Are Most People in Denial About Their Weight?

As I was walking through the gym the other day, I caught a glimpse of an overweight woman across the room. But then I did a double take, and then another. The woman was me — I had seen my own reflection in a distant mirror and, for a split second, hadn’t recognized myself.


This moment of mistaken identity was disconcerting, but it wasn’t all that unusual. Many of us are surprised by our size when reflected in the mirror or a store window — it’s like thinking that a recording of your own voice sounds off. And while psychologists have worried for years that media images of superslim starlets would put the nation’s collective self-esteem at risk, it turns out that something altogether different has happened. As the population becomes fatter, study after study shows that instead of feeling bad about ourselves, we have entered a collective state of denial about how big we’re actually getting.

A team of researchers led by a group from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign recently asked 3,622 young men and women in Mexico to estimate their body size based on categories ranging from very underweight to obese. People in the normal weight range selected the correct category about 80 percent of the time, but 58 percent of overweight students incorrectly described themselves as normal weight. Among the obese, 75 percent placed themselves in the overweight category, and only 10 percent accurately described their body size. (Notably, a sizable minority who were at a healthy weight described themselves as being underweight.)

The tendency for people to underestimate their body sizes, according to studies in the United States, Canada, Europe and elsewhere, is remarkably consistent across cultures and age groups. So why are so many people in fat denial? Scientists are only now beginning to understand the complicated process in which the brain (in particular, the posterior parietal cortex) integrates signals from all the senses to form our body images. Because our bodies change over time, the brain must constantly adjust its perception. Scientists believe that this internal calibration system can sometimes go haywire, notably for sufferers of anorexia, bulimia and body dysmorphic disorder, and possibly for obese people too.

In the meantime, they certainly know that the brain’s body-perception center isn’t foolproof. In an experiment called the Pinocchio Illusion, a person can be fooled into thinking that his nose is growing. This happens when someone touching his own nose with closed eyes has his biceps stimulated to feel as if his forearm is moving forward. The brain senses the arm movement but also knows that the fingers are still touching the nose. For both sensations to be true, the brain decides that the nose must be growing.

A few years ago, researchers at University College, London, conducted a similar experiment regarding waist size. While a person’s hands were resting on his waist, his wrist tendons were stimulated to create a sensation that they were moving inward — to feel, in other words, as if his waist were shrinking. Brain scans conducted during the experiment showed a marked increase in activity in the posterior parietal cortex, which gave the researchers a glimpse of the brain trying to tweak its perceived body size in real time. “The relative size of our body parts needs to be continuously updated or recalibrated,” said Henrik Ehrsson, lead author of the study, now associate professor of cognitive neuroscience at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm. “One possibility is that, in people who get obese or who have body-image disorders, something goes wrong with that process.”

While researchers admit that some denial may have to do with personal embarrassment, the consistency of the findings suggests that neural processing and psychology probably both play a role. It is also possible that a few extra pounds isn’t an urgent priority for the brain to acknowledge. Researchers at University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston found that one in three women did not know when they had gained 5 pounds, and about 15 percent weren’t aware when they had gained more than 10.

But part of the explanation may have to do with perspective. In a recent study, 3,665 children and adolescents in Quebec were given a series of silhouettes showing body sizes ranging from underweight to obese. When asked to describe their own body, nearly 70 percent of the overweight and obese children chose a slimmer silhouette. But the researchers discovered that children with the heaviest parents and peers were far more likely to underestimate their weight than those with healthy-weight parents and friends. “When kids live in an environment in which they see, on a daily basis, parents or school peers who are overweight, they may develop inaccurate perceptions of what constitutes a healthy weight,” says Katerina Maximova, assistant professor of epidemiology at the University of Alberta. “Their own overweight seems normal by comparison.” Now that health officials estimate that two out of every three adults in the United States are overweight, future generations may not see the difference, either.

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/are-most-people-in-denial-about-their-weight/?hp

'(Gailen) David vs Goliath'? American Airline Sues Flight Attendant

The ongoing battle between American Airlines and an outspoken and recently fired flight attendant is heading to court.

2:38Aluminum Lady- Movie Trailer of American Airlines Flight Attendant Dramaby skysteward64,242 views
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxlXJtDT-_M


The Fort Worth-based airline filed a lawsuit against Gailen David and 10 other “John Doe” defendants, alleging, among other things, breach of duty, conspiracy and trade infringement.

The suit is the latest chapter in a saga that traces its roots to David’s role as The Sky Steward, an online alter ego he created in 2007. Last month, he was fired after posting several videos in which he parodied American executives, often dressed as a woman, and took them to task for the airline’s financial troubles.

American Airlines filed for bankruptcy protection last fall.
David maintains he was “absolutely” fired because of the videos; the airline says it was because he violated rules regarding passenger privacy, which is also the basis of the current action.
According to the suit, David revealed the travel plans of several American executives and their spouses and claimed that members of the company’s mileage program were bumped from first class to make room for them. The suit also references but doesn’t identify 10 current American employees who allegedly provided David with the information he publicized.

“The travel information of American Airlines' passengers is considered both private and confidential, regardless of their relationship to the company,” said spokesman Bruce Hicks in a statement. “This lawsuit is designed to identify and hold legally accountable those employees who have and who continue to provide private and confidential passenger travel information and personal employee information to former employee Gailen David.”
“I was kind of expecting a lawsuit eventually,” David told msnbc.com. He has yet to file a legal response to the suit. “I think they thought that after they fired me, it would take the wind out of my sails, but it didn’t.”

Instead, he suggests that the legal blustering will lead to even more evidence of executive mismanagement. Although he declined to reveal how he got his information, he told msnbc.com that “when it’s revealed how the information was relayed to me, it’s going to be extremely embarrassing to American Airlines.”
In the meantime, experts suggest that if the case goes to court, the outcome will be a function of the court’s views on passenger confidentiality rather than conspiracy, trade infringement or, for that matter, David’s commentary or termination.

