Fourth accuser urges Herman Cain to ‘come clean’ about harassment

A fourth woman has accused Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain of sexual harassment--this time in public. Sharon Bialek told reporters in a press conference Monday that Cain groped her and exhibited "sexually inappropriate" behavior toward her when he was head of the National Restaurant Association.
Bialek, a former NRA employee who worked for the association in between 1996 and 1997, said the encounter occurred shortly after she was laid off from the group's education fund in July 1997.
She said she had approached Cain for help in looking for a new job and had traveled to Washington, D.C., where she had dinner with the then-NRA head. She told reporters that upon her arrival in D.C. she discovered that Cain had secretly upgraded her hotel room to a suite.
After dinner, the two were sitting in his car when she claimed he "suddenly reached over and put his hand on my leg under my skirt and reached for my genitals" and moved her head toward his crotch.
"I was surprised and shocked, and I said, what are you doing? You know I have a boyfriend," Bialek recalled saying. "This is not what I came here for."
Bialak claimed that when she protested, Cain replied, "You want a job, right?
She told reporters Cain backed off after she asked him to stop, and he drove her back to her hotel.

Bialek, who identified herself as a stay-at-home single mom who lives in Chicago and is a registered Republican, said she didn't file a complaint with the NRA in part because she was no longer formally employed by the group--and also because she was "very embarrassed." She was joined at the press conference by her attorney, celebrity lawyer Gloria Allred, who offered sworn affidavits from two friends to whom Bialek spoke shortly after the alleged encounter.
"I was very very surprised and very shocked," Bialek said, adding that she had come forward to be a "face" for women who had been harassed by Cain. "I want you, Mr. Cain, to come clean. Just admit what you did. Admit you were inappropriate to people ... I implore you. Make this right."
The Cain campaign issued a statement denying Bialek's claims.
"All allegations of harassment against Mr. Cain are completely false," the campaign said in a statement. " Mr. Cain has never harassed anyone."
Bialek is the fourth woman to accuse Cain of sexual harassment when he was head of the NRA, but she's the only accuser who has spoken publicly.

Read More..

What Obama Can Do On Guns Right Now, Without Congress

While lots of "pro-gun" Democratic senators are calling for new gun control legislation in the wake of the Newtown school shooting, and some conservative pundits are, too, the real barrier to passing such legislation remains conservative House Republicans. After Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was shot in the head in 2011, more than 130 Democrats co-sponsored a bill to ban high-capacity magazines, but zero Republicans did, The New York Times ​points out today. But President Obama could use executive orders to impose some gun restrictions, Reuters' David Ingram reports, and the Justice Department has been looking at ways to do that since the assassination attempt on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in 2011. The New York Times's Charlie Savage reported over the weekend that the department's study had been shelved a year ago, but Reuters now indicates the study is ongoing. Options for immediate executive action may include:
RELATED: Wall Street Journal: Republicans Turned the Payroll Tax into a Gift for Obama
Incorporating more information in background checks, like a potential buyer's history of mental illness.
Sharing more information with state and local officials about gun purchases that could be illegal.
Keeping information on gun sales longer.
Limiting the importation of military-style weapons.
New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg also suggested this morning on MSNBC that Obama can appoint new officials, force prosecutors to process gun buyers lying on their applications, insist on tracking down rogue gun dealers, and more:
RELATED: Imagining Mitt Romney's First 100 Days
RELATED: Obama's Favorite Word: 'Frustration'
The Washington Post reports today that the president has asked his cabinet "to formulate a set of proposals that could include reinstating a ban on assault rifles." But Obama has shown a willingness to use executive orders on controversial issues before, like when he stopped the deportation of young illegal immigrants this summer. Still, opposition to gun control has been strong. Reuters explains that when the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms instituted a rule requiring gun sellers to report when someone bought more than one semi-automatic weapon at a time, congressional Republicans tried to defund the rule. Gun makers sued, lost, and are appealing the decision.
RELATED: A Guide to This Summer's Elaborately Choreographed Republican Fights
There are some signs the gun lobby is a little weaker than it used to be. The National Rifle Association has long been one of the most powerful lobbying groups in Washington, but since Citizens United, its campaign war chest is less impressive, The New York Times' Nicholas Confessore, Michael Cooper and Michael Luo report. (A billionaire can easily match its funds with a single donation.) And the NRA's constituency — white, male — is not the group of voters the Republican Party has been looking to reach out to after the 2012 election. But Illinois Democratic Rep. Mike Quigley frankly explained Obama's lack of action on guns in his first term to Roll Call. "I don’t blame him. I know exactly what happened to Clinton after this in the mid-term elections," Quigley said. "The reality is we need him to be a president for a second term, and the opposition to this maybe has finally turned.

