text:
Maybe you've fallen into certain habits. Maybe you've quit paying attention. Maybe you've just gotten lazy. And now you're compromising. Or settling. Or just flying on unhappy autopilot.
Happiness, whether personal or professional, is often a matter of subtraction — and not addition. That's especially true when you quit:
1. Assuming your past dictates your future.
We all have limitations. We all have challenges. We all make mistakes. Don't be bounded by them — learn from them.
Easier said than done? It all depends on your perspective. Take mistakes: When something goes wrong, turn it into an opportunity to learn something you didn't know — especially about yourself. (And when something goes wrong for someone else, turn it into an opportunity to be gracious, forgiving, and understanding.) Where you've been, what you've done — your past is just training. Your past should inform you, but it should never define you. Stop letting it.
2. Gossiping.
It's hard to resist the inside scoop. Finding out the reasons behind someone's decisions, the motivations behind someone's actions, the skinny behind someone's hidden agenda — much less whether Annette is really dating Marco in accounting — those conversations are hard to resist.
Unfortunately, the person who gossips about other people is also gossiping about you. And suddenly gossip isn't so much fun. The next time you're tempted to talk about another person, think about whether you would say what you're about to say to that person. The next time someone starts to talk about someone else, excuse yourself and walk away. Don't worry that you'll lose a gossiper's respect; anyone willing to gossip doesn't respect other people anyway.
If you really want to share the inside scoop, speak openly about your own thoughts and feelings. That way, you're not gossiping. You're just being genuine.
3. Saying yes when you mean no.
Refusing a request from colleagues, customers, or even friends is really hard. But rarely does saying no go over as badly as you expect. Most people will understand, and if they don't, should you care too much about what they think?
When you say no, you feel bad for only a few moments. When you agree to something you really don't want to do, you might feel bad for a long time, or at least as long as it takes you to do what you didn't want to do — or shouldn't have to do — in the first place.
Practice saying no. In time it gets easier and ensures you can focus on doing what you really need to do — for yourself and for other people.
4. Interrupting.
When you interrupt someone, what you're really saying is, "I wasn't thinking about what you were saying. I was thinking about what I want to say, and what I want to say is so important you need to hear it now." Want better professional relationships? Want better personal relationships? Listen to what people say. Focus on what they say. Ask questions to make sure you understand.
Other people will love you for it — and you'll love how that makes you feel.
5. Being late.
I know. You're busy. You're overwhelmed. You're always running behind. And it stresses the crap out of you. (It also makes other people resent you. Whenever you're late, other people rightly assume you feel your time is more important than theirs.) Although you may think you can't help it, being late is a choice. You allow yourself to be late.
Tomorrow, start your a little day earlier. (It won't kill you.) Then arrive at your first scheduled event early. Don't worry that you'll waste time — just plan ahead and bring along whatever you need to use any "early" time to get a few simple things done.
I promise you'll feel a lot less stressed, and as a result you'll be more insightful, more creative, more decisive, simply more "on" in everything you do.
6. Resenting.
Take it from Nelson Mandela: Resentment is like drinking poison and then hoping it will kill your enemies. The same holds for bitterness. And jealousy. And dislike. Let negative feelings go. When you hold on to ill will, the only person who loses is you.
7. Deciding you just don't have the time.
Everyone knows someone who just seems to get a lot more done than other people. It's the craziest thing. How do these folks do it? They must have no life. Actually, they have a great life. They've figured out what is important to them, and they're making it happen. Figure out what's important to you. Strip away all the stuff that isn't. Then make it happen.
We're all given the same amount of time. The only difference is how we use it.
8. Fitting in.
Though entire industries are based on holding the opposite viewpoint, no one likes you for the clothes you wear, the car you drive, or the house you live in. No one likes you for your title, either. All those are things. Other people may in fact like your things, but that doesn't mean they like you. And in all likelihood, that doesn't mean you like yourself.
Be yourself. When you stop trying to fit in or make an impression, you might lose a number of acquaintances...but you'll gain a few real friends.
9. Ignoring your parents.
In the same way no one lying on his or her deathbed says, "I really wish I'd spent more time at work," I don't know anyone who has lost, say, his or her dad and then said, "I'm sad, but you know, I really do feel like I spent enough time with him." Everyone wants more time with his or her folks...when it's too late.
Your parents know you, and they still love you. Call them. They miss you. And though you may have forgotten it, you miss them.
10. Waiting.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt was only partly right. True, "The only thing we have to fear...is fear itself," but when you get down to it, a better quote might be, "The only thing we have to fear...is ourselves."
Why? We're all afraid. We're afraid of what might or might not happen. We're afraid of what we can't change. We're afraid of what we won't be able to do. We're afraid of how others might perceive us.
We're afraid.
And that makes it easy to hesitate, to wait for the right moment, to decide we need to think a little longer or do some more research or explore a few more alternatives.
Meanwhile, days, weeks, months, and even years pass us by.
And so do our dreams.
Don't let your fears hold you back. Whatever you've been planning, whatever you've imagined, whatever you've dreamed of, get started on it today. If you want to start a business, take the first step. If you want to change careers, take the first step. If you want to expand or enter a new market or design new products or services, take the first step. Put your fears aside and get started. Do something. Do anything.
Today is precious. Once tomorrow comes, today is gone forever. Today is the most precious asset we all own. Wasting time is one thing it makes perfect sense to fear.


text:
I Want A Do-Over
My last post was filled with sweet college memories. Because I am still filled with nostalgia for college – as I am every September – here's a post from three years ago…
Every September, as I watch the kids go back to school, I get the same yearning.
I wish it were me packing up Dad's station wagon to go off to college.
I'd take my favorite pillow, and those narrow twin-bed sheets and an Indian batik bedspread.
I'd bring my popcorn popper to warm a can of Campbell's tomato soup. And my old stereo turntable and my scratchy Crosby, Stills, and Nash albums.
And my big Underwood typewriter that I bought used for $12.00 – the kind where you have to pound the keys and then sometimes the spindles with the letters get stuck together in mid-air. With onion-skin erasable typewriter paper and a gum eraser.
I'd need notebooks too – the narrow-ruled kind. no larger than 5X8, so my notebooks are about the same size as my textbooks, making a neater stack to carry. Colored pens too – so I can color-code my notes.
I'll take my bucket to carry my soap and shampoo and comb and toothbrush and toothpaste back and forth to the communal bathroom.
With my bell-bottom jeans, moccasins, and the sweater I knitted myself that has one little mistake in the shoulder –
I'd be ready.
Ready for my do-over.
I'll sit in my Literature class and discuss The Moviegoer by Walker Percy. When the professor asks why Binx prefers the movies to real life, I'll say exactly what I said in 1972:
"Movies are better than real life because unexpected things happen. Nothing unexpected ever happens in real life."
And that scruffy boy will get up from the back of the room and walk over to me. He'll lean over the desk and kiss me without touching anything but my innocent unpainted lips. And that boy will return to his seat without looking back. And I will shrug off the moment with a quip:
"As I was saying…"
And everyone will laugh.
And the class will be over and we'll all leave.
And this time – this time – I will run down the hallway. And I will grab that young sweet man by his flannel shirt-tail. And he will turn around.
And I will kiss him back.
- Posted in: Aging ♦ Humor ♦ Memories
- Tagged: college, College Days, college memories, Innocence
26 Comments
You and I are the same age and I relate so much to your stories. I, too, love academia and would go back to college in a second knowing what I know now, of course! All those things you took to college were familiar with me, the bell bottoms, the Indian bedspread, the bathroom bucket and the moccasins! Mine were ankle-high, with fringe going down the sides. So comfy! And the onion-skin paper; I don't miss that at all! Just love your blog and your Instagram too.
Love this! Cool memory and even cooler guy.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
George Dyson on the Birth of the Computer
George Dyson returns to TED with a seventeen-minute talk explaining the origins of the digital computer -- in hilarious style. Briefly starting with Leibniz's machine-based calculus proposal from 1679, Dyson takes us on a humorous ride through early computer development, with tons of anecdotes from early computer engineers' notebooks (including scans of all sorts of amusing notes). (If you can't see the visuals well enough below, try downloading the full-size MP4 file). If you like history or math, you'll dig this talk:
Further viewing: George Dyson on Project Orion: The Nuclear Spacecraft; the TED page for his computer history talk.


text:
I was surprised, leading up to this weekend's top grossing movie, "Men in Black 3," that paranormal phenomena such as UFOs, the Roswell Incident and, yes, the mysterious Men in Black themselves were conspicuously missing from the zeitgeist.
When the popular sci-fi franchise launched 15 years ago, it was all anyone could talk about. The first "MIB," along with "Independence Day," "The X Files" and "Roswell," brought aliens and government cover-ups their biggest pop culture moment in a generation.
While my geeky friends and I were rabid science fiction fans, excited about the proliferation of these movies and television shows, we scoffed at the idea that any of the aliens or UFOs we saw on screen had any basis in reality.
If you count all the grains of sand on earth, in the deserts, on the beach ,under the ocean, lakes etc and then double it, you will have approximately the number of stars in the universe. Our sun is one of those grains of sand and the earth orbits it just like many other planets do around other stars. We have not even gotten to the closest stars to us and yet some people can say for certain there is no life around any of the them?
What is we find out that aliens did land on the earth in our past and we taught them the concept of religion. But after returning to their home world, their species annihilated themself.
What do you do if aliens land and tell you they are Mormons from another planet?
Same as with any Mormon, pretend you're not home.
This is for none beliver go on the internet and read where on other Earthlike where people look the same as we are on this planet. UFO over Jacksonville Fla June 1971 or 72 and what one think.
I've witness numerous UFO sightins in Phoenix, AZ; from orbs in diferent colors (chrome, white, plasma (light fluorescent colors)), to flying saucers, Most of them at daylight, I don't like watching the sky at night to avoid confusing terrestrial objects with unknown ones; however, still at night I've witness several incredible aerial events; the most incredible event I've witness at night, is an start like object falling down, becoming big like a fireball, then slowing in mid air, becoming smaller and then flying horizontally, most of the times to the North, I've witness this specific even at least 5 times in the last 2 years... It'll be foolish and selfish to think that we are the only "intelligent", but not enough to go to other galaxies, species in the universe.
