4b0b13f2c69ff9a

Just one day earlier, in the United Kingdom’s snap election, the unabashedly socialist Labour Party Leader ― and rumpled Sanders doppelganger ― Jeremy Corbyn helped his party pick up 32 seats in parliament, denying Theresa May’s Conservative Party an outright majority.

“It’s like what Trump did when he flipped the Rust Belt,” said 28-year-old Josh Youngerman, a former American expat in England, who volunteered for Corbyn’s campaign remotely. He noted that Corbyn flipped the support of many “Leave” voters who supported Brexit.

“What that shows is that you don’t win running as a moderate,” Youngerman said. “[Corbyn] ran as unapologetically left-wing.”

Krystal Ball, a political activist, former MSNBC host and one time Virginia congressional candidate who is among the speakers at the People’s Summit, said Corbyn’s win was validation the progressive movement is on the right track.

Fellow speaker Nomiki Konst, a former Sanders campaign surrogate, who is now a reporter for the Young Turks, said the U.K. election was also a morale boost.

“It validates a lot of our efforts as we’re figuring out what it takes to win: things like a progressive message and a strong on-the-ground campaign,” Konst said.

“What [Jeremy Corbyn’s victory] shows is that you don’t win running as a moderate.”
Josh Youngerman, People’s Summit attendee

Corbyn’s stunning performance has been such a jolt of positive energy to the American left precisely because the electoral record of candidates backed by Sanders at the national level has been decidedly less rosy than the performance of local candidates.  

In an early attempt to steer the Democratic Party in a more progressive direction, Sanders and his followers got behind the bid of key ally Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison to chair the Democratic National Committee. Key party establishment figures like Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) joined them, recognizing the importance of the Sanders movement. But with help from former President Barack Obama and his close confidantes, former Labor Secretary Tom Perez defeated Ellison by a slim margin in February.

“Ellison’s loss was a slap in the face,” observed Kenneth Coleman, an Oregon member of the Democratic Socialists of America. “It showed the [Democratic] party consciously rejected where all the energy was from.”

Sanders’ record in special congressional races has not been much better, albeit against much steeper odds. Last month, he barnstormed Montana, where Trump defeated Clinton by 20 percentage points, for House candidate Rob Quist, a folk musician and single-payer health care advocate who supported Sanders in the primary. Quist ultimately came up 6 points short in the May 25 special election, despite his Republican opponent Greg Gianforte’s assault of a reporter the previous day.

Of course, Sanders followers acknowledge that high-profile, national electoral victories are often the end result of long-term organizing. A big reason Ellison came as close as he did to becoming DNC chair is because of progressive takeovers of state Democratic parties whose leaders can participate in the chairmanship election. Those efforts have proceeded apace since then, most recently with the narrow loss of a Sanders acolyte in the race to chair the California Democratic Party.

In his speech to the People’s Summit on Saturday evening, Sanders plans to emphasize progress in the policy conversation, according to advance excerpts of the speech received by HuffPost. Among other things, he sees headway being made in the support of a majority of congressional Democrats for a $15 minimum wage, a cause for which he can rightly claim credit as an early champion.

“We may have lost the election in 2016 but, because of the grass-roots efforts of activists throughout the country, we have made enormous progress in advancing the progressive agenda,” Sanders’ prepared remarks state. “Ideas that, just a few years ago, seemed radical and unattainable are now part of Main Street discussion and, in fact, some of them are being implemented across the country as we speak.”

— 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.

Inside The Mill’s mind-bending alternate reality art showcase

I stepped inside a small, dark room in a large, airy loft space in New York’s Soho district early Wednesday morning. Our host fitted me with an HTC Vive and told to explore the world around me. Within moments, I was trapped in a glass box, surrounded…

Trump's Push For Self-Sufficiency Misses The Point Of Safety Net Programs

By David Campbell, Binghamton University, State University of New York and Kristina Lambright, Binghamton University, State University of New York

Here’s how Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney has tried to justify the Trump administration’s bid to cut or scrap many safety net programs: 

“We are no longer going to measure compassion by the number of programs or the number of people on those programs. We are going to measure compassion and success by the number of people we get off of those programs to get back in charge of their own lives.”

In other words, Mulvaney is arguing that the main criterion for a program’s success should be whether it leads to self-sufficiency. But as researchers who have studied ways to evaluate social services, we don’t think this metric makes sense in this case.