Read More..

Out of Office, Republicans Turn to Bush for Inspiration

As Republicans reassess their future in the presidential wilderness, seeking a message and messenger to resonate with a new generation of voters, one unlikely name has popped up as a role model: former President George W. Bush.
Prominent Republicans eager to rebuild the party in the wake of the 2012 election are pointing to Bush’s successful campaigns for Hispanic votes, his efforts to pass immigration reform, and his mantra of “compassionate conservatism.” Bush won 35 percent of the Hispanic vote in 2000 and at least 40 percent in 2004, a high-water mark for a Republican presidential candidate.
In contrast, Romney received only 27 percent of the Latino vote, after taking a hard-line approach to illegal immigration during the Republican presidential primaries, touting “self-deportation” for undocumented workers. In exit polls, a majority of voters said that Romney was out of touch with the American people and that his policies would favor the rich. While Romney beat Obama on questions of leadership, values, and vision, the president trounced him by 63 points when voters were asked which candidate “cares about people like me.”
These signs of wear and tear to the Republican brand are prompting some of Bush’s critics to acknowledge his political foresight and ability to connect with a diverse swath of Americans, although the economic crash and unpopular wars on his watch make it unlikely he will ever be held up as a great president.
“I think I owe an apology to George W. Bush,” wrote Jonah Goldberg, editor-at-large of the conservative National Review Online, after the election. “I still don't like compassionate conservatism or its conception of the role of government. But given the election results, I have to acknowledge that Bush was more prescient than I appreciated at the time.”
The ebb in Bush-bashing could help pave the way for a 2016 presidential bid by his brother, former Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida, another proponent of immigration reform with proven appeal in the Hispanic community. “The Bush family knows how to expand the party and how to win,” said GOP consultant Mark McKinnon, a former George W. Bush political aide, when asked about a possible Jeb Bush campaign. Voter wariness toward a third Bush administration could ease if the former president and his father, who served one term, are remembered less for their failures and more for their advocacy of “compassionate conservatism” and “a kinder, gentler nation.”
“I think all that certainly helps if Jeb decides to do so something down the road, though I think he will eventually be judged on his own,” said Al Cardenas, chairman of the American Conservative Union, who led the Florida Republican Party when Bush was governor.
President Bush’s press secretary, Ari Fleischer, was tapped last week by the Republican National Committee to serve on a five-member committee examining what went wrong in the 2012 election. Two days earlier, a survey released by Resurgent Republic and the Hispanic Leadership Network found that a majority of Hispanic voters in Colorado, Florida, Nevada, and New Mexico  don’t think the GOP “respects” their values and concerns.
“One of the party’s biggest challenges going forward is the perception that Republicans don’t care about people, about minorities, about gays, about poor people,” Fleischer said. “President Bush regularly made a push to send welcoming messages, and one of the lessons of 2012 is that we have to demonstrate that we are an inclusive party.”
President Bush’s success with minority voters stemmed in large part from his two campaigns for governor in Texas. He liked to say, “Family values don’t stop at the Rio Grande.” Unlike Romney, who invested little in Spanish-language advertising until the final two months of his campaign, Bush began reaching out to Hispanics early; he outspent his Democratic opponents in Spanish media in both the 2000 and 2004 campaigns.
“I remember people grumbling about making calls in December 2003, but we kept pushing,” said Jennifer Korn, who led Bush’s Hispanic outreach in his 2004 campaign. The president’s upbeat Spanish-language ads depicted Latino families getting ahead in school and at work. “I’m with Bush because he understands my family,” was the theme of one spot.
