Monday, January 31, 2011

In D.C., The March to Gay Marriage Rights Continues Unabated

The Supreme Court today declined to review an appellate court decision that essentially upholds gay marriage in the District of Columbia. Some anti-gay activists in the District have been pushing for a ballot initiative on gay marriage—essentially arguing to put it to a popular vote. The D.C. Court of Appeals ruled that an initiative banning gay marriage can’t be subjected to a popular vote because it would, itself, violate the District’s Human Rights Act.

So gay marriage, which became legal in the District of Columbia just last spring, continues unabated. Thus far, neither the nation’s capital nor the institution of marriage have fallen apart. Indeed, what has been most remarkable for me, as a D.C. resident, is how utterly uneventful the rise of gay marriage has been. The City Council passed it, a very small minority of people protested, there was a quick surge at the courthouse, which had to work through a backlog of gay marriage demand, and, well, that was about it. [Check out a roundup of this month's best political cartoons.]

Opponents of gay marriage are, at this point, in a race against the clock. Popular opinion is changing rapidly, and you don’t have to be Nostradamus to understand that gay marriage is going to be universally recognized in America in my lifetime. Americans born after 1980 support gay marriage rights by a fairly wide margin, and hard core opposition is increasingly limited to the old and to self-identified Republicans (even the independents are moving, rapidly, toward equal rights).

In California, where Prop 8 passed (barely) in 2008, public sentiment shifted the other way in less than two years. And even President Obama, finger firmly in the wind, said just before Christmas that his views on gay marriage are “evolving.” You bet they are; nothing evolves faster than a politician reading poll numbers. [Check out a roundup of Don't Ask, Don't Tell cartoons.]

A day after Martin Luther King, Jr., Day, it is interesting to contemplate the march of civil rights in this country. The courts and popular sentiment play off each other; what is rational in the eyes of the court depends in some measure on the views of the public. And while this march has never been fully linear, when viewed over the trajectory of decades, it has been inexorable. The rights Dr. King fought for seem, in hindsight, so self-evident that it’s hard today to imagine the opposition he faced. Forty years from now, we will say the same thing about gay marriage.


View the original article here

Sen. Dick Lugar Ready to Battle Tea Party

Indiana's long-serving Sen. Dick Lugar says that he is steeled for a primary battle in 2012 with the Tea Party. "I take any opposition seriously," says the Republican leader on agricultural and foreign policy issues. [See who gives Lugar campaign cash.]

Given warning by the Tea Party's impact in the 2010 Delaware and Utah primaries, and their effort to block new Indiana Sen. Dan Coats's election, Lugar says that he is preparing earlier than ever before, and probably earlier than any other Indiana senator in history. For example, he conducted a poll last November that found him very popular in the state and this Friday he is hosting a fund raiser expected to earn his campaign $320,000.

The fund raiser comes a day before the Tea Party in Indiana meets to discuss ways to limit the number of candidates who might challenge Lugar in the primary. "We're coming out very early," says Lugar. Meeting with reporters this morning over breakfast, Lugar also says that the Tea Party represents a segment of the public who feel that Washington and the world have let them down. Tea Party supporters, he says, are "angry about how things have turned out for them." He noted that many members are unemployed or face severe government regulations on their businesses. "In essence they are unhappy about life in America."


View the original article here

New York Jets Spoiled Win Over Patriots With Bad Behavior

If the country engaged in any soul-searching, post-Tucson shootings, about how we behave and speak to one another, the message was clearly lost on many in professional football.

[Photo Gallery: Gabrielle Giffords Shooting in Arizona.]

Sure, it’s a physical game and tensions run high. But that’s an argument for self-control in speech and post-play behavior. The fact that athletes can get away with knocking someone to the ground and slamming them, face-mask first, into the snow to gain some yardage means they already have a socially-accepted outlet for their rage or joy. And the New York Jets, who scored a stunning, surprise victory over the New England Patriots over the weekend, had much reason for joy.

So why ruin it by acting like jerks?

Even before the game, the not-remotely-favored Jets were in combat mode. Cornerback Antonio Cromartie unleashed a profane insult against Patriot quarterback Tom Brady and dared the Super Bowl ring-clad star to make him a target in Sunday’s game. Brady, despite the accolades that have been heaped on him during his career, has been impressively humble—at least by professional athletic standards, responding:

Belichick [the Patriots’ coach] has called me that, our offensive coordinator has called me that. I know that they [the coaches] like me, so maybe he [Cromartie] really likes me.

You’d think the Jets would have gotten the message and focused on scoring an upset. That, they accomplished. But they ruined it with some celebratory behavior that made them look less like a triumphant, Bad News Bears-like team and more like a bunch of ill-behaved children who would be thrown out of a Little League game for being so unsportsmanlike. [Check out a roundup of this month's best political cartoons.]

Waving goodnight to an angry and shocked Massachusetts crowd? Laying the football on the ground and pretending to use it as a pillow to sleep on? What is wrong with these men?

It was an extraordinary win, and a deserved one. The Jets are not the better team, but they played much better than the Patriots on Sunday and proved the old adage that keeps all of us fans of lower-performing teams watching the contests each week: Any team can beat any other team on any given day. The chance to move on to the AFC championship game, not to mention their inflated salaries, is enough. If they won’t listen to the NFL brass (which issued a stern warning last week to tamp down the trash talk), perhaps they could heed the words of another sportsman, New York Yankees legend Reggie Jackson:

"Shut up and play football."


View the original article here

Sunday, January 30, 2011

Making a Worm Do More Than Squirm

By Laura Sanders, Science News

Satirist Stephen Colbert envisions his “Colbert Nation” mentally marching in lockstep with his special brand of patriotism.? But scientists have done him one better, by creating tiny worm-bots completely under their control.

Rather than comedic persuasion, these scientists are using a dot of laser light. With it they can make a worm turn left, freeze or lay an egg. The researchers report their work online January 16 in Nature Methods.

The new system, named CoLBeRT for “Controlling Locomotion and Behavior in Real Time,” doesn’t just create a mindless zombie-worm, though. It gives scientists the ability to pick apart complicated behaviors on a cell-by-cell basis.

“This system is really remarkable,” says biological physicist William Ryu of the University of Toronto, who was not involved in the research. “It’s a very important advance in pursuit of the goal of understanding behavior.”

Transparent and small, the nematode C. elegans is particularly amenable to light-based mind control. Another benefit of the worm is that researchers know the precise location of all 302 of its nerve cells. But until now, there wasn’t a good way to study each cell by itself, especially in a wriggling animal.

“This tool allows us to go in and poke and prod at those neurons in an animal as it’s moving, and see exactly what each neuron does,” says study coauthor Andrew Leifer of Harvard University.?

The system is based on the emerging field of optogenetics, in which light is used to turn cells on or off. Leifer and his colleagues genetically engineered light-responsive molecules into particular groups of cells in the worm.

Then, a computer program that the team developed figures out where in the microscope’s field of view a target cell is. Once the cell is pinpointed, the program directs lasers so that a tiny beam of light hits the cell.

“When we’re shining light on a neuron, we’re hitting that neuron and nothing else,” Leifer says.

The whole process, from finding the cell to light hitting its target, takes about 20 milliseconds. As the worm’s position changes, that information is fed back into the computer program, and the laser is adjusted. If the worm crawls too far, a motorized microscope stage brings the animal back.

One of the biggest benefits of the new method, Ryu says, is that it works in a roving animal. “The worms are not held down in any way—they’re freely moving. There aren’t many systems where you can look at such truly free organisms.”

In early tests of their technique, Leifer and his team forced worms to freeze, change directions, turn left or right, and even lay eggs. In later tests, the team focused on two nerve cells that help the worm respond to touch. Researchers knew that a gentle tickle on the head causes worms to move backward, but after too many touches, the worms grow desensitized and stop responding. By mimicking touches with light, the researchers found that a weary cell that’s been touched too many times can also tire out its partner cell that hasn’t been touched, suggesting that these cells don’t act alone.

Another group of scientists, led by Jeffrey Stirman of Georgia Tech in Atlanta, reports a similar technique for worm mind-control, also online January 16 in Nature Methods. Ryu says the two methods are similar. The CoLBeRT method appears to be a little faster, he says, but if the worm is crawling slowly, the method used by Stirman’s group may offer more precise laser targeting. “Do both papers contribute to understanding behavior at a holistic level? Yes, definitely.”

Neuroengineer Ed Boyden of MIT says the new work could allow scientists to figure out how every cell in an animal works together to generate a behavior. “The ability to target a single cell is really important, because it allows you to understand precisely what each of these cells does.”

---

?Follow U.S. News Science on Twitter.


View the original article here

Quiz: Politicians and Their Love of Sports

Sorry, I could not read the content fromt this page.

View the original article here

Giffords Shooting in Arizona Spurs Gun Law Debate

The tragic shooting in Arizona, which left six people dead and Rep. Gabrielle Giffords seriously wounded, immediately swept aside business as usual for Congress, possibly altering its agenda for the rest of the year. As legislators mourned those who were lost, they also mulled how to move forward in a very new political climate. [See photos from the Arizona shooting.]