Evaluating government programs

Determining whether a government program works involves looking at its goals and whom it’s supposed to help.

Congress created and has sustained a safety net to help people meet basic needs and reduce poverty, and these are its goals. Many of the people who benefit from it are already working or cannot work because of a disability.

In short, government-provided social services and benefits are often not simply handouts on the road to a job that will pay the bills for Americans temporarily facing hard times. They also make it possible for the working poor, the disabled, the elderly and children living in poverty to get the food, shelter and medical care they need to survive.

The proposed cuts are surprising because many of these programs enjoy widespread bipartisan support, according to polling by the University of Maryland’s Program for Public Consultation.

Energy and food aid

Our research involves looking at how funders and providers of social programs assess the work they do.

In one study, we surveyed 145 funders and providers. The average respondent told us that the most important reason they assess outcomes is to see if their programs are accomplishing their goals. Based on follow-up interviews with a subset of this group, we learned that their goals varied depending on the purpose of the program. For example, early childhood education programs can measure the academic achievement of the kids who benefit from it a few years later, and teen pregnancy prevention programs may assess success based on how many participants get pregnant before adulthood.

If you apply this basic standard to the programs the Trump administration seeks to cut, the evidence indicates safety net programs are meeting their goals.

Take the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), established by Congress in 1981, which helps poor Americans pay their utility bills. That program, which the Trump administration wants to eliminate, targets the elderly, disabled and households with young children. By helping to keep the heat on when it’s cold out so no one in a household freezes and the air conditioning humming during heat waves, it’s clearly aimed at meeting basic needs.

Research about its effectiveness, including a study by Anthony Murray of the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond and Bradford Mills of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, shows that the program works. They note that LIHEAP significantly reduces energy insecurity – a measure of whether people have enough home energy to meet their basic needs. Eliminating the program would increase energy insecurity among low-income Americans by 18 percent, they calculated.

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), popularly known as food stamps, is another safety net program on the chopping block that appears to be working well. The program’s explicit purpose is reducing hunger, and research indicates that it achieves this goal.

One recent study from The Urban Institute, a think tank that researches government policies, found that getting food stamps reduced the chance that eligible Americans would would go hungry by approximately 30 percent. Analysis by the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, another think tank that evaluates government policies, found that food stamps kept or lifted 10.3 million Americans out of poverty – an additional sign it is an effective piece of the safety net.

Yet, Trump’s reductions would cut federal spending on food stamps by US$193 billion – more than a 25 percent reduction – over 10 years.

Other safety net programs are also at risk. The proposed federal budget would decrease housing assistance for 250,000 people, cut $1.8 billion from public housing and eliminate after-school programs serving the poorest members of our society. In addition, it would add to the House-approved health care bill’s $834 billion in Medicaid cuts by taking another $610 billion from the program over a decade, further reducing health insurance coverage for low-income and disabled Americans.

In short, the Trump budget conveys skepticism about the idea of even having a safety net.

Mulvaney’s standard

Self-sufficiency is certainly an appropriate way to measure the success for some social programs, such as job-training initiatives – which Trump’s budget request would slash by 40 percent despite the president’s own explicit support for vocational training. But does Mulvaney’s view that a declining number of beneficiaries should be the primary indicator of success for every program designed to meet basic human needs make sense?

Here are the kinds of people the proposed safety net cuts would affect: severely disabled parents who can’t afford food for their toddlers. An elderly couple who can’t foot their heating bill in the winter. A single mom working two jobs and nevertheless struggling to feed her three children with what she earns. It makes little sense for the government to deny assistance to these people because they can’t get a job or because they have a job but don’t earn enough to make ends meet.

The Agriculture Department, which oversees food stamps, says that 75 percent of the Americans receiving those benefits in 2015 were children, elderly or disabled. Further, it reports that among households that included someone able to work, more than 75 percent included someone who had held a job in the year before or after receiving food stamps. Many others worked for low wages while receiving benefits. LIHEAP serves a similar population.

Leaving aside the question of why so many low-income workers don’t earn enough money to feed their families, what would it mean for children, the elderly and the disabled to be more, as Mulvaney puts it, “in charge of their lives”? Doesn’t our society want to spend money ensuring the very neediest and most vulnerable people don’t starve or freeze to death?