Korn, who now serves as executive director of the Hispanic Leadership Network, said Republicans are constantly asking her how the party can win a bigger share of the Latino vote.
“I tell them we already did it,” she said. “President Obama just took Bush’s plan and updated it.”
Republicans are also looking at the groundwork that Bush laid on immigration reform. He has kept a low profile since leaving office, but he waded into the debate in a speech in Dallas last month. The legislation he backed in his second term would have increased border security, created a guest-worker program, and allowed illegal immigrants to earn citizenship after paying penalties and back taxes.
“America can be a lawful society and a welcoming society at the same time,” Bush said in Dallas. “As our nation debates the proper course of action related to immigration I hope we do so with a benevolent spirit and keep in mind the contributions of immigrants.”
Bush is even a presence in the current high-stakes budget negotiations between Capitol Hill and the White House. Although the tax cuts enacted by the Bush administration for the wealthiest Americans have been a major sticking point, the tax policy it put in place for the vast majority of households has bipartisan support.
“When you consider that the Obama administration is talking about not whether to extend the Bush tax cuts but how much of them to extend, you see that Bush is still setting the agenda,” said Republican consultant Alex Castellanos, who worked on Bush’s 2004 campaign.
While a possible presidential bid by Jeb Bush heightens the impact of his brother’s evolving legacy, it’s not unusual for a president’s image to change after leaving office. (Look at former President Clinton, who enjoyed positive ratings during most of his presidency, infuriated Obama supporters during Hillary Rodham Clinton’s presidential campaign in 2008, and emerged after the election as a better Democratic spokesman than Obama.)  Gallup pegged Bush’s presidential approval at 25 percent at the end of his second term, the lowest ranking since Richard Nixon. But after President Obama spearheaded unpopular spending packages and health care reforms, Bush’s popularity began to tick up.
A Bloomberg News survey in late September showed Bush’s favorability at 46 percent, 3 points higher than Romney’s rating. Still, with a majority of voters viewing the former president unfavorably, Romney rarely, if ever, mentioned his name during the campaign. Asked to address the differences between him and the former president in one of the debates, Romney said, “I’m going to get us to a balanced budget. President Bush didn’t.” Obama seized on the comparison, taking the unusual tack of praising the Republican successor he had vilified in his first campaign to portray Romney as an extremist.
“George Bush didn’t propose turning Medicare into a voucher,” Obama said. “George Bush embraced comprehensive immigration reform. He didn’t call for self-deportation. George Bush never suggested that we eliminate funding for Planned Parenthood.”
Democrats and moderate Republicans found themselves cheering for Bush, if only for a moment. A majority of voters said that Bush is more to blame for the current economic problems than Obama, according to exit polling. If Bush wasn’t the bigger scapegoat, Obama may not have won a second term.
Veterans of Bush’s campaigns and administrations say that while learning from his mistakes, Republicans should also take note of the political risks he took by proposing reforms to immigration and education laws and boosting funding for community health centers and AIDS outreach in Africa.
“One of the issues we ran into in the 2012 campaign is that there weren’t a lot of differences between Mitt Romney and Republican orthodoxy,” said Terry Nelson, Bush’s political director in the 2004 campaign. “I think that’s something Republican candidates in the future have to consider.  The public respects it when you can show you can stand up to your party on certain issues. Bush did that.