Although the House had been scheduled to debate a healthcare repeal last week, that vote and all other major votes were postponed. Instead, lawmakers took time to speak out about the tragedy, attend security briefings with the Capitol Police, and pass a measure condemning the act and honoring those who had fallen. Congress will return to its agenda this week, but it may decide to move forward with a moderated tone.It isn't clear what consequences, if any, the event will have for Congress. But, as in past shooting incidents, the tragedy in Tucson has sparked a debate on America's gun control laws, both at the state and national levels, although it doesn't appear that the stage is set for any sort of large change.

According to police, accused shooter Jared Loughner was able to fire more than 30 rounds before stopping to reload, when bystanders tackled him. The incident has prompted some lawmakers to call for banning high-capacity gun magazines. The 1994 assault weapons ban outlawed such clips, but Congress allowed the law to expire in 2004. "Running out of bullets is kind of a critical point where the shooting stops," says Shams Tarek, a spokesman for Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, a New York Democrat and gun control advocate whose own entry into politics was prompted by the shooting death of her husband. McCarthy is calling for a return to the ban. "If there are less rounds in a clip, usually you can expect that there will be a lot less casualties," Tarek said.

It isn't just Democrats who are supporting gun control measures. Rep. Peter King, a New York Republican, has also called for restrictions on guns near public officials. King's proposal would forbid anyone from carrying a gun within 1,000 feet of an elected official. His announcement was made through Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a coalition cofounded by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a Republican-turned-independent who also has advocated for tougher gun control measures. And Richard Lugar, a veteran Republican senator from Indiana, has called for restoring all of the 1994 assault weapons ban. [See which lawmakers get the most from gun rights groups.]

The political climate is hardly hospitable to further restrictions on guns, despite the shooting. Gun control has long been one of the most controversial political topics—one Democrats have largely avoided since the gun control measures of the early 1990s. With Congress divided for the next two years, it will be difficult to pass any controversial legislation. President Obama has shown little willingness to engage on the issue while dealing with other priorities, such as the economy and the federal deficit. And according to a poll by Rasmussen, only 29 percent of Americans believe that strong gun laws would prevent incidents like the Tucson shooting, and a new poll by Zogby showed that only 35 percent of voters felt the shooting should lead to tougher gun laws. [See which lawmakers get the most from gun control groups.]

Still, the gun control lobby is preparing to push for stricter laws. "We think that this horrific tragedy demands that Congress address the weaknesses in our gun laws. We think it ought to occasion a full-scale examination of those weaknesses," says Dennis Henigan, a vice president with the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "This is a shooting that strikes Congress very close to home."


View the original article here

Saturday, January 29, 2011

2 Unconventional Sources of Retirement Income

You may have access to some retirement funds that you aren’t aware of. I’m not talking about retirement accounts, pensions, or savings. I’m referring to tapping into your home equity or selling a life insurance policy, both of which many seniors have access to. Here is how to best utilize these unconventional sources of retirement income.

[See 10 Key Retirement Ages to Plan For.]

Reverse mortgages. Many retirees own their home. Home ownership lowers your monthly cost-of-living, but it doesn’t do much in the line of adding cash flow. If you own your home and need access to the equity, there are a couple ways you can take advantage of your home equity without having to sell your house and move. One method is to take out a home equity line of credit, which requires a good credit score and gives you a small line of credit, but doesn’t do anything to improve your cash flow.

Another option is to do a reverse mortgage, which is a good way to access the equity in your home while still maintaining ownership and being able to live in it. Unlike other mortgages, it doesn’t matter which credit score range you fall into or your income level. If you are 62 or older and live in a house that is paid off, you may be eligible for a reverse mortgage.

[See 5 Year-End Retirement Plan Moves.]

A reverse mortgage works almost exactly the opposite of a conventional mortgage. Instead of making a monthly payment as you would with a conventional mortgage, you receive money against the value of your home, often in the form of a lump sum payment, a monthly payment, a line of credit to use as you wish, or any combination of these. A reverse mortgage does not have to be paid back until the owner dies, sells the home, or moves to a nursing home or assisted living facility.

Who might benefit from a reverse mortgage: The advantages of reverse mortgages include their flexible payment structures and the ability to use the money however you wish. A reverse mortgage could be a useful tool for people who need a little extra cash flow each month or who need access to a lump sum of cash. However, reverse mortgages can be a little complicated and homeowners are required to sit through a financial counseling session before participating in a reverse mortgage to ensure they are appropriate for the homeowner.

Sell your life insurance policy. Life insurance policies are good for the survivors, but don’t usually benefit the policy holder. However, you may actually be able to sell your life insurance policy to access some of that money now. There is a secondary market for life insurance policies where investors purchase the life insurance policies of elderly individuals for less than the policy’s face value. Life settlements offer some people the chance to cash in on their life insurance policy while they are still living.

[See 10 Retirement Myths.]

Who might benefit from a life settlement: People who need a lump sum of money now might benefit from selling their life insurance policy to investors. However, you need to keep in mind that you will be required to change the beneficiaries to the investors buying your policy, so this would not be an option for someone who has survivors who are relying on the life insurance settlement for their livelihood. Life settlements also pay out less than face value and the proceeds are taxable.

These unconventional ways to fund retirement may or may not be appropriate for your needs. When in doubt, reach out to a professional financial planner for help in understanding whether or not a reverse mortgage or life settlement is appropriate for your financial situation.

Ryan Guina is a U.S. military veteran, writer, and professional in the corporate world. He blogs at Cash Money Life and The Military Wallet.


View the original article here

4 Social Security Changes Coming in 2011

The Social Security program will be tweaked in several important ways in 2011. Workers will get a temporary tax break on the amount they pay into the entitlement program, and several claiming options for retirees will be eliminated. Here's a look at how the Social Security program will change this year.

Lower Social Security taxes. The amount workers pay into the Social Security trust fund will temporarily drop from 6.2 percent of taxable wages up to $106,800 annually to 4.2 percent in 2011 only. For self-employed workers, the Social Security tax rate will drop from 12.4 percent to 10.4 percent next year, due to provisions of the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010, signed by President Obama on December 17. Employers will continue to pay 6.2 percent of wages into the entitlement program.

[See Will You Get Back Your Social Security Taxes in Retirement?]

The Social Security system's finances are not expected to be harmed because the trust fund will be reimbursed for the full amount of the tax break from the general fund of the Treasury. However, this change also means that the Social Security trust fund will no longer be completely funded directly by citizen contributions. "This pretty much ends the claim that Social Security is self-financing or that it doesn't contribute to the budget deficit," says Andrew Biggs, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and a former deputy commissioner of the Social Security Administration.

Free loan option eliminated. Retirees will no longer be able to get an interest-free loan from the Social Security trust fund this year. The Social Security Administration announced in December 2010 that individuals will not be able to begin payments at age 62, pay back all the benefits received at age 70 without interest, and then reclaim at a higher rate due to delayed claiming. Under the new rules, Social Security beneficiaries may withdraw an application for retirement benefits only within 12 months of their first Social Security payment and are limited to one withdrawal per lifetime. "This free loan costs the Social Security trust fund the use of money during the period the beneficiary is receiving benefits with the intent of later withdrawing the application and the interest earned on these funds," says the Social Security Administration in a statement about the rule change. The Center for Retirement Research at Boston College calculated that mass utilization of this claiming strategy could cost the system between $5.5 billion and $11 billion, primarily going to high-income households with enough liquid assets to pay back the benefits.

[See 12 Ways to Fix Social Security.]

Retroactive benefit suspensions discontinued. Retirees will still be allowed to temporarily suspend their benefits and restart them later, which can result in bigger Social Security checks to account for the months or years in which payment was not received. However, beneficiaries will not be able to retroactively suspend benefits and pay back money already received in exchange for higher payments going forward. Retirees will be allowed to voluntarily suspend benefits only for months in which they did not receive payments or future benefits beginning the month after the request is made.

[See 10 Things You Didn't Know About Social Security.]

Paper checks retired. Retirees who apply for Social Security benefits on or after May 1, 2011, will no longer have the option of receiving a paper check in the mail. Seniors can have their entitlement payments directly deposited into a bank or credit union account or loaded onto a prepaid Direct Express Debit MasterCard. "This important change will provide significant savings to American taxpayers who will no longer incur the annual $120 million price tag associated with paper checks and will save Social Security $1 billion over the next 10 years," says Richard Gregg, Treasury Fiscal Assistant Secretary. Retirees already receiving paper checks will need to switch to direct deposit or the prepaid debit card by March 1, 2013.


View the original article here

GOP Should Repeal Healthcare Law Regardless of Polls

For the past 18 months, Republicans have felt the wind at their back when it comes to healthcare and public opinion.

But, as the New Republic’s Jonathan Chait recently noted, the picture is becoming a bit cloudier. New polling suggests that just 1 in 4 Americans want to see the new law repealed in whole.