“As a general rule, revealing passenger information is beyond the pale,” said Franklyn Steinberg III, an aviation and employment attorney in Somerville, N.J. “But these cases are very much decided on the specific facts of each case. It’s hard to draw on a rule that will decide the situation.”

Rob Lovitt is a longtime travel writer who still believes the journey is as important as the destination. Follow him at Twitter.

http://overheadbin.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/12/11167668-american-airlines-sues-former-flight-attendant-behind-parody-videos?chromedomain=usnews

Repressed Gay Desire Causes Homophobia (from USA Today)

Intense hostility toward gay people may be linked to a repressed same-sex attraction, combined with an authoritarian upbringing, a new study suggests.

Though such factors are not the only causes of homophobia, the research suggests that those "who have a discrepancy within themselves about their expressed vs. unconscious sexual attraction find gay and lesbian people more threatening and are more likely to express prejudice and discrimination toward them," says University of Rochester psychology professor Richard Ryan, co-author of the study, published in the April Journalof Personality and Social Psychology.

Blocking unconscious desires by adopting an opposite view is a well-known psychoanalytic concept, suggested by Freud and others.

The new research, done with more than 600 college students in the USA and Germany, measured discrepancies between what they said about their sexual orientation and how they reacted on split-second timed tasks.

They also rated the attractiveness of same-sex or opposite-sex people in photos and answered questions about their parenting and homophobia at home.

Researchers measured homophobia levels, both overt, as expressed in questionnaires on social policy and beliefs, and unconscious, as revealed in word-completion tasks.

Findings suggest subjects with accepting parents were more in touch with their innate sexual orientation. But those with controlling parents who had negative attitides about gays were "more likely to suppress same-sex attraction and to have this discrepancy that leads to homophobia and feeling threatened," Ryan says.

Some in the field are skeptical of the findings.

Psychology professor Gregory Herek of the University of California-Davis has done extensive research on anti-gay bias and violence, and he says measuring unconscious same-sex attraction is "incredibly difficult. This study is asking the right questions," he adds, but "it's a pretty big leap to say it's revealing sexual orientation."

Psychiatrist T. Byram Karasu of Montefiore Medical Center in New York says the study fails to address the importance of "identifying with the authoritarian parent" and then taking that oppression "and projecting it outward. The study skips the self-oppression part," he says.

Ryan says findings may shed light on high-profile cases in which public figures who express anti-gay views have been caught engaging in same-sex sexual acts. "Some people who are threatened by gays and lesbians and are the most vociferous in their opposition to them are suffering internally themselves," he says.

http://www.usatoday.com/LIFE/usaedition/2012-04-09-Homophobia-psychology---_ST_U.htm

Ever Wonder What Happened To Kristy McNichol???

Martie Allen and Kristy McNichol

Kristy McNichol has been out of the public eye for 20 years. Now she's chosen to come out – to try to help kids who are being bullied.

McNichol, 49, who has lived with her partner Martie Allen, also 49, for the past two decades, decided to make a statement about her sexuality and share this photo because she is "approaching 50" and wants to "be open about who I am."

She "is very sad about kids being bullied," her publicist Jeff Ballard tells PEOPLE. "She hopes that coming out can help kids who need support. She would like to help others who feel different."

Best known for her Emmy Award-winning role as Buddy Lawrence in the '70s show Family and later as Barbara Weston in Empty Nest, McNichol left it all behind when she dropped out of Hollywood to focus on her health.

Done with acting, McNichol spends her time focusing on tennis, yoga, travel and raising her beloved miniature dachshunds. "She is very happy and healthy," says Ballard. "And she enjoys living a very private life." 

 

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20559567,00.html

Priest Helped Other Priest's Cover Up Sexual Abuse of Children

Monsignor William Lynn of Philadelphia is the first Catholic Church official to go on trial for allegedly covering up sexual abuse of children by priests. His lawyer told jurors he tried to isolate abusive priests while bringing the problem to his superiors' attention.

The first Catholic Church official to go on trial for allegedly covering up sexual abuse of children by predator priests was described by prosecutors Monday as more concerned with protecting the church than children.

Prosecutors in Philadelphia told jurors in opening statements that Monsignor William J. Lynn, who was in charge of reviewing complaints about abusive priests, tried to save the church from scandal by covering up child sexual abuse.

"You can’t protect the church without keeping the allegations in the dark,’’ said Assistant Dist. Atty. Jacqueline Coelho, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported. "He kept the parishioners in the dark and he kept the faithful in the dark.’’

Calling Lynn "the keeper of secrets," Coelho said: "The protection of children is the furthest thing from defendant Lynn’s mind.’’
In a landmark case, Lynn is the first U.S. church official charged with endangering children by protecting abusive priests and covering up the child rape and sexual abuse scandal that rocked the church. Lynn, 61, supervised priest assignments as secretary for clergy at the Archdiocese of Philadelphia from 1992 to 2004.
Lynn’s co-defendant, the Rev. James J. Brennan, is charged with sexually assaulting a 14-year-old boy in 1996. Lynn is charged with failing to remove Brennan from the ministry despite complaints that he had abused children.

Lynn’s lawyer told jurors that the monsignor tried to isolate abusive priests while bringing the problem to the attention of his superiors, the Inquirer reported.
"There isn’t anybody in this courthouse who would deny that sexual abuse of children is awful,’’ said defense attorney Thomas Bergstrom. "The evidence will show that he -- and perhaps he alone -- is the one who tried to correct’’ the problem.

Lynn has said that he sent top diocese officials, including the late Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua, a list of 37 accused priests in 1994, but that Bevilacqua ordered it shredded.