Read More..

NRA promises to help prevent school shootings

WASHINGTON (AP) — After four days of self-imposed silence on the shooting that killed 26 people inside a Newtown, Conn., elementary school, the nation's largest gun rights lobby emerged Tuesday and promised "to offer meaningful contributions to help make sure this never happens again."
The National Rifle Association explained its unusual absence "out of respect for the families and as a matter of common decency" after Friday's shooting that left dead 20 children, all ages 6 or 7.
The group — typically outspoken about its positions even after shooting deaths — went all but silent since the rampage. As it faced public scrutiny online and in person, the group left many wondering how — if at all — it would respond to one of the most shocking slayings in the nation's history.
"The National Rifle Association of America is made up of 4 million moms and dads, sons and daughters, and we were shocked, saddened and heartbroken by the news of the horrific and senseless murders in Newtown," the organization said in a statement. "The NRA is prepared to offer meaningful contributions to help make sure this never happens again."
The group said it would have a news conference to answer questions Friday, the one-week anniversary of the shootings.
Almost immediately after it became clear the extent of carnage, the group's Facebook page disappeared. It posted no tweets. It made no mention of the shooting on its website. None of its leaders hit the media circuit Sunday to promote its support of the Second Amendment right to bear arms as the nation mourns the latest shooting victims and opens a new debate over gun restrictions. On Monday, the NRA offered no rebuttal as 300 antigun protesters marched to its Capitol Hill office.
Yet on Tuesday, the NRA re-emerged, albeit more slowly than normal and with its somber statement.
After previous mass shootings — such as in Oregon and Wisconsin — the group was quick to both send its condolences and defend gun owners' constitutional rights, popular among millions of Americans. There's no indication that the National Rifle Association is prepared to weaken its ardent opposition to gun restrictions but it did hint it was open to being part of a dialogue that already has begun.
Its deep-pocketed efforts to oppose gun control laws have proven resilient. Firearms are in a third or more of U.S. households and suspicion runs deep of an overbearing government whenever it proposes expanding federal authority. The argument of gun-rights advocates that firearm ownership is a bedrock freedom as well as a necessary option for self-defense has proved persuasive enough to dampen political enthusiasm for substantial change.
Seldom had the NRA gone so long after a fatal shooting without a public presence. It resumed tweeting just one day after a gunman killed two people and then himself at an Oregon shopping mall last Tuesday, and one day after six people were fatally shot at a Sikh temple in Wisconsin in August.
The Connecticut shootings occurred three days after the incident in Oregon.
Since the Connecticut shootings, the NRA has been taunted and criticized at length, vitriol that may have prompted the shuttering of its Facebook page just a day after the association boasted about reaching 1.7 million supporters on the social media network.
Twitter users have been relentless, protesting the organization with hashtags like NoWayNRA.
The NRA has not responded to them. Its last tweets, sent Friday, offered a chance to win an auto flashlight.
Offline, some 300 protesters gathered outside the NRA's lobbying headquarters on Capitol Hill on Monday chanting, "Shame on the NRA" and waving signs declaring "Kill the 2nd Amendment, Not Children" and "Protect Children, Not Guns."
"I had to be here," said Gayle Fleming, 65, a real estate agent from Arlington, Va., saying she was attending her first antigun rally. "These were 20 babies. I will be at every rally, will sign every letter, call every congressman going forward."
Retired attorney Kathleen Buffon of Chevy Chase, Md., reflected on earlier mass shootings, saying: "All of the other ones, they've been terrible. This is the last straw. These were children."
"The NRA has had a stranglehold on Congress," she added as she marched toward the NRA's unmarked office. "It's time to call them out."
The group's reach on Capitol Hill is wide as it wields its deep pockets to defeat lawmakers, many of them Democrats, who push for restrictions on gun ownership.
The NRA outspent its chief opponent by a 73-1 margin to lobby the outgoing Congress, according to the nonpartisan Sunlight Foundation, which tracks such spending. It spent more than 4,000 times its biggest opponents during the 2012 election.
In all, the group spent at least $24 million this election cycle — $16.8 million through its political action committee and nearly $7.5 million through its affiliated Institute for Legislative Action. Its chief foil, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, spent just $5,816.
On direct lobbying, the NRA also was mismatched. Through July 1, the NRA spent $4.4 million to lobby Congress to the Brady Campaign's $60,000.

Read More..

