Why Harvey Weinstein can’t redeem himself through charity alone – CWEB.com

Ted Lechterman, Stanford University McCoy Family Center for Ethics in Society

As allegations of sexual harassment, abuse and rape topple his career and wipe out his clout, Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein is apparently trying to contain the blaze with generosity. So far, he isn’t finding takers for this contrition cash.

Fast-tracking a plan he claimed was in the works for a year, Weinstein said in his initial public statement about his monstrous behavior that he would donate US$5 million to the University of Southern California in scholarship money for women directors. The school declined that gift. He also pledged to leverage his wealth and — what he expected would continue to be — his power to advance gun control, swearing to “give the NRA my full attention.”

As a political philosopher who studies the ethics of philanthropy, I see the Weinstein scandal as embodying an important question: Can the rich and powerful redeem their reputations through acts of generosity?

‘Blood money’

Offering money as a form of atonement is easier for Weinstein than finding someone who will accept it now that the source is so tainted. As the Change.org petition started by a USC student put it, these donations are “blood money” intended to distract the public and purchase forgiveness.

There’s nothing new about rich and powerful men who try to strip the tarnish off their reputations through philanthropy. For centuries, the Catholic Church encouraged rich people to purchase “indulgences” as tickets to heaven. Martin Luther’s disgust with this practice helped spark the Protestant Reformation.

“Robber baron” philanthropists like steelmaker Andrew Carnegie and oilman John D. Rockefeller still raise hackles for how they gave away money amassed through ruthless business tactics.

More recently, the Sackler family, which made its fortune in pharmaceuticals, has come under fire. Until news of their role in creating the opioid crisis through aggressive marketing emerged, the Sacklers were best known for major gifts to universities and museums.

A series of lawsuits is starting to change that reputation.

And the UCLA law school accepted a $10 million donation from Lowell Milken, who nearly went to jail with his brother Michael for their role in the junk bond scandal, in 2011. That move prompted Lynn A. Stout, a business law scholar, to leave the school.

Real philanthropy

Despite those precedents, philanthropy is about benefiting society, not repentance. Done well, it requires a thoughtfully selected worthy cause and a wise strategy to advance it, coupled with respect for all the stakeholders involved and compliance with the law.

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TXBP1t2rUc&w=560&h=315]

Reasonable people can disagree about whether other characteristics also matter, how to rank these criteria and what constitutes a good cause. What about motives?

Donors who make big donations to advance their business interests appear to betray philanthropy’s main purposes. Conflicts of interest, or even their appearance, can make philanthropy morally dubious and even illegal.

And Weinstein’s gifts to support feminist causes — at least in the aftermath of revelations of sexual misconduct — reflect one giant conflict of interest. (New York state Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman was already investigating corporate governance at amfAR, a New York-based charity that works to cure AIDS, over concerns raised by its support from Weinstein before this scandal unfolded.)

At least two institutions — Rutgers University and the Clinton Foundation — have vowed to keep their Weinstein donations, arguing that they can do more good by using the money to advance good causes than by returning it.

Meanwhile, many politicians, including former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, are either returning money he gave their campaigns or donating those sums to charity.

It seems clear that his attempt to cover the cost of women seeking a degree in filmmaking, announced as his scandal broke, was a desperate attempt to deflect blame and salvage his reputation.

The German example

“Guys, I’m not doing OK but I’m trying. I got to get help. You know what, we all make mistakes,” Weinstein said a few days later, as more women spoke out about how the now-disgraced producer had demanded sexual favors in exchange for movie roles for decades.

Are there conditions under which the court of public opinion owes wrongdoers the “second chance” he said he hoped might be in store?

I suggest that Germany provides an instructive example. In the aftermath of the Holocaust and the other horrors its Nazi government meted out, that country underwent a profound period of collective soul-searching.

In a nationwide attempt to atone for its crimes against humanity, West Germany honored the outcomes of the Nuremberg Trials, imposed by the Allies. But it also took numerous and considerable steps on its own accord to try to make amends.

West Germany held its own tribunals two decades after World War II, the Frankfurt Auschwitz Trials, to punish Holocaust conspirators not tried at Nuremburg. It made Holocaust denial a serious crime — and Germany continues to do so today, long after reunification.

The country is dotted with memorials and Jewish museums. Its educational curriculum includes frank historical accounts of the nation’s tarnished past. And it has voluntarily paid more than $70 billion in reparations to Israel and individual Jewish survivors.

Though none of these acts can excuse the Third Reich’s despicable behavior, many people perceive them as authentic displays of atonement. What’s more, these efforts made it possible for Germany gradually to resume its place as a member of the international community in good standing.

Applying the German model

Here is how I believe that disgraced rich and powerful people can learn from Germany’s example. Imagine that Weinstein had first issued an earnest apology, instead of rambling defensively after The New York Times first reported his protracted abuse.

Then imagine Weinstein welcoming and dutifully complying with the legal and professional investigations about his conduct that are in the works. And then picture him graciously accepting any verdicts and serving any sentences required of him for the crimes he has allegedly committed. Visualize, if you can, Weinstein keeping himself checked into rehabilitation clinics and enrolled in courses on gender inequality as long as he isn’t behind bars.

Now suppose that after all of this hypothetical behavior, Weinstein would then meet with victims of sexual abuse and experts in grantmaking. And that with their guidance, he would give away what’s left of his fortune — currently estimated to be in the neighborhood of $250 million — to advance gender justice and end workplace harassment and sexual abuse.

None of these efforts I have conjured up would excuse Weinstein’s behavior. But I contend that in such a case, it would make sense for charities and universities at least to consider taking his money.

Sensitive acts of this kind of compensatory philanthropy can be an acceptable part of a process of making amends for past crimes. To count as legitimate, however, acts of charity as penance cannot substitute for official punishment for civil and criminal misconduct and they must be closely related to the crimes.

No matter what, money can never replace genuine contrition and rehabilitation.

