Translate

Powered by Blogger.

Thursday, August 29, 2013

Your Internet Jargon’s an Omnishambles? Srsly, Read This



***



Buzzworthy words added to Oxford Dictionaries Online – squee!





We’ve just added some srsly buzzworthy words to our online dictionary – squee! With influences ranging from technology to fashion, there is something for everyone in the update.

If you are someone who always leaves prepping for a party to the last minute, you’ll be relieved to know that you can now click and collect, so you can avoid a mad trolley dash to grab some cake pops or blondies before your guests arrive. And don’t forget some pear cider to wash down all those tasty treats.
Even if your party turns into an omnishambles, full of people in double denim doing dad dancing, try not to worry. You’ll soon feel better after a bit of me time: a few minutes in the child’s pose, a chilled michelada, and a Nordic noir will have you feeling as right as rain.

The additions may have only just entered the dictionary, but we’ve been watching them for a while now, tracking how and where they are used. Two of the words to make their debut in the dictionary, selfie and phablet both featured on our Words on the radar post back in June 2012. At the time, selfie featured primarily in social media contexts, but had attracted media attention after Hillary Clinton apparently used the word in a text message to the owner of a Tumblr dedicated to an image of her texting.

Omnishambles, which is new this quarter, was Oxford Dictionaries Word of the Year in 2012. At the time of choosing, it wasn’t clear whether or not it would find its way into one of our dictionaries. But it has continued to gain momentum since then, and is now deserving of an entry.

Several fashion terms also make their Oxford dictionary debut this season including flatformgeek chic, and jorts. Jorts is a good example of a blend (also known as a portmanteau), a word which is a combination of two words in which part of one or both words is omitted (with jorts being a blend of jeans and shorts). And it’s in good company, with babymoon and fauxhawk also entering the dictionary.

Of course blends may be a popular way to form new words, but let’s also tip our hats to our old friends the initialism and the acronym. It’s not just LOL and OMG that have made their way into the mainstream, this update sees the addition of a variety of new acronyms and initialisms, from the familial quartet of FILMILBIL, and SIL, to the technical BYOD and the time-saving TL;DR. [ed. note: hyperlink added]

FOMO? Take a look at our selection of the additions to Oxford Dictionaries Online and see if you can tell your MIL from your MOOC.



***

Saturday, August 17, 2013

Midtown Manhattan in 3 Minutes



***



Watch New York City Come Alive in This Amazing Timelapse





by Marina Koren, Smithsonian.com, June 13, 2013

Photographer Drew Geraci decided to turn New York City's fact-paced lifestyle up another notch.

The time-lapse stars midtown Manhattan, one of the most bustling spots on the island, and condenses more than 50,000 still frames from six months of shooting at 100 locations in less than three minutes.

“We wanted to get that feeling of what it was like to be in Midtown where everything’s happening,” says Geraci, a Washington, D.C.-based photographer and videographer. “Find the coolest locations and really find something unique about those locations, and shoot them in a way that maybe hasn’t been shot before."

Bird’s eye views from towering rooftops show the ebb and flow of people and cars on the streets below. Down at street level, Geraci captured scenes from moving taxicabs. Some of the city’s most recognizable landmarks make an appearance: The Empire State and Flatiron Buildings, Grand Central Station, Central Park and, of course, Times Square.

“It was really an amazing experience for us to go over there and capture the city from all different angles,” says Geraci, who owns production company District 7 Media with Arthur Breese. The pair used four Canon 5D Mark IIIs with wide-angle lenses, a six-foot dolly and several stop-motion rigs to capture the footage. They then mixed in natural sound recorded at each scene—cars honking, neon signs buzzing, boats blowing their horns out on the water.

Geraci and Breese scouted the locations beforehand and received permission or permits to shoot there, except for the subway system, where MTA workers asked them to leave when the duo tried to set up their tripods. “We had to figure out a way to time the train, put out the tripod, get the camera ready, maybe shoot 400 frames and then book it out of there,” Geraci says.

The photographer says he likes the atmosphere of the city that never sleeps. “There’s a different feel for every different city, but they all have that one common element of lots of people, traffic and really neat architecture,” he says. “I think [New York] is the big city of the United States, so I have to pay homage to it.”


 

***

Saturday, August 3, 2013

The United (in name only) States of America



***



Carving Up the Country

by CHARLES M. BLOW

July 26, 2013

Our 50 states seem to be united in name only.