The ConversationAs researchers, we embrace evidence-based decision-making. We are confused by Mulvaney’s metric of success. We want to know why, if experts have deemed these popular programs a success, the Trump administration doesn’t seem to agree.

David Campbell, Associate Professor of Public Administration, Binghamton University, State University of New York and Kristina Lambright, Associate Dean of the College of Community and Public Affairs, and an Associate Professor of Public Administration, Binghamton University, State University of New York

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

— 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.

Our Message Against Anti-Muslim Hate On San Bernardino's Hallowed Ground

Introduction

Good morning, and thank you so very, very much for the privilege of speaking to you in peace today away from the painful expression of bigotry taking place on hallowed ground, just a short distance from here. I am Prof. Brian Levin , director of the Center for the Study of Hate & Extremism at California State University, San Bernardino. I come armed only with a sincere heart guided by the wisdom of others.

Before I commence my own statement on American values, and of solidarity and compassion with our Muslim friends and neighbors, I would like to offer the following words of our beloved advisory board member Trenna Meins, who tragically lost her husband Damian, the devoted father of her two beautiful daughters, to violence and hatred during the horrific terrorist attack that struck our community two years ago.

Our Beloved Citizen Speaks

As Americans we are blessed to live in a representative Democracy with a Constitutionally mandated separation of Church and State. “Sharia Law”, as this group (mis)understands it, is not present nor will it be imposed in the United States.

This rally seems to be a thinly veiled, bizarre excuse to spread religious bigotry and racist propaganda. We do not support this and we are deeply disappointed that this site, which is so important to us, was chosen as the location for this misguided and unfortunate event. As a family, we strongly condemn any acts of hatred or intolerance. One horrific act of hatred has already occurred at the IRC [Inland Regional Center] – there is no need for more. We seek peace, not further divisive acts. We will never support any event or action that is not rooted in compassion and love.

Our Exercise of the First Amendment in Peace

I couldn’t agree with her more.

The Inland Regional Center, just down this very street, is indeed hallowed ground to our city, where 14 people, created in G-d’s image, whose only mission was to help others, were struck down in a cacophony of brutality disguised as faith. As the Koran clearly states in chapter 5, verse 32: “…if any one killed a person, it would be as if he killed the whole of mankind; and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole of mankind…”

For those of us who remain, who love our community, in our own peaceful exercise of our First Amendment rights, it is we who will have the last word. And we will, because our city’s values of religious pluralism are at the foundation of what it means to be an American.

The Wisdom of Our Prior Leaders

One need look no further than the dreams of our nation’s founders. In 1790 George Washington wrote this to the Jewish congregation of the Touro Synagogue in Providence, Rhode Island:

For happily the Government of the United States gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.

Thomas Jefferson, wanted only these three achievements on his tombstone:

HERE WAS BURIED THOMAS JEFFERSON AUTHOR OF THE DECLARATION OF AMERICAN INDEPENDENCE OF THE STATUTE OF VIRGINIA FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM AND FATHER OF THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA.

And in the law he so vigorously championed, he wrote:

No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief…

Presidents across the political spectrum have shared this value of religious freedom and pluralism. Six days after 9/11 President Bush counseled:

Islam is peace. These terrorists don’t represent peace. They represent evil and war….Muslims are doctors, lawyers, law professors, members of the military, entrepreneurs, shopkeepers, moms and dads. And they need to be treated with respect. In our anger and emotion, our fellow Americans must treat each other with respect….

Moms who wear cover must be not intimidated in America. That’s not the America I know. That’s not the America I value. I’ve been told that some fear to leave; some don’t want to go shopping for their families; some don’t want to go about their ordinary daily routines because, by wearing cover, they’re afraid they’ll be intimidated. That should not and that will not stand in America. Those who feel like they can intimidate our fellow citizens to take out their anger don’t represent the best of America, they represent the worst of humankind, and they should be ashamed of that kind of behavior.

His successor, President Barack Obama, who like Jefferson was maligned as a “secret” Muslim said,

But I’m also respectful that people of different faiths can practice their religion, even if they don’t subscribe to the exact same notions that I do, and that they are still good people, and they are my neighbors and they are my friends, and they are alongside us in our battles.