Even among Republicans, support has dropped from 61 percent after the midterm elections to just 49 percent now.

[Check out a roundup of political cartoons on healthcare.]

How should this affect the upcoming House vote on repealing Obamacare?

Not at all, I hope.

Just as I argued in March 2010, when the tables were turned, polling data shouldn’t be a decisive factor in the deliberations of either party.

Democrats thought the bill was the right thing for the country, a moral improvement over an ugly status quo. Consequently, many of them lost their jobs. That’s exactly as it should be.

And now, even with a minority of the country favoring full repeal, House Republicans should move ahead with their plans, and for much the same reason: They believe it’s the right thing to do.

[See a roundup of this month's best political cartoons.]

Complicating this picture even further is the reality of gerrymandered congressional districts, whose ideological homogeneity protected the most liberal Democrats in Congress last November and, today, will obscure for Republicans the public’s diminishing appetite for repeal.

But that’s an argument for another day.


View the original article here

Friday, January 28, 2011

18 Common Work E-mail Mistakes

Most of us rely on e-mail as one of our primary communication tools. And given the number of messages we send and receive, we do it with remarkable success.

But as with anything, the more e-mails we send, the more likely we are to screw one up. And simple e-mail mistakes can be disastrous. They can cost us a raise, promotion—even a job.

With a new year upon us, this is the perfect time to go through some of the worst e-mail mistakes employees make and how to avoid them.

1. Sending before you mean to. Enter the recipient’s e-mail address only when your e-mail is ready to be sent. This helps reduce the risk of an embarrassing misfire, such as sending an important e-mail to the wrong person or e-mailing a half-written note.

[See 9 Little-Known Ways to Damage Your Reputation at Work.]

2. Forgetting the attachment. If your e-mail includes an attachment, upload the file to the e-mail before composing it. This eliminates the embarrassing mistake of forgetting it before hitting “send,” and having to send another e-mail saying you forgot to attach the document.

3. Expecting an instant response. Don’t send an e-mail and show up at the recipient’s desk 30 seconds later asking if they’ve received it. They did, and they’ll answer at their convenience. That’s the point of e-mail.

4. Forwarding useless e-mails. I've never seen a single e-mail forward at work that was beneficial. Whether it's a silly joke or a heartwarming charity, there’s never a time to share an e-mail forward using your work e-mail.

5. Not reviewing all new messages before replying. When you return to the office after a week or more away, review all new e-mails before firing off responses. It might be hard to accept, but odds are, things did march on without you. Replying to something that was already handled by a co-worker creates extra communication, which can lead to confusion, errors, and at the very least, wasted time for everyone involved.

6. Omitting recipients when you "reply all." Unless there’s an important reason to omit someone, don’t arbitrarily leave people off the response if they were included on the original message.

7. Including your e-mail signature again and again. Nor do you need to include it at the end of an e-mail you send to your long-time co-worker who sits six feet away. If you have your e-mail program set to automatically generate a signature with each new message, take a second to delete it when communicating with someone who knows who you are. It’s always wise to include your phone number, but the entire blurb with your title and mailing address is often nothing but clutter.

8. Composing the note too quickly. Don’t be careless; write every e-mail as if it will be read at Saint Peter’s Square during the blessing of a new Pope. Be respectful with your words and take pride in every communication.

9. Violating your company’s e-mail policy. Many companies have aggressive spam filters in place that monitor "blue" language. From that famous four-letter word to simple terms, such as "job search," don't end up tripping the system by letting your guard down.

10. Failing to include basic greetings. Simple pleasantries do the trick. Say “hi” at the start of the message and “thanks” at the end. Be sure to use the recipient's name. Be polite yet brief with your courtesy.

11. E-mailing when you're angry. Don’t do it. Ever. Recall buttons are far from a perfect science, and sending a business e-mail tainted by emotion is often a catastrophic mistake. It sounds cliche, but sleep on it. Save the message as a draft and see if you still want to send it the next morning.

[See Don't Make These Interview Mistakes.]

12. Underestimating the importance of the subject line. The subject line is your headline. Make it interesting, and you’ll increase the odds of getting the recipient's attention. Our inboxes are cluttered; you need to be creative and direct to help the recipient cut through the noise. You should consistently use meaningful and descriptive subject lines. This will help your colleagues determine what you’re writing about and build your “inbox street cred,” which means important messages are more likely to be read.

13. Using incorrect subject lines. Change the subject line if you’re changing the topic of conversation. Better yet, start a new e-mail thread.

14. Sending the wrong attachment. If you double-check an attachment immediately before sending and decide that you need to make changes, don’t forget to update the source file. Making corrections to the version that’s attached to the e-mail does not often work, and it can lead to different versions of the same doc floating around.

15. Not putting an e-mail in context. Even if you were talking to someone an hour ago about something, remind them in the e-mail why you’re writing. In this multi-tasking world of ours, it's easy for even the sharpest minds to forget what's going on.

16. Using BCC too often. Use BCC (blind carbon copy) sparingly. Even though it’s supposed to be a secret, it rarely is. Burn someone once, and they’ll never trust you again. Likewise, forwarding e-mail is a great way to destroy your credibility. When people send you something, they aren’t expecting you to pass it on to your co-workers. The e-mail might make its way back to the sender, who will see that their original message was shared. They might not call you out on it, but they’ll make a mental note that you can’t be trusted.

[For more career advice, visit U.S. News Careers, or find us on Facebook or Twitter.]

17. Relying too much on e-mail. News flash! No one is sitting around staring at their inbox waiting for your e-mail. If something is urgent, use another means of communication. A red “rush” exclamation point doesn’t compare to getting up from your desk and conducting business in person.

18. Hitting "reply all" unintentionally. This is a biggie. And it's not just embarrassing; depending on what you wrote in that e-mail, it can ruin your relationship with a co-worker or even your boss. Take extra care whenever you respond so you don't hit this fatal button.

Now it’s time to fess up: Are you guilty of any of these common work e-mail mistakes? Any you’d like to add to the list?

Andrew G. Rosen is the founder and editor of Jobacle.com, a career advice blog. He is also the author of How to Quit Your Job.


View the original article here

Steele Steps Down as Reince Priebus Is Elected RNC Chairman

After hours of strategy and deal-making, the Republican National Committee selected its new chairman on Friday. Reince Priebus, who served as state party chair of Wisconsin and general counsel for the RNC during the 2010 election cycle, will take the reins, as former committee chairman Michael Steele steps down.

The RNC's 168 members voted on seven different ballots until Priebus swept the majority with 97 votes. Priebus, who took over just after he was elected, has the daunting task of digging the committee out of a $21.3 million debt and uniting a disparate Republican Party before the 2012 presidential elections. [Read 10 Things You Didn't Know About Michael Steele.]

Before Friday's vote on the chairmanship, which according to RNC rules requires members to vote on multiple ballots until a candidate gets at least 50 percent, or 84 member votes, supporters praised Priebus for his success in Wisconsin in 2010. In addition to replacing three-term Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold with conservative Sen. Ron Johnson, the state changed from blue to red at nearly every level of government, as Wisconsin Republicans also took control of both state houses and the governorship.

"That kind of record that Reince and the party built in Wisconsin should be shared with the national committee," said Steve King, national committeeman for Wisconsin. "We don't need a showhorse, we need a workhorse for a leader, and that's what we have in Reince." [See editorial cartoons on the GOP.]

Compared with his predecessor, Steele, who had a knack for making headlines with public gaffes, Priebus had been characterized by his fellow party members as more low-key, and someone who has proven he can do the "grunt work" of fundraising. Also, as a committee member, he scored points with those who preferred that the chairman come from within the RNC.

"The Republican Party is the thing people are going to contribute to, if our policies are popular, if our platform is what they want to invest in," said Curly Haugland, national committeeman from North Dakota on Friday before the voting began. "Who asks for the money probably matters, and it's important that whoever asks is a serious committed party activist member as opposed to the current chair who brings the attention to himself. A good chairman, in my opinion, most people wouldn't know his name."

Priebus led on all ballots Friday, but did not reach the 84 votes needed for majority until the seventh round. In addition to Steele, who dropped out of the race after the fourth ballot, Priebus beat three other contenders to win. They included Saul Anuzis, former Michigan state party chairman; Ann Wagner, a former ambassador to Luxembourg and former national committeewoman from Missouri; and Maria Cino, the chairman of the Republican National Convention in 2008 and former RNC co-chair.

In between rounds at the Maryland National Harbor convention center where the RNC meeting took place, reporters watched carefully as candidates gathered with their supporters to plan their next votes. The contenders hid from view with their staff in vacant rooms or remained on the members-only floor to strategize with members. All day members campaigned among themselves for their favorite candidates, hoping to change others' votes as the ballots progressed.

Until the results of the sixth ballot gave Priebus a large lead, even committee members themselves admitted they could not predict how the race would end.

But despite the hyped contest, Priebus accepted the chairmanship with a call for unity within the party. "With the election over, now is the time for the committee to unite," he said. "We all recognize that there's a steep hill here ahead of us, and the only way we'll be able to move forward is if we're all together."