In fact, we seem to be increasingly becoming two countries under one flag: Liberal Land — coastal, urban and multicultural — separated by Conservative Country — Southern and Western, rural and racially homogeneous. (Other parts of the country are a bit of a mixed bag.)

This has led to incredible and disturbing concentrations of power.

As The New York Times reported after the election in November, more than two-thirds of the states are now under single-party control, meaning that one party has control of the governor’s office and has majorities in both legislative chambers.

This is the highest level of such control since 1952. And Republicans have single-party control in nearly twice as many states as Democrats.

This is having very real consequences on the ground, nowhere more clearly than on the subjects of voting rights and women’s reproductive rights.

Almost all jurisdictions covered by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 — the section that requires federal approval for any change in voting procedures and that the Supreme Court effectively voided last month — are in Republican-controlled states.

So, many of those states have wasted no time following the court ruling to institute efforts to suppress the vote in the next election and beyond.

Within two hours of the Supreme Court ruling, Texas announced that a voter identification law that the Department of Justice had blocked for two years because “Hispanic registered voters are more than twice as likely as non-Hispanic registered voters to lack such identification” would go into effect, along with a redistricting map passed in 2011 but blocked by a federal court.

The department is trying to prevent those actions in Texas, but it’s unclear whether the state or the feds will prevail.

Alabama, Mississippi and South Carolina have also moved forward with voter ID bills that had already passed but were being held up by the Justice Department. (Virginia has passed a bill that’s scheduled to go into effect next year.)

And on Wednesday, a federal court gave Florida the go-ahead to resume its controversial voter purge by dismissing a case filed against the state that had been rendered moot by the Supreme Court decision.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is not surprised by this flurry. She voted with the minority on the Voting Rights Act case, and she wrote in a strongly worded dissent: “The sad irony of today’s decision lies in its utter failure to grasp why the VRA has proved effective. The Court appears to believe that the VRA’s success in eliminating the specific devices extant in 1965 means that preclearance is no longer needed.”

She continued, “With that belief, and the argument derived from it, history repeats itself.”

History does appear to be doing just that. In an interview this week with The Associated Press, Ginsburg reiterated her displeasure with the court’s decision and her lack of surprise at what it has wrought, saying, “And one really could have predicted what was going to happen.” She added, “I didn’t want to be right, but sadly I am.”

While Republicans may claim that voter ID laws are about the sanctity of the vote, Republican power brokers know they’re about much more: suppressing the votes of people likely to vote Democratic.

Last week Rob Gleason, the Pennsylvania Republican Party chairman, discussed the effects of his state’s voter ID laws on last year’s presidential election, acknowledging to the Pennsylvania Cable Network: “We probably had a better election. Think about this: we cut Obama by 5 percent, which was big. A lot of people lost sight of that. He won — he beat McCain by 10 percent; he only beat Romney by 5 percent. I think that probably voter ID helped a bit in that.” [emphasis added]

[Ed. Note: Finally a politician tells it like it is. Voter fraud in the United States is a minuscule problem. Disenfranchising minorities by imposing voter ID laws is a huge, purely politically motivated problem.]

And on women’s reproductive rights, as the Guttmacher Institute reported earlier this month, “In the first six months of 2013, states enacted 106 provisions related to reproductive health and rights.” The report continued, “Although initial momentum behind banning abortion early in pregnancy appears to have waned, states nonetheless adopted 43 restrictions on access to abortion, the second-highest number ever at the midyear mark and is as many as were enacted in all of 2012.”

A substantial majority of the new restrictive measures — which include bans on abortion outside incredibly restrictive time frames (at six weeks after the woman’s last period in North Dakota), burdensome regulations on abortion clinics and providers, and forced ultrasounds — were enacted in states with Republican-controlled legislatures.

These are just two issues among many in which the cleaving of this country is becoming an incontrovertible fact, as we drift back toward bifurcation.


***

Monday, July 22, 2013

Vladimir Putin Declares War on Gay People



***



Russia’s Anti-Gay Crackdown

by Harvey Fierstein

July 22, 2013

RUSSIA’S president, Vladimir V. Putin, has declared war on homosexuals. So far, the world has mostly been silent.