In the days after the terror attack on our community, anti-Muslim hate crime skyrocketed across the nation, but there wasn’t a single one in our city. We came together, rejecting the hateful impulses that poisoned others, and we continue to reject that bigotry today. Last year our Center found that hate crimes rose 14% in our state and 6% nationally, marking the first back to back annual increase in California since 1996, as we have become more polarized.

But there is always a peaceful path, if we have the reflection to follow it. When fires swept many of the nation’s cities on the night of Dr. King’s murder, Indianapolis mourned quietly after Bobby Kennedy’s spontaneous address there. He said:

For those of you who are black and are tempted to be filled with hatred and distrust at the injustice of such an act, against all white people, I can only say that I feel in my own heart the same kind of feeling. I had a member of my family killed, but he was killed by a white man. But we have to make an effort in the United States, we have to make an effort to understand, to go beyond these rather difficult times….

But the vast majority of white people and the vast majority of black people in this country want to live together, want to improve the quality of our life, and want justice for all human beings who abide in our land.

Let us dedicate ourselves to what the Greeks wrote so many years ago: to tame the savageness of man and make gentle the life of this world.

What we need in the United States is not division; what we need in the United States is not hatred; what we need in the United States is not violence or lawlessness; but love and wisdom, and compassion toward one another, and a feeling of justice toward those who still suffer within our country.

On behalf of this community that I love so much, thank you for coming in peace and solidarity today. May G-d bless you, our diverse city and those whose we loss we mourn, and the United States of America, now and forever.

— 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.

Adam West, 'Batman' Star, Dead At 88

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);

Longtime actor Adam West died Friday night, June 9, at the age of 88. He famously played the title role in the 1960s television series “Batman.”

A rep confirmed to Variety that the actor died after being treated briefly for leukemia.

“Our dad always saw himself as The Bright Knight, and aspired to make a positive impact on his fans’ lives. He was and always will be our hero,” said his family in a statement.

The West family also tweeted from his account:

West remained a working actor until his death, notably with recurring voice work for animated projects such as “Family Guy” and “Batman: Return of the Caped Crusaders.”

On “Family Guy,” the actor voiced a character with his own name. “Adam West” seemed to be immortal no matter what medical catastrophe came his way. A memorable moment from the show involved a doctor telling West he had lymphoma ― “Probably from rolling around in that toxic waste.” The doctor goes on to ask, “What in God’s name were you trying to prove?”

West’s response, “I was trying to gain super powers.”

The actor also made cameos as himself on shows like “30 Rock” and “The Big Bang Theory.”

Over the past 50 years, he never fully retired his role as Batman, voicing the character as late as 2017 in the upcoming video “Batman vs. Two-Face.” Since the original show, West also appeared in various non-lead roles in the “Batman” series.

West’s “Batman” is now remembered as being comically over-the-top, as he was in relatively low-budget action sequences and often uttered cringe-inducing dialogue. Perhaps the most famous line from the series was when West yelled, “Quick! To the Batmobile!”

The actor embraced the humor of his take on the Dark Knight throughout the rest of his life. In 2006, West appeared on the game show “I’ve Got A Secret” and revealed that he even got a “tattoo” of the Batman logo on one of his teeth.

West graduated from Whitman College as a literature major. After being drafted into the United States Army, he got a gig as the announcer for an internal television service for the military called the American Forces Network. It wasn’t until 1959 ― when West moved his then wife and two children to Hollywood, California ― that he took the stage name Adam West, adapted from his given name, William West Anderson.

After moving to Hollywood, West secured small roles in numerous shows and movies, many of which were Westerns. But when he landed the role as Batman about a decade into his career, West became extremely famous.

Once the original run of “Batman” ended in 1968, West had a bit of a lull in his career, with serious work being hard to come by. To support his family, he had to do “things that I wasn’t very comfortable doing,” the actor explained in the 2013 documentary “Starring Adam West.” He had exploit his fame for money with celebrity event appearances and risky ventures, such as a daredevil stunt where he drove a car through a truck.

West’s persistence eventually started earning him more comedic roles, though, as he embraced the love fans had for his zany Batman.

In April 2012, West was finally awarded with a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. To begin his acceptance speech, West addressed the crowd as “citizens of Gotham.”