Opinion: How Demography Became the Narrative for Obama's 2012 Victory

Since 2008, commentary about presidential campaigns has been saturated in the rhetoric of narrative. However, President Obama’s 2012 presidential victory wasn’t, strictly speaking, based on narrative.
So what happened? The Obama campaign focused strategically on offering specific policies or programs that targeted the new demographics. This meant ensuring a government mandate to address immigration, the issues of single women, the concerns of Hispanic, African-Americans, Asian-Americans, the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered Americans, the supporters of trade unions, and ordinary folks struggling to find jobs or keep the ones they had.
Exit polls suggested the importance of demographics. Obama captured 71 percent of the Latino vote, in contrast with only 23 percent for former Gov. Mitt Romney. The president garnered 93 percent of African-American men and 96 percent of African-American women. He won 73 percent of the Asian-American vote.
Indeed, electoral demographics have become the driving force of the past two presidential elections, a fulfillment of Peter Brimelow and Ed Rubenstein’s 1997 prophecy, “Demography is destiny in American politics.” They forecast 2008 as the year when a shift in ethnic demographics would ensure the Republican Party’s inexorable slide to “minority status.”
What, then, do the demographics of the 2012 presidential election indicate? As Nancy Benac and Connie Cass illustrated, nonwhites represented 28 percent of the 2012 electorate in contrast to just 20 percent in 2000. Obama received 80 percent of the nonwhite vote in both 2008 and 2012. White, male voters represented only 34 percent of the votes cast in the 2012 election as compared with 46 percent in 1972.
According to John Cassidy, white men chose Romney over Obama by 27 percent (62 percent to 35 percent). Caucasian women voted for Romney over Obama by 56 percent to 42 percent, a higher percentage than those who voted for either McCain in 2008 or Bush in 2004.
Today, according to Benac and Cass, 54 percent of single women vote Democratic, in contrast to 36 percent of married women. The single women’s vote was strategically significant since it accounted for nearly a quarter of all voters (23 percent) in the election.
White voters favored less government (60 percent), Hispanics wanted more (58 percent), and, by comparison, blacks were the most interventionist of these ethnic groups (73 percent). Hispanics represented a significant and growing share of prospective voters in the Western battleground states.
In 2000, for instance, white voters constituted 80 percent of voters in Nevada. But by 2012 their percentage of the total vote had declined to 64 percent while the Hispanic vote had increased by 19 percent. Not surprisingly, 70 percent of Hispanics voted for Obama in Nevada.
The youth vote sided decisively with Obama, as Benac and Cass demonstrated. In the case of North Carolina, a battleground state that narrowly supported Romney, two-thirds of these voters supported Obama. Younger voters are also more ethnically diverse. Of all Americans under 30 who voted in the election, 58 percent are white as compared with 87 percent of seniors who voted.
Just how significant are these numbers? As Ryan Lizza noted, three-fifths of white voters selected Romney, equaling or exceeding the support that former Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush had received from white voters in 1980 and 1988, respectively. But if the white electorate was 87 percent of voters in 1992, by 2016 they will represent fewer than 70 percent of American voters.
As the demographic landscape of our country changes, even conservative strongholds such as Texas will be at risk. Ted Cruz, a newly elected senator from Texas, who campaigned from a “secure-the-borders” perspective, expressed it this way to Lizza.
In not too many years, Texas could switch from being all Republican to all Democrat.... If that happens, no Republican will ever again win the White House.... If Texas turns bright blue, the Electoral College math is simple. We won’t be talking about Ohio, we won’t be talking about Florida or Virginia, because it won’t matter. If Texas is bright blue, you can’t get to 270electoral votes. The Republican Party would cease to exist.
Obama and his team of advisers ran a tactically brilliant campaign. Obama’s victory wasn’t based on a narrative, because that would have exposed the economic failings of his administration.
Instead, the campaign demonized Mitt Romney by appealing to the “diversity values” of the Democratic rank and file while saturating the battleground states with attack ads. The party appealed to a multicultural mosaic: Hispanics, single women, African-Americans, ethnic minorities, young people, as well as many of the economically disenfranchised who voted, a significant number of affluent progressives, and, of course, the LGBT community.
The Democrats strategically targeted their demographic, and the demographic became the narrative. “In sports parlance,” as I have noted on The Huffington Post, “Obama’s ‘ground game’ was hard-hitting and decisive. The demonization against Romney began early and never stopped. Even before he was the designated Republican candidate, the Obama machine had Romney effectively in their sights. All is fair in political warfare. And this Democratic victory was supremely won.

Read More..

Top 10 Reasons to Hire Older People

In a world where traditional retirement makes less and less sense, the need and desire of older people to retain or find meaningful jobs depends in part on overcoming bogus attitudes about older employees. Smart and progressive employers get this. Sure, Google is probably not losing any sleep over failing to train septuagenarians about search-engine algorithms. But being uninterested in crowd-sourcing the best taco stand within four blocks of your smartphone is not a disqualification for being an excellent employee.

[See 10 Workplace Myths Debunked.]

Unemployment rates among older workers are lower than that of the general workforce. However, when an older person does lose a job, it has been much harder to find a new one. Older job seekers need to do an honest self-assessment of their skills and upgrade them if needed or set their sights on jobs that better match their current capabilities.