On July 3, Mr. Putin signed a law banning the adoption of Russian-born children not only to gay couples but also to any couple or single parent living in any country where marriage equality exists in any form.

A few days earlier, just six months before Russia hosts the 2014 Winter Games, Mr. Putin signed a law allowing police officers to arrest tourists and foreign nationals they suspect of being homosexual, lesbian or “pro-gay” and detain them for up to 14 days. Contrary to what the International Olympic Committee says, the law could mean that any Olympic athlete, trainer, reporter, family member or fan who is gay — or suspected of being gay, or just accused of being gay — can go to jail.

Earlier in June, Mr. Putin signed yet another antigay bill, classifying “homosexual propaganda” as pornography. The law is broad and vague, so that any teacher who tells students that homosexuality is not evil, any parents who tell their child that homosexuality is normal, or anyone who makes pro-gay statements deemed accessible to someone underage is now subject to arrest and fines. Even a judge, lawyer or lawmaker cannot publicly argue for tolerance without the threat of punishment.

Finally, it is rumored that Mr. Putin is about to sign an edict that would remove children from their own families if the parents are either gay or lesbian or suspected of being gay or lesbian. The police would have the authority to remove children from adoptive homes as well as from their own biological parents.

Not surprisingly, some gay and lesbian families are already beginning to plan their escapes from Russia.

Why is Mr. Putin so determined to criminalize homosexuality? He has defended his actions by saying that the Russian birthrate is diminishing and that Russian families as a whole are in danger of decline. That may be. But if that is truly his concern, he should be embracing gay and lesbian couples who, in my world, are breeding like proverbial bunnies. These days I rarely meet a gay couple who aren’t raising children.

And if Mr. Putin thinks he is protecting heterosexual marriage by denying us the same unions, he hasn’t kept up with the research. Studies from San Diego State University compared homosexual civil unions and heterosexual marriages in Vermont and found that the same-sex relationships demonstrate higher levels of satisfaction, sexual fulfillment and happiness. (Vermont legalized same-sex marriages in 2009, after the study was completed.)

Mr. Putin also says that his adoption ban was enacted to protect children from pedophiles. Once again the research does not support the homophobic rhetoric. About 90 percent of pedophiles are heterosexual men.

Mr. Putin’s true motives lie elsewhere. Historically this kind of scapegoating is used by politicians to solidify their bases and draw attention away from their failing policies, and no doubt this is what’s happening in Russia. Counting on the natural backlash against the success of marriage equality around the world and recruiting support from conservative religious organizations, Mr. Putin has sallied forth into this battle, figuring that the only opposition he will face will come from the left, his favorite boogeyman.

Mr. Putin’s campaign against lesbian, gay and bisexual people is one of distraction, a strategy of demonizing a minority for political gain taken straight from the Nazi playbook. Can we allow this war against human rights to go unanswered? Although Mr. Putin may think he can control his creation, history proves he cannot: his condemnations are permission to commit violence against gays and lesbians. Last week a young gay man was murdered in the city of Volgograd. He was beaten, his body violated with beer bottles, his clothing set on fire, his head crushed with a rock. This is most likely just the beginning.

Nevertheless, the rest of the world remains almost completely ignorant of Mr. Putin’s agenda. His adoption restrictions have received some attention, but it has been largely limited to people involved in international adoptions.

This must change. With Russia about to hold the Winter Games in Sochi, the country is open to pressure. American and world leaders must speak out against Mr. Putin’s attacks and the violence they foster. The Olympic Committee must demand the retraction of these laws under threat of boycott.

In 1936 the world attended the Olympics in Germany. Few participants said a word about Hitler’s campaign against the Jews. Supporters of that decision point proudly to the triumph of Jesse Owens, while I point with dread to the Holocaust and world war. There is a price for tolerating intolerance.

Harvey Fierstein is an actor and playwright.


***

Saturday, July 13, 2013

Republican House to Starving Americans: Eat Later



***



Missing: The Food Stamp Program

by THE EDITORIAL BOARD

JULY 12, 2013

“We’ll get to that later.” That was the dismissive answer of Speaker John Boehneron Thursday, when asked if the House would restore the food stamp program it had just coldly ripped out of the farm bill. “Later,” he said, Republicans will deal with the nation’s most important anti-hunger program. “Later,” maybe, they will think about the needs of 47 million people who can’t afford adequate food, probably by cutting the average daily subsidy of $4.39.