And such donors should cede control over how their money is spent. Germany, for instance, did not demand that recipients of reparations spend the money in specific ways. Rich and powerful wrongdoers should likewise not seek to micromanage or receive a seat on the board of organizations they fund.

It’s hard, in other words, to give large sums of money away as one of several steps toward atonement for heinous crimes. This is just as should it be.

Ted Lechterman, Postdoctoral Fellow, Stanford University McCoy Family Center for Ethics in Society

This article was originally published on The Conversation.

Read Full Article and Videos  CWEB.com – Trending News, Blog, Shopping

How Chinese products went from cheap and cheerful to weapons in US trade war – CWEB.com

Qing Shan Ding, University of Huddersfield

Tensions are escalating between China and the US over trade. The Chinese government has announced retaliatory measures on a range of American products including cars and some American agriculture products after the US listed 1,333 Chinese products to be hit by punitive tariffs of 25%.

Yet a trade war does not make economic sense for either side. Bilateral trade between the US and China was worth about US$711 billion in 2017 and Boeing’s single deal with China signed during Donald Trump’s visit to Beijing in 2016 was worth about US$37 billion alone.

The jobs and livelihoods at risk are huge. So why is there no particular desire, especially from Trump, to ease the tension and find a new solution?

There has been much talk about the US trade deficit with China and allegations that China steals US intellectual property. But the answer could lie in US fears of the Chinese government’s “Made in China 2025” initiative and how it signals the growing threat of China as an economic rival. That the official US Trade Representative’s recent investigation into Chinese trade practices mentioned the Made in China 2025 initiative more than 100 times, suggests this is the case.

Image problems

Made in China 2025 was launched by the Chinese government in 2015 to upgrade the country’s manufacturing capabilities. It is a plan to transform what China produces from a low-cost, labour-intensive model to advanced and smart manufacturing. Certain key industries such as aerospace, robotics and high-tech medical equipment have been prioritised. The hope is that China will gradually match developed countries’ manufacturing capabilities and become industry leaders.

A lot of the products from these key industries, such as industrial robots, aviation and aerospace equipment, new energy and power supplies and advanced rail machinery were all included in the tariff target list published by the US Trade Representative. So it would seem that the current situation is not simply a trade issue aimed to reduce America’s trade deficit with China. Instead, it is likely targeted at the future competition China will pose.

China’s Made in China 2025 strategy makes perfect sense in my field of research, which concerns where products are manufactured and how this effects their popularity in the global market place. A strong and positive image of a country can generate what economists call “halo effects” on its products. So, Germans have built good reputations for their cars and engineering, France and Italy for their wine and fashion, and the US for their innovative products.

This worldwide reputation brings with it prestige and higher price premiums. Although there is still debate around whether brand origin could be more important than where the product is produced (Apple, for example designs its products in the US but manufactures them in China), there is no doubt that “Made in China” suffers from an image problem.

Chinese products have long been associated with a cheap and cheerful perception that they are not good in terms of quality or ingenuity. The Chinese government has long been aware of this view and keen to change it.

At the turn of the 21st century, it set up a policy called “Going Out” to encourage leading Chinese firms to expand internationally, acquire new technology and the tools to innovate. The two big examples were IT firm Lenovo’s takeover of IBM’s personal computer division in 2005 and Geely automotive’s purchase of Volvo in 2010. Made in China 2025 serves the same purpose — to boost China’s technology and innovation capabilities and to improve the image of Chinese products.

Impressive growth

There is no doubt that China has come a long way since the 1990s. It has built 22,000km of advanced high speed rail network within the last decade, which is more than the rest of the world combined. It is also considered as the global leader in renewable energy and technology, patent filings, commercial drones, industrial robotics and e-commerce and mobile payments.

Chinese telecommunications company Huawei typifies the transformation of Chinese products in recent years. Within the last decade, Huawei has surpassed Ericsson and Nokia to become the world’s biggest telecom equipment supplier and has just overtaken Apple as the world’s second largest smartphone maker, behind Samsung.

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TXBP1t2rUc&w=560&h=315]

What’s more remarkable about these statistics is that Huawei has transformed itself from a cheap phone maker to an accepted premium brand that can compete with Apple and Samsung. Its latest releases the top of the range Huawei P20 Pro will retail for US$1,100 and its top end model Huawei Porsche Design Mate RS will sell for US$2,109 — even more than the iPhone X.

There is no doubt that some in the US are uncomfortable with China’s impressive growth and feel threatened by it. It suggests the current trade dispute is not just about imports and exports, but also an incumbent superpower feeling the threat of a growing challenger.

Qing Shan Ding, Senior Lecturer in Marketing, University of Huddersfield

This article was originally published on The Conversation.

How the pretzel went from soft to hard — and other little-known facts about one of the world’s favorite snacks – CWEB.com

Jeffrey Miller, Colorado State University

The pretzel, one of the fastest-growing snack foods in the world, recently crossed a billion dollars a year in sales.

It has its own emoji, comes in flavors like pumpkin spice, mocha and banana, and is now available as an aromatherapy scent. It even has its own special day: April 26 is National Pretzel Day.

But not that long ago, the future of the pretzel didn’t look as shiny as its surface. As I point out in my Food and Society class, foods that are ubiquitous in certain pockets of the world don’t often spread beyond that region. For decades in the U.S., the pretzel wasn’t known outside of the mid-Atlantic states. It took advances in manufacturing and tweaks to the recipe to make it the global snack it is today.

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TXBP1t2rUc&w=560&h=315]

When German immigrants first started coming to America in the 1700s, they brought the pretzel with them. Bavarians and other southern Germans had been enjoying pretzels for hundreds of years. Sometimes they ate pretzels as a side to a main dinner course; other times, they munched on sweet pretzels for dessert. In Swabia, a region in southwestern Germany, signs for bakeries still include gilded pretzels hanging over the door.

Many of these immigrants settled in Pennsylvania’s Susquehanna Valley, where they became known as the Pennsylvania Dutch (Dutch being a corruption of “Deutsch,” the German word for “German”). The pretzel soon became a staple in local bakeries. Italian bakers in Philadelphia also learned how to make them, and peddlers hawking soft pretzels from carts were a familiar sight on city streets.