The world is full of nuts. The sad truth is that we live in a world that allows nuts to sound as if they are not. These people are a clear example of that.
also its irrational to think that if there are life forms in this universe besides humans, that they havent found a way of doing things we have only just begun to imagine doing
Im not sure why ufo-believers get such a hard time from other people there is just as much evidence to support ufos as there is for jesus or god.
Four of us saw a ufo in 1978. It did the craziest things in the air that no human manufactured flying machine could ever ever do and it happened very close to us.. So yes I do know for sure that there is something else out there. And no, we did not see any green martians or creatures.
Attention media earthings! You must cease and desist your puny attempts to expose our presence among you! Otherwise we will be forced to use our p-36 explosive space modulator and disintegrate your planet! signed MARVIN
if you see your double..be sure it's an alien
I hope that extraterrestrial life exists somewhere in the universe. I can think of MANY questions I would ask an alien.
Better yet, I hope there are other life forms on other planets...... God forbid we are the best the universe can do in terms of a higher life form.
andy that is interesting, your assuming a moral standard of goodness, how would we know if they have a better moral standard of Goodness?
A quote from, appropriately, from Star Trek: "There Are [Aliens]! There Are!"
Too bad the scientific search for a life form not of this planet has been kookified by silly Roswellians and the like.
Agree Dudley, lol. Couldnt have said it beter my self.
interesting thought, have you ever read any history and philosophy of science books? Thomas Kuhn? Karl Popper? DENSE reads, but if you want an anthropologist view on the human nature of scientists i recommend Beamtimes and Lifetimes by traweek
Capture and torture are only some US gnevroment practices. US tax payers not only help continue it by way of ignorance and tax money, many of them enjoy it in other ways as well. Like through TV programs, video games and etc. Anything that helps promote and continue fear, hate, greed, lust, ignorance seems normal for closed mind heart majority. An ancient psychological recycling of teaching prisoners to continue being prisoners and masters to continue mastering. U R Change.VA:F [1.9.9_1125]please wait...VA:F [1.9.9_1125](from 0 votes)
There are already Extera Terrestrial Americans here . Some human , some not , but American none the less .Hide them in plain sight , or rural small towns , but they have been here sine the early 1980's .
I am interested in Anima's comment from yesterday – what makes you think that there are UFOs or Nephilim (hybrid creatures) here since 1980? I would like to know where you get this information?
disclosureproject.org thank me later
lol isn't that Scientology – with crazy Tom Cruse
What the Alien Reagan double was not enough proof of Alien hybrids on Earth...
Hey Joe those results were retracted because they were a calculation error.... please try and keep up.
For an alien race to be able to visit our solar system their technology would essentially need to allow time travel. The vast distances in our galaxy let alone the universe are so great most people dont even have a clue (I cant really comprehend them). They would be so advanced that apart from maybe a brief biological sampling we would not interest them.
OR a worm hole. I know there's still debate about existence of those but there's more proof of those than time travel. I, for one, believe not only in aliens...they're already being here...but also in worm holes. What tends to make the most sense is usually be given answer...and, to me, it's highly likely for another race to be able to come'n go here often through these tunnels, disguise themselves among us, AND travel undetected because it's not like we have the most advanced technology across the stars...i believe they have a way of going undetected. Really, I don't know why it angers people so much at the thought of them. Oh wait, maybe because it'll destroy everything you've always been taught to believe in and would be forced to believe in another way...=neanderthal/barbarian.
What makes the only sense is that these are spiritual (demonic) beings who can shapeshift and who have equipment that is spiritual. Read Alien Encounters by Dr. Missler and Dr. Eastman. They have the best treatise on the whole UFO pheonomenon. Even the two biggest secular researchers agree with this. I think one of them is Jacque Vallee.
Space and time are one. Going through a worm hole is time travel.
This theory is old, Maybe the Aliens don't have to travel far, or maybe they have a transportation beam, devise, maybe we are ahead of them, I hate when people act like parrots and can't think for themselves.
Just because it is an old theory does not mean it is false. Even traveling at the speed of light would take you 4-5 earth years to reach the nearest star.
neutrinos fly faster than the speed of light buddy. do your homework. physics is being changed as we speak .
you would be a fool to think that were alone. just as one day they found the earth was round they will find other life. believe it or not it dosent matter anyway. us humans would probly try to kill them anyway .
I just find it funny that since every cell phone has a camera now– that the sightings of ufo's, big foot, loch ness, and even santa claus have dropped tremendously instead of skyrocketing like you would think it would have with a camera in everyone's pocket.. Just saying..
Go to Disclosure Project – Dr. Steven Greer – all kinds of video. These interdimensional beings are not wanting to be exposed. However, go to Greer's site – you will see a lot of video
Silly People
I will repeat what i said earlier..our current mathematical theories of string theory and rubber band theory say we could be living in a small subset of many more dimensions..other dimensions we are unaward of...Have you ever take an advance math course?...used imaginary numbers to solve problems..why do we need them?..maybe the real reality has other dimensions and those socalled imaginary numbers are real effects for one or more of the other dimensions..we may no be able to travel fast then the speed of light..but we might be able to pop out of our surrent dimension and travel vast distances and then pop back in..You are not a scientist or mathematician, or even a computer chip designer...the circuits of our computer chips are so small you could not see them with a microscope..the layers of p and n connections are tiny...
Dear silly people – these are not people from distant lands. These are spiritual beings. There are many, many witnesses – you can google the disclosure project: these aren't toothless rednecks who are ready to swear under oath. I also recommend Dr. L.A. Marzulli. He has a great blog on the subject. Also, a great book by Dr. Missler and Dr. Eastman called "Alien Encounters". I think you need to wake up.
good point. yes there are many spiritual races out there but remember that there are also still races of barbaric people out there. we are all on our one way trip to the father. namaste
Even the greatest minds (philosophers , PhDs, etc) are still just a ball of neurons with all the limitations and delusions associated with it. A misfiring serotonin pathway, whether induced by a drug or an endogenous malfunction, can cause any brain to hallucinate. A subjective view of the world will always be skewed.
instead of searching for intelligent life in space we should try discovering new creatures that live in our oceans...way better chance
We are doing both.
I have a question to the believers and that it simply this. So what?
If we are being visited by ET types, what is the significance? I mean it IS interesting. But how does it affect us? In real terms, what is the impact?
If they are doing secret things, we are clearly unable to stop them or figure out what they are doing. Basically, since there is no obvious harm and we can do nothing about it anyway, I'll wait till they knock on the front door before I waste much time on the topic.
You are partly right..just look and the cases of underwater unidenified objects....Our Navy and other countries have had several incounters with underwater ships that just came to the surface and flew away...they technology of these ships is far beyond our capabilities...we can do nothing to stop them and should we pick a fight with that kind of technology in the first place..they could wipe us out if they wanted too.....
The significance would be tremendous, particularly in the area of health care and technological advancement.
Some people look to aliens basically as their Hope, that they will be able to tell us how to live forever, how we can get past our own evil nature, or in the case of "vulcans" how to live "logically"
There are no aliens, it is a 1 in 10 to the 81 power or something like that for life to come into existence, in statistics 10 to the 50th power is an impossible number
The great distances from stars and galaxies is so great, that it is physically impossible to travel. You can speculate all you want, it's really just a grasp at straws for felt needs.
Interestingly, at one point the earth was thought to be the center of the universe, then the sun, now we believe that our galaxy is at or near the center of the universe
What is striking to me is the lack of creativity when depicting extraterrestrial life. Second, all of these so called eye-witness accounts are ridiculous to say the least. I am fairly certain that any space-fairing civilization will have no interest in probing the anus of the abducted.
Not all the cases are ridiculous..Some by military officers..the red balls of light by WWII pilots...many reports...there are too many from military and law enforcement and military trained pilots...and yes the Germans had many wild and interesting weapons systems they were working on and yes we grabbed some of them and some of the German scientists, just like the Soviet Union did..but look at the unclassified Soviet files..the KGB files on UFO's....and the unclassified British files...There are some very interesting reports in there...
I would like to point out that believing in the existence of UFOs is not the same as believing in extra-planetary life. Flying objects which are unidentified certainly exist. Perhaps even flying saucers exist. If so, their existence does not necessarily mean they originate from "somewhere out there". There are those who believe the vessels are British based on plans found in Germany at the end of WWII. Who knows?
@Josh correct!
they should put the search for intelligent life in space on hold till they find it on earth
Attention ..People of Earth
Our deepest space probe the Voyager 1 encountered a space buoy with unusual character writing and a Galaxy map, on a large plaque 6 months ago..images where sent back to earth using our deep space network..Decoding by the worlds experts have produce this...
The message has been found to be Mesopotamia, a version of known Sumerian writing....the message states...
Warning Galactic isolation planet ahead...alter your course...turn off all communications equipment till safely past isolation zone...contact forbidden...this civilization and it's inhabitants are just plain crazy...contact is forbidden..they only appear intelligent at first contact...
You need to remember the UFO's that flew over Washington DC in 1952.....We were flashing nuky tests out to outer space since we first tested our Nuky bombs..someone noticed a really bright light from a planet....
To think that we are ALONE in the vastness of space (let alone our own galaxy) is very arrogant and very non-scientific, when you factor in probability... Ancient civilizations that were unconnected other than being of the same species ALL either describe, drew or made monuments to "the sky gods". Some of these structures cannot be replicated using the most modern industrial equipment or engineering techniques... How does that work???
Most of these ancient cultures are eerily similar in their beliefs and monuments, even though divided by geography, cultural backgrounds/traditions and moments in time... I think that says something significant and is in no way a collective or recessed memory within mankind... Meaning, science has yet to prove that such a theory is plausable within the human subconscious.
New species are found and classified on earth with each passing year, yet we (as a whole) scoff at the notion that life may exist outside our own blue-marble... Simply amazing and sad.
UFOs are actually demonic beings and are inter dimensional. The best researcher on this subject is Dr. L.A. Marzulli. I was flabbergasted when I started browsing his site.
Our most current mathematical models, the string, and rubber band, theories point to many more dimensions all around us...10 or 12 total...Others could be looking in on us, like fish in a fish bowl....and popping in and out of our space at will...many things are possible..like maybe those UFO's are from our own future...just tourist from the future taking a trip back into time to look at their history...
Let's keep the discuss civil. I really like Dreamer96, Michael's and Jeff's comments and I am willing to keep an open mind. I want to encourage all of you to google Dr. L.A. Marzulli and see what he has to say about all of this – there are very good podasts on his site that are quite interesting. Love and Peace to all! Mosbear
Google Puma Punku and tell me ancient man created those ruins. Pretty much proves to me the existence of Ancient Aliens that frequented our planet.