View the original article here

Should GOP Top Priority Be Healthcare Repeal?

The House plans to start debate this afternoon on whether to repeal last year's healthcare reforms, dubbed Obamacare by critics. Many have called the GOP’s efforts symbolic at best since it’s unlikely the Democrat-heavy Senate would pass such a bill, and even more unlikely President Obama would sign it. A new AP-GfK poll suggests public support for repeal is declining. Of those surveyed, 26 percent said they wanted to repeal the healthcare bill completely, compared to 32 percent last October.

U.S. News blogger Scott Galupo says that polling shouldn’t deter Republicans. He writes, “Democrats thought the bill was the right thing for the country… And now, even with a minority of the country favoring full repeal, House Republicans should move ahead with their plans, and for much the same reason: They believe it’s the right thing to do.”

But is pursuing repeal the best top priority for Republicans? U.S. News blogger Peter Roff says the GOP shouldn’t forget about another topic on the forefront of Americans’ minds—immigration. “To some, especially activists on the right, the call for comprehensive immigration reform is perceived as an argument for amnesty,” Roff writes. “But ‘What part of illegal don’t you understand’ is not a rational basis for formulating public policy.” Particularly looking ahead to 2012, Roff suggests, the GOP can’t afford to ignore the Hispanic vote. “The political consequences of failing to address the immigration issue could, for the GOP, be devastating,” he writes.

What do you think? Should the GOP’s top priority be healthcare repeal, immigration reform, or something else? Take the poll and post your thoughts below.

Previously: Should more congressmen carry guns to protect themselves?


View the original article here

Thursday, January 27, 2011

Did Politics Play a Role in the Arizona Shooting?

Home > Opinion > Editor's Note > Did Politics Play a Role in the Arizona Shooting?

I can't think of many events that have provoked as much instant and intense debate as the question of whether the Tucson gunman was influenced by political and media rhetoric. [Read the U.S. News debate: Has political rhetoric become dangerously extreme?]His killing spree had hardly ended before some commentators were accusing Sarah Palin and others of influencing his actions. More nuanced criticism followed, singling out the Tea Party, talk radio, Arizona's political climate, and gun laws-—most coming from left-leaning sources. The reaction from the right was equally swift and ferocious, focusing on the shooter's mental state and past incidents of radical-left-inspired violence. The debate may be overwrought, but I don't think it's trivial. Where do you stand? Did politics play a role in the Tucson shootings? Give us your thoughts in the comments section below.


View the original article here

10 Tips to Get the Most Out of Your Internship

Internships have become a must for college students; without the work experience they provide, the post-graduation job search is significantly more difficult. But it’s not enough to simply get an internship. You also need to impress the employer during your time there.

Here are 10 ways to get the most out of an internship:

1. Know what to expect. Generally, the idea behind an internship is to give you some basic exposure to day-to-day work in your field. In most cases, you will not be doing glamorous, substantive work; you’ll be making other people’s lives easier. This means you may get stuck photocopying, filing, arranging meetings, and completing other tasks that may strike you as drudgery. In exchange, you get exposure to the field and work experience to put on your resume.

[See 6 Tips for GenY on the Job Hunt.]

2. Gain trust early on. If you excel at the boring tasks and do them cheerfully, you may be given more interesting work. Now, you may wonder what being good at photocopying has to do with your ability to do, say, independent research. Here’s the connection: When you come in as an intern, you haven’t proven yourself in the work world. But if you do a great job on the boring work, you’ll show that you pay attention to detail, follow instructions, and care about quality. Keep up that track record, and eventually someone may let you try something more interesting. But do a bad job on the basic stuff, and no one will trust you with anything more advanced. So it’s important to go into the job determined to do every task well, no matter how menial.

3. Pay attention to the office culture. Observe how others in the office act, and mirror that. For instance, if employees modulate their voices when others are on the phone, modulate yours. If they’re compulsively on-time for meetings, you should be compulsively on-time, too. Lots of little things like this will help you appear professional. And while they may sound small, they’re likely to help you stand out compared to other interns.

4. Focus. Don’t use social networking sites (unless it’s part of your job) or text with friends throughout the workday. You may be confident that it doesn’t distract you or affect your work, but experienced managers have watched enough people to be confident that it does.

5. Take your work seriously. In school, if you made a mistake on a test or paper, it only affected you. In many jobs, mistakes are much more serious. If you do make a mistake, make sure you handle it correctly.

[See Why You Should Hire Interns for Your Office.]

6. Ask for feedback. Every so often, ask your boss how you’re doing. What could you be doing differently? Make it easy for her to give you input that will help you grow.

7. Learn from your co-workers. Ask them about their own careers. How did they get into the field? What do they like about it? What do they find challenging? What advice do they have for you? Most people love to talk about themselves and will be flattered that you’re asking about their experiences. Best of all, it’s likely to make them want to help you.

8. Dress appropriately. There’s no “intern exception” in the dress code, and yet I’ve seen interns come to work wearing flip-flops, ultra-low-rise jeans, visible bra straps, and worse. If you look like you're dressing for a class rather than a job, you’re signaling that you don't take your job seriously.

9. Ask for advice. Talk to people about your career plans. Tell them you'd love any advice they have, either now or in the future. Your co-workers can be helpful to you by telling you about job leads, recommending you for a job, and helping you consider various career choices. Though most people are happy to offer this kind of help, they might not offer it if you don't explicitly ask.

[For more career advice, visit U.S. News Careers, or find us on Facebook or Twitter.]

10. Say “Thank you.” Talk to your manager about what you’re getting out of your internship, and thank her for giving you the opportunity to work there. We all love hearing the occasional expression of appreciation, so don't be shy about offering it.

Alison Green writes the popular Ask a Manager blog where she dispenses advice on career, job search, and management issues. She's also the author of Managing to Change the World: The Nonprofit Leader's Guide to Getting Results and former chief of staff of a successful nonprofit organization, where she oversaw day-to-day staff management, hiring, firing, and employee development. She now teaches other managers how to manage for results.


View the original article here

3 Ways to Track Yearly Progress Toward Retirement

Are you financially closer to retirement than you were at this time last year? Answering this question can help you monitor your saving and investing progress and provides information that you can act on. Here are some suggestions for tracking your yearly progress toward retirement.

[See 10 Key Retirement Ages to Plan For.]

1. Has your net worth increased? Your net worth is a number that provides a big picture indication of your financial progress. Ideally, as you approach retirement, your debts are decreasing, your retirement investments are increasing in value, and your other assets are not dragging you down. If your yearly change in net worth is positive, good for you. If it is not or if you don’t know, it is time to take a serious look at your current spending and your retirement plan.

[See 3 Reasons to Pay Off Your Mortgage Before Retirement.]

2. Has your yearly spending declined? Some experts say you should plan on spending as much or more in retirement as you do now. But when you stop working for income, your investing and saving expenses will decrease. Beyond that, there can and perhaps should be a general downsizing of other expenses, including housing, taxes, and discretionary costs that can be reduced through financial discipline. Do you really need a land line phone or a smart phone data plan? Will watching every premium movie channel ever invented boost retirement contentment? There are many ways to decrease your annual spending and starting now will get you closer to your retirement finish line.

[See 5 Benefits of a Second Home in a Retirement Plan.]

3. Has your predicted retirement income increased? Being financially ready to retire means you are able to produce a retirement income that will support you and your spouse for the rest of your life. If the reason you are not retired now is that you cannot pass this test, then you must track your annual progress towards this goal. This is not as difficult as it seems. The first step is to estimate your Social Security retirement benefits using your annual Social Security statement or the SSA online estimator tool. If you will have pension income, include that predicted benefit level as well. Then, add up the total current value of all of your retirement assets including stocks, bonds, CDs, and even your home equity if you will downsize. Plug that total number into an annuity calculator, as if you were buying a life income annuity today with your entire retirement nest egg. Add up your predicted Social Security, pension, and annuity payments. Has that predicted income level increased compared to last year? If so, you are making progress.

If you have not been measuring financial progress toward retirement, start now. Calculating these measures annually can make it easier to track and manage your retirement finances.

Mark Patterson is an engineer, patent attorney, baby boomer, and author of The Failsafe Retirement System. He blogs on matters of personal finance and retirement planning at Tough Money Love and Go To Retirement.


View the original article here

Reviving the Taste of an Iron Age Beer

By Bruce Bower, Science News

Early Celtic rulers of a community in what’s now southwestern Germany liked to party, staging elaborate feasts in a ceremonial center. The business side of their revelries was located in a nearby brewery capable of turning out large quantities of a beer with a dark, smoky, slightly sour taste, new evidence suggests.

Six specially constructed ditches previously excavated at Eberdingen-Hochdorf a 2,550-year-old Celtic settlement, were used to make high-quality barley malt, a key beer ingredient, says archaeobotanist Hans-Peter Stika of the University of Hohenheim in Stuttgart. Thousands of charred barley grains unearthed in the ditches about a decade ago came from a large malt-making enterprise, Stika reports in a paper published online January 4 in Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences.