But right then their priorities were clear, as a bare majority rushed to provide $195.6 billion over 10 years to Big Agriculture. Most of the money went to subsidies for crop insurance and commodities, demanded by the corn, rice and sugar barons who fill campaign coffers.

The choice made by the House in cutting apart the farm bill was one of the most brutal, even in the short history of the House’s domination by the Tea Party. Last month, the chamber failed to pass a farm bill that cut $20.5 billion from food stamps because that was still too generous for the most extreme Republican lawmakers. So, in the name of getting something — anything — done, Mr. Boehner decided to push through just the agriculture part of the bill. [Emphasis added.]

For decades, farm subsidies and food stamps have been combined for simple reasons of political expediency. Farm-state lawmakers went along with food stamps to keep the crop subsidies flowing; urban lawmakers did the reverse. The coalition may have been an uneasy one, and it cost the taxpayers untold billions in wasteful payments to growers, but that was the price for helping the hungry.

As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has repeatedly showed, the food stamp program (now known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP) has long been one of the most effective and efficient anti-poverty programsever devised. When counted as income, SNAP benefits cut extreme poverty nearly in half, a new study shows. Most families who get the aid have an adult who is working.


Now that coalition has been sundered, and the future of food stamps is threatened. If the program is not returned to the five-year farm bill, it will have to be financed through annual appropriations, which puts it at the mercy of the Republicans’ usual debt-ceiling stunts and government shutdown threats. House leaders said they would submit a food stamp bill “later,” but that will probably include the right wing’s savage cuts and unprecedented incentives for states to shut out poor families. Neither will get past the Senate or the White House.

The only way forward is for a Senate-House conference committee to restore the food stamp program to the farm bill (the Senate bill contains a far more modest $4 billion reduction in food stamps). Since compassion is no longer an incentive for the House, the threat of a cutoff to the big lobbyists will have to work, just as it always has.





^^^



 As Congress debates food stamp cuts, moms fret about feeding kids

by MARTHA C. WHITE

For one in seven Americans, the federal government’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, aka food stamps, is all that stands between them and too little food.

But the complicated calculus of financial survival for the working poor also means any cuts to the roughly $80 billion SNAP, as it’s known, being considered by Congress would be felt well beyond the grocery checkout line. Buying new school clothes, family outings, even getting a toehold in the financial mainstream could be thrown into limbo.

For many of the working poor, wages just don’t go far enough. The National Employment Law project says nearly 60 percent of jobs created in the post-recession recovery pay $13.83 or less an hour, and hourly wages for some low-wage occupations fell by more than 5 percent in just three years.

Food service and temporary employment make up 43 percent of the post-recession job growth, according to NELP policy analyst Jack Temple. "They overwhelmingly pay low wages,” Temple said. “For that lower segment, you’re going to see increased use of safety net programs to make up the difference."

Sharonton Taylor of Marietta, Ga., is a single mom of three, even working full-time and earning $9.50 an hour as a certified nurse's aide qualifies her for $500 a month in food stamps. (Like Medicaid, SNAP is federally funded but administered at the state level.) That’s still about $150 less than the U.S.D.A.'s average monthly estimate of what a “low-cost food plan” should cost for Taylor’s family.

If that $500 were cut, Taylor wouldn’t be able to buy new clothes for her daughter and two sons, or take them on the kind of outings middle-class kids take for granted. “We’d play Uno or do something around the house, try to make it fun for them, instead of going to the zoo, to the aquarium, stuff like that,” she said.

Taylor said it’s hard trying to explain to her kids, who are eight, five and four, about the family’s dire financial straits. “I have to tell them, ‘Mom don’t have it right now. Don’t you want a roof over your head?’... I have to keep telling them that.”

Buying less food

The next step would be simply buying less food, she said. As it is, Taylor says she often struggles to make it until the 9th day of each month, when her SNAP card is refilled. “I’ll try to make the food last… It feels hard to stretch, especially if you cook everyday. I get low at the end of the month and I have another week to go.” During that week, cheap, filling staples like spaghetti fill the gap.

“As finances get worse, the dietary quality also gets worse,” warned Dr. Deborah Frank, founder and principal investigator of Children's HealthWatch at the Boston University-affiliated Boston Medical Center. “Poor nutrition isn’t obvious to the lay person,” she said. “This is a health problem. I think that’s the connection that people miss.”