I MADE A COMMENT ON UFO's and ET TECHNOLOGY LAST NIGHT THAT THE "ELITE" NETWORKS SUCH AS CNN,NBC, FOX, AND CBS APPARENTLY ARE IGNORING BECAUSE THEY ARE AFRAID OF THE TOPIC. MILLIONS OF PEOPLE ON THIS PLANET WE CALL EARTH, INCLUDING MANY PEOPLE WHO HAVE DISCLOSED ET ENCOUNTERS DATING BACK MORE THAN 50 YEARS ARE TRYING TO SHARE THESE EVENTS WITH THE "ELITE MEDIA". WHAT ARE THEY AFRAID OF? LARRY KING HAD THE GUTS TO HAVE BOTH SKEPTICS AND BELIEVERS, I APPLAUSE HIM. ANDERSON COOPER HAD A GUEST ON HIS DAYTIME SHOW OR ON CNN RECENTLY OR A WHILE BACK AND MADE HIM LOOK FOOLISH BECAUSE ALL THE INFORMATION HE WAS TRYING TO GIVE WAS EDITED OUT. THE GUEST NAME WAS JOHN VENTRE. DR STEPHEN GREER AND JAMES FOX HAVE BEEN TRYING TO GET DISCLOSURE FOR YEARS BUT CONGRESS WHO IS USELESS ANYWAY, AND PRESIDENTS ARE AFRAID TO TAKE A LEAP OF FAITH THAT WOULD BRING TECHNOLOGIES AND CURES THAT WOULD REVOLUTIONIZE THE WORLD. WE NEED ANOTHER PRESIDENT OR CONGRESS ,OR BOTH WHO HAVE COURAGE ENOUGH TO GIVE US THE TRUTH . I BELIEVE IN A LOVING GOD, HONESTY AND INTEGRITY. WHAT ARE YOU AFRAID OF "THE MEN IN BLACK"? THE OIL COMPANIES? IS THAT KEEPING THEM HONEST? I DON'T THINK SO !
Why the need to shout? We can see what you type without all the CAPS. I read somewhere that people who type in all capital letters are narcissists, who believe that what they have to say is somehow the most important stuff. I think its more like laziness.
If an alien visitor ever wishes to interact with us I doubt it will have a problem doing so, If we have been visited (yes, I'm a skeptic), there obviously is not much we can do about it or with it.
I'm not arrogant enough to say that aliens definitely don't exist, but I also don't believe that toothless redneck that claims to have been abducted and anal probed by aliens. He is just afraid to admit that he was abducted and anal probed by one of those toothless redneck gay preachers.
I am suprised by the actual diversity and varying levels of society who claim that they have been abducted. There is an excellent book on the subject: Alien Encounters by Dr. Chuck Missler and Dr. Marc Eastman. Veyr thorough.
The mentally frail, con men, attention seekers. They come in all flavors. Rich, poor, high intelligence and low.


text:
Movie review: James Franco loses himself in the best of ways in 'The Disaster Artist'
I am not a midnight movie guy. Though, many years ago, I somehow made it through one of those interactive screenings of "The Rocky Horror Picture Show," I would much rather just watch a movie, rather than throw toast and toilet paper at it. Nor am I fan of badly made movies, such as the inane "Rocky Horror" or the embarrassingly awful "Plan 9 from Outer Space."
So, the 2003 film "The Room," which failed fantastically, but eventually made it to cult classic status, was never on my radar. I'd never heard of it till finding out that James Franco's newest film — he directed and stars in it — was a sort of dramatized look at the making of "The Room," which was the creation of a fellow named Tommy Wiseau, who showed up in California one day, driving a Mercedes, speaking in an unrecognizable accent, leaving a word or two out of his sentences, and believing that he could be an actor, then later on, an actor-writer-director.
Franco's film, in which he plays the badly dressed, scraggly haired, very mysterious Wiseau, starts off as if it were a straight documentary, featuring brief, talking heads sequences of familiar Hollywood folks, each one singing the praises of Wiseau's "genius." Then we're plunged into the real-life events of July, 1998, when Paul McCartney met John Lennon ... no, that's not right ... when 19-year-old struggling wannabee actor Greg Sestero (Dave Franco) met fearless wannabee actor Tommy Wiseau at a San Francisco acting class, where neither of them fares well, but where Greg is fascinated by Tommy's absurd bravado, approaches him, and begins a friendship that survived plenty of rough waters, and culminated in "The Room."
The lonely, fish-out-of-water Tommy, who never talks about his past or his age or his seemingly endless supply of money, takes to the idea of having a pal and manages to become both a hungry student of and a mentor to wide-eyed, movie-mad Greg.
A Mercedes ride down to Los Angeles sets up some goals, all of them revolving around getting into the acting business. Greg finds an agent, but not much work. Tommy finds that people don't know how to react to his bizarreness. He also realizes, after an uncomfortable but funny encounter with Judd Apatow (one of many people playing themselves in this film), that he has approximately equal amounts of talent and social graces, both of them being at very low marks. It's one of those points where Tommy's lack of speaking skills stands out, as he sadly tells Greg, "Maybe I don't have what it take," followed by, "Nobody like me." Soon after, it's Greg, tired of not getting calls from his agent, who blurts out to Tommy, "I wish we could just make our own movie."
Did you see the lightbulb that just went off over Tommy's head? And so, in June, 2002, his notion of a script complete, a cast of unsuspecting actors and a crew with no clue of what they're in for lined up at the set, Day One of a projected 40-day shoot commences, and this film about a film kicks into cringingly funny gear, with Tommy playing the lead of Johnny, and Greg in the second lead as Mark.
Things don't go well, then continue to worsen. By Day 25 out of 40, everyone involved — except the confident Tommy — is sure that Tommy has no idea of what he's doing. Tension develops, increases and, in the fast-moving, almost giddy script by Scott Neustadter and Michael J. Weber, gets funnier. And then it's Day 52 of 40.
It's a crazy, fascinating, absolute wreck of a story, and it takes exquisite shape under the direction of James Franco, whose best effort at directing before this was 2013's "Bukowski." But it's his acting that's going to earn kudos here. It's his finest, most all-encompassing, but very different sort of work since he brilliantly lost himself in "Pineapple Express" and "Spring Breakers." In capturing the persona of Tommy Wiseau, Franco adds in some flavoring of Sacha Baron Cohen's Borat to that of the peculiar Wiseau. In the end, Franco is as unrecognizable as his character's accent. Speaking of the end, don't dare to leave the theater until the end credits have rolled.
— Ed Symkus writes about movies for More Content Now. He can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.com.
"The Disaster Artist"
Written by Scott Neustadter and Michael J. Weber; directed by James Franco
With James Franco, Dave Franco, Seth Rogen


text:
Calgary Flames Parking Passes
Parking passes near
All parking passes
SeatGeek Buyer Guarantee
If your event gets canceled, we'll make it right.
Similar Events
Image credit for Calgary Flames: This image is available through Creative Commons on Wikimedia and has been modified from the original. Email firstname.lastname@example.com with any questions.


text:
Lawsuit challenges North Dakota gay marriage ban
North Dakota on Friday became the last of 31 states to have its ban on same-sex marriage challenged as unconstitutional.
The lawsuit was filed hours before a federal judge in Wisconsin struck down a similar ban in Wisconsin.
In North Dakota, seven couples filed suit in federal court, arguing that the 2004 voter-approved constitutional amendment — which limits marriage to heterosexuals — violates the equal-protection and due-process guarantees of the U.S. Constitution. The suit additionally says the state must recognize marriages of same-sex couples who wed in other states, the so-called "right to travel" also outlined in the 14th Amendment.
Since the June 2013 U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down the section of the federal Defense of Marriage Act that defined marriage as between a man and a woman, judges nationwide have nullified several such bans.
North Dakota Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem's office said it could not comment on the specifics of the challenge, because it had not yet seen the lawsuit.
"It is important to remember, however, that it is the constitutional duty of the attorney general to represent the state when it is sued," Stenehjem said in a statement. "Ultimately, only the Supreme Court can determine whether North Dakota's enactment is constitutional or not."
The North Dakota Family Alliance, which campaigned for the marriage amendment, also had not seen the suit Friday afternoon but plans to defend the measure, executive director Tom Freier told USA TODAY as he prepared a formal statement. He said his group would likely coordinate with the attorney general and file a friend-of-the-court brief.
In his statement, Freier said the alliance "will stand on the North Dakota constitution and with the 73% of the people who voted in 2004 to permanently place a definition of marriage in our constitution.
"For centuries marriage between one man and one woman has served as the foundation for the family and society and has demonstrated its benefit for the well-being of children. It must be defended and preserved."
The lawsuit was filed by Josh Newville, a Minneapolis attorney who also went to court in South Dakota on behalf of six same-sex couples.
"Same-sex couples are identical to different-sex couples in all characteristics relevant to marriage," the suit states. "Without any legitimate governmental interest, North Dakota has targeted a minority of individuals for discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
"The state will incur little to no burden in allowing same-sex couples to marry and in recognizing the lawful marriages of same-sex couples from other jurisdictions on the same terms as different-sex couples," the suit continues, adding that the couples are subject to "an irreparable denial of their constitutional rights."
Same-sex couples can now marry in 19 states and the District of Columbia, and legal challenges have frozen prohibitions in other states during appeals. Freedom to Marry, which had led the campaign for marriage equality, is tracking the litigation.


text:
Open Data flourishes and more and more open-data sites are launched with sophisticated functionalities. So now http://open.undp.org.
'Open.undp.org presents UNDP's 6,000+ development projects and 8,000 outputs in 177 countries and territories worldwide. It represents UNDP's commitment to publish comprehensive, quality and timely information about aid flows and results.'
'Open.undp.org enables users to find project information categorized broadly by location, funding source, and focus areas, and drill down for comprehensive project data, including budget, expenditure, completion status, implementing organization, contribution to gender equality, project documents, and more.'
An example:
Open Data is meant as an invitation to use the data by third parties.
'Public participation and collaboration are key to the success of open.undp.org. Here are some ways you can get involved:
- Build and share applications, conduct analysis, and perform research
- Suggest datasets you would like to see, and rate and comment on current datasets
- Display data on your website and share open.undp.org among your networks
- Provide feedback, comments, and recommendations on open.undp.org'
There's an API to make this possible and several download formats:
'The data used on this site is free to use under the Creative Commons' Attribution License (CC-BY) and available in the following formats.