The defense case was undermined last week when a third defendant, defrocked priest Edward V. Avery, pleaded guilty to sexually assaulting a 10-year-old altar boy inside a church sacristy in 1999.

Under a plea deal, Avery will serve two and a half to five years in prison for involuntary deviate sexual intercourse and conspiracy to endanger a child’s welfare. Avery acknowledged that the archdiocese kept him on as priest despite knowing about the sexual abusive allegations against him, according to the Associated Press.

Two other men charged in the case -- a priest and a former Catholic schoolteacher -- will be tried separately.

In a blistering 2005 grand jury report, Philadelphia prosecutors said Bevilacqua and other church officials covered up evidence of rampant child sexual abuse by clergy for decades. Bevilacqua died Jan. 31 at age 88, but his videotaped deposition could be played at the trial.
In a second grand jury report filed last year, Avery’s accuser, now an adult, said he was in fifth grade when he was passed around among abusive priests, including Avery and a Catholic schoolteacher.

"When Mass was ended, Fr. Avery took the fifth-grader into the sacristy, turned on the music and ordered him to perform a `striptease’ for him,’’ the report said. "When they were both naked, the priest had the boy sit on his lap and kissed his neck and back, while saying to him that God loved him.’’
The report said the kissing was followed by oral sex and penetration.
Defense lawyers plan to argue that the two accusers in the case are motivated by money and have criminal records and histories of drug addiction, the AP reported.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-philadelphia-catholic-church-sex-abuse-20120326,0,1979259.story

BLOGshare!: Do You Want To Eat 'Pink Slime' In Your Meat???

BLOGshare!: Do You Want To Eat 'Pink Slime' In Your Meat???: The USDA is reportedly set to announce that schools will be able to opt out of serving burgers made with the additive nicknamed "p...

Do You Want To Eat 'Pink Slime' In Your Meat???

The USDA is reportedly set to announce that schools will be able to opt out of serving burgers made with the additive nicknamed "pink slime" (which does not look like soft-serve ice cream). (Beef Products Inc / Associated Press)

"Pink slime" -- the ground beef additive maligned by a celebrity chef and incorrectly depicted in an Internet image as a fluffy pink concoction resembling soft-serve ice cream -- may not be appearing on your child's lunch tray come fall.

And that would be news to celebrate were it not for a new study suggesting, as The Times recently reported, that all red meat is bad for you anyway.

A spokesman with the USDA'S Food Safety and Inspection Service confirmed to The Times that the U.S. Department of Agriculture will be making an announcement Thursday concerning the food additive and the national school lunch program.

An Associated Press report earlier in the day, citing an unnamed official at the USDA (apparently no one wants to be tainted by "pink slime"), said the agency would announce that schools will be able to choose between 95% lean beef patties made with the additive or bulk ground beef without it -- that is less lean.

Apparently, you can't have your non-pink-slime beef and have it be lean too.
Chef Jamie Oliver has said that what the USDA and the meat industry call "lean beef trimmings" really are "all of the bits that no one wants." Then ammonium hydroxide is mixed in to kill bacteria such as E. coli and salmonella.

Steven Cohen, director of media relations at the International Food Information Council, a Washington-based nonprofit backed by food, beverage and agricultural companies, recently provided some information about the ammonium hydroxide process. Tidbits include:

--Ammonium hydroxide was affirmed safe by the FDA in 1974 after an extensive review.

--Ammonium hydroxide is used as a "direct food additive" extensively in items including "baked goods, cheese, chocolates" and more.

So why are so many people appalled by its use in food?

Likely because ammonium hydroxide is also used as a "sanitizer in many household and industrial cleaners."

Yep, that'll do it.

So, which is worse -- leaner beef with the FDA-approved additive? Or the alternative?

The Times has calls and emails out to several food industry sources and is awaiting opinions.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-pink-slime-usda-announcement-20120315,0,6500521.story

BLOGshare!: New Study Says ALL Red Meat Is Bad For You

BLOGshare!: New Study Says ALL Red Meat Is Bad For You: Eating red meat — any amount and any type — appears to significantly increase the risk of premature death, according to a long-range study...

New Study Says ALL Red Meat Is Bad For You

Eating red meat — any amount and any type — appears to significantly increase the risk of premature death, according to a long-range study that examined the eating habits and health of more than 110,000 adults for more than 20 years.

Eating any amount and any type of red meat increases the risk of premature death, a new study says.

For instance, adding just one 3-ounce serving of unprocessed red meat — picture a piece of steak no bigger than a deck of cards — to one's daily diet was associated with a 13% greater chance of dying during the course of the study.

Even worse, adding an extra daily serving of processed red meat, such as a hot dog or two slices of bacon, was linked to a 20% higher risk of death during the study.

"Any red meat you eat contributes to the risk," said An Pan, a postdoctoral fellow at the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston and lead author of the study, published online Monday in the Archives of Internal Medicine.

Crunching data from thousands of questionnaires that asked people how frequently they ate a variety of foods, the researchers also discovered that replacing red meat with other foods seemed to reduce mortality risk for study participants.

Eating a serving of nuts instead of beef or pork was associated with a 19% lower risk of dying during the study. The team said choosing poultry or whole grains as a substitute was linked with a 14% reduction in mortality risk; low-fat dairy or legumes, 10%; and fish, 7%.

Previous studies had associated red meat consumption with diabetes, heart disease and cancer, all of which can be fatal. Scientists aren't sure exactly what makes red meat so dangerous, but the suspects include the iron and saturated fat in beef, pork and lamb, the nitrates used to preserve them, and the chemicals created by high-temperature cooking.

The Harvard researchers hypothesized that eating red meat would also be linked to an overall risk of death from any cause, Pan said. And the results suggest they were right: Among the 37,698 men and 83,644 women who were tracked, as meat consumption increased, so did mortality risk.