The food remained a regional specialty until Julius Sturgis opened the first commercial bakery dedicated to pretzels in Lititz, Pennsylvania, in 1861. Like everyone else, Sturgis made pretzels that were soft. But he soon realized that these soft pretzels quickly went stale, which meant they needed to be sold quickly and couldn’t be shipped very far.

To overcome this obstacle, he developed a hard pretzel: By using less water, he was able to create a more brittle, cracker-like snack.

Hard pretzels sealed in an airtight container had a long shelf life, could be shipped nearly anywhere, and could be displayed in attractive tin containers on store shelves. It wasn’t long before others in the area followed Sturgis’ lead and Pennsylvania became the pretzel capital of the world. Today Americans eat many more hard pretzels than soft ones, and more than 80 percent of hard pretzels are still made in Pennsylvania.

Prior to World War II, all pretzels were shaped by hand, and a talented pretzel maker could twist 40 pretzels per minute. Then, in 1947, the Reading Pretzel Machine — which could twist 250 pretzels a minute — debuted. Once pretzels could be made cheaply and in large quantities, national snack food companies took an interest and began to market them across the country.

Pretzels get their sheen and distinct texture from being dipped in a mild lye solution before being baked. Lye is a caustic soda, but not to worry — the baking process converts the lye into a safely consumed carbonate. The lye enhances what’s called the Maillard reaction, a chemical reaction that causes the protein in the flour to brown. It also gives pretzels that slick surface texture.

Though they’re growing in market share, hard pretzels still undersell potato chips by a wide margin. But fresh soft pretzels are having a little renaissance of their own.

Anne Beiler — more famously known as Auntie Anne — started her fresh pretzel business in 1988 in a Pennsylvania Dutch country farmers market.

Today, the mall and airport stalwart has over 1,600 outlets around the world, with regional offerings like a banana pretzel (England), a seaweed pretzel (Singapore) and a date-flavored pretzel (Saudi Arabia).

Pretzels have long been thought of as the perfect accompaniment to beer. With the rise of the craft beer movement, artisan pretzel shops are opening up to give customers the opportunity to pair creative brews with funky pretzels.

What better way to celebrate National Pretzel Day than with an imaginative beer and pretzel pairing? Here are some combinations to get you started: honey mustard pretzels with Hefeweizen, bacon and cheddar pretzels with an India pale ale or peanut butter pretzel nuggets with Dogfish Head Namaste.

Jeffrey Miller, Associate Professor and Program Coordinator, Hospitality Management, Colorado State University

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

Read Full Article and Videos  CWEB.com – Trending News, Blog, Shopping

Sugars in mother’s milk help shape baby’s microbiome and ward off infection – CWEB.com

Steven Townsend, Vanderbilt University

While living in a mother’s womb, cushioned by amniotic fluid and protected from the outside world, babies have only minimal exposure to microorganisms like bacteria and viruses. Shortly after birth, a newborn’s collection of microorganisms — their microbiome — begins to develop as a succession of bacteria colonizes their gut.

A variety of factors, such as mode of delivery (cesarean or vaginal birth) and antibiotic use, influence this population of bacteria. After that, human milk serves as a primary way more bacteria are introduced to a baby’s system, as it can contain up to 700 different species of bacteria.

In my research as a chemist, I’ve been focusing on the complex sugars that human milk contains. My colleagues and I are interested in how these sugar molecules help mold a baby’s microbiome and contribute to overall health. Ultimately we hope that knowing more about individual molecules in human breast milk will lead to the development of better infant formulas that can be used in cases where breastfeeding isn’t possible.

What’s in mother’s milk

You’ve probably heard that breast milk provides all the energy requirements, vitamins and nutrients that an infant needs. In fact, the World Health Organization recommends exclusively breastfeeding babies for the first six months of life when possible. Unfortunately there are a number of reasons that breastfeeding can be a challenge to keep up; and indeed, only about a quarter of American babies meet that guideline.

Breastmilk has a number of health benefits, beyond just keeping a baby well-fed. Exclusively breastfed babies have lower infant mortality due to common childhood illnesses such as diarrhea, pneumonia, urinary tract infection, ear infection, necrotizing enterocolitis and sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), compared to formula-fed counterparts. And antibodies in milk mean breastfeeding helps babies recover quicker when they do fall ill.

Researchers know human milk contains two types of simple proteins, whey and casein, which are easily digested. It also has complex proteins including lactoferrin, which inhibits the growth of iron-dependent bacteria, and secretory IgA, which protects the infant from viruses and pathogenic bacteria. It provides a number of essential fats that are necessary for brain development, vitamin absorption and nervous system development.

And then there are the complex sugars called human milk oligosaccharides or HMOs that have long been neglected by the scientific community. As trained organic chemists, my team took an interest in HMOs precisely because not much was known about them. A few studies had found that these sugars were food for good bacteria, but not the pathogenic ones. It seemed like there must be more to the story. We also knew we’d be able to synthesize in the lab any molecules we identified as important.

A closer look at mom’s milk sugars

These complex sugars in human milk appear to provide a growth advantage for good bacteria. For example, breastfed infants have a microbiome rich in two species of bacteria: Bacteroides and Bifidobacteria. Both species are symbiotes, meaning they live with us on a daily basis, but typically cause no harm. They live in the human gut where they use human milk oligosaccharides as energy sources to grow, whereas pathogens do not. Breastfed babies tend to be colonized to a lesser extent by infectious species, meaning they get sick less.

Many of the protective properties of human milk have been attributed to its HMO component. For instance, research has shown that HMO supplementation shortens the duration of rotavirus infection — one of the leading causes of diarrhea in infants.

Bovine milk, which most formula is based on, however, contains a negligible oligosaccharide component. Additionally, bovine milk oligosaccharides lack the structural complexity and diversity of HMOs. So formula-fed infants do not obtain comparable oligosaccharide-fostered protections to those who are breastfed.