Stika bases that conclusion on a close resemblance of the ancient grains to barley malt that he made by reproducing several methods that Iron Age folk might have used. He also compared the ancient grains to malt produced in modern facilities. Upon confirming the presence of malt at the Celtic site, Stika reconstructed malt-making techniques there to determine how they must have affected beer taste.?

The oldest known beer residue and brewing facilities date to 5,500 years ago in the Middle East, but archaeological clues to beer’s history are rare (SN: 10/2/04, p. 216).

At the Celtic site, barley was soaked in the specially constructed ditches until it sprouted, Stika proposes. Grains were then dried by lighting fires at the ends of the ditches, giving the malt a smoky taste and a darkened color. Lactic acid bacteria stimulated by slow drying of soaked grains, a well-known phenomenon, added sourness to the brew.

Unlike modern beers that are flavored with flowers of the hop plant, the Eberdingen-Hochdorf brew probably contained spices such as mugwort, carrot seeds or henbane, in Stika’s opinion. Beer makers are known to have used these additives by medieval times. Excavations at the Celtic site have yielded a few seeds of henbane, a plant that also makes beer more intoxicating.

“These additives gave Celtic beer a completely different taste than what we’re used to today,” Stika says.

Heated stones placed in liquefied malt during the brewing process—a common practice later in Europe—would have added a caramelized flavor to this fermented Celtic drink, he adds. So far, no fire-cracked stones have been found at Eberdingen-Hochdorf but they may have been used to heat pulpy malt slowly, a practice documented at later brewing sites, Stika says. He suspects that fermentation was triggered by using yeast-coated brewing equipment or by adding honey or fruit, which both contain wild yeasts.

Celts consisted of Iron Age tribes, loosely tied by language and culture, that inhabited much of Western Europe from about the 11th to the first century B.C.

In the same report Stika describes another tidbit for fans of malt beverage history: A burned medieval structure from the 14th century A.D., recently unearthed in Berlin during a construction project, contains enough barley malt to have brewed 500 liters of beer, the equivalent of nearly 60 cases.

Classics professor Max Nelson of the University of Windsor in Canada, an authority on ancient beer, largely agrees with Stika’s conclusions. Malt-making occurred at Eberdingen-Hochsdorf and malt was probably stored in the medieval Berlin building, Nelson says.

Other stages of brewing occurred either at these sites, as suggested by Stika, or nearby, in Nelson’s view.

“Stika’s experiments go a long way toward showing how precisely barley was malted in ancient times,” he remarks.

Beer buffs today would regard Celtic beer as a strange brew not only for its flavor but because it would have been cloudy, contained yeasty sediment and been imbibed at room temperature, Nelson notes.

Stika’s insights into the range of techniques and ingredients available to Celtic beer makers should inspire modern “extreme brewers” to try out the recipe that he describes, says anthropologist Bettina Arnold of the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee.

Perhaps they’ll find out whether Roman emperor Julian, in a 1,600-year-old poem, correctly described Celtic beer as smelling “like a billy goat.”

---

?Follow U.S. News Science on Twitter.


View the original article here

Wednesday, January 26, 2011

White House: Healthcare Repeal 'Not Serious'

Home > Politics & Policy > White House: Healthcare Repeal 'Not Serious'

By U.S. News Staff

Posted: January 18, 2011

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs discusses the GOP's goal of repealing the new healthcare law.


View the original article here

Sarah Palin Reloads on 'Blood Libel'

Sarah Palin's right and you're wrong. And?"you"?in this case is the rest of society. Today's topic??The meaning of the phrase "blood libel."

Palin used the loaded phrase in the wake of the Tucson shootings. "Journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn,"?she said. [See a photo gallery of the aftermath of the Tucson shooting.]

The phrase has a specific meaning relating to centuries of malicious rumors aimed at Jews, vile myths about secret, bloody rituals and such. This isn't a partisan argument so much as a matter of history. As such, many observers questioned whether Palin had any idea what she was saying when she said it. The answer seems to not only be, to paraphrase Palin herself, "no" but "hell no." [Read the U.S. News debate:?Has political rhetoric gotten dangerously extreme.]

Appearing on Sean Hannity's Fox News show Monday night, Palin argued that her use of the phrase was entirely correct and that everyone else just didn't know what they were talking about:

Blood libel obviously means being falsely accused of having blood on your hands. In this case, that's exactly what was going on... Just two days before, an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal had that term in its title. And that term has been used for eons.

In other words, since Palin was unaware of the phrase's history, that history must be wrong. As Gawker's Max Read puts it:

Obviously. Obviously! Yes, it obviously means "being falsely accused of having blood on your hands," if you are Jewish, and the context is that someone is falsely accusing of having the blood of murdered children on your hands, as you perform religious rituals. I can't believe the nerve of some liberals, insisting that a term used to describe a specific and pernicious anti-Semitic myth not be hijacked by a narcissistic failed sports reporter as part of her eternal victimhood parade. The term has been used "for eons" (to describe a centuries old accusation about Jews)! Eons!

And as Time's Alex Altman notes, Palin could have easily made the whole controversy disappear, but for her Bush-ian inability to admit error:

...what's really striking is her basic inability -- or calculated unwillingness? --? to acknowledge the legitimacy of other people's views. Her critics are always the same cabal of America-haters cooking up plots to stifle the truth, silence patriotic debate or steal your freedom. For what it's worth, I don't think Palin meant to tap into an old anti-Semitic trope with the "blood libel" remark. But it would have been easy enough to simply say that no malice was intended and she regretted if anyone was offended by the phrase. And yet, she would never. You don't retreat, you reload. (Rhetorically, I know.)

Reload indeed. But even Palin must realize that when Newt Gingrich is suggesting you tone it down you might be going a bit too far. [See editorial cartoons about Palin.]


View the original article here

Healthcare Repeal Brings Focus Back to Uninsured

Congressional Republicans are attempting to live up to one of their key 2010 campaign promises with the introduction of H.R. 2, better known as the "Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act." The House is expected to vote Wednesday on the bill, which aims to repeal the March 2010 healthcare reform act. One of the key provisions that Republicans find most offensive is the reform act's "individual mandate," which requires that all U.S. citizens be covered by health insurance. Altogether, 16 percent of Americans are uninsured, according to figures from the Census Bureau, though some states contribute to that figure far more than others. Under the new healthcare law, over 1 in 4 Texas residents will need to find coverage, along with more than 1 in 5 residents of New Mexico and Florida. The states with the smallest segment of uninsured residents are Massachusetts, Hawaii, and Minnesota. [See photos of healthcare reform protests.]

Many factors influence health insurance coverage rates, and one chief determinant is employment. As many people obtain their insurance from an employer, there is naturally a moderate correlation between state unemployment rates and insurance rates. One of the main outliers in this respect is Massachusetts, which in 2006 passed a law both requiring most residents to obtain insurance and providing a state-regulated health insurance plan to certain low-income residents. Massachusetts has by far the lowest rate of uninsured citizens--5 percent--but a moderate unemployment rate of 8.2 percent. Other states with unemployment rates between 8 and 9 percent have far higher uninsured rates than Massachusetts, ranging from 12 percent to 26 percent. [See a slide show of 10 things that are--and aren't--in the healthcare law.]

Another factor is demographics. For example, Hispanic residents are far less likely to be insured than other major ethnic or racial groups. Many of the states in the top 10, such as Texas, New Mexico, Florida, Nevada, Arizona, and California, have large Hispanic populations. Likewise, Americans age 20 to 24 have historically been less likely to be insured. However, the reform act may have already affected these rates; a provision allowing adults under the age of 26 to remain on their parents' health insurance plans went into effect in September 2010.

Below are the 10 states with the highest and lowest rates of uninsured residents.

StatePercent Uninsured (2008-2009)StatePercent Uninsured (2008-2009)

Source: U.S. Census Bureau Current Population Survey


View the original article here

Tuesday, January 25, 2011

Obama's Approval Ratings Surge

BY Aliyah Shahid
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

Bam is back.

The President has matched his highest approval rating in more than a year, according to a new ABC News/Washington Post poll.

Fifty-four percent of Americans approve of Obama's job performance. Support for him hasn't been this high since April 2010 after he signed the healthcare reform bill into law. [Check out photos of the Obamas behind the scenes.]

The number is also a five point rise from December and an eight-point jump from his lowest rating in September -- just before the Democrats took a thrashing in the midterm elections.

A CNN poll echoed the same results this week, with 53% of Americans approving Obama's job performance.

Americans overwhelmingly favored how President Obama handled the Jan. 8 shootings in Tucson, with 78% approving and 13% disapproving, according to the ABC News poll.

An impressive 71% of Republicans said they, too, approved of his response to the rampage, which left six dead and 13 injured, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. [Photo Gallery: Gabrielle Giffords Shooting in Arizona.]

In contrast, the poll found that just 30% of those polled approved ex-Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's response to the shooting, while nearly half, 46%, disapproved.