In separate analyses of processed and unprocessed meats, the group found that both types appear to hasten death. Pan said that at the outset, he and his colleagues had thought it likely that only processed meat posed a health danger.

Carol Koprowski, a professor of preventive medicine at USC's Keck School of Medicine who wasn't involved in the research, cautioned that it can be hard to draw specific conclusions from a study like this because there can be a lot of error in the way diet information is recorded in food frequency questionnaires, which ask subjects to remember past meals in sometimes grueling detail.

But Pan said the bottom line was that there was no amount of red meat that's good for you.

"If you want to eat red meat, eat the unprocessed products, and reduce it to two or three servings a week," he said. "That would have a huge impact on public health."

A majority of people in the study reported that they ate an average of at least one serving of meat per day.

Pan said that he eats one or two servings of red meat per week, and that he doesn't eat bacon or other processed meats.

Cancer researcher Lawrence H. Kushi of the Kaiser Permanente Division of Research in Oakland said that groups putting together dietary guidelines were likely to pay attention to the findings in the study.

"There's a pretty strong supposition that eating red meat is important — that it should be part of a healthful diet," said Kushi, who was not involved in the study. "These data basically demonstrate that the less you eat, the better."

UC San Francisco researcher and vegetarian diet advocate Dr. Dean Ornish said he gleaned a hopeful message from the study.

"Something as simple as a meatless Monday can help," he said. "Even small changes can make a difference."

Additionally, Ornish said, "What's good for you is also good for the planet."

In an editorial that accompanied the study, Ornish wrote that a plant-based diet could help cut annual healthcare costs from chronic diseases in the U.S., which exceed $1 trillion. Shrinking the livestock industry could also reduce greenhouse gas emissions and halt the destruction of forests to create pastures, he wrote.

http://www.latimes.com/health/la-he-red-meat-20120313,0,565423.story

'Cars Land'---Opening June 15th at Disney California Adventure!

Yesterday, Disney President and CEO Bob Iger and I stepped behind the construction walls at Disney California Adventure park for a hard-hat tour of Buena Vista Street and Cars Land, two of the most significant elements that will cap off our multi-year expansion of the park. Led by the extraordinary team of Imagineers working on this project, Bob and I were completely blown away by the level of artistry, creativity and attention to detail of the work done so far and can’t wait for all of our Disneyland Resort guests to finally experience it firsthand.

Our day started on Buena Vista Street where we rode the iconic Red Car Trolley, explored the storefronts that line the street and then continued on to the Carthay Circle Theatre, the new icon of Disney California Adventure park. This new entrance to the park will transport guests to a romantic, idealized version of 1920s Hollywood when Walt and Roy Disney first arrived in California to begin their careers as filmmakers. Buena Vista Street will be the perfect place for guests to shop and eat, watch the parade, or just sit and soak up the atmosphere.

Then we headed to Cars Land, and when we got to the entrance of this all-new, 12-acre land, Bob and I both stopped to simply take in the stunning view before us. From the majesty of the Ornament Valley Mountain Range in the distance to the craftsmanship of each of the buildings in Radiator Springs, Cars Land is going to be a truly spectacular addition to the park.

We wandered down Route 66 looking at all of the familiar hot spots from the films that are just about complete – Ramone’s House of Body Art, Flo’s V8 Café, the Cozy Cone Motel and Luigi’s Casa della Tires, just to name a few. We ended the tour with a test ride on two of the new attractions in Cars Land, Luigi’s Flying Tires and Radiator Springs Racers, which are both going to be huge hits with our guests.

As we approach the finish line of our expansion of Disney California Adventure park, I am extremely proud of the passion, creativity and innovation that have gone into this entire project over the last several years. When we’re done, this park will be a testament to what we at Disney Parks do best – connect our guests to the iconic stories, characters and music they love…making memories that will last a lifetime.

And now for some big news – I’m pleased to officially announce that the grand opening of Cars Land, Buena Vista Street and Carthay Circle Theatre will take place on June 15, 2012!




http://disneyparks.disney.go.com/blog/2012/03/taking-a-tour-of-cars-land-buena-vista-street-and-carthay-circle-theatre-opening-june-15-at-disney-california-adventure-park/?CMP=SOC-DLRUSENFY12Q2FBDM0283

Would Piers Morgan have thought Kirk Cameron equally brave if his comments were racist instead of homophobic?

Kirk Cameron: GLAAD's Campaign Against His Antigay Remarks

As a response to antigay remarks made by former teen idol Kirk Cameron during a talk show appearance last night, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation has launched an online action for people to show their disapproval.

During an interview with CNN's Piers Morgan last night, the former Growing Pains star-turned evangelist said he views homosexuality as being "unnatural... detrimental, and ultimately destructive to so many of the foundations of civilization." Cameron spoke out against same-sex marriage, saying, "Marriage is almost as old as dirt, and it was defined in the garden between Adam and Eve. One man, one woman for life till death do you part. So I would never attempt to try to redefine marriage. And I don't think anyone else should either."

Herndon Graddick of the media watchdog group immediately issued a statement, saying “With an increasing number of states recognizing marriage equality, Americans are seeing that marriage is about committed couples who want to make a lifelong promise to take care of and be responsible for each other and that gay and lesbian couples need equal security and legal protections. That’s not ‘redefining’ anything.”

A page titled Where Are They Now is now on GLAAD's website and encourages readers to make their disagreement with Cameron's comments known. The page includes link to a petition to sign, notifying Cameron that he is no longer your idol and it's time for him to grow up.

GLAAD also lists actors who once costarred with Cameron on Growing Pains, but who support LGBT equality, including Brad Pitt, Leonardo Dicaprio, Hillary Swank, and Joanna Kerns. The site also includes information from a Field Poll released last Wednesday that reveals 59% of California voters now approve of same-sex marriage.