A case study: Group B strep

Based on these known effects of human milk oligosaccharides, my research group took an interest in Group B streptococcus. All mothers-to-be are screened during the third trimester of pregnancy for Group B strep; although it isn’t much threat to a healthy adult, this bacteria can be passed to the baby during labor and birth, with an increased risk of infection.

We noted that, even though Group B strep bacteria are present in breast milk, children who breastfeed are not at increased risk for Group B strep infection. Why? Could HMOs be providing protection against this bacteria?

To investigate, our team worked to isolate the complex sugars contained in donated human milk. With these molecules in hand, we began to test whether HMOs acted as antibiotics against Group B strep. In an initial study, we tried to grow Group B strep both in the presence and absence of HMOs. It turned out that HMOs do prevent the growth of Group B strep bacteria.

We also observed that different women produced HMOs with varying levels of antibiotic activity. This was not surprising as there are over 200 different HMOs in breast milk. Every woman produces a different set of sugars and they change during lactation. In followup studies, we showed that HMOs have antibiotic properties against a number of additional pathogens, including staph.

Going forward, our goals are to figure out exactly how these sugars are working and why specific women produce sugars that are more antimicrobial than others. Once researchers understand more about which HMOs are the most important ingredients in breast milk for baby health, these compounds can be synthesized and added to infant food products. A better quality infant formula that more closely mimics human breast milk may help close the health gap between breastfed and formula-fed babies.

Steven Townsend, Assistant Professor of Chemistry, Vanderbilt University

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

Read Full Article and Videos  CWEB.com – Trending News, Blog, Shopping

With teen mental health deteriorating over five years, there’s a likely culprit – CWEB.com

Jean Twenge, San Diego State University

Around 2012, something started going wrong in the lives of teens.

In just the five years between 2010 and 2015, the number of U.S. teens who felt useless and joyless — classic symptoms of depression — surged 33 percent in large national surveys. Teen suicide attempts increased 23 percent. Even more troubling, the number of 13- to 18-year-olds who committed suicide jumped 31 percent.

In a new paper published in Clinical Psychological Science, my colleagues and I found that the increases in depression, suicide attempts and suicide appeared among teens from every background — more privileged and less privileged, across all races and ethnicities and in every region of the country. All told, our analysis found that the generation of teens I call “iGen” — those born after 1995 — is much more likely to experience mental health issues than their millennial predecessors.

What happened so that so many more teens, in such a short period of time, would feel depressed, attempt suicide and commit suicide? After scouring several large surveys of teens for clues, I found that all of the possibilities traced back to a major change in teens’ lives: the sudden ascendance of the smartphone.

All signs point to the screen

Because the years between 2010 to 2015 were a period of steady economic growth and falling unemployment, it’s unlikely that economic malaise was a factor. Income inequality was (and still is) an issue, but it didn’t suddenly appear in the early 2010s: This gap between the rich and poor had been widening for decades. We found that the time teens spent on homework barely budged between 2010 and 2015, effectively ruling out academic pressure as a cause.

However, according to the Pew Research Center, smartphone ownership crossed the 50 percent threshold in late 2012 — right when teen depression and suicide began to increase. By 2015, 73 percent of teens had access to a smartphone.

Not only did smartphone use and depression increase in tandem, but time spent online was linked to mental health issues across two different data sets. We found that teens who spent five or more hours a day online were 71 percent more likely than those who spent less than an hour a day to have at least one suicide risk factor (depression, thinking about suicide, making a suicide plan or attempting suicide). Overall, suicide risk factors rose significantly after two or more hours a day of time online.

Of course, it’s possible that instead of time online causing depression, depression causes more time online. But three other studies show that is unlikely (at least, when viewed through social media use).

Two followed people over time, with both studies finding that spending more time on social media led to unhappiness, while unhappiness did not lead to more social media use. A third randomly assigned participants to give up Facebook for a week versus continuing their usual use. Those who avoided Facebook reported feeling less depressed at the end of the week.

The argument that depression might cause people to spend more time online doesn’t also explain why depression increased so suddenly after 2012. Under that scenario, more teens became depressed for an unknown reason and then started buying smartphones, which doesn’t seem too logical.

What’s lost when we’re plugged in

Even if online time doesn’t directly harm mental health, it could still adversely affect it in indirect ways, especially if time online crowds out time for other activities.

For example, while conducting research for my book on iGen, I found that teens now spend much less time interacting with their friends in person. Interacting with people face to face is one of the deepest wellsprings of human happiness; without it, our moods start to suffer and depression often follows. Feeling socially isolated is also one of the major risk factors for suicide. We found that teens who spent more time than average online and less time than average with friends in person were the most likely to be depressed. Since 2012, that’s what has occurred en masse: Teens have spent less time on activities known to benefit mental health (in-person social interaction) and more time on activities that may harm it (time online).

Teens are also sleeping less, and teens who spend more time on their phones are more likely to not be getting enough sleep. Not sleeping enough is a major risk factor for depression, so if smartphones are causing less sleep, that alone could explain why depression and suicide increased so suddenly.

Depression and suicide have many causes: Genetic predisposition, family environments, bullying and trauma can all play a role. Some teens would experience mental health problems no matter what era they lived in.

But some vulnerable teens who would otherwise not have had mental health issues may have slipped into depression due to too much screen time, not enough face-to-face social interaction, inadequate sleep or a combination of all three.

It might be argued that it’s too soon to recommend less screen time, given that the research isn’t completely definitive. However, the downside to limiting screen time — say, to two hours a day or less — is minimal. In contrast, the downside to doing nothing — given the possible consequences of depression and suicide — seems, to me, quite high.

It’s not too early to think about limiting screen time; let’s hope it’s not too late.

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TXBP1t2rUc&w=560&h=315]

Jean Twenge, Professor of Psychology, San Diego State University

This article was originally published on The Conversation.