API for developers (JSON)
Use the following collection of API endpoints in your application or download the source.
- Individual Project Data:
- Project Summaries:
- Operating Unit Index:
- Region Index:
- Donor Index:
- Donor by Country Index:
- Focus Area Index:
- Aid Classification Index:
- Human Development Index:
Comma Separated Values
Latest data in IATI Data format is available at http://www.iatiregistry.org/publisher/undp.'


text:
Hullo, everyone! For those of you who were interested in Finch… you'll get a better look at him in this part! And… we get to meet one of my FAVORITEST characters. *rubs hands gleefully* I can't wait to hear your thoughts on them… oh, and look out for a special post some time this week with big news… Speaking of news, if you're new, check out Part One.
The Finch looks at us and gives us a polite nod. He looks disinterested, but I can see the truth in his eyes – pain. I feel a pang for him. Maddie lost just eight, nine, ten years… how old is she?… due to the amnesia, but he lost so much more, probably over twenty years. I'm sure it's changed him, hurt him. And he might never get that back. Maddie might not get her years back, either, and then what of her relationship with Keller? They were clearly close before, and yet I've seen Keller's pain, too. And what of The Finch's siblings, parents, family… girlfriend? "Nice to meet you," he says, his voice flat.
Jen motions to some chairs that I know weren't here the last time. They must have been brought in just for this occasion. We all sit down, and I notice Keller watching Maddie, her expression pained. "Now all we need is Anvil," Jen says.
Blaze noticeably perks up at that. "Really? I get to meet the mysterious, elusive, efficient Anvil?"
Jen gives him a withering glare. "Don't start, Blaze."
Blaze leans forward, interest sparking in his eyes. "But I haven't even seen this guy, Data! I haven't! He's been here for how long?"
"Three years," Jen says tiredly.
"Exactly!" Blaze waves a hand in the air. "And I haven't seen him once. Neither have any of the other agents I've talked to."
"Blaze." Jen's voice is tight with warning.
"I just don't get why this guy's so special and secret," Blaze continues, ignoring Jen. "I mean, it's not like his powers are that different from other manipulators…"
"Hello, Anvil. Have a seat," Jen says politely, tossing Blaze something between a glare and a smirk.
We all turn. Behind us stands a tall guy, probably close to Jen's age, his posture forced casual and his hands in the pockets of his leather jacket. I get the feeling he's uncomfortable, but his face is a mask, not giving anything away. His eyes, though, have a spark of… danger. It makes me glad that Keller and Jen are here, in spite of Keller's hostility and Jen's secrets.
"I'll stand," he says, his voice quiet but strong.
This is probably the first time I've ever seen Blaze embarrassed, but he definitely is. Jen nods at Anvil. "All right."
"That's definitely him," Keller speaks up, eyeing Anvil suspiciously.
"I assumed so," Jen says with a small smile. "Ca… Anvil, why don't you go ahead and report on that mini-assignment I gave you last week, so everyone here can know what happened?"
Anvil gives us all a suspicious once-over. "Trav dropped me off, and I headed over to the house. I noticed I was being followed. It was her," he adds as an afterthought, nodding at Maddie. "She didn't seem like much of a threat, so I stopped her and asked her to deliver the 'package'. I watched her go up to the house and then slipped off to a safe observation point and saw her," he motions toward me, "take it inside, so I figured the girl had dropped it there…"
"You?!" Blaze exclaims incredulously. "You're the one who messed this up?"
Anvil's eye's flash, but a warning look from Jen is enough to subdue both of them, at least temporarily. "No one messed anything up. In fact, this has turned out better than I could've hoped, except for Maddie." Jen gives Maddie a sympathetic look and receives a shy look in return. She turns to Keller. "Does this satisfy you?"
Keller crosses her arms. "It explains how L… Maddie ended up where she is, but it still doesn't convince me that you're not responsible for her amnesia."


text:
A few days ago, the USDA finally unveiled their (fashionably late) 2010 dietary guidelines—the first update they've made since 2005. Are you as excited as I am? Can we live without bread yet? Leave the fat on our dairy? Ditch the rancid vegetable oils? Gobble down butter and coconut oil without fearing imminent death? By golly, has the USDA finally pulled its head out of the soybean fields and given us something useful, emerging as a reliable authority instead of a food industry puppet?
Contrary to my title, though, the new guidelines aren't total hogwash. Just mostly. A few of their recommendations are passable, like these:
- Prevent and/or reduce overweight and obesity through improved eating and physical activity behaviors. (Duh.)
- Increase physical activity and reduce time spent in sedentary behaviors. (Duh.)
- Keep trans fatty acid consumption as low as possible by limiting foods that contain synthetic sources of trans fats, such as partially hydrogenated oils. (Duh.)
- Limit the consumption of foods that contain refined grains, especially refined grain foods that contain solid fats, added sugars, and sodium. (Yes!)
Unfortunately, the rest of the guidelines are the regurgitated—and often unsubstantiated—snippets we're already inundated with. Case in point:
- Consume less than 10 percent of calories from saturated fatty acids by replacing them with monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fatty acids.
- Consume less than 300 mg per day of dietary cholesterol.
- Consume at least half of all grains as whole grains. Increase whole-grain intake by replacing refined grains with whole grains.
- Increase intake of fat-free or low-fat milk and milk products, such as milk, yogurt, cheese, or fortified soy beverages.
- Use oils to replace solid fats where possible.
According to the guideline packet, these recommendations provide "information and advice for choosing a healthy eating pattern" and are "based on the most recent scientific evidence review." If you've read anything else on this blog, you probably know by now that I'm weary of trusting second-hand interpretations—the original data often tells a different story than the mouths claiming to interpret it. So instead of taking the USDA's word as gospel, why not see what they're basing their recommendations on?
Luckily, the USDA has a Nutrition Evidence Library, where they've compiled the studies they used to create their latest guidelines. Let's dig in.
Saturated fat: true killer or whipping boy?
Here's what the USDA has to say about saturated fat:
A strong body of evidence indicates that higher intake of most dietary saturated fatty acids is associated with higher levels of blood total cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol. Higher total and LDL cholesterol levels are risk factors for cardiovascular disease.
Ah, the lipid hypothesis in all its unproven, scientifically-feeble glory! We'll look at the evidence they cite to bash saturated fat in a moment. But for now, let's see their specific 2010 recommendations regarding this oft-feared nutrient:
To reduce the intake of saturated fatty acids, many Americans should limit their consumption of the major sources that are high in saturated fatty acids and replace them with foods that are rich in monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fatty acids. For example, when preparing foods at home, solid fats (e.g., butter and lard) can be replaced with vegetable oils that are rich in monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fatty acids.
Time to start frying your (yolk-free) eggs in soybean oil. Never mind that polyunsaturated fats actually increase oxidative stress (a major player in heart disease and cancer) and become particularly hazardous when heated, especially compared to heat-stable saturated fats. And never mind that most vegetable oils are disproportionately high in omega-6 fatty acids, aggravating the omega 3/6 imbalance that's already rampant in American diets. If the USDA guideline team could peel off those lipid-hypothesis goggles for a minute, maybe they'd realize that the vegetable oils they're recommending are likely to wreak some serious health havoc, regardless of what they do to cholesterol levels.
Worse, the new dietary guidelines give the green light to eat some of the worst industrial oils out there:
Oils that are rich in monounsaturated fatty acids include canola, olive, and safflower oils. Oils that are good sources of polyunsaturated fatty acids include soybean, corn, and cottonseed oils.
From this graph, we should learn that soybean oil and corn oil (for example) are more healthful options than coconut oil and butter, because they're lower in saturated fat. It doesn't matter that we have studies showing high-omega 6 oils like corn oil may promote tumor growth while—using the same study design—saturated fats do not. As long as the USDA is on board with the "cholesterol causes heart disease" theory, the only thing that matters about fats is how they affect lipid profiles.
Besides, saturated fat is saturated. And saturated things kill us.
Here's something else that's interesting. Let's hop over to the fatty acid page in the Evidence Library for a second. Under the subheading called "Needs for Future Research" (AKA "Stuff We Don't Really Understand Yet"), they wrote:
1. Determine the benefits and risks of MUFA vs. PUFA as an isocaloricsubstitute for SFA. Confirm the metabolic pathways through which dietary SFA affect serum lipids, especially as some SFA (e.g., stearic acid) do not appear to affect blood lipid levels.
Basically, they're recommending we swap saturated fat for unsaturated varieties without being sure what the effects are, and that we slash all saturated fat consumption without being sure whether the reasons are biologically justified. I guess by the time the next tome of guidelines is released, the USDA will get to see whether their lipid recommendations helped or killed us off faster. Welcome to America, land of 300 million guinea pigs.
But could the USDA be onto something we don't know about—especially with the "strong body of evidence" they mentioned linking saturated fat to heart disease? The answer may lie in their evidence summary page, which recaps the 12 studies they looked at to assess saturated fat. As best I can tell, these studies are the main pieces of research the USDA used to back up their "replace saturated fat with unsaturated fat" recommendation.
For the sake of being thorough, here's a rundown of all those studies. You can click the article name for a link to the study (full text for most).
1. Particle size of LDL is affected by the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) step II diet in dyslipidaemic adolescents.
This one looked at a group of 46 adolescents who had high cholesterol. One group continued chowing down on their normal diet (the only instructions: "eat as usual"), and the other group ate the "National Cholesterol Education Program Step II Diet." At the end of the study, the Step II kiddos had lower total cholesterol, lower LDL cholesterol, and larger LDL particle size.
So how did the Step II diet differ from the control group? Was a shift in fat sources the only change? Let's take a look:
As you can see, the Step II dieters ate significantly fewer sweets, fewer fats and oils, more vegetables, more fruit, more poultry and fish, more fiber, and more dairy products (mostly low-fat) than the eat-whatever group. They also ate less saturated fat (7 percent compared to 14 percent) and more monounsaturated fat. The researchers note that the higher fiber intake of the Step II diet "could explain its beneficial effects on lipid concentrations and particle size," at least to some extent.
But what did the USDA, in their infinite wisdom, conclude from this? That the improved lipid profiles resulted solely from reducing saturated fat and replacing it with unsaturated fats. At least that's what it seems like, since "type of fat" is the only changed variable they mention in their summary in the Evidence Library.