But there are sharp disagreements in Washington about how to fix the system. Proponents of cutting SNAP funding say the program is bloated, poorly managed and subject to abuse.

"There are 21 programs that provide food-purchasing assistance at the federal level. Isolating SNAP is distorting the debate," said Michael Tanner, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. " We spend too much on the social welfare safety net for too little gain."

Calling SNAP "the fastest-growing welfare program that we have," Tanner said even cuts of nearly $21 billion over the next 10 years proposed by the Republican-led House of Representatives don't go far enough.

Kevin Concannon, undersecretary for food, nutrition and consumer services at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, countered that the program’s growth was a necessary response to the recession and unemployment it produced. “Most of the increase in SNAP is attributable to the depth and severity of the economic downturn,” he said.

Anti-hunger advocates say the program has become a political football. “A lot of the racial and gender and other cultural politics of the country play out through the food stamp program,” said Jim Weill, president of the Food Research and Action Center. “They shouldn’t, but they do.”

On Thursday, the House voted to decouple food stamps from a five-year farm bill, setting the stage for a battle with the Democratic-led Senate and the White House. But whichever party wins, the real losers will be families who have benefits cut or eliminated, said Lisa Davis, senior vice president of government relations at nonprofit Feeding America.

Other proposed changes to SNAP would have longer-term ramifications for people struggling to lift their families out of poverty.

Juggling jobs

Krystal Cole juggles two jobs in pursuit of that goal. A single mother of two in Marietta, Ga., Cole works Monday through Friday in an on-the-job training internship that pays roughly minimum wage for 20 of the 40 hours she works. On weekends, she works as a waitress for two seven-hour shifts at a waffle restaurant. Nearly all of that paycheck goes toward her health insurance; virtually her only take-home pay on weekends is the roughly $100 she pulls down in tips.

"I work hard but I still don’t make enough money," Cole said. "Food is expensive, and you don't really realize it until you have all these mouths to feed." Cole gets $160 a month in SNAP benefits, and estimates that she pays another $100 or so out of pocket each month (her kids are in programs that give them breakfast and lunch on weekdays).

In one sense, though, Cole is lucky. Feeding America says the average SNAP household has only $333 in assets. The Center for Family Resources in Marietta helped Cole set up a savings account about a year and a half ago and taught her the importance of budgeting and saving. She's been socking away a little bit — $20 here, $50 there on a good week — ever since.

Currently, the government lets states lift a $2,000 asset cap on SNAP participation so families aren’t forced to wipe out their savings before becoming eligible. But changes proposed under the House’s original farm bill would take away that option. If Cole’s eligibility for food stamps were at risk because of her small nest egg, she would face a difficult decision: benefits now, or a more secure financial future.

Farm bill aside, food stamp benefits are going to drop by an average of $20 to $25 per family in November anyway when a stimulus increase expires, Davis said. The U.S.D.A. estimated that last year's drought will make food prices rise up to 3.5 percent over the course of the year.

Families are already feeling the pinch. “I’m barely making it, even with the program,” said Michelle Tyson, a school bus aide and single mother to three teenaged boys in Buffalo, N.Y., who gets nearly $400 a month in food stamps despite working 30 hours a week and taking every extra shift that comes her way.

If her benefits were cut back, “There would be no more cookies or chips, I tell you that. I don't buy a lot of it, but I buy enough that it could be cut back.” Next, Tyson said she would start rationing. “I would cut out portions… It's no fun not being able to eat what you want to eat or not having any food in the house,” she said.


***


Saturday, June 29, 2013

Congressional Oversight Smackdown



***

WASHINGTON -- On Wednesday, Rep. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), a veteran of the Iraq War, dramatically chastised a federal contractor who claimed that a high school sports injury had rendered him a service-disabled veteran. [See video below.]

Speaking during a hearing of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Duckworth vividly described to a committee witness, Braulio Castillo, how she lives in near constant pain after losing both of her legs during her service as a combat pilot.

Castillo cited his foot injury, suffered at a military prep school, as the basis for his IT company's application for special status as a "service-disabled veteran-owned small business." The application was granted, and his company, Strong Castle, was given preferential treatment in federal contract bids.

Read full article here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/26/tammy-duckworth-strong-castle_n_3504531.html








***