Read Full Article and Videos  CWEB.com – Trending News, Blog, Shopping

Why losing a dog can be harder than losing a relative or friend – CWEB.com

Frank T. McAndrew, Knox College

Recently, my wife and I went through one of the more excruciating experiences of our lives — the euthanasia of our beloved dog, Murphy. I remember making eye contact with Murphy moments before she took her last breath — she flashed me a look that was an endearing blend of confusion and the reassurance that everyone was ok because we were both by her side.

When people who have never had a dog see their dog-owning friends mourn the loss of a pet, they probably think it’s all a bit of an overreaction; after all, it’s “just a dog.”

However, those who have loved a dog know the truth: Your own pet is never “just a dog.”

Many times, I’ve had friends guiltily confide to me that they grieved more over the loss of a dog than over the loss of friends or relatives. Research has confirmed that for most people, the loss of a dog is, in almost every way, comparable to the loss of a human loved one. Unfortunately, there’s little in our cultural playbook — no grief rituals, no obituary in the local newspaper, no religious service — to help us get through the loss of a pet, which can make us feel more than a bit embarrassed to show too much public grief over our dead dogs.

Perhaps if people realized just how strong and intense the bond is between people and their dogs, such grief would become more widely accepted. This would greatly help dog owners to integrate the death into their lives and help them move forward.

An interspecies bond like no other

What is it about dogs, exactly, that make humans bond so closely with them?

For starters, dogs have had to adapt to living with humans over the past 10,000 years. And they’ve done it very well: They’re the only animal to have evolved specifically to be our companions and friends. Anthropologist Brian Hare has developed the “Domestication Hypothesis” to explain how dogs morphed from their grey wolf ancestors into the socially skilled animals that we now interact with in very much the same way as we interact with other people.

Perhaps one reason our relationships with dogs can be even more satisfying than our human relationships is that dogs provide us with such unconditional, uncritical positive feedback. (As the old saying goes, “May I become the kind of person that my dog thinks I already am.”)

This is no accident. They have been selectively bred through generations to pay attention to people, and MRI scans show that dog brains respond to praise from their owners just as strongly as they do to food (and for some dogs, praise is an even more effective incentive than food). Dogs recognize people and can learn to interpret human emotional states from facial expression alone. Scientific studies also indicate that dogs can understand human intentions, try to help their owners and even avoid people who don’t cooperate with their owners or treat them well.

Not surprisingly, humans respond positively to such unrequited affection, assistance and loyalty. Just looking at dogs can make people smile. Dog owners score higher on measures of well-being and they are happier, on average, than people who own cats or no pets at all.

Like a member of the family

Our strong attachment to dogs was subtly revealed in a recent study of “misnaming.” Misnaming happens when you call someone by the wrong name, like when parents mistakenly calls one of their kids by a sibling’s name. It turns out that the name of the family dog also gets confused with human family members, indicating that the dog’s name is being pulled from the same cognitive pool that contains other members of the family. (Curiously, the same thing rarely happens with cat names.)

It’s no wonder dog owners miss them so much when they’re gone.

Psychologist Julie Axelrod has pointed out that the loss of a dog is so painful because owners aren’t just losing the pet. It could mean the loss of a source of unconditional love, a primary companion who provides security and comfort, and maybe even a protégé that’s been mentored like a child.

The loss of a dog can also seriously disrupt an owner’s daily routine more profoundly than the loss of most friends and relatives. For owners, their daily schedules — even their vacation plans — can revolve around the needs of their pets. Changes in lifestyle and routine are some of the primary sources of stress.

According to a recent survey, many bereaved pet owners will even mistakenly interpret ambiguous sights and sounds as the movements, pants and whimpers of the deceased pet. This is most likely to happen shortly after the death of the pet, especially among owners who had very high levels of attachment to their pets.

While the death of a dog is horrible, dog owners have become so accustomed to the reassuring and nonjudgmental presence of their canine companions that, more often than not, they’ll eventually get a new one.

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TXBP1t2rUc&w=560&h=315]

So yes, I miss my dog. But I’m sure that I’ll be putting myself through this ordeal again in the years to come.

Frank T. McAndrew, Cornelia H. Dudley Professor of Psychology, Knox College

This article was originally published on The Conversation.

Read Full Article and Videos  CWEB.com – Trending News, Blog, Shopping

Women on the 2018 ballot are busting perceptions of motherhood and leadership – CWEB.com

Jill S. Greenlee, Brandeis University

Motherhood is taking center stage in U.S. politics.

Sen. Tammy Duckworth, the first United States senator to give birth while in office has been seen on Capitol Hill with her newborn nestled in her lap.

Two Democratic gubernatorial candidates, Maryland’s Krish Vignarajah and Wisconsin’s Kelda Roys, made waves with campaign ads that, in addition to touting their capabilities as leaders, also show them nursing their babies.

A Democratic congressional candidate in New York, Liuba Grechen Shirley, was just granted permission from the Federal Election Commission to use campaign funds to cover the cost of child care while she runs for office.

Plus, women are running for office in record numbers this year. Among their many experiences, roles and identities, many are emphasizing being a mom.

What does this acknowledgment of motherhood tell us about U.S. politics today? As I have discussed in my work as a scholar of gender and politics, women running for office have not traditionally made motherhood central to their candidacies.

Here’s why that appears to be changing.

Mothers of young children

In the past, women who ran for office typically did not have young children. Research shows that women who are professionally best positioned to run for office are less likely to have children than men, and that female officeholders are more likely than their male counterparts to not have children.

If female candidates did have children, they were often adult children — making their role as a mother less intensive and less central to their personal narrative at the time of their candidacy. Scholars have shown that women who hold office at various levels of government tend to do so when their children are older.

Enter Hillary Clinton, whose groundbreaking presidential candidacy made motherhood central to her political appeals and policy agenda. While Clinton fit the traditional mold of a woman by running when her child was an adult, she made motherhood a major theme in her campaign. She spoke about her own experience of raising a child. She elevated the voices of other mothers and drew attention to their concerns.

And she relied on her own daughter, Chelsea Clinton — who gave birth to her second child just weeks before the 2016 Democratic National Convention — as a key surrogate for her on the campaign trail. By focusing on motherhood in so many ways, it’s possible that her historic nomination may have empowered more women with young children to run for office.