Watch Cameron's interview here.

http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2012/03/03/Kirk_Cameron_GLAAD_Campaign/

Marine kiss: Photo called both a beginning and 'closure'

Sgt. Brandon Morgan, right, is embraced by his boyfriend Dalan Wells in a helicopter hangar at a Marine base in Kaneohe Bay, Hawaii upon returning from a six-month deployment to Afghanistan in this photo shot Feb. 22. It's gone viral after first being posted to a Facebook page. (David Lewis / Associated Press)

In just under a week, a photo of a Marine sergeant kissing his boyfriend after returning from a six-month deployment to Afghanistan has been "liked" on Facebook more than 42,000 times and garnered more than 10,000 comments -- most of them supportive.

Sgt. Brandon Morgan, a 25-year-old from Oakdale, Calif., returned to Marine Corps Base Hawaii on Feb. 22 from his third deployment in four years and was met by his boyfriend, Dalan Wells.
A friend snapped the photo, which depicts Morgan with his legs wrapped around Wells, an American flag in the background.

It was later posted on the "Gay Marines" Facebook page; from there, the photo went viral.
"It's a homecoming picture -- gay, straight, lesbian, no matter who you are, love is love," Morgan told Hawaii TV station KHON. "We haven't fought for more rights or better rights than others. We fought for equal rights, and now we have them."
Homecoming photos of military members are common, but Morgan and Wells' photo is among the first showing a gay couple expressing affection since the repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy five months ago.

In December, two female sailors in Norfolk, Va., shared a homecoming kiss that landed on the front page of some U.S. newspapers, including the Seattle Times and the Virginian-Pilot. The two had been chosen by raffle for the Navy's "first kiss" honor, and the ship's commanding officer said at the time that the crew's reaction was positive.

That media coverage led to a barrage of commentary -- both positive and negative. But in Morgan's case, the photo was circulated largely without the help of print media, with thousands of people sharing the photo and with blog posts calling attention to it.

Morgan told the Associated Press he didn't intend the photograph to go viral and that he looks forward to such homecomings becoming commonplace.
“We all know this will die down and become the norm. It is the norm — everyone is allowed, no matter who you are, to have a homecoming now,” he told the wire service.

The founder of the Facebook page, Brett Edward Stout, a former Marine, posted a video message after the photo began circulating. He explained that the page, created while the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy was still in place, was intended to give gay military members a voice.
"What I didn't expect was that the page did have one last role to play in the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' fight: closure," Stout said. The photo of Morgan and Wells, he said struck "close to home" and gave gay military members "catharsis."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-gay-marine-kiss-20120302,0,2473199.story

Addictions: How DO You STOP That??!

Almost every day I hear a friend—or a patient—talk about being “addicted” to something: chocolate, exercise, email, a TV show. Are these really addictions? No—not if you follow the classic definition of addiction—but they’re still potentially problematic.  

 

Let me explain: Addiction, by definition, means being psychologically and physically dependent on something. If you’re addicted to alcohol, tobacco or drugs, for example, you’ll experience withdrawal symptoms like a rise in blood pressure, nausea, sweating and tremors if you stop taking it. That’s because these substances change body and brain chemistry.

Nowadays, many people also use the term “addiction” to refer to a “need” to repeat a behavior such as gambling, eating, having sex, exercising, working, shopping or surfing the Internet. These things are technically compulsions, not addictions. If a compulsive gambler doesn’t get to the casino, he might feel uncomfortable, but he’s not going to get the shakes.

Of course, a compulsion can be quite serious—just imagine a gambler who finds himself in significant debt or someone who keeps having affairs despite the toll that it’s taking on her marriage. The important question isn’t whether something really is an “addiction,” but whether or not it’s having a destructive impact on your life. If you’re simply a zealous fan of Glee, it’s probably not destructive (unless you’re so obsessed that you’re missing your best friend’s wedding to watch the show). But plenty of compulsive eaters and shoppers can wreak havoc on their health, relationships or financial security.

One of my patients, Kate (names have been changed to protect privacy), often spoke of her intractable shoe addiction. An outgoing woman in her mid- 40s, she revealed that she had many more shoes than she could use or afford— and yet she found it nearly impossible to pass up a pair that caught her eye. When she was stressed out, she bought shoes. When she felt sad, she bought shoes.

If Kate forced herself not to buy shoes for a week or two, she did not get physically ill. But she was rarely able to resist shoe shopping for much longer than that, even though she had racked up so much debt that her family was in danger of losing their house and her husband was thinking of leaving her.

Another patient, a 33-year-old woman named Meg, came to me as a “last resort” before getting gastric bypass surgery. A compulsive eater, she had been secretly eating entire bags of candies, cookies and chips for years. She frequently ate until she felt sick. As soon as she finished cramming in the food, she was immediately overcome with guilt. She knew that overeating was slowly killing her, but she couldn’t stop.

What causes compulsions?A number of different factors—biological and environmental—can play a role. First of all, we think there is a genetic component, since compulsive behaviors seem to recur in families. Meg, for example, mentioned that her 15-year-old son was playing video games day and night, and his grades, friendships and sleep habits were suffering—all signs that he was developing a compulsion, too. An imbalance of chemicals in the brain called neurotransmitters may also be to blame. And you can also be genetically predisposed to having this imbalance.
Compulsions also often go hand in hand with anxiety and depression. The excitement of gambling, the comfort of eating, the high of the purchase all temporarily drown out feelings of sadness and worry. But of course as soon as the moment is over, that bad feeling returns, and so does the urge to repeat the soothing behavior.