In other words, this study is fairly useless for isolating the effects of saturated versus unsaturated fat—but that's exactly what the USDA team tried to do.
2. Comparison of monounsaturated fat with carbohydrates as a replacement for saturated fat in subjects with a high metabolic risk profile: studies in the fasting and postprandial states.
This study rounded up 85 adults—mostly folks with low HDL and high triglycerides—and made them consume three consecutive diets: an "average American diet" (with 15.6 percent of calories as saturated fat), a high-monounsaturated-fat diet (replacing 7 percent of the saturated fat with monounsaturated fat), and a high carbohydrate diet (replacing 7 percent of the saturated fat with carbs). The carbohydrate-heavy diet also added a significant amount of fiber. Unfortunately, the study doesn't document what else changed between the diets in terms of specific food intake, nor what the actual sources of fat were.
The results? Both of the low-saturated-fat diets reduced HDL levels (bad, bad, bad—these folks had low HDL to begin with!), and the carby diet produced higher triglycerides than both the average American diet and the mono-fatty diet. The total cholesterol/HDL ratio worsened when carbs replaced saturated fat, and none of the diets produced any differences in glucose or insulin response. It's hard to say why the USDA thought this study supported their recommendation to cut saturated fat and replace it with unsaturated varieties. Even though the high-monounsaturated fat diet reduced LDL levels, it did so roughly in proportion to reducing HDL (not something you want to see happen in folks who are predisposed to insulin resistance)—and the effect on triglycerides was negligible. If anything, this study shows that it's generally better to eat saturated fat than replace the saturated fat with carbohydrates. But even then, there aren't enough specific diet details to get a sense of all the factors involved. In a nutshell: It's a long, painful, joint-busting stretch to say this study supports the USDA's fat recommendations.
3. Macrophage cholesterol efflux elicited by human total plasma and by HDL subfractions is not affected by different types of dietary fatty acids.
In this study, the researchers compared the effects of eating diets with either 30 percent trans fat, 30 percent polyunsaturated fat, or 30 percent saturated fat for four weeks (using hydrogenated soybean oil, rapeseed oil + sunflower oil, and palm oil + a little olive oil, respectively). The results? Maybe the title should tip us off, especially the "not affected by different types of dietary fatty acids" part. Total cholesterol and triglycerides didn't change over time with any of the fat types, and the researchers conclude that "differences in the cell cholesterol efflux with these diets were not observed." In the USDA's summary, they note—looking closer at the study's details—that the polyunsaturated fat diet seemed to have some favorable effects compared to the saturated fat diet, such as clearing more LDL cholesterol after meals. Unfortunately, they overlook the artery-clogging elephant in the room, which is that—based in the markers in this study—the trans-fat diet produced better results than the polyunsaturated or saturated fat diets.
Is this really a good study to use for saving the health of America?
4. Consumption of an oil composed of medium chain triacyglycerols, phytosterols, and N-3 fatty acids improves cardiovascular risk profile in overweight women.
This one's a head-scratcher—not because of the study itself, but because it somehow became evidence for replacing saturated fat with unsaturated varieties. In this study, the researchers compared the effects of a control diet supplemented with beef tallow versus the same diet supplemented with "functional oil"—a combination of medium-chain triglycerides (abundant in coconut oil and palm oil), phytosterols (substances in plants that stop or slow cholesterol absorption), and omega-3 fatty acids. The goal was to see whether the phytosterols and omega-3 fats would keep lipid profiles lookin' good.
By the end of the experiment, the "functional oil" diet did well enough to please any cholesterol-fearing doctor: Total cholesterol, LDL, the HDL:LDL ratio, and the HDL:total cholesterol ratio all improved significantly compared to the baseline measurements and to the beef tallow diet. The beef tallow diet didn't produce any statistically significant changes except for a reduction in triglycerides. So what does this tell us about saturated fat, and the effects of replacing it with polyunsaturated fats? Almost nothing. The baseline measurements reflected the participants' normal diets, not the study diet sans fat supplement—so it's impossible to isolate the effect of beef tallow or of any specific component of the "functional oil." In fact, the "functional oil" diet had more saturated fat (63.8 grams versus 50.9 grams) and less monounsaturated fat (24.4 grams versus 41.9 grams) than the tallow diet, the opposite of what the USDA recommends. If anything, this study shows that the USDA could still appease their cholesterol fixation by recommending a diet loaded with coconut products, butter, and palm oil (the best sources of medium-chain fatty acids) along with fish and phytosterol-containing vegetables. That'd roughly mimic the "functional oil" supplement used in the study, but with real foods. Ya hear that, USDA? It's the sound of saturated fat busting out of jail. And it goes something like this: "Neener-neener."
5. Phytosterol intake and dietary fat reduction are independent and additive in their ability to reduce plasma LDL cholesterol.
Here we have another study that does nada to support lowering saturated fat. In this one, researchers wanted to see if the effects of plant sterols differ depending on the dietary context—so they compared four diets: a typical American diet (13.2 percent saturated fat), an American diet supplemented with plant sterols, a reduced-saturated-fat Step I diet (7.7 percent saturated fat), and a Step I diet supplemented with plant sterols. The diets consisted of pretty much the same foods, just with different fat levels.
Compared to the Step I diet, the higher-saturated-fat American diet (without plant sterols) produced higher values for all the lipoproteins and plasma lipids measured—except for triglycerides, which were the same. It also yielded a slightly prettier total cholesterol:HDL ratio, since the lower-saturated-fat diet reduced both LDL and HDL. Once the phytosterols were thrown into the mix, the results showed that the sterols have an additive effect rather than an interactive effect with their diet context—meaning there were no special benefits from adding plant sterols to the American diet versus the Step I diet. Okay. That's interesting and all, but how does it show that saturated fat ruins your heart health? Why did the USDA find it relevant enough to use in their uber-selective Evidence Library to answer the question "What is the effect of saturated fat intake on increased risk of cardiovascular disease?" Even if you ignore the fact that this study was about plant sterols and try using it to gauge the effects of the typical American diet vs. the Step I diet (where the only major difference is saturated fat content), it definitely doesn't show the reduced-saturated-fat diet coming out ahead.
6. Contribution of postprandial lipemia to the dietary fat-mediated changes in endogenous lipoprotein-cholesterol concentrations in humans.
This is a study examining the effects of a high-polyunsaturated-fat diet versus a high-saturated-fat diet on postprandial lipemia (lipids in the blood after eating). Compared to the saturated-fat diet, the polyunsaturated-fat diet resulted in faster clearing of cholesterol and triglyceride-rich lipoproteins from the blood—which is generally considered a good thing. However, given the potential for polyunsaturated fat to contribute to oxidized LDL, quicker clearance time doesn't automatically make polyunsaturated fat a friend of the heart. Nor does this study offer hard evidence that saturated fat contributes to cardiovascular disease.
7. Moderate intake of myristic acid in sn-2 position has beneficial lipidic effects and enhances DHA of cholesteryl esters in an interventional study.
Next up is a study looking at myristic acid, a type of saturated fat found in coconut, palm oil, butter fat, and nutmeg (which has the scientific name Myristica fragrans—where the word "myristic" actually comes from). The researchers gave a group of French Benedictine monks two diets: one with 30 percent fat (8 percent saturated, 0.6 percent myristic acid) and one with 34 percent fat (11 percent saturated, 1.2 percent myristic acid). The extra saturated fat came mainly from whole milk.
Did that added dairy fat do 'em in? Au contraire. Both diets improved lipid measurements across the board. But compared to the lower-saturated-fat diet, the higher-saturated-fat diet produced a greater drop in triglycerides and a higher boost in HDL from the baseline measurements, without comparatively raising LDL or total cholesterol.
This, of course, baffled the researchers. Here's a blurb straight from their paper, emphasis mine:
Many questions are raised by comparing diets 1 [lower saturated fat] and 2 [higher saturated fat]. If one accepts the conclusions of Gaggiula and Mustad, Clarke et al., Howell et al. and Verschuren et al., the better results should have been obtained with diet 1 and not diet 2. The MUFA and PUFA intakes are identical in both diets, while the PUFA/SFA ratio is 1 in diet 1 and 0.75 in diet 2. The predictive equations of [long list of lipid hypothesizers] point to the superiority of diet 1 over diet 2. The main difference between the diets is that there is twice as much myristic acid in diet 2. … Moreover, the decrease in carbohydrates in diet 2 (51.2%) vs. diet 1 (55.2%) should have worsened the lipid results. Yet at these levels which are pertinent in clinical terms and are widely accepted, the present findings are in contradiction with the various theories based on explanatory equations and on certain studies performed at levels not encountered in daily life.
In other words: "Oops! We found something that contradicts the lipid hypothesis. Let's air our cognitive dissonance on paper."
Again, this is a study straight from the USDA's Evidence Library, on the page dedicated to the saturated-fat-causes-heart-disease issue. If the USDA deemed it a high-quality study, why did they continue universally condemning saturated fat?
8. Effect of protein, unsaturated fat, and carbohydrate intakes on plasma apolipoprotein B and VLDL and LDL containing apolipoprotein C-III: results from the OmniHeart Trial.
This study looks at the effects of a carb-heavy, protein-heavy, and unsaturated-fat-heavy diet on apo-B levels. As much as I love to yammer on about this stuff, I'll keep this one short: The most interesting outcome was that, compared to the carby diet, the protein-rich diet had a much more favorable impact on apolipoprotein and lipoprotein profiles. The unsaturated-fat diet was also an improvement over the carby diet, but not significantly so.
Unfortunately, this study can't tell us diddly squat about saturated fat because none of the test diets used saturated fat as an independent variable, or even indirectly measured its effects. Next, please.
9. Major types of dietary fat and risk of coronary heart disease: a pooled analysis of 11 cohort studies.
Finally! A paper that actually involves saturated fat and heart disease and a link between the two (maybe). It's a miracle! Oh USDA, you've almost redeemed yourself.
Here we have a review of 11 studies concerning diet and heart disease, with a special focus on what to do once we succumb to conventional wisdom and scoot the saturated fat off our plates. Should we fill the calorie void with carbs? With polyunsaturated fat? With monounsaturated fat? With Soylent Green*?