Employers need to make their own adjustments, beginning with tossing preconceptions of older workers out the window. Judge each job applicant as an individual. It's the law, and it's also the right thing to do. In assessing the suitability of older job applicants, here are 10 other things to keep in mind:

1. They are not unhappy. MetLife recently completed its 10th annual survey of employee benefits, based on extensive surveys of hiring managers and employees. It finds that younger employees are really unhappy these days. Older workers, by contrast, tend to be more appreciative of what they've got.

2. They are not going to jump ship. MetLife also found that alarming percentages of younger workers would like to be working somewhere other than their current employer in 2012. Among Gen Y workers (born 1981 to 1994), it was 54 percent, while 37 percent of Gen X workers (born 1965 to 1980) were ready, willing, and able to bail on their employers. The comparable figures were 27 percent for younger boomers (born 1956 to 1964) and 21 percent for older boomers (born 1946 to 1955).

3. They are not as needy. Upwards of two-thirds of Gen Y and Gen X employees want more help from employers in providing benefits that better meet their needs. Among older baby boomers, only 31 percent felt that way.

4. They don't want their boss's job. Older employees have, by and large, recognized where they are in terms of professional advancement. They don't waste a lot of time, either theirs or their employer's, with career concerns.

[See When Your Boss is Younger than Your Child.]

5. Their skills shortage may be way overblown. Don't assume that older employees don't know their stuff. Maybe they are not texting during meetings because they are more polite. Odds are, they may actually know how to spell complete words, too, if that's important to you.

6. They know what they want. Personal quests are great but they shouldn't be done on work time. Older workers tend to leave their angst at the door when they get to work.

7. They show up on time every day. Any older employee with a solid resume has already developed the kind of attendance and reliability records employers want.

8. They have few personal or family distractions. Seniors love their children but are gladly done with afternoon school runs, soccer games, and any number of other parental duties.

9. Benefits are not as crucial. The MetLife research found that much more pressure for better benefits comes from younger workers. In part, that's because they don't believe Social Security and Medicare benefits will be around for their later years. Older workers, by contrast, have much greater confidence in being able to count of those government programs.

[See Is an Extended Senior Career in Your Future?]

10. Wisdom still counts for something. Even a rock picks up something of value after 40 or 50 years. Imagine what older employees can bring to the job if they are encouraged to share it and even mentor younger colleagues.

One final note: Today's column includes several misguided stereotypes about younger employees. Before taking too much offense, imagine how older folks feel when they are treated the same way.

And by the way, happy birthday to the most influential arbiter of high-tech gadgets: Walt Mossberg of the Wall Street Journal. He turns 65 tomorrow.

Read More..

Do Baby Boomers Resent Their Children?

When new research came out recently about 20-somethings' financial struggles, the survey also revealed some encouraging news: Not only are members of Gen Y optimistic about their future, but older Americans--Gen Y's parents and grandparents--agreed that young people today have it rough. That kind of cross-generational solidarity suggests a mutual understanding and support network that Gen Yers desperately need to get on their feet.
After all, some experts have found that help from family members, in the form of emotional support or financial assistance, can make the difference between falling further behind and finding a way to move forward. Luckily, many of today's 20-somethings benefit from so-called "helicopter parenting" and continued closeness with their parents--one reason why at least 1 in 4 feel comfortable enough to move back home after college graduation.
But the comments left by readers in response to our recent articles on the subject suggest that a far stormier relationship might be lurking beneath those cheery survey findings. Comments left by older Americans are often full of resentment toward the younger generation, describing them as spoiled brats who don't know how to be frugal and lack any appreciation for what's been given to them.
In response to the finding that half of young adults have taken jobs they don't want in order to pay bills, a commenter calling himself "old unemployed guy" wrote, "The shock! The horror! It's called being a grown up and it really sucks. Fortunately there is a support group that meets at the corner bar every night."
Another commenter wrote, "The problem with Generation Y is that they're[sic] idiotic enough to believe government can fix the economy." Another focused on student-loan debt and argued that young people should not complain about having so much of it. Rick of Texas wrote, "We worked our way through school, and graduated without debt. I have two sons, and both worked their way through school. If you built up debt going through school, you have to pay it off."
A commenter calling herself Kathryn also disagreed with the premise that young people have it harder today. "Things are no harder now, than [they were] in their grandparents' generation. They just want more, and sooner. They see the house the earlier generations have, and automatically think that is what they should have," she wrote.
The harsh words also flowed in the other direction. A younger American, calling himself Danny of New York, wrote, "I am really tired of older Americans trying to talk about how younger Americans are stupid? The economy is crap, not because of us but because of you."
Another story that profiled a young man surviving on $20,000 a year drew similar ire from older commenters. They wrote that it was irresponsible to live without health insurance and that he was too young to understand how hard life would become once he also had a family to support.
These commenters raise questions about how older and younger Americans are truly getting along. We might be living together more than in the past, and be more involved in each other's daily decisions and lives, but do we like each other? What explains this intergenerational anger? Do older Americans resent younger ones, and if so, why? Does either generation really have it "better" than the other?
The unfortunate truth might be that the economy has made it harder for everyone--young and old--to feel good about their financial state. And that frustration easily pours out into angry comments.