Experts also think that in some cases, compulsive behaviors trigger the same neurological pathways and pleasure centers in the brain as drugs do, hence the feeling of a “high” when you perform them. Unfortunately, the more you activate those pathways, the stronger they become, making it extremely difficult to quit. Your environment makes a difference, too. If you saw your mother relieving tension by repeating a behavior (like cleaning, shopping or eating), you might do the same.

Of course, there’s nothing wrong with occasionally (or even regularly) enjoying many of these behaviors. So how do you know when it’s crossed the line? Ask yourself these questions:

1. Are you preoccupied with planning and doing the behavior?For example, are you having trouble concentrating on and/or are behind at work because you’re spending time shopping online and/or taking long lunch breaks to shop?
2. Is the behavior negatively affecting one or more areas of your life?Are you fighting with your husband over debt you have from shopping?
3. Are you secretive about the behavior most of the time? Do you keep the shopping bags in the car and sneak them inside later?
4. Have you tried your best to stop the behavior but couldn’t (or stopped for a bit only to restart)?
If you answered yes to any of these questions, you may be struggling with a compulsive behavior and need some help.

Though seeing a psychotherapist is likely your best bet, there are some things you can try on your own:

Start by admitting that you have a problemYou can’t address quitting until you’re honest with yourself. In this same vein, it can be very helpful to tell someone else (like a spouse or close friend) that you think you have a problem. This makes it more concrete and easier to deal with. And it makes you more accountable for taking steps to change it.

Think about what’s driving the behaviorUnderstanding the reasons and emotions behind your behavior will help you focus on working through those issues. Are you hitting the gym night and day to avoid looking heavy as you age? Are you constantly surfing the Internet because you’re feeling depressed and lonely and want to be distracted by something?

Try to interrupt or at least postpone the behaviorIf you find yourself going to check Facebook yet again, try to hold back for one hour. You don’t have to postpone it longer and longer each time. It’s better to be erratic about it, so the next time delay by 2 hours, then 10 minutes, then a full day. This helps you feel some control over the behavior; the point is to remind yourself that you’re in charge, not your compulsive behavior.

Change the way you do itIf you can’t stop eating sweets every day, try having an apple or granola bar every time you want that candy bar. (You’re still eating, but you’re eating something else.) Do your exercise routine out of order. This can help shake up the ritualistic nature of compulsive behavior—which is part of why we keep going back to it; it becomes a habit.
For some compulsions (like gambling or eating candy), you may find that it’s best to stop doing it completely because even a little bit of it will throw you back into a pattern.

 

Finally, if you feel you need more help, consider seeing a therapist. A combination of psychotherapy— to understand the roots of the behavior— and cognitive-behavioral therapy—to give you tools to change the actual behavior—is often what works best. In Kate’s case, we were able to work through her shoe-shopping compulsion by focusing on her underlying depressed mood. She still struggles from time to time, but she has greatly benefited from individual as well as group therapy sessions (not dissimilar to AA).

Sometimes, medication can also help. If a compulsive behavior is serious and doesn’t get better with talk therapy, a psychiatrist may prescribe an antidepressant. These drugs affect levels of serotonin and norepinephrine—two brain chemicals that have been linked to compulsive behavior as well as the anxiety and depression that may accompany it.
Gail Saltz, MD , a psychiatrist and psychoanalyst, is a clinical associate professor of psychiatry at New York Presbyterian Hospital, a TODAY show contributor and author of Becoming Real and Anatomy of a Secret Life

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/42382372/ns/today-today_health/

5 Things NOT To Do On Airplanes!

Every time you get on an airplane, it's a crap shoot. No, I'm not talking about safety but rather the person you'll be sitting next to. All walks of life end up flying at one point or another. Maybe you're stuck sitting next to someone who doesn't quite understand that his actions impact others around him. Or maybe YOU are that person.

 

For that reason, I thought it would be fun to go through the top five things you really shouldn't do on an airplane.

1. No bare feet -- It should go without saying that being cooped up on an airplane with others mere inches from you is painful enough with everyone clothed. Just because it's a long flight does not mean you can get as comfortable as you get at home. Sure, go ahead and kick your shoes off, but you better be wearing socks. And if your feet smell, put those shoes right back on to make sure that you contain the stink. This one applies in all classes. I was in business class on a flight last year where the seats were angled out. Sure enough, a guy across the way put his bare feet right up there for all to see (and smell) as they walked down the aisle. Don't do it.

2. Don't abuse the recline -- Coach passengers have few things that they can control in the flying experience, but one is the angle of their seats. For most, there is a realization that if you recline your seat, it will impact the person behind you. There are those few gems out there, however, who simply don't care and jack that seat back as far as it will go. You have the right to recline, but try to be considerate. Don't be that guy who sees a cart rolling down the aisle with dinner on that long flight and decides to lean back. It's hard enough to eat on an airplane, but it's impossible with the seat bending back into your face. (Note: Some airlines have seats that recline into themselves, so go ahead and recline away in those. You'll only impact your own legroom.)

3. Don't be an overhead hog -- Everyone knows that there is likely going to be more demand for overhead bin space than actual space up there, so why not do your part to help get as much up there as you can? Put your roller bag wheels-in instead of sideways, if it fits. Don't take up a ton of space by placing a coat along the entire bin, as I've seen almost any time the temp dips below 50 degrees. More important, if someone asks if she can move your bag around to try to fit her own, let her. Think of it like a big Tetris puzzle, and you don't want to leave an empty space.

4. No talking loudly to strangers -- There are some people who love to talk to their seatmates on airplanes; there are others who dread the thought. There's nothing wrong with talking to your seatmate if there's a mutual interest, but keep the volume down to avoid bugging those around you who really don't care where you're from and what you do for a living. And just because you're talking to someone doesn't mean that he wants to talk to you. Be very careful to observe the warning signs -- fidgeting, quietness, looking away from you, opening a magazine, etc. Some people aren't rude, but they don't want to talk to you. Take a hint.