The actor is survived by his wife, Marcelle Tagand Lear, whom he married 1970. West has four children over three marriages ― Hunter Anderson and Jonelle S. Anderson with his second wife, Nga Frisbie Dawson, and Nina West and Perrin West with Lear. West also has two stepchildren from the Lear marriage, Moya and Jill.

The Robin to his original Batman, Burt Ward, is now 71.

— 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.

12 Habits Of Genuine People

There’s an enormous amount of research suggesting that emotional intelligence (EQ) is critical to your performance at work. TalentSmart has tested the EQ of more than a million people and found that it explains 58% of success in all types of jobs.

People with high EQs make $29,000 more annually than people with low EQs. Ninety percent of top performers have high EQs, and a single-point increase in your EQ adds $1,300 to your salary. I could go on and on.

Suffice it to say, emotional intelligence is a powerful way to focus your energy in one direction with tremendous results.

But there’s a catch. Emotional intelligence won’t do a thing for you if you aren’t genuine.

A recent study from the Foster School of Business at the University of Washington found that people don’t accept demonstrations of emotional intelligence at face value. They’re too skeptical for that. They don’t just want to see signs of emotional intelligence. They want to know that it’s genuine—that your emotions are authentic.

According to lead researcher Christina Fong, when it comes to your coworkers,

“They are not just mindless automatons. They think about the emotions they see and care whether they are sincere or manipulative.”

The same study found that sincere leaders are far more effective at motivating people because they inspire trust and admiration through their actions, not just their words. Many leaders say that authenticity is important to them, but genuine leaders walk their talk every day.

It’s not enough to just go through the motions, trying to demonstrate qualities that are associated with emotional intelligence. You have to be genuine.

You can do a gut check to find out how genuine you are by comparing your own behavior to that of people who are highly genuine. Consider the hallmarks of genuine people and see how you stack up.

“Authenticity requires a certain measure of vulnerability, transparency, and integrity,” -Janet Louise Stephenson

1. Genuine people don’t try to make people like them. Genuine people are who they are. They know that some people will like them, and some won’t. And they’re okay with that. It’s not that they don’t care whether or not other people will like them but simply that they’re not going to let that get in the way of doing the right thing. They’re willing to make unpopular decisions and to take unpopular positions if that’s what needs to be done.

Since genuine people aren’t desperate for attention, they don’t try to show off. They know that when they speak in a friendly, confident, and concise manner, people are much more attentive to and interested in what they have to say than if they try to show that they’re important. People catch on to your attitude quickly and are more attracted to the right attitude than what or how many people you know.

2. They don’t pass judgment. Genuine people are open-minded, which makes them approachable and interesting to others. No one wants to have a conversation with someone who has already formed an opinion and is not willing to listen.

Having an open mind is crucial in the workplace, as approachability means access to new ideas and help. To eliminate preconceived notions and judgment, you need to see the world through other people’s eyes. This doesn’t require you to believe what they believe or condone their behavior; it simply means you quit passing judgment long enough to truly understand what makes them tick. Only then can you let them be who they are.

3. They forge their own paths. Genuine people don’t derive their sense of pleasure and satisfaction from the opinions of others. This frees them up to follow their own internal compasses. They know who they are and don’t pretend to be anything else. Their direction comes from within, from their own principles and values. They do what they believe to be the right thing, and they’re not swayed by the fact that somebody might not like it.

4. They are generous. We’ve all worked with people who constantly hold something back, whether it’s knowledge or resources. They act as if they’re afraid you’ll outshine them if they give you access to everything you need to do your job. Genuine people are unfailingly generous with whom they know, what they know, and the resources they have access to. They want you to do well more than anything else because they’re team players and they’re confident enough to never worry that your success might make them look bad. In fact, they believe that your success is their success.

5. They treat EVERYONE with respect. Whether interacting with their biggest clients or servers taking their drink orders, genuine people are unfailingly polite and respectful. They understand that no matter how nice they are to the people they have lunch with, it’s all for naught if those people witnesses them behaving badly toward others. Genuine people treat everyone with respect because they believe they’re no better than anyone else.

6. They aren’t motivated by material things. Genuine people don’t need shiny, fancy stuff in order to feel good. It’s not that they think it’s wrong to go out and buy the latest and greatest items to show off their status; they just don’t need to do this to be happy. Their happiness comes from within, as well as from the simpler pleasures—such as friends, family, and a sense of purpose—that make life rich.