*Not suitable for vegans
Indeed, this study found some interesting trends. Reducing saturated fat by 5 percent and replacing it with monounsaturated fat was associated with an increase in coronary events (hey USDA—why not vilify olive oil, too?). Although carbs were a mixed bag in the pooled analysis, a newer study led by the same researcher, Marianne Uhre Jakobsen, found that the type of carbohydrate plays an important role: Increasing high-glycemic carbs by 5 percent in place of saturated fat was associated with a 33 percent greater risk for having a heart attack. (Funny how the new USDA recommendations, while censuring saturated fat, still allow up to half your daily grain intake to be refined.) Low- and medium-glycemic-index carbs fared more favorably, but in Jakobsen's second study, neither were associated with a statistically significant improvement in heart health when displacing saturated fat.
Interestingly, from the USDA's cited study, replacing saturated fat with polyunsaturated fat seemed to be associated with reduced deaths from heart disease. I say "seemed" because of a reply Martijn Katan wrote shortly after this study was published, which you can read here. This is the point worth noting (emphasis mine):
Jakobsen et al (1) found that a low intake of saturated fatty acids and a proportionally higher intake of omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids was associated with a significant reduction of coronary heart disease. Confounding was again a problem: diets low in saturated fatty acids and high in polyunsaturated fatty acids are rich in vegetable oils, polyunsaturated margarines, lean meats, and low-fat dairy. That is what health-conscious people eat. Indeed, correction for smoking, body mass index, and other risk factors diminished the effect from a risk reduction by 31% to a risk reduction by only 13%, if 5% of energy from saturated fatty acids was replaced by that from polyunsaturated fatty acids. Is this 13% due to residual confounding by imperfectly measured aspects of a healthy lifestyle, or is it real?
Given what we know about the biological effects of polyunsaturated fats (especially their contribution to oxidative stress), it sure seems possible that their apparent health perks could be a result of confounding. Especially since polyunsaturated fats are pushed so firmly by health authorities.
Public diet guidelines have a spooky tendency to create self-fulfilling prophecies: As soon as specific foods are slapped with a "healthy" label by the white-coat-sporting experts, they're more likely to appear beneficial in studies. That's because health-conscious folks are often the only people who actually heed the advice of the USDA and other nutrition authorities, so they integrate foods like low-fat dairy and vegetable oils into their tangled web of healthy habits—creating a massive ball of confoundment that's nearly impenetrable with statistical tools. (Of course, healthy foods can appear deadly by this same mechanism. If the health-indifferent folks are the only ones brave enough to eat a declared "artery-clogging" item—say, butter—then statistical analyses are generally going to show that food being hazardous, because the people consuming it are damaging their health in other ways.)
But I digress. If the USDA had kept its eyes peeled for research a little longer before finishing the 2010 guidelines, maybe they would've seen the newer meta analysis on saturated fat and heart disease reviewing almost twice as many studies as the one above. What did this bigger analysis reveal? I'll let the researchers say it for me:
In conclusion, our meta-analysis showed that there is insufficient evidence from prospective epidemiologic studies to conclude that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD, stroke, or CVD.
As meta analyses often do, this paper also examined the pooled studies for publication bias—an all-too-common tendency to publish studies based on their results rather than on their theoretical or design quality. Indeed, the researchers found that—in the realm of saturated fat and heart disease—studies showing a strong relationship were more likely to get published than studies showing a neutral relationship.
Our results suggested publication bias, such that studies with significant associations tended to be received more favorably for publication. If unpublished studies with null associations were included in the current analysis, the pooled RR estimate for CVD could be even closer to null.
All in all, the USDA's chosen study—the pooled analysis by Jakobsen—is their strongest "evidence" so far to support replacing saturated fat with polyunsaturated fat. But that study is far from conclusive, especially since it 1) seems to warn against monounsaturated fat (one of the USDA's darling lipids), 2) was followed by another study showing that many carbohydrates are more convincingly associated with heart disease than saturated fat, and 3) had its findings challenged by a newer, bigger meta analysis.
But maybe the USDA has some more compelling studies up it's sleeve. Let's look at the next one.
10. Replacement of dietary saturated FAs by PUFAs in diet and reverse cholesterol transport.
In this study, researchers took 14 male volunteers and studied the effects of a high-saturated-fat diet versus a high-polyunsaturated-fat diet on cholesterol efflux from macrophages—your body's mini-vacuum cleaners. (When macrophages can't get rid of the cholesterol they slurp up, they can turn into foam cells, which is one of the earliest steps in atherosclerosis). Since diets high in polyunsaturated fat tend to decrease HDL, the researchers wanted to see if this type of diet would be detrimental for transporting cholesterol to the liver for catabolism. The results? The high-saturated-fat diet and high-polyunsaturated-fat diets didn't produce any differences in cholesterol reflux. In other words: This study isn't a strike against polyunsaturated fat, but it's also not a strike against saturated fat.
11. Individual variability in cardiovascular disease risk factor responses to low-fat and low-saturated-fat diets in men: body mass index, adiposity, and insulin resistance predict changes in LDL cholesterol.
Here we have a study looking at three diets with differing fat levels: The Average American Diet (38 percent fat, 14 percent saturated fat), the Step I diet (30 percent fat, 9 percent saturated fat), and the Step II diet (25 percent fat, 6 percent saturated fat). The Step diets, by the way, were designed by the American Heart Association to help combat heart disease. Since all meals were provided for the participants, there was a high degree of control
Was there a trend between lower saturated fat intake and better lipid profiles (and, by association, better heart health)? Nope. Both of the saturated-fat-reduced Step diets significantly raised triglycerides, lowered HDL, and worsened the total cholesterol:HDL cholesterol ratio.
This is bad news, folks.
Because the changes in apo-B and apo-A1 were (percentage-wise) less than the changes with LDL and HDL cholesterol, the researchers speculate that the lower-fat diets increased the proportion of small, dense LDL particles (the ones most associated with atherosclerosis) as well as decreasing HDL2 relative to HDL3 cholesterol (HDL2 is the more protective subfraction).
Basically, slashing fat resulted in lipid profiles more likely to promote heart disease.
On top of that, the men who were overweight (and insulin resistant) suffered the most from the Step diets: For them, cutting down fat caused a much steeper drop in HDL relative to LDL, resulting in a more dangerous total cholesterol:HDL ratio than folks of a healthier weight. The researchers conclude that:
[P]ersons who may already be at increased risk of CVD because of their underlying insulin resistance, and thus who are prime candidates for dietary intervention, may be less likely to benefit from dietary changes.*
*"Dietary changes" = reducing total and saturated fat. Because obviously, this is the only kind of dietary change in existence.
The Step I diet is pretty close to what the USDA recommends, in terms of total and saturated fat percentage, but eating this way only made things worse compared to the higher fat diet. Again, I ask: how does this study support the USDA's fat-lowering recommendations? How, how, how? Did they even read the stuff they crammed into their Evidence Library?
12. Novel soybean oils with different fatty acid profiles alter cardiovascular disease risk factors in moderately hyperlipidemic subjects.
This one's easy-schmeasy. In this study, researchers compared the effects of five experimental diets, all with 30 percent fat: one with soybean oil, one with low-saturated-fat soybean oil, one with high oleic-acid soybean oil, one with low-alpha-linolenic-acid soybean oil, and one with partially hydrogenated soybean oil.
None of the diets produced significant changes in very-low-density lipoprotein, triglycerides, lipoprotein(a), C-reactive protein, or ratios between cholesterol fractions—except for the hydrogenated soybean oil diet, which yielded a higher total cholesterol:HDL ratio than the rest. The take-home point? Non-hydrogenated soybean oils are better than hydrogenated soybean oils. Thanks for the study,
Captain Obvious USDA. Too bad this one's completely irrelevant to the saturated fat guidelines.
…And that's it, folks. These 12 studies are what the USDA used to evaluate the connection between saturated fat and heart disease.
Why does saturated fat seem evil in studies?
Quite by accident, the USDA does a rockstar job of proving saturated fat goes hand-in-hand with a junky cuisine—making it a nightmare to untangle in epidemiological studies, and more likely to be "guilty by association" when it comes to disease. Check out this pie graph of the most common sources of solid fats (AKA saturated) hitting America's collective dinner plate:
Here's the lowdown. "Grain-based desserts" (think cookies, cakes, pies, pastries) are the second-largest contributor to America's saturated fat intake—right behind the rather ambiguous "all other food categories." In fact, grainy desserts are a bigger source of saturated fat than butter, eggs, and whole milk combined. What's after grain-based desserts? Pizza. Then cheese. Then processed meats. Then french fries. Then dairy desserts.
In fact, if you add it all up, 45 percent of our saturated fat intake comes from starch-based meals, sugary desserts, or processed meat, whereas only 32 percent comes from whole foods traditionally associated with saturated fat (butter, milk, unprocessed meat, eggs). The remaining 23 percent is that mysterious teal slice on the pie chart.
Think of it this way: When a study looks at someone's saturated fat intake in relation to disease, is it really measuring foods like animal products and coconut oil, or is it actually recording stuff like deep-dish pizza and Oreos—markers for an I-don't-give-a-hoot-about-my-health lifestyle? I'll let you be the judge.
Polyunsaturated fat: mmm-mmm good, or uh-uh bad?
If you've made it this far in this article, you've probably noticed that the USDA is awfully fond of polyunsaturated fats—especially in the form of vegetable oil. For the sake of argument, let's assume that it's not because the USDA is a mouthpiece for the soybean and corn industries, but rather, because their collection of Evidence Library studies proves this fat is healthy for us. Here's their page dedicated to answering the question: "What is the effect of dietary PUFA intake on health and intermediate health outcomes?"
Let's just look at heart disease for now, since the USDA is so intent on telling us vegetable oils will keep our arteries squeaky clean. Of the 10 polyunsaturated fat studies in the Evidence Library, not all were relevant to heart disease, and one was a re-citation of the Jakobsen meta-analysis we already scoured. Here are the ones worth looking at:
1. Prediction of cardiovascular mortality in middle-aged men by dietary and serum linoleic and polyunsaturated fatty acids.
This study confirms what we suspected all along: that polyunsaturated fats are associated with a healthy lifestyle, and therefore massively confounded. In a cohort of 1,551 middle-aged men, the folks who died from cardiovascular disease by the 15-year follow up had been eating less polyunsaturated fat, but they were also far more likely to smoke (54 percent versus 31 percent in the entire cohort), drank more alcohol, had a lower socioeconomic status, had higher blood pressure, had higher BMIs, were more often on blood pressure medication, and had higher fasting insulin. Polyunsaturated fats as a whole, as well as serum linoleic acid, were inversely associated with BMI, fasting insulin, fasting glucose, alcohol intake, and age.