Negotiating motherhood

Previously, female candidates with children had to deftly negotiate their role as a mother, rather than fully embrace it. While being a mother fulfills a strong societal expectation associated with womanhood, social psychologists have found that motherhood may be at odds with public perceptions of what strong, competent leadership looks like.

Moreover, women who highlight their children in campaigns may open themselves up to greater scrutiny. Voters may wonder, “Who is caring for your children while you are governing?”

These are the types of questions that Republicans Jane Swift and Sarah Palin faced during their political careers. These are questions that similarly situated male candidates do not receive.

Ironically, today, women without children may face the highest hurdle. There is some evidence that women running for office who do not have children are judged most harshly by would-be voters because childless female candidates violate traditional expectations of women.

Running as a woman

Scholarship, that focuses on the issues that female candidates highlight and the types of voters they reach out to, suggests that making motherhood front and center may be a smart strategy. Scholars have found that in some electoral contexts, female candidates who highlight their gender and target female voters can build a strategic advantage.

For example, as the only woman running in the Democratic primary for the Maryland gubernatorial seat, Krish Vignarajah may distinguish herself from her six male competitors when she highlights her role as a mother. Research suggests she might build an advantage if she talks more about issues that affect women and spends more energy courting women primary voters, because these same approaches may be less effective for her male competitors.

Risks and rewards

The current focus on motherhood in U.S. politics is a mixed bag.

Running “as a mom” may open some female candidates up to the negative impact of gender stereotypes. On the other hand, some recent research suggests that gender stereotypes may no longer hinder women in the ways that they previously have. Other scholars argue that while gender stereotypes shape perceptions of female candidates, many voters ultimately cast their votes for the candidate of their preferred party, making gender and its stereotypes less consequential.

Candidates who highlight motherhood risk oversimplifying their own complex motivations. They may end up perpetuating the myth that women — perhaps because of motherhood — are best at legislating on issues related to family life, thereby keeping them tethered to the home and hearth.

Moreover, images of motherhood seen in electoral politics often reflect just one form of mothering. They do not embrace many other forms of motherhood and mothering across racial, ethnic and other identity groups.

On the other hand, when we ignore motherhood altogether, we do a disservice to all women. And, importantly, we may perpetuate the myth that women cannot or should not, to paraphrase Rep. Patricia Schroeder, “have a brain and a uterus, and use them both.”

Jill S. Greenlee, Associate Professor of Politics, Brandeis University

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

Female firefighters defy old ideas of who can be an American hero- CWEB.com

Lorraine Dowler, Pennsylvania State University

Five women graduated from New York City’s Fire Academy on April 18, bringing the number of women serving in the Fire Department of New York to 72 — the highest in its history.

The FDNY’s 2018 graduating class also includes the first son to follow his mother into the profession. She was one of the 41 women hired in 1982 after the department lost a gender discrimination lawsuit and was ordered to add qualified women to the force.

Despite these milestones, women still make up less than 1 percent of New York’s 11,000 firefighters. The city trails Minneapolis, San Francisco, Seattle and Miami, where in recent years fire squads have been more than 10 percent female. The national average hovers around 5 percent.

Approximately 10,300 women nationwide worked as full-time firefighters in 2016, according to the most recent data available from the Department of Labor. In 1983, there were just 1,700.

These women are on the front lines, fighting fires, helping victims of natural disasters and combating terrorism.

I interviewed over 100 female firefighters for an academic study of women in traditionally male industries. My research reveals how women are changing firehouse culture and transforming how Americans see heroism.

Two centuries of service

Women have been putting out fires in the U.S. for 200 years.

In 1815 Molly Williams joined New York City’s Oceanus Engine Company No. 11. Williams was a black woman enslaved by a wealthy New York merchant who volunteered at the firehouse. Williams would accompany the merchant to the station to cook and clean for the all-white, all-male crew.

One evening, the alarm rang at Oceanus No. 11. The men were incapacitated by the flu, so Williams grabbed the hand-pumped hose and answered the call alone. Her strength so impressed the men that they offered her a job.

In 1926, 50-year-old Emma Vernell became New Jersey’s first female firefighter when her husband, Harry, a volunteer fireman in the town of Red Bank, died in the line of duty.

Many more women took their husbands’ places in America’s volunteer fire service during World War II. By the mid-1940s, two Illinois military fire departments were “manned” entirely by women.

But the profession really opened up to women after the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which made it illegal for employers to discriminate against applicants based on sex, race, religion or nationality.

Strong, brave and invisible

Despite this history, I still hear claims that affirmative action for female firefighters is diluting standards and putting communities at risk.

Even my liberal colleagues have asked me whether women can really carry an unconscious victim out of a fire while wearing 100 pounds of gear.

The answer is yes.

In 2008, almost 70 percent of all aspiring female firefighters passed the national Candidate Physical Abilities Test, which tests for endurance, strength and cardiovascular health. The same year, 75 percent of male applicants passed.

Female success rates rise when departments offer specialized preparation programs for women to work out together, get hands-on experience with firefighting equipment, and follow individualized strength-training routines.

Critics have suggested to me that there aren’t more female firefighters because women are not interested in such a dangerous and “dirty” job.

Yet women are much better represented in fields that require a comparable level of strength and stamina, including drywall installation, logging and welding — though they remain minorities.

Women have also made more inroads in other historically male-dominated careers like aerospace engineering and medicine. Today, some 150 years after the first American woman entered medical school, in 1911, almost 35 percent of doctors are women.

Fear of change

So why are just 5 percent of firefighters female?

Based on research on gender integration in the U.S. military, I believe the main obstacle facing women in firefighting is its traditional culture.

Like soldiers, firefighters are viewed as proud warriors working on dangerous front lines. That image comes with powerful stereotypes about who’s best suited to do the work. Female soldiers and firefighters both challenge a cultural standard that men are heroes and women are onlookers, even victims.