Palin was blasted after the deadly massacre as critics drew a correlation between the shooting and a map she had posted in the spring showing crosshairs over opponents' districts, including Giffords's.

But it's not all roses for President Obama. [See a roundup of political cartoons on Obama.]

He still faces an uphill battle on major domestic issues, which will likely be spotlighted in the lead up to the 2012 presidential elections. Fifty-one percent disapprove his handling of the economy and 52% disapprove of his healthcare policy.


View the original article here

What Senior Workers Want as the Economy Improves

Today, of course, employers are in the driver's seat when it comes to finding a job. Millions of people have been out of work a long time. Millions more have become so frustrated about not being able to find a job that they've stopped looking and temporarily left the labor force. They will flood back into the market as job prospects brighten, which has been a theme of recent economic forecasts.

[See 10 Seniors Thriving in Encore Careers.]

As this happens, employers will find older employees grateful for the chance to work. But after three years of a tough job market, seniors who find themselves in demand will also be looking for different types of job opportunities, including telecommuting, flexible hours, and even seasonal, "on-again-off-again" jobs.

"Delaying retirement is often viewed as the surest route to financial security in old age," notes recent research from the Urban Institute, a Washington think tank. "By working longer and earning more, older workers can accumulate additional Social Security, boost savings, and shrink the period their retirement savings must fund. Employment at older ages also expands the nation's labor pool, accelerating productivity, increasing national income, and raising living standards for both workers and retirees."

Before we can all dance into these enticing sunset years, however, older workers must be able to find jobs. The record to date indicates that they might not be able to do so. And the common remedies—stepped up training, senior-friendly jobs and work sites, and stronger efforts to battle age discrimination—are really not in place.

Americans, of course, have not all experienced the same economic fate since the Great Recession. For many older workers, investment losses devastated 401(k)s and made retirement out of the question for years. These folks have fallen into different groups. Some older people with jobs simply continued to work, helping to drive up their share of the employed population to record highs. According to an Institute research project and other groups, employees ages 50 and older have been able to hang onto their jobs better than younger workers, most often because they have more job seniority and experience.

[See 5 Big Money Uncertainties for Retirees.]

Workers older than 50 who have lost their jobs have followed other paths. Many who have not been able to find work again decided to take Social Security as soon as they could, at age 62. This has provided them current income but, ironically, is likely to worsen their long-term retirement prospects. That's because Social Security benefits rise by about 8 percent annually for each year benefits are deferred from ages 62 to 70.

Older job seekers who have found new jobs have often taken big pay cuts. "For men reemployed at age 62 or older, the new median wage fell 36 percent below the old," the Urban Institute reported. "By contrast, median wages fell only 4 percent for reemployed men age 35 to 49 and 2 percent for those 25 to 34."

More likely, accepting a big pay cut was preferable to not finding work. And that's been the fate of many seniors. "Older workers are less likely to be laid off than younger workers, but when they do lose their jobs, they find it much more difficult to find work," says Richard Johnson, an author of the Institute's recent work on older employees.

"Workers age 50 to 61 who lost their jobs between mid-2008 and the end of 2009 were a third less likely than those age 25 to 34 to find work within 12 months," the study found. "Those age 62 or older were only half as likely."

In a study late last year, the Sloan Center on Aging & Work at Boston College analyzed the ways unemployed workers of all ages tried to find new jobs. It did not report correlations between specific job-finding methods and success in finding new jobs. But the study identified differences between the job-search tools used by older and younger job seekers.

Older people tended to rely more on newspaper classified ads than younger people, who were more likely to use social networking tools to find new work. Both groups showed similar tendencies in using the Internet, word of mouth, contacts with friends and family, the use of online job boards, and attendance at job fairs.

The biggest difference, the center found, is that younger job seekers were much more likely to go back to school and pick up both job-hunting tips and also enhance their job skills. Nearly 40 percent of people younger than 55 did one of these two things, it reported, while only 25 percent of those older than 55 did so. Also, older people were less likely to tap their former employers to find a new job.

[See 5 Financial Skills Prized in a Tough Economy.]

"Many older workers said they felt personally hurt and even betrayed by their former employer, especially if they worked in their previous job for a long time," the Sloan study said. "This may account for why fewer older workers are using prior employers as a resource for job hunting than younger workers report doing. The propensity to rely on newspapers ads and company job boards, as opposed to social networking sites, may also contribute to a sense of isolation and leave older workers disconnected from the workforce."

The difficulty that older job seekers have had in finding new positions raises questions about employer attitudes toward employing or reemploying older persons. After making it so difficult on older job applicants, how will employers cope if tight labor markets reappear and they must seek older employees? Such a scenario is, in fact, widely forecast.

According to Sloan, workers 55 and older comprised 19 percent of the American workforce in 2009, up from 12 percent in 1999. Looking to 2019, they would total 25 percent of the workforce if past trends continue. The Urban Institute takes a slightly younger cut and says workers 50 years and older will account for 35 percent of the labor force by 2019.

As the economy improves and labor market tightens, lots of older employees will be receiving pensions and Social Security but will still have an income gap they would like to close with employment earnings. Such "partial" or "soft" retirement job needs will be common. Seniors in this situation will not want or value 40-hour work weeks and lots of job stress. They will, however, be seeking flexible working hours and locations, and could represent the emergence of a new kind of "piece rate" work force.

Right now, employers don't need and are unlikely to accommodate such demands. But as the labor market tightens, seniors will have more clout in gaining the types of jobs that work for their financial and lifestyle preferences.

To reach such a future, most labor market experts say the government and private employers will need to develop more effective and larger-scale training programs for older people. Social Security's early retirement benefits may also need to be reexamined.

Twitter: @PhilMoeller


View the original article here

8 Strategies for Coping With Job Loss

Losing a job hurts—and sometimes the pain extends beyond the pocketbook, hitting the heart and mind, too. But recent research suggests the misery of unemployment leads to few long-term psychological effects. Indeed, most of us are naturally resilient, says George Bonanno, who coauthored a December study published in the Journal of Neuroscience, Psychology, and Economics.

"We dread something like this happening, but when it actually does, most of us are OK—even though we hear about the extremes, the sad stories [of] people who are devastated," says Bonanno, a psychology professor at Columbia University in New York.

With the unemployment rate still high—more than 15 million Americans are currently jobless—experts suggest these coping strategies to improve mental well-being:

Remember: The pain won't last forever. If you were happy prior to losing your job, you'll be happy again, says Bonanno, whose findings suggest it takes about a year to bounce back. "Nobody loses a job and doesn't get upset," Bonanno says. "But when we feel that way, it's hard to believe the upset will ever go away." It's important to remind yourself that all difficult situations pass, and eventually you will feel like yourself again.

Protect yourself from gloom-and-doomers. Misery loves company, but make it your mission to dodge negativity. "Stay away from gloomy people," says Washington, D.C.-based psychotherapist Olivia Mellan, author of Money Harmony. "And keep your distance from literature and movies that will bum you out." Opt for tried-and-true tactics to lift your spirits, like making plans to do things you enjoy, or spending time with supportive friends. Resist the urge to detach: Job loss often inspires shame and isolation, which can hinder your emotional recovery, Mellan says.

[5 Ways to Become an Optimist]

Take care of yourself. When Cynthia Dailey-Hewkin, 69, of St. Helens, Ore., lost her job at a nuclear plant in the '90s, she was mid-divorce, caring for her dying mother, and moving out of the family home she'd helped build. "The emotional toll was becoming very evident, and I knew that if I didn't do something, I could easily buckle under all that pressure," she says. So she gave up junk food and took up running, which she continues today. By treating herself with respect, she says, her emotional pain became more tolerable.

Lend a hand. Volunteering offers physical and emotional benefits, including less stress, less depression, and longer lives, research suggests. Giving back makes us feel happier and healthier, in part because it triggers the release of feel-good brain chemicals. "Going to a homeless shelter or seeing people who have nothing can be very therapeutic," Mellan says. "It really puts things into perspective."

Keep a journal. Research published in 1994 found that laid-off men who spent 30 minutes a day writing about being unemployed returned to work significantly faster than those who didn't journal. The exercise defused their intense emotions and changed the way they thought about their situation. Mellan suggests a different exercise: listing three things you're grateful for every day. "It really is helpful to focus on the positives and not all the things you're feeling bad about," she says. For Dailey-Hewkin, keeping a compliments journal—a record of nice things others said to her—helped boost her morale during an otherwise bleak time.

Communicate with your spouse. If you're the primary breadwinner, job loss can be particularly distressing and may incite hurtful comments from a worried spouse. (You knew this was coming. You should have thought of doing other things. How could you let this happen? It's your fault for not being prepared.) Explain your feelings to your partner and make clear your need for support. Be there for your spouse if the situation is reversed, says Gaby Cora, a psychiatrist and wellness coach in Miami.