Interestingly, there was virtually no difference in the total fat or saturated fat intake of those who died from cardiovascular disease versus the cohort as a whole.
Not surprisingly, polyunsaturated fats appeared inversely correlated with death from heart disease (as well as death from all causes), but the associations often diminished after accounting for lifestyle factors or using different statistical models:
Dietary linoleic acid intake was associated with a lower overall mortality during follow-up after adjustment for age and examination year … but not significantly after adjustment for lifestyle or dietary factors. Total PUFA intake was not significantly associated with overall mortality. Men whose -linolenic acid intake was in the upper third were 15% to 33% less likely to die of any cause than men whose intake was in the lower third, but the trend at best approached significance. The association of the dietary PUFA/SAFA ratio with overall mortality was significant, … but the association was not significant in models 2 through 4.
Serum fatty acids showed more robust associations, but we're more interested in the effect of actual fat intake on heart health. All in all, this study doesn't exactly give us a compelling reason to inject our diets with industrial oils.
2. Interplay between different polyunsaturated fatty acids and risk of coronary heart disease in men.
I'll make this one short. The title explains the study, and this excerpt explains the outcome:
In this large prospective cohort study, modest dietary intake of long-chain n-3 PUFAs (≥ 250 mg/d) was associated with a 40% to 50% lower risk of sudden death, regardless of background intake of n-6 PUFAs. This lower risk was observed after adjustment for a variety of cardiac risk factors, lifestyle characteristics, and other dietary habits. These results suggest that n-6 PUFAs neither greatly counteract nor greatly augment the cardiovascular benefits of a modest intake of long-chain n-3 PUFAs from seafood.
Basically, this study found that omega-3 fats were beneficial, but omega-6 fats—the kind vegetable oils are chock full of—didn't offer any special health perks. Moral of the story: Seafood is good for you, industrial oils are unnecessary. Nice job shooting yourself in the foot with this study, USDA.
3. Dietary fat intake and risk of coronary heart disease in women: 20 years of follow-up of the nurses' health study.
Here we have another study where polyunsaturated fat looks cardio-protective—thanks to its entanglement with healthy lifestyle choices. In following almost 79,000 women for 20 years, this study (a Nurse's Health Study follow-up) found that polyunsaturated fat was associated with lower heart disease risk for the gals with the highest versus lowest intake. And it's no big surprise: Out of all the fat types, polyunsaturated fat was the only one where unhealthy habits decreased as consumption rose.
See exhibit A. (Each fat type is divided into quintiles, with the folks in quintile 1 eating the least amount of the specified fat and the folks in quintile 5 eating the most.)
For saturated fat, monounsaturated fat, and trans fat, the women with the highest intake were smoking more, had a greater history of hypertension, had lower use of multivitamins and hormones (eg, birth control), had lower use of aspirin, and had a higher intake of cholesterol (indicating less concern with our trustworthy governmental guidelines). In contrast, the women with the highest intake of polyunsaturated fats were smoking less than the women with the lowest intake, had less history of hypertension, were more likely to be using hormones and taking aspirin, were eating only a negligibly higher amount of cholesterol, and had a much smaller change in fiber intake. Collectively, those trends point to an overall higher interest in healthy living—including, no doubt, some daily portions of the polyunsaturated-fat-rich foods we're told are good for us.
Indeed, this study produced some apparent fat-heart disease correlations that vanished after adjusting for other factors:
In age-adjusted analyses, total fat intake was significantly associated with increased risk of CHD. However, in the multivariate analyses, the association was attenuated and was not significant. For specific types of fat, intakes of saturated fat, monounsaturated fat, polyunsaturated fat, and trans-fat were each significantly associated with risk of CHD in age-adjusted analyses. … Intakes of saturated fat and monounsaturated fat were not statistically significant predictors of CHD when adjusted for nondietary and dietary risk factors.
Even though polyunsaturated fat was still associated with lower heart disease after some adjustments, the relationship was closer to neutral for women who weren't overweight. And given the entanglement of this fat with healthier living in general, it's pretty much impossible for a study to record all the factors needing adjustment—making it hard, if not downright futile, to attempt isolating the effects of polyunsaturated fat itself.
4. Snack chips fried in corn oil alleviate cardiovascular disease risk factors when substituted for low-fat or high-fat snacks.
No, this study isn't a joke. The researchers took 33 adults and dragged them through three controlled feeding phases: one where they ate a low-fat/higher carb diet (30 percent fat, 10 percent saturated fat), another where they ate a high-polyunsaturated-fat diet (36 percent fat, 9.7 percent polyunsaturated fat), and a third where they ate a general high-fat and trans-fat diet (38 percent fat, 11 percent saturated fat, 2.7 percent trans fat). All the diets reduced total and LDL cholesterol, although the low-fat and high-polyunsaturated-fat diets had the greatest effect. Considering one of the diets was higher in processed carbs and one of the diets was higher in trans fats, it shouldn't be a shock that the remaining diet—the one with the greatest proportion of polyunsaturated fats—fared the best, reducing some markers associated with heart disease compared to the other diets. The researchers concluded that it's better to eat corn chips fried in corn oil than corn chips fried in trans-fatty oil.
5. Stearic, oleic, and linoleic acids have comparable effects on markers of thrombotic tendency in healthy human subjects.
This study examined the effects of two unsaturated fats (oleic and linoleic acids) and a saturated fat (stearic acid) on thrombotic—or blood-clotting—tendency. Long story short:
In conclusion, our results do not suggest that stearic acid is highly thrombogenic compared with oleic and linoleic acids.
Another redeeming point for saturated fat, and another "this doesn't support guzzling vegetable oils" point against the USDA.
6. Small differences in the effects of stearic acid, oleic acid, and linoleic acid on the serum lipoprotein profile of humans.
After feeding a group of 45 people three randomly-ordered experimental diets, this study found no statistically significant differences between the effects of the unsaturated fats (oleic and linoleic acid) versus the saturated fat (stearic acid):
In this well-controlled crossover study of healthy subjects, we found that the differences in effects of stearic, oleic, and linoleic acids on the serum lipoprotein profile were less than expected. Although total and LDL-cholesterol concentrations tended to decrease with the increasing degree of unsaturation, the changes between the 3 diets were not significant.
Once again, we've got a string of studies that do little to validate the USDA's love-fest for vegetable oils.
Dairy: low-fat or bust?
The new USDA guidelines don't waste any time pushing dairy—but, despite some earlier hoopla about encouraging cheese consumption, staunchly warn against consuming anything other than low-fat or fat-free milk products. Apart from the saturated-fat phobia, is this recommendation justified?
I probably don't need to explain that dairy in general isn't a necessary food, that your bones won't crumble into sawdust if you forgo milk with breakfast, and that factory-farmed dairy is laden with all sorts of nastiness. That's been covered in a billion ways on a billion blogs. But dairy—real dairy, the stuff from pastured animals who aren't squished into feedlots—may very well have some health perks, especially when left in full-fat form. (At least for those who tolerate it.)
Don't believe me? Consider this:
A recent Dutch study showed that full-fat fermented dairy was inversely associated with death from all causes and death from stroke. A large study of Australians, published in 2010, showed that full-fat dairy appears protective against cardiovascular death. Yet another study, this one from 2005, showed a significant inverse association between full-fat dairy consumption and colorectal cancer. Another study still linked vitamin K2 from full-fat cheeses to reduced risk of death from all causes, as well as a reduction in aortic calcification. And a review from 2009, examining 10 different dairy studies, noted that some types of saturated dairy fat have a neutral effect on LDL, and full-fat cheese—compared to other dairy products—seems to have the strongest inverse relationship with heart disease.
The vilification of dairy fat is mostly linked to the anti-saturated-fat craze—but given the evidence above and the fact that some of the most beneficial components of dairy are concentrated in the fat (vitamins A, D, E, K2, and medium-chain triglycerides), it seems that for milk drinkers, going skim defeats the purpose.
Healthy Whole Grains: a mandatory health food, or the lesser of two evils?
Per the new guidelines, the USDA recommends eating six (or more) servings of grains per day—half of which ought to be whole. For the mathematically challenged, there's even a graphic to help you see what this looks like visually, bread-slice style:
How helpful!
I contemplated writing a giant take-down of the "healthy whole grain" studies in the USDA Evidence Library, but soon realized it'd be pointless (and would raise this blog post to an even greater degree of mammoth). Virtually all studies showing the benefits of whole grains do so in a specific context—when whole grains are displacing refined grains or other bottom-of-the-totem-pole foods. There's nary a study out there looking specifically at the effects of a diet with whole grains versus no grains, and the USDA's recommendation for everyone to eat at least six servings per day is arbitrary (at best). Emerging research on paleo and low-carbohydrate diets—many of which yield improved lipid profiles and risk markers for disease—are showing that, yes, humans can live without bread.
That said, the USDA does have some interesting stuff on their carbohydrate summary page, under the "Needs for Future Research" subheading:
"Develop and validate carbohydrate assessment methods. Explore and validate new and emerging biomarkers to elucidate alternative mechanisms and explanations for observed effects of carbohydrates on health. Rationale: Studies of carbohydrates and health outcomes on a macronutrient level are often inconsistent or ambiguous due to inaccurate measures and varying food categorizations and definitions. The science cannot progress without further advances in both methodology and theory."
Hmm. Despite their firm assertion that "healthy diets are high in carbohydrates" (page 42 of the guideline packet), they seem to concede here that the evidence supporting it is weak.
While we're on carbs, here's another surprising admission about fruits and vegetables, also from the "Needs for Future Research" section:
"Determine whether the effects of vegetables and fruits in the overall dietary pattern are due to displacement of other foods in the diet or to the action of vegetables and fruits, per se, on specific health outcomes. Rationale: The mechanism(s) of action for the effects of vegetables and fruits have not been determined and, therefore, may vary for different health outcomes. The observed effects could be a simple displacement of these foods with other foods that cause poorer outcomes, or vegetables and fruits may contribute specific benefits or a combination of the above may explain the observations made thus far in the literature. Only further research can provide more definitive answers."
In other words: "We aren't actually sure that fruits and vegetables are good for you… even though we're telling everyone to eat lots more of them."