5. Don't make dumb jokes -- It's amazing how many people out there still think it's funny to say, "I've got a bomb," or something equally stupid. Oh sure, it's hi-larious to you, but it's only going to get you thrown off the plane and into heavy questioning. You might have no better way to spend your time, but when you delay that flight, you'll have a hundred or more new enemies who wish you'd never boarded.
This list is far from exhaustive. Just let your conscience guide you (if you have one). Be nice to people and respect the rights of others and you'll all be much happier when you get where you're going.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/21/travel/snyder-airline-passenger-behavior/index.html

Survey Finds Many Married Couples Still 'Intensely In Love'

Sue and Bob Frause, who have been married for 37 years, say one of the keys to their long romance is to not take the little stuff too seriously. "It's got to be fun, otherwise, why bother?" says Sue Frause.

Sue and Bob Frause of Langely, Wash., have been happily married for 37 years. Or, as they might title the story of their lives: "Couple, happily married for 37 years."
One of their goofier common interests: the pair often slips into headline-speak, a result of their shared background in communication careers. (It's usually used to soften the edge of a request that might otherwise be considered naggy, explains Sue Frause. For example, she says, rather than calling her husband out for not doing the dishes, "I'll walk by the kitchen and go, 'Man leaves dishes in sink, woman throws pot out window' .... then and then he laughs and I laugh and it's not an issue.")

Sometimes it seems like a couple that's still in love after decades together actually is rare enough to warrant a news headline. Most of us assume that the sparks that fly during those dizzy, dreamy first days of a relationship fade with time. (Or, as Oscar Wilde phrased it: "One should always be in love; that is the reason one should never marry.")

But that doesn't have to be the case, a growing number of studies are suggesting.
In a new national survey of married Americans, 40 percent of those who'd been married at least 10 years said they remained "very intensely" in love with their partner. The study sought to determine whether long-term romantic love was just a rare phenomenon, and the researchers, led by Daniel O'Leary, a clinical psychologist at Stony Brook University in Stony Brook, N.Y., were surprised to find just the opposite. Even for the longest marriages -- three decades or more -- 40 percent of women and 35 percent of men said they were still madly in love.

The report, done by social psychologists at Stony Brook University and Harvey Mudd College, is already published online, and will appear in the March issue of the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science.

The report gathered data through a randomized telephone survey done over about four weeks in August and September of 2007, and the study results were drawn from the 274 married individuals across the U.S. who completed the survey. On average, the respondents were in their mid- to late-40s, and had been married for around 20 years. (A second survey was conducted in the fall of 2009, surveying just New York state residents. Just 33 percent of those living in New York state said they were still intensely in love with their long-term partners. But the researchers expected that -- those in the Northeast tend to report lower levels of happiness and well-being in general.)

They also wanted to find out some of the reasons why love sometimes does last for the long haul: Those who said they remained "intensely" in love were also more likely to think positively about their partner and to think about their partner when they were apart; they also reported more frequent hugs, kisses and, yes, sex. Lasting love was also associated with common interests -- especially those that were new or challenging -- and general life happiness. On the other hand, the results also identified two things that don't matter when it comes to long-term love: education level and money.

"The idea is we don't have to assume that it's just going to be serving the oatmeal to each other" as the decades slip by, says Arthur Aron, a social psychologist at Stony Brook University and one of the authors of this study.

Sue Frause, 61, says she and Bob, 66, believe intensity is good when it comes to love - but not when it comes to day to day issues that can get heated. They say one of the secrets to their relationship is that "we've learned to diffuse things that have become amplified so it's not that big of a deal," she says. "... It's got to be fun, otherwise, why bother?"

She says both of them strive to keep the romance alive, even in the simple things. He husband Bob, 66, recently made her a CD mix of love songs. For Valentine's Day, she's making him the same dinner she first made him when they were were dating. "I call it 'Sentimental Stroganoff'," she says.
Last January, Aron authored a study that looked at brain scans of adults in long-term marriages who said they still felt in love now as they had at the beginning of their relationship. They compared those images with brain scans of couples who had just fallen in love. The scans found similar activity in both types of couples in the ventral tegmental area, the reward-processing region of the brain.

OK, but how do you make sure love sticks around? This may be that rare instance where advice found in women's magazines is right: Try something new together. You could take a class, start a new hobby or learn a new sport -- but it could be even simpler than that. Aron and his wife recently decided to do something together they hadn't done in years: hang out at a bar.

And, as it turns out, you may be doing your part simply by reading this post. We assume that love can't last because that's what we hear again and again. But knowing that isn't always the case may be the first step to lasting love."There is actually a possibility that it's not just a fairy tale, that there are people that live happily ever after," Aron says. "Some people actually do it."
TODAY.com contributor Diane Mapes contributed to this post.

http://todayhealth.today.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/06/10332187-many-married-couples-still-intensely-in-love-survey-finds

Madonna: An Interview From The Vaults

Madonna impressed with her performance at the Super Bowl. Here, in our latest visit to Rock's Backpages – the world's leading archive of vintage music journalism – Kris Needs catches up with the Material Girl for Flexipop! magazine, when she visited London in May 1983, months before her first hit.

'It's important to exude sexuality on stage' … Madonna in 1983.

 

These days I wake up more and more feeling death's breath around the corner as I near the winter of my years. It's so hard being a drunken bum and working for Flexipop!. I should have been a ballet dancer.

This was the conclusion I came to after talking to the gorgeously perky Madonna, over here recently to say hello and do some club sets.

"The thing about dancing – what it taught me all those years – is it gives you an amazing sense of discipline in forcing yourself to do things that you know are good for you but you don't really want to do. It's self-preservation. A lot of people in the music industry wreck themselves. I know that my lifestyle is a lot different from a lot of other people because of the training I've had. It can be a real long life if you make it that way."