7. They are trustworthy. People gravitate toward those who are genuine because they know they can trust them. It is difficult to like someone when you don’t know who they really are and how they really feel. Genuine people mean what they say, and if they make a commitment, they keep it. You’ll never hear a truly genuine person say, “Oh, I just said that to make the meeting end faster.” You know that if they say something, it’s because they believe it to be true.

8. They are thick-skinned. Genuine people have a strong enough sense of self that they don’t go around seeing offense that isn’t there. If somebody criticizes one of their ideas, they don’t treat this as a personal attack. There’s no need for them to jump to conclusions, feel insulted, and start plotting their revenge. They’re able to objectively evaluate negative and constructive feedback, accept what works, put it into practice, and leave the rest of it behind without developing hard feelings.

9. They put away their phones. Nothing turns someone off to you like a mid-conversation text message or even a quick glance at your phone. When genuine people commit to a conversation, they focus all of their energy on the conversation. You will find that conversations are more enjoyable and effective when you immerse yourself in them. When you robotically approach people with small talk and are tethered to your phone, this puts their brains on autopilot and prevents them from having any real affinity for you. Genuine people create connection and find depth even in short, everyday conversations. Their genuine interest in other people makes it easy for them to ask good questions and relate what they’re told to other important facets of the speaker’s life. These are some of the skills we teach in our emotional intelligence certification program.

10. They aren’t driven by ego. Genuine people don’t make decisions based on their egos because they don’t need the admiration of others in order to feel good about themselves. Likewise, they don’t seek the limelight or try to take credit for other people’s accomplishments. They simply do what needs to be done without saying, “Hey, look at me!”

11. They aren’t hypocrites. Genuine people practice what they preach. They don’t tell you to do one thing and then do the opposite themselves. That’s largely due to their self-awareness. Many hypocrites don’t even recognize their mistakes. They’re blind to their own weaknesses. Genuine people, on the other hand, fix their own problems first.

12. They don’t brag. We’ve all worked with people who can’t stop talking about themselves and their accomplishments. Have you ever wondered why? They boast and brag because they’re insecure and worried that if they don’t point out their accomplishments, no one will notice. Genuine people don’t need to brag. They’re confident in their accomplishments, but they also realize that when you truly do something that matters, it stands on its own merits, regardless of how many people notice or appreciate it.

Bringing It All Together

Genuine people know who they are. They are confident enough to be comfortable in their own skin. They are firmly grounded in reality, and they’re truly present in each moment because they’re not trying to figure out someone else’s agenda or worrying about their own.

What other qualities do you see in genuine people? Please share your thoughts in the comments section, as I learn just as much from you as you do from me.

Want to learn more from me? Check out my book, Emotional Intelligence 2.0.

type=type=RelatedArticlesblockTitle=Related… + articlesList=59076008e4b05279d4edbe3f,587e31c8e4b0897228655052,591f599ae4b0e8f558bb265d

— 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.

At This Point In His Presidency, Obama's Biggest Scandal Was Using Dijon Mustard

As President Donald Trump continues to erode American democracy, you can at least take comfort in knowing he isn’t using Dijon mustard on his burgers.

In May 2009, Fox News host Sean Hannity devoted airtime on his show to a frank, honest conversation about whether then-President Barack Obama was capable of leading the country. His biggest issue was that America could not trust a president that uses Dijon mustard on his food.

“Take a look at [Obama] ordering his burger with a very special condiment,” Hannity said on his program at the time, before showing a clip of POTUS at a Virginia restaurant.

“I’m gonna have your very basic cheddar cheeseburger, medium-well,” Obama told the cashier. “I just want mustard, no ketchup. You got a spicy mustard or something like that? Dijon mustard or something?”

“I hope you enjoyed that fancy burger,” Hannity shot back.

Eight years later, the U.S. now has a president who has bragged about sexually assaulting women, is accused of colluding with Russia to help him win an election, golfs more than he leads, ignores climate change evidence, and petulantly shoves world leaders when he doesn’t get to be the center of attention.

Oh, he also eats his steaks well-done with ketchup.  

It’s unclear why Hannity’s investigation never led to the removal of President Obama, but at least the American people can finally rest assured that these types of scandals are finally over.

— 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.