In conclusion…
Although some of the new USDA guidelines are just watered-down common sense ("be more active, eat less junk food"), a few of the recommendations are downright harmful: the idea that polyunsaturated fats are universally healthy, the perpetuated fear of saturated fat, the encouragement of low-fat dairy, and the notion that everyone needs a carb-heavy, grain-based diet to thrive. Unfortunately, the 2010 recommendations parrot the same misinformation that's been keeping Americans fat and sick for so long—all stemming from a flawed understanding of cholesterol and disease, as well as decades of research biased to please the gods of Conventional Wisdom.
Bottom line: These guidelines will guide you alright—straight to your spot in the pharmacy line. Look elsewhere for advice if you're serious about your health.


text:
Barton fighting for spot on Bears' roster
So this is what Kirk Barton's future came to Thursday night.
Since the ninth grade in 1999 -- the year the Browns returned -- his family has had season tickets to Cleveland Browns Stadium. Barton has seen some bad Browns football back in those days.
He got a pretty close and personal look at a much better Cleveland team Thursday night. Before family and friends, Barton played from the middle of the second quarter through the end of the game for the Chicago Bears during the final preseason game for both teams. Barton, a seventh-round draft pick out of Ohio State, is fighting for a roster spot.
The guess is the 6-foot-4, 305-pounder will be among the nine or 10 offensive linemen the Bears keep on the active roster. But nothing is certain, especially not for a late-round draft pick.
The only time Barton had trouble came in his second series. He picked up a holding penalty that nearly pushed the Bears out of field goal range.
Barton, a media darling at Ohio State, didn't lose his sense of humor.
"I got the holding call because I just wanted my mom to hear my name," Barton said, laughing.
The last preseason game is usually a battle among players you've never heard of, nor will after the third quarter. For a player like Barton, every preseason game is important.
"All the guys drafted after the fifth round, the last game is the world to us," Barton said. "We're not guaranteed anything."
Helping Barton's position is the fact that Chicago's offensive line has been saddled with injuries. Chester Adams, another seventh-round selection from Georgia, went down on the final play of the first half with what appeared to be a serious injury to his left knee. Adams was carted off the field. Chris Williams, another rookie, had back surgery.
Adams and Barton are roommates, so the local kid was taking his friend's injury hard.
Officially, Barton is listed as the second-team right tackle behind veteran John Tait. However, the Bears have worked him at right guard as well. That's the kind of versatility that will buy a young player time to develop.
How well did Barton play? It depends on which series one examines.
"Other than the penalty and one other play in that series, both of which I'd like to have back, I thought I did all right," Barton said.
Chicago will make its final roster cuts Saturday. Barton said he plans for the worst.
Each time he came off the field, he looked for Tait to get feedback on what he did right and what he didn't. Tait, a veteran, has been impressed with the rookie backing him up.
"Kirk's a good player," Tait said. "He played well, especially for coming back home in a stadium where he grew up. Kirk's a good enough player and I think he's got a really good shot (to make the team)."
Barton's first action came midway through the second quarter. He was on the field for Chicago's entire 13-play, 95-yard drive, the Bears' first scoring drive that tightened the game to 10-7, Cleveland. The Perry High School graduate and All-Big Ten tackle did nothing that would hurt his chances of making the roster.
In fact, he threw a key block on a third-and-10 pass from the Cleveland 19.
Barton, working against linebacker Alex Hall, made sure Hall didn't beat him to the outside. One final shove sent Hall to the ground before he got to quarterback Rex Grossman.
That allowed Grossman enough time to complete a 19-yard touchdown pass to Brandon Rideau to cut into Cleveland's lead, 10-7.
In all, Barton probably did enough to earn a roster spot.
"If not, I'll be covering games for The Repository next weekend," he joked.
The Repository


text:
Life after newspapers?
Here's another inspiring article doing the rounds: detailing how multimedia journalists in America are re-inventing themselves and forging new business working for NGOs and non-profit groups.
…in Norfolk, Virginia, former Virginian-Pilot staff photographer Chris Tyree has launched a multimedia production company called Weyo with Stephen Katz, who is still a staff photographer at the paper and won POYi Newspaper Photographer of the Year honors in 2008. "We're trying to brand ourselves as storytellers to the non-profit world," Tyree says. Clients so far include Physicians for Peace, Resolve.org and the Samaritan's Purse Canada, among others.
Tyree quit his job last August, right before a wave of layoffs hit The Virginian-Pilot. "It became obvious that stories I was interested in—about social justice and social responsibility—weren't getting [published] as much" because of budget pressures and cutbacks, Tyree explains.
And they reckon their background in frontline news gives them the edge over more established competition.
One challenge for would-be freelance multimedia producers is competition from established video production companies that are chasing corporate and non-profit PR work. Migielicz argues that producers with newspaper backgrounds are better storytellers by training, and can work faster and leaner.
Leeson says, "One thing you learn as a still photojournalist is how to get in and out and produce something with high quality. We know how to tell a story. We don't have to story board it, and go through all these pre-production meetings. All I need is a grasp of what the client is hoping for. In newspapers, you get an assignment with a basic outline of the story, and beyond that you're expected to find it."
As a couple of other inspiring pieces (like this one and this one) are showing, maybe now is the time to to take the plunge and advertise your talents to more people. But the risks and challenges of starting your own business are still pretty intimidating.
The money though isn't bad, according to the article:
Weyo just finished one job that paid $10,000 for a 7-minute video and a Web site with "20-some" linked pages. Another recent job for a women's shelter paid $15,000 for similar work, "with some branding as well," Tyree says. Another shelter in Maryland paid Weyo $4,000 for a video and some still photography. "I was definitely paid better at the newspaper, but that's because we're just starting out," he says.
Comments Off on Life after newspapers?


text:
We can stay out as late as we want. We can drink as much as we want. We don't have to worry about going to work in the same outfit as the day before if we happen to have a walk of shame. Okay, so that last part isn't as applicable (or is it?), but you get the point—T.G.I.F.! To help you get your Friday on, we're giving you a little inspiration in the form of party pics from some of our favorite happenings of the week. And what a week it's been—let's just say if today hadn't been Friday, tomorrow would definitely be a sick day. While we couldn't do it all (especially if it involved black tie), we did manage to squeeze in some Q.T. with Michael Bastian (and those models, oh my!) for the launch of his collab with sandals brand Havaianas, a rooftop dinner with penultimate British-dandy Euan Rellie to celebrate Isaia, Belvedere Bloody Mary's brunch with Zac Posen, and a "Just For Fun" dinner hosted by Dom Pérignon. We're not as young as we used to be, but these photos are already giving us some contact tipsy—you ready to have some fun tonight?
Click on through to vicariously pre-game for tonight!
Photos: Dom Pérignon, David X Prutting/BFAnyc.com; Michael Bastian, Carly Otness/BFAnyc.com; Zac Posen, Joe Schildhorn/BFAnyc.com; Isaia, Nick Hunt/Patrick McMullan.


text:
KUALA LUMPUR: The ringgit extended its weaknesses in the early session against the US dollar today amid a lack of fresh catalysts.
At 9.39 am, the local currency stood at 4.4860/4890 against the greenback from Monday's close of 4.4855/4870.
ActivTrades trader Dyogenes Rodrigues Diniz said the recent bullish move has pushed the US dollar up to its 2020 high against the ringgit, at 4.4500, and is now heading towards the 2017 high of 4.5000.
"Investors will have a better view of the market after the release of the US New Home Sales data for the month of July (forecast 575,000), which should provide a snapshot of the US real estate sector," he said.,
,telegram超级索引(www.tel8.vip)是一个Telegram群组分享平台。telegram超级索引包括telegram超级索引、telegram群组索引、Telegram群组导航、新加坡telegram群组、telegram中文群组、telegram群组(其他)、Telegram 美国 群组、telegram群组爬虫、电报群 科学上网、小飞机 怎么 加 群、tg群等内容。telegram超级索引为广大电报用户提供各种电报群组/电报频道/电报机器人导航服务。
From a technical standpoint, due to the major bullish movement over the past few months, it is possible that US dollar/ringgit will make a bearish retracement over the next few weeks, said Diniz.
"The main resistance point on the daily chart is at 4.5000, which is close to the all-time high on US dollar/ringgit. If the rate breaks below 4.4700, there could be room for a bigger pullback towards the 4.3600 region within a few weeks," he added.
Meanwhile, the ringgit was traded mostly higher against a basket of major currencies.
The local note appreciated against the euro to 4.4595/4625 from 4.4886/4901 at Monday's close and strengthened against the British pound to 5.2805/2836 from 5.2947/2965 yesterday.
It also improved vis-a-vis the Japanese yen to 3.2661/2685 from 3.2786/2800 on Monday but slipped against the Singapore dollar to 3.2182/2129 from 3.2147/2163. - Bernama


text:
Bologna, Giovanni
Bologna, Giovanni, or Giambolognajōvän´nē bōlō´nyä, jäm˝bōlō´nyä [key], 1524–1608, Flemish sculptor, whose real name was Jean Bologne or Boulogne. Though born in Douai, France, he trained in Flanders. He is identified chiefly with the Italian Renaissance as one of its greatest sculptors. He lived briefly in Rome before moving to Florence. His masterpiece, Flying Mercury, is in the Bargello, Florence. The Rape of the Sabines (Florence), with its spiraling forms and multiple viewpoints, is one of the finest examples of mannerist sculpture. This work exerted a profound influence on later art. Among his other works are the equestrian statues in Florence of the Medicis, one of Ferdinand I (see Browning's poem
The Statue and the Bust) and another of Cosimo I; two fountains in the Boboli Gardens, Florence; the bronze doors of the cathedral in Pisa; a Neptune fountain in Bologna; and the colossal statue Apennines at Pratolino. There are two of Giambologna's elegant statuettes of the Evangelists in the Metropolitan Museum and one at the museum of the Univ. of Kansas.
The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 6th ed. Copyright © 2023, Columbia University Press. All rights reserved.
See more Encyclopedia articles on: European Art to 1599: Biographies


text:
Plitvica lakes is first Croatian National park established in 1949l. The park was inscribed on the UNESCO's World Heritage List in 1979, in recognition of its "outstanding natural beauty and undisturbed production of travertine (tufa) through chemical and biological action". The park represents a phenomenon of karst hydrography.
Plitvica lakes at winter