The military first added women to its ranks in 1948. In December 2015, Secretary of Defense Ash Carter lifted the ban on women in combat roles — “[a]s long as they qualify and meet the standards” — despite opposition from the Marines.

Today, women still account for just 15 percent of active military personnel.

Firefighting too is a traditional field. Over the past decade, numerous departments have been found guilty of discriminating against applicants of color and ordered to retool entrance testing that had a disparate impact based on race.

Women are in some ways even more disruptive newcomers to firefighting because they entirely upend societal gender norms.

Workplace harassment

Interviewees have told me they face severe harassment on the job.

One found her oxygen tank drained. Another confided that her male colleagues are so hostile she fears they’ll leave her alone in a fire.

Female firefighters also contend with ill-fitting gear. The long fingers of male gloves affect their grip, they report. Boots and coats are too large. Oversized breathing masks push their loose helmets forward, blocking their vision during fires.

Station houses often lack of private spaces for women, including bathrooms, changing areas and dormitories.

In 2016, 34 years after women joined New York City’s fire department, the city boasted that all of its 214 active firehouses finally had gender-separated facilities. For three decades, some of New York’s bravest went to the bathroom in neighborhood diners. Many others just went ahead and used the men’s room.

Women winning

Female firefighters are succeeding anyway.

Several hundred have risen to the level of lieutenant or captain. Another 150 hold the highest rank, fire chief. That includes Chief JoAnne Hayes-White, whose historic 2004 hiring made San Francisco the world’s largest urban fire department led by a woman.

Meanwhile, these women are transforming how Americans imagine heroism.

One Wisconsin firefighter said people are surprised when her all-female crew pulls up to a blaze. But, she told me, “No one cares if you’re a woman when their house is on fire.”

A woman in San Francisco said she intentionally stands outside the station during down time so that neighborhood children realize that black women can be firefighters.

“You have to see it to be it,” she said.

Lorraine Dowler, Associate Professor of Geography and Women’s Studies, Pennsylvania State University

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

Want to understand gun owners? Watch their videos – CWEB.com

Connie Hassett-Walker, Kean University

It was an ordinary day in 2011, when I found myself watching a YouTube video of a gun owner making a semi-automatic rifle discharge bullets rapidly, as if it were an automatic weapon.

My husband, a gun owner, watched firearms videos like this one. But I had never seen one. Intrigued, I sat down on the couch to absorb the imagery.

Hooking his thumb through his pants belt loop, the YouTuber demonstrated how pushing the gun forward, rather than pulling the trigger, allowed the gun’s recoil to “keep the gun going.”

In other words, he was bump firing his rifle.

I’m a criminal justice researcher. At the time, a flurry of thoughts popped into my mind. Aren’t citizens forbidden to own automatic weapons? Is it legal to make a video of a semi-automatic rifle performing like an automatic firearm? What about the 1930’s machine gun ban – is there a YouTube loophole of some sort?

This was 2011, seven years before a gunman at a country music festival in Las Vegas used a bump stock to make his shooting spree more effective and deadly, killing 58 people and injuring 851.

Watching that initial video led me to spend the next five years exploring online gun videos and gun owner communities. It also led to a moderation in my views on gun-related issues — something I believe resulted from the understanding and empathy I gleaned from those videos.

Video opens a window on world

My exploration would become the book “Guns on the Internet: Online Gun Communities, First Amendment Protections, and the Search for Common Ground on Gun Control,” forthcoming in August 2018.

That first video, and the many videos I would subsequently view, showed me how gun owners could legally share content that, in the case of bump stocks, could effectively render a particular gun control law moot.

This realization led to the question – is it worth it to pass a law, as Florida recently did, banning the sale of bump stock devices, when people can just make and upload a how-to video of bump firing without the device?

I felt like I had accidentally stumbled onto a secret that was hiding in plain sight.

I also realized that despite being married to a gun owner, I knew very little about gun subculture, either in real life or online. But I could learn.

Guns, part of fabric of life

For all the noise around gun control versus gun rights, there was a story that was missed by non-gun owners like me: how much these guns mean to those who own them.

Delving into gun subculture online — which in some, though not all, ways reflects real-life gun subculture — can provide a perspective that may be, for non-gun owners, very different from their own.

Americans live in a time of political polarization on a variety of social issues, gun rights among them. Both gun control and gun rights supporters would benefit from understanding how those with opposing political and social views see their identity and their culture.

Recent data from the Pew Research Center illuminate the extent of gun owner use of the internet and social media. Thirty-five percent of gun owners responding to the Pew survey indicated that they often or sometimes visit websites focused on hunting, shooting sports or guns. Ten percent participate in gun forums online.

Culture and its smaller subcultures comprise the values and behaviors that define a group of people. A related idea is homophily, that is, the desire to connect with others with similar characteristics, experiences and interests. Gun owners engage in this both in real life — for example, by attending gun shows, joining shooting clubs — as well as online.

Gun owners join Facebook groups with words in the names like freedom, liberty, oath keepers and duck hunters. They also join Facebook groups devoted to survival skills, love of the outdoors and hunting and fishing. They post in the comment sections of gun-related blogs. These are just some of the ways that gun owner subculture flourishes online.

Dissing politicians and shooting old computers

I learned that gun owners share ideas, images of firearms and videos signaling to other gun owners and the greater online community the accepted norms, values and activities of gun subculture. They use hashtags like #freedom or #2A, for the Second Amendment, on a posting. They post key words and phrases such as “take our rights away,” “Patriot class,” and “lock ‘n load.”

Gun owners showcase their rapid-fire skills with semi-automatic guns; explain how to clean a firearm; complain about political parties and gun control organizations; and compare one type of gun versus another. See, for example, “Glock 17 vs. Ruger SR9.”

I’ve observed that gun-owning YouTubers have a lot of fun filming themselves and their friends shooting all kinds of things — targets, zombies and computers.

I‘ve come to view firearms as part of the fabric of their owners’ lives, complementing other lifestyles such as rural living, hunting and camping.

Previously, I had thought about guns mostly as something dangerous, unnecessary and likely to lead to a homicide or suicide in someone’s home.