[Tip For Wives: Lay off Your Laid-off Husband]


View the original article here

Monday, January 24, 2011

Video Game 'Addiction' Tied to Depression, Anxiety in Kids

By Serena Gordon
HealthDay Reporter

MONDAY, Jan. 17 (HealthDay News) -- Video game addiction among children and teens may lead to the development of psychological disorders such as depression, researchers say.

The new study found that children who are more likely to become addicted to video games (which the researchers call "pathological" video gaming) are those who spend a lot of hours playing these games, have trouble fitting in with other kids and are more impulsive than children who aren't addicted. Once addicted to video games, children were more likely to become depressed, anxious or have other social phobias. Not surprisingly, children who were hooked on video games also saw their school performance suffer.

"What we've known from other studies is that video gaming addiction looks similar to other addictions. But what wasn't clear was what comes before what. Gaming might be a secondary problem. It might be that kids who are socially awkward, who aren't doing well in school, get depressed and then lose themselves into games. We haven't really known if gaming is important by itself, or what puts kids at risk for becoming addicted," said Douglas A. Gentile, an associate professor of psychology at Iowa State University in Ames.

Not only did the study reveal risk factors for pathological gaming, "the real surprise came from looking at the outcomes, because we had assumed depression might be the real problem," explained Gentile. "But we found that in kids who started gaming pathologically, depression and anxiety got worse. And, when they stopped gaming, the depression lifted. It may be that these disorders [co-exist], but games seem to make the problem worse."

Results of the study were released online and will be published in the February issue of Pediatrics.

The study included 3,034 children and teens from Singapore; 743 were in 3rd grade, 711 in 4th grade, 916 in 7th grade and 664 in 8th grade. The children came from six primary schools and six secondary schools. Five of the schools participating were all-boys' schools. Almost 2,200 of the study participants were male.

The children -- although not their parents or teachers -- were surveyed annually from 2007 through 2009.

Eighty-three percent of the study volunteers reported playing video games sometimes, and another 10 percent said they had played video games in the past. The average time spent playing video games was around 20.5 to 22.5 hours a week.

But, Gentile pointed out, "A lot of video gaming isn't the same as an addiction. Some kids can play a lot without having an effect on their lives. It's when you see other areas of your child's life suffer that it may be addiction. Parents might notice that a child doesn't have the same friends any more, or that he's just sitting in his room playing video games all the time. Or, there might be a drop in school performance," he said.

In this study about 9 percent of the children surveyed qualified as being pathological video gamers, and Gentile said that number is fairly consistent with the U.S. population's rate of pathological gaming.

Playing video games more than 30 hours a week, lack of social competence, less-than-average empathy and greater impulsivity all contributed to the addiction, the researchers found.

Gentile said the researchers aren't sure how gaming is contributing to depression, anxiety and other social phobias, but in this study, "the gaming precedes the depression. We don't know if it's truly causal, but gaming has an effect on its own, and you can't just ignore gaming and treat depression," he said.

Although pathological video gaming appears to share a number of characteristics with other addictive behaviors, such as pathological gambling, the researchers noted that "pathological gaming" is not yet an established psychological disorder.

"Getting highly involved with video games can become addicting, and parents need to be cautious about how many hours kids play," said Dr. Richard Gallagher, director of the Parenting Institute at the New York University Child Study Center in New York City.


View the original article here

Goodbye and Good Luck

As the "application" part of the season comes to a close, I would like to thank U.S. News and its readers for welcoming my posts throughout this admission cycle. As you sit and wait for law school admission decisions (checking your status online every few minutes, I know), I return to my own blog, Law School Expert. You can continue to follow my advice and discussions there.

For my last post on the Get In Law School Blog, I'd like to leave you with the following advice:

1. If you cannot get your act together to apply to law school this month, then let the dream go and wait another year. This shouldn't be a snap decision where you just go to any law school that will admit you this late in the game – you should give yourself every available option to make well considered decisions, and that involves doing things right.

2. If you have updated grades, jobs, honors, awards, or other information, do email schools and let them know. Send an updated transcript through LSAC as well.

3. Do not send extra essays or letters just because you are waiting for an admission decision. Wait until you are waitlisted. The only exceptions are updates (as per #2, above) and thank-you notes after visits or interviews.

[Get more advice from law school admissions experts.]

4. If you are waitlisted, campaign to get into the school if you want to go there. If you don't want to go there, kindly withdraw your name from consideration so someone else can be given the opportunity more expediently.

5. If you are waitlisted, be prepared to stay on the waitlist through the summer. These decisions are mostly made in June and July.

6. Do not assume you will be able to transfer law schools after your 1L year.

7. Seriously consider scholarship offers. One of my clients got into a top 10 school and has a full ride offer to a Top 50 school that she is seriously considering. Put yourself in her position – what a great decision to have looming!

I wish you all the best in this endeavor, and I try to answer every question posted on my Law School Expert blog, so please feel free to find me there.

Tags: law school | LSAT

Tools: Share | | | Print

advertisement


View the original article here

Unleash Your Inner Networker

Success in networking requires you to unleash a part of yourself—the part keeping you at home when you should be out and about. That social trait could be hurting you professionally, even if you don’t realize it.

But why does in-person networking matter? Can’t we just stay home and meet people by phone, e-mail, and online? Isn’t it easier and more modern to network that way?

It’s true that you can meet a lot of people online. You can even build social credibility before attending an event. But online networking is no replacement for a handshake and a smile.

Here are the most common negative factors that hold us back from networking in person:

Lack of purpose. Maybe you’re employed and don’t see yourself losing your job anytime soon. Or you could be unemployed, but simply attend whatever event shows up on your calendar. In both cases, social networking may seem like a lot of work with little return.

[See 20 Ways to Stay Motivated During Your Job Search.]

Foolish pride. You have a purpose and a need but don’t see yourself as one of those needy people who attend networking events. Does wearing a sticker with your name on it and meeting a bunch of strangers sound below you?

Fear of rejection. Entering a highly social environment means you’re allowing others to judge you and determine whether you’re worthy of their time. It also means you’ll likely face a bunch of questions you may not be comfortable answering.

Ignorance about how it works. You don’t know what to wear, or whether it’s OK to have a drink. And you can’t quite figure out who you are supposed to introduce yourself to. And where should you put the nametag again?

Negative mindset. Maybe you had a bad layoff, a bad experience at a prior event, or simply don’t believe you’re interesting enough for other people to want to talk to. If you have a sour feeling in your stomach, it’s likely to show.

[See Latest in Career Networking:?Network Roulette.]

To unleash your inner networker, try these solutions to the negative factors described above:

Figure out your networking type. Both you and the people you meet have your own unique way of getting to know others. Understand your own career networking tendencies, and you’re more likely to succeed in the networking environment.

Network with a purpose. If networking seems inefficient, build a plan. Identify what you’re looking for: a new job, for example, or other job-search objectives. Once you know your objectives, use social networking to achieve them by identifying specific people you want to meet, looking into where they network, and figuring out a plan for how to meet them.

Change the way you view the world. The world is full of strangers you haven’t met yet. If you truly believe this, your view of networking will change. You’ll start looking for consistencies and similarities rather than differences. And you’ll begin to enjoy the process of meeting new people.

Use rejection as a step toward success. Not every social interaction will go well, of course. We’ve all experienced some failure while networking, but that’s the only way you’ll experience success. Put yourself at some risk each and every time you head out to an event, and you’ll see results.

Ask great questions. Ignorance is hard to justify because you learn so much by asking questions. If you’re unsure how to act or dress at a networking event, ask a friend. Or e-mail the organizer in advance. Another idea? Show up early, introduce yourself, and get settled.

[For more career advice, visit U.S. News Careers, or find us on Facebook or Twitter.]

Find a happy place. Your positive attitude matters when networking. While people feel empathy if you appear down, they’ll be more likely to help you if you’re positive and able to help yourself first. So find a happy memory or big victory to focus on as you enter the room. Start positive, and you’ll be more likely to feel positive throughout the event.

So figure out what’s keeping you home, use these simple fixes to unleash your inner networker, and enjoy those social successes.

What’s holding you back from attending in-person networking events?

Tim Tyrell-Smith is founder of Tim's Strategy, a site that helps professionals succeed in job search, career and life strategy. Follow Tim on Twitter, @TimsStrategy, and share his 30 Ideas Book with job-seeking friends.


View the original article here

Sunday, January 23, 2011

Prominent Economists Urge Obamacare Repeal

In the run up to Wednesday’s vote in the U.S. House of Representatives to abolish “Obamacare,” a group of prominent economists—including several former members of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers and two former directors of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office—have written the congressional leadership urging its repeal.

In their letter, the nearly 200 economists from all over the United States—from the business world, from the academy, and from the think tank community—say that the repeal of the new nationalized healthcare law would “promote job growth and help restore the government to fiscal balance.”

Obamacare, they write, “contains expensive mandates and penalties that create major barriers to stronger job growth. The mandates will compete for the scarce business resources used for hiring and firm expansion. The law also levies roughly $500 billion in new taxes that will enter the supply chain for medical services, raising the cost of medical services. At the same time that businesses juggle the potential for higher interest rates or higher taxes, these medical costs will translate to higher insurance premiums, further increasing the cost of operating a business in the United States.” [Check out a roundup of political cartoons on healthcare.]