Read More..

Is a Rural Retirement Right for You?

Would you be willing to exchange Thai restaurants and unwavering wireless Internet for homegrown produce and birdsong?
If so, a rural retirement may suit you well. The bonus: Rural acreage is a rare segment of the real estate market that weathered the Great Recession.
[See 10 New Retirement Hotspots.]
According to a report from the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, residential land values in the United States are down nearly 70 percent since peaking in the second quarter of 2006. During that same period, the value of cropland in the contiguous United States rose some 20 percent, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. That's also the downside; higher values mean higher points of entry for would-be buyers looking to get into the rural market.
But the category looks poised to grow even more (individual markets may vary, of course.) Higher overall commodities prices lift land values. And while commodities prices can be volatile, a rising global middle class population that's sure to eat better and drive more could keep a floor under the market. That helps land prices.
"Idyllic lifestyle-seekers" want a fresh start and a tangible investment, says Dan Duffy, CEO at the rural and coastal real-estate search network United Country, based in Kansas City, Mo.
"You can't create more land--it's a finite investment. And during the downturn, agricultural land produced a dividend-like yield in the 5 percent to 8 percent range, plus capital appreciation. This, while some bond yields hovered at zero or worse," Duffy says. Land is also broadly characterized as a "real" asset. It's tangible, and that makes it an inflation-fighter.
Land investment can be two-pronged: The land itself is worth something, and what it might produce has a separate value. There are other money-making possibilities: rental income, such as for livestock grazing, cash crops from corn to timber, lodging fees for cabins or a bed-and-breakfast, organic-vegetable selling, fishing and hunting rights, wind power or natural gas rights, and profiting from eco-tourism.
Crickets can be louder than traffic. A trend of retirees leaving the suburbs for small town and country life--a move that demographers call "out-migration"--was underway before the economic downturn. It held up relatively well during that period, although was slowed somewhat by weak home-selling markets that kept retirees and soon-to-be retirees in their existing homes. But with the number of baby boomers exiting the workforce, it's a trend that looks to continue.
[See the 10 Sunniest Places to Retire.]
USDA data show a "deconcentration" of population near metro centers. Urban areas will see a net loss of people age 55 to 75, while in non-metro areas, that age group will increase by 1.6 million nationally during the next 10 years.
Remember the Alpaca farm craze a few years back? Turning into a rancher overnight isn't for everyone. Luckily, there are dozens of ways to extend your "career" in the country. If remote life isn't quite your aim, small-town retirement hubs may allow for a service-focused second career--think restaurant or real estate office proprietor, or perhaps hanging out a tax-preparation shingle after a long accounting career at a Fortune 500 company.
Many retirees want land they can develop or recreate, at least partially, for their own residential or hobby use. A land purchase can be a wise "mini step" toward retirement: Buy the land while still working in a populous setting, rent it out, move there eventually, says Duffy.
Prime school districts may no longer top the list of real estate must-haves, but retirees want a certain level of service and cultural amenities, whether they're in population centers or not. This need may help drive their decision-making. Plus, there are potentially heavy maintenance costs and overall land management responsibilities that may turn off some buyers. An acreage is a big purchase, one that requires a considerable amount of due diligence. (Real estate firms are increasingly getting into the land-management business, so property owners can pay for help.)
Curtis Seltzer, a rural land investor and author of How to Be a Dirt-Smart Buyer of Country Property, says rural buying should start at the ground up, literally, with a focus on dirt. "Most buyers from the city and suburbs, including me, focus first and almost exclusively on the country house