Not any more.

I developed some favorite videos and YouTubers. Having peered into a slice of these gun owners’ worlds, I felt a sense of familiarity despite not knowing any of them in person.

This gave me an idea.

If I felt a connection to particular YouTubers and videos, would others experience something similar?

How to bridge a divide

Recent research suggests that individuals can form attachments to media personalities whom they do not know in real life.

If feelings of connectedness could be deliberately cultivated among gun control advocates and gun owners, might it be possible to parlay that into better understanding of the perspectives of those on the other side of the gun controversy? Could this lead to a productive conversation about gun rights and gun control in the U.S.?

Some research suggests that it is possible to shift people’s opinions, even strongly held ones, and enhance empathy for others who hold very different opinions.

Other scholarship has connected familiarity with reduced prejudice. So while a total opinion change isn’t likely when trying to bring opposing viewpoints closer, small movement on a seemingly intractable issue might be possible.

Through the process of watching hundreds of videos made by and for gun owners, I find that my views on guns have shifted away from unquestioning support for gun control toward a more neutral, even gun-friendly, perspective.

I’m also much more aware of what I don’t know, including the particulars of all things gun-related (parts, accessories).

The deadlock between proponents of gun rights and gun control is frustrating. To that end, I conclude my book by proposing that both gun control and gun rights supporters watch 100 YouTube videos featuring content from the opposing camp.

Viewers should approach their watching with an open mind. They will see a slice of the other’s life in the context of their world. Here’s a hint for a “starter” video (for gun control supporters) to get the process underway. And for gun rights supporters, this.

Would this video watching experience work?

Take the challenge and find out.

Connie Hassett-Walker, Associate Professor of Criminal Justice, Kean University

This article was originally published on The Conversation.

This Mother’s Day, know the symptoms of concussion – CWEB.com

Carmela Tartaglia, University of Toronto

A bump on the head. And then another. That’s all there was to it. Yet, Mother’s Day 2013 would change one mother’s life. Her daughter Rowan Stringer, a high school rugby player with her whole life ahead of her, died after sustaining multiple concussions in the span of a few days.

Second-impact syndrome, the cause of Rowan’s death, is rare. However, persisting symptoms after concussion – also known as post-concussion syndrome – are more common and can have devastating effects on people’s lives.

Rowan’s parents envisioned a world where this happens to no other family. They petitioned for more education on concussions, for better surveillance and for improved return-to-learn and return-to-play practices.

On March 7, 2018, concussion safety legislation known as Rowan’s Law was passed by the Ontario legislature, compelling sport organizations across the province to take concussions seriously.

As a cognitive neurologist and concussion researcher with the Canadian Concussion Centre at Toronto Western Hospital who sees people with brain diseases, I believe Rowan’s Law is a necessary, important step that will help protect the young athletes of Ontario.

However, all its recommendations highlight the need for better understanding, detection and management of concussions. We must admit there is a lot we do not know.

This law should also have more widespread ramifications. People of all ages can suffer concussions. Many do happen in the context of sport. But many are the consequence of motor vehicle accidents, trauma, domestic violence and falls.

Symptoms of a brain injury

Until recently, concussions were considered trivial incidents, not worthy of medical attention. We now know that the symptoms that accompany concussions are the result of a brain injury.

The changes in the brain from a concussion do not appear on conventional imaging tests such as CT scans or MRIs; nor are there any other tests to diagnose a concussion.

But we know that these changes can cause symptoms such as headache, dizziness and unsteadiness, as well as changes in mood, concentration and memory.

Although most people recover from a concussion, 10 to 15 per cent can develop persistent symptoms lasting months or years.

This can have profound effects on school, work and relationships. These consequences from head injury can make return to one’s life difficult, and in some cases impossible, as not everyone recovers.

I am always amazed that most people realize that memory, attention, language, movement and such activities are functions of the brain but don’t understand it is also responsible for mood, love, judgment and the like.

The idea that someone who has been concussed is in the best position to know whether they should continue to play or not reflects our poor understanding of brain function. A concussion that causes headache or poor memory is also likely to impair other aspects of behaviour.

The long-term effects of multiple concussions and the long-term risk of developing a neurodegenerative disease in the form of chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE), is now being recognized by the medical community.

Mandatory concussion education

Rowan’s Law imposes requirements on sports organizations. These are all geared towards recognizing a concussion and avoiding repeat concussion while an individual is still recovering.

Rowan’s Law, Concussion Legislation requires:

1. Medical clearance of a concussed athlete before they return to play.
2. Mandatory concussion education for young athletes, parents and coaches.
3. The immediate removal of a young athlete from play if a concussion is suspected.
4. Strict adherence to return-to-learn and return-to-play protocols for youth athletes with concussions.

Thanks to the Stringers’ tireless advocacy, it will not be up to the athletes to decide whether to pull themselves out, or put themselves back, into a game after a concussion.

The law mandates that coaches and others responsible for young athletes are educated about concussion and take action when they suspect one has occurred.

You have one brain

Currently, we have no methods to detect concussions. There is no marker of persistent concussion symptoms and so we have no way to predict the length of recovery. And we do not know what predisposes someone to persistent concussion symptoms.

We also have no treatments that are specific for concussion and so we borrow ideas from other areas without much evidence.

We still do not even know what happens to the brain to cause a concussion and all its symptoms. Answering this last question is essential to move us toward treatments.

Although Rowan’s Law focuses on young athletes, people of all ages can suffer concussions. These can occur as a result of motor vehicle accidents, trauma, falls, domestic abuse and many other types of incident. Many concussions happen outside the context of sport.

Protecting one’s brain from concussion, appropriate treatment of concussion and importantly, prevention of further concussions, should be on everyone’s agenda.

You only have one brain, it defines who you are – when it changes you change. Multiple concussions can permanently change the brain and result in grave consequences for you, those around you and, most of all, your loved ones.

Carmela Tartaglia, Clinician-Scientist, University Health Network and Associate Professor, University of Toronto

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