Furthermore, they say, the new law “is fiscally dangerous at a moment when the United States is already facing a sea of red ink. It creates a massive new entitlement at a time when the budget is already buckling under the weight of existing entitlements. At a minimum, it will add $1 trillion to government spending over the next decade. Assertions that these costs are paid for are based on omitted costs, budgetary gimmicks, shifted premiums from other entitlements, and unsustainable spending cuts and revenue increases. A more comprehensive and realistic projection suggests that the Affordable Care Act [Obamacare] could potentially raise the federal budget deficit by more than $500 billion during the first ten years and by nearly $1.5 trillion in the following decade.”

Instead, they urge Congress to “start with a clean sheet of paper” that will refocus the debate on a set of core principles that are not at all inconsistent with what the president and his political allies said they wanted to do: encourage providers to offer higher-quality care at lower costs to consumers; reduce the financial pressure that entitlement programs such as Medicare and Medicaid are putting on the federal balance sheet; and give every American options, including keeping the insurance they have if they like it—which, under Obamacare, they cannot necessarily do despite the president’s promise otherwise.


View the original article here

Economy, 2010 Elections Were Most Covered Stories

By U.S. News Staff

Posted: January 18, 2011

In a year of earthquakes, oil spills, and contentious political debate, no topic dominated a majority of news coverage in 2010. The most prevalent story on journalists' lips and pens only garnered 14 percent of coverage overall. But even with a low lead, it is no surprise that the economy topped the list of most-covered news stories in 2010. The U.S. unemployment rate hovered consistently at or above 9.5 percent for 11 months of the year, even hitting 9.8 percent in April and November, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The chart below shows the percentage of media attention the top news stories from last year received.


View the original article here

Study Highlights Flaw in Common Approach of Public Opinion Surveys About Science

Content created by National Science Foundation

A new study from North Carolina State University highlights a major flaw in attempting to use a single survey question to assess public opinion on science issues. Researchers found that people who say that risks posed by new science fields outweigh benefits often actually perceive more benefits than risks when asked more detailed questions.

“We set out to determine whether we can accurately assess public opinion on complex science issues with one question, or if we need to break the issue down into questions on each of the issue’s constituent parts,” says Dr. Andrew Binder, an assistant professor of communication at NC State and lead author of the study. “We found that, to varying degrees, accuracy really depends on breaking it down into multiple questions for people.”

To assess the problematic nature of a single-question surveys, the researchers developed two surveys; one focused on nanotechnology and the other on biofuels. In each survey, respondents were asked an overarching question: do the risks associated with nanotechnology/biofuels outweigh the benefits; do the benefits outweigh the risks; or are the risks and benefits approximately the same? The researchers then asked survey participants a series of questions about specific risks and benefits associated with nanotechnology or biofuels.

The researchers? then compared a participant’s response to the overarching question with his or her responses to the specific questions in order to see whether the overarching question accurately captured the opinion of the individual respondent.

They found a problem.

“There was a significant discrepancy among people who responded to the overarching question that the risks of emerging science outweighed the benefits when compared to their responses to the questions about the specific risks and benefits,” says Binder. “Namely, those same people really? perceived more benefits than risks when given the opportunity to evaluate these attributes separately.

“For example, in the nanotechnology survey, 50 percent of respondents who said risks outweighed benefits actually evaluated nanotechnology positively in the other portion of the survey,” Binder says. “In fact, only 35.4 percent of respondents who thought risks outweighed benefits actually calculated more risks than benefits in the specific section of the survey.” The researchers found similar, though less pronounced, results in the biofuels survey.

The study also showed that people who said that benefits outweighed risks in response to the overarching question consistently perceived more benefits than risks in the specific question section of the surveys.

“The bottom line is that social scientists and journalists need to be very careful when relying on data from a single, overarching survey question,” Binder says. “These oversimplified questions can result in misleading poll data and create problems for policymakers who base their decisions on those findings. They can also be problematic because they may contribute to different polls showing widely different results, which weakens the public’s faith in surveys generally.”

The paper, “Measuring risk/benefit perceptions of emerging technologies and their potential impact on communication of public opinion toward science,” was published online Jan. 12 by Public Understanding of Science. The paper was co-authored by Michael Cacciatore, a University of Wisconsin Ph.D. student; Drs. Dietram Scheufele and Bret Shaw, professors at the University of Wisconsin; and Dr. Elizabeth Corley, a professor at Arizona State University. The research was funded by the National Science Foundation and the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

NC State’s Department of Communication is part of the university’s College of Humanities and Social Sciences.

---

?Follow U.S. News Science on Twitter.


View the original article here

Saturday, January 22, 2011

7 Ways to Improve SAT and ACT Scores

Across the country, high school juniors are getting ready to take the SAT and/or ACT. Here are seven ways for teenagers to improve their SAT and ACT scores or limit the damage of mediocre results:

1. Don't pick a test based on where you live: Students on the West and East Coasts typically take the SAT. In the Midwest and Rocky Mountain states, the ACT is dominant, while teenagers in the South tend to split their allegiance between the two. The worst thing you can do is take a particular test because your friends are.

[Get 9 tips for SAT success.]

2. Select the test that plays to your strengths: Teenagers who tend to earn high ACT scores have a strong memory, are fast readers, and can process information quickly. In contrast, students who ace the SAT tend to be strong readers, possess strong vocabularies, and enjoy test-taking strategies. You can learn more about the differences in the tests in this blog post that I wrote for CBS MoneyWatch. To obtain a more in-depth understanding of what the ACT and SAT measure, I'd suggest reading The Princeton Review's ACT or SAT? Choosing the Right Exam for You.

3. Take a practice test: You will form a better idea of how well you might fare on either test if you take sample SAT and ACT tests. Sample SAT tests are available on the College Board website. You can find ACT questions on the ACT website; in addition, for $24.95 or less online, you can buy a book from the testing company, The Real ACT Prep Guide, that contains three ACT tests.

4. Use online test prep services: There are lots of online resources that are free or modestly priced for prepping for the tests. Here are three that I like: Grockit, Number2.com, and ePrep.

[Get 6 tips for ACT success.]

5. Apply to test-optional schools: If your ACT and/or SAT scores aren't good, don't despair. There are more than 830 colleges and universities that are test-optional. These schools don't use test scores to admit substantial numbers of students. You can find out more about test-optional schools by visiting FairTest: The National Center for Fair and Open Testing.

6. Be skeptical of published test scores: Published test scores at test-optional schools can be inflated. Here's why: When a school is test-optional, the applicants with mediocre scores are the ones who won't submit them. At some colleges, 50 percent of the applicants may not reveal their scores. When lots of applicants don't turn in test scores, the averages will artificially rise. Keep this in mind when comparing your scores with a school's published averages—yours may be better than you think.

[Learn the 6 myths of standardized tests.]

7. Decide whether your SAT or ACT scores are better: If you end up taking the SAT and ACT, you probably won't know which scores are the best to submit to colleges. The highest ACT score you can earn is 36 versus 2400 for the SAT. To compare scores, use the SAT-ACT Concordance Tables on the College Board website.

Good luck!

Tags: colleges | academics | SAT | ACT

Tools: Share | | | Print

advertisement


View the original article here

Many Surgeons Have Contemplated Suicide, Study Finds

TUESDAY, Jan. 18 (HealthDay News) -- A new study finds that as many as one in 16 U.S. surgeons harbored suicidal thoughts in the previous year, but few sought help from a mental-health professional.

Researchers analyzed surveys completed by 7,905 members of the American College of Surgeons in 2008 and found that 501 (6.3 percent) said they had thought about suicide within the past year.

Surgeons more likely to report suicidal thoughts included those who were aged 45 and older; they were 1.5 to three times more likely to have such thoughts than people in the general population. Divorced surgeons also had a higher risk. Being married and having children was associated with a lower risk, the study found.

"The perception of having made a major medical error in the previous three months was associated with a threefold increased risk of suicidal ideation, with 16.2 percent of surgeons who reported a recent major error experiencing suicidal ideation compared with 5.4 percent of surgeons not reporting an error," wrote Dr. Tait D. Shanafelt, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

Only 130 (26 percent) of surgeons with suicidal thoughts sought help from a psychiatrist or psychologist, while 301 (60.1 percent) said they were reluctant to seek help because they thought it might affect the status of their medical license.

Of the 461 surgeons who said they had taken antidepressants in the past year, 41 (8.9 percent) wrote their own prescriptions and 34 (7.4 percent) received the prescription from a friend who wasn't formally caring for them as a patient.

Further research is needed to learn more about the factors that contribute to the higher rate of suicidal thoughts among surgeons, along with efforts to help surgeons and eliminate barriers that might make them reluctant to seek help, the Mayo Clinic researchers concluded.

The study appears in the January issue of the Archives of Surgery.

More information

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention discusses suicide prevention.


View the original article here

Popular Posts