And a short one if you don't, I suppose [hack, wheeze, etc]. (This advice was obviously inspired by the alcohol-marinated apparition sitting before her who'd just been to a booze-sodden lig hosted by Noel Edmonds to launch this new invention called the CD.)

Not to worry, though. Madonna's first single – the Rusty Egan-remixed Everybody – is real hangover-repellent, made for the legs and those who find it taxes the old brain too much to lurch along and scoop up the latest hot funk item in over-priced import shops. Madonna performs to backing tapes with three handpicked black dancers she found in the New York clubs. She's quite aware of her power to turn legs to jelly but refuses to do it blatantly.

"I think it's really important to exude sexuality on stage, but I don't think I have to entice men. I don't think people have to be aroused sexually by what you wear. I get over that by way of being sexy just by the way I sing and move on stage.

"The way we dress is sort of playful-innocent: Bermuda shorts, ankle socks and shoes, crazy hats. I don't wanna wear something that I'm going to fall out of. I don't feel comfortable like that. But I'm really physical onstage, y'know? I move around a lot."

Madonna wants to take her music out of ghetto-elite typecasting. "I feel I'm trying to get rid of a lot of stereotype. I come out there and I'm white and look like a boy on stage. I refuse to act the way someone expects me to."

Though she said hello to the big, wide world in Detroit, Madonna was magnetised by New York City as soon as she got out of school; played in a few groups, studied ballet and started writing songs. Now she lives in the heart of the junkie cesspit called the Lower East Side.

"I live in a supposedly dangerous area, near 'Needle Park'. They're always selling stuff in the street outside my apartment building. I don't like it but I like living amongst all the squalor. It's good inspiration.

"Detroit is a more desolate, desperate place. At night everyone locks themselves away. There's always elements of danger in New York but people are always out on the street. I don't feel scared there at all."

Another record is set for release soon – a double A-side coupling two self-explanatory titles: Burning Up and Physical Attraction.

Later that day she turned in an energetic performance at the Camden Palace, leaving many in no doubt that this girl was no flash in the pan.

I'm gonna buy me some shorts.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/musicblog/2012/feb/07/madonna-interview

The pink ribbon's ugly new image

In one swift move, the Susan G. Komen For The Cure foundation has undermined its pro-woman, pro-health, pro-solidarity image.

By pulling funding from Planned Parenthood for breast cancer screenings -- not to mention after Republican activist and abortion rights opponent Karen Handel came on board as vice president of public policy -- and couching the decision as new protocol, Komen’s turned into an org women won’t want to be associated with. Not all women, of course. But there will be a lot us who'll not longer be able to look at the pink ribbon as simply “breast cancer awareness.” They’ll think: What self-respecting, abortion rights supporter who cares about women’s rights and women's health would be caught wearing a pink ribbon now, much less buying any of the many products that display the pink insignia? With one decision, Komen turned the pink ribbon into an ugly and polarizing symbol.

Opinionators and senators are also lamenting Komen’s move. Here's a roundup chronicling some of the critique.
Andrew Rosenthal of the New York Times writes: “[Komen] have not only made it harder for women to have abortions, but also to get birth control counseling, prenatal care, and now cancer screenings.”

Kevin Drum of Mother Jones writes: “The right's recent jihad against Planned Parenthood is about as loathsome as anything I've ever seen come out of them. They simply don't care anymore how many people they hurt or how much harm they do to anyone they disapprove of.”

Erin Gloria Ryan of Jezabel writes: “Komen's brand is imploding and seriously alienating young women and politically progressive supporters who were drawn to the cause expressly because of their non-political approach to a non-political disease. But when a charity hires a woman like Handel, a woman who must always attach politics to a woman's body, and allows her to project her political beliefs into her work, Komen ceases being a viable charity and starts being a self-righteous political organization for rich ladies who like hanging around with celebrities. It's a social club, and the only thing it's curing right now is people's desire to raise any more money for them.”

Megan McArdle at the Atlantic writes: “In that environment, you can see why an organization that does not itself have a mission to support abortion access would want to pull back from funding Planned Parenthood, even for related services. Unfortunately, while they easily could have declined to fund PP without much backlash, de-funding them sends an extremely explicit message that is probably going to cost them significant public support. Which is a pity, because early detection and treatment of breast cancer is a mission that we should all be able to agree on.”

Senators Lautenberg, Murray, Mikulski, Boxer, Cantwell, Gillibrand, Menendez, Wyden, Blumenthal, Shaheen, Begich, Merkley, Tester, Akaka, Sanders, (Sherrod) Brown, Leahy, Baucus, Cardin, Feinstein, Franken, and Kerry write in a letter re-posted on the Washington Post:

More than 90 percent of the services provided by Planned Parenthood are primary and preventative including wellness exams and cancers screenings that save lives. Each year, Planned Parenthood health clinics provide 750,000 breast exams, 770,000 pap tests and nearly 4 million tests and treatments for sexually transmitted diseases. Twenty percent of all women in the U.S. have visited a Planned Parenthood health center....
Komen funding for Planned Parenthood has provided nearly 170,000 clinical breast exams and resulted in 6,400 referrals for mammograms. In 2011 alone, grants from Komen provided Planned Parenthood with roughly $650,000 in funding for breast cancer prevention, screening, and education. According to a recent statement by Komen, “In some areas of the U.S., our affiliates have determined a Planned Parenthood clinic to be the best or only local place where women can receive breast health care.”

It would be tragic if any woman -- let alone thousands of women -- lost access to these potentially life-saving screenings because of a politically motivated attack.

Hear, hear.

http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2012/02/komen-controversy-pink-ribbon-ugly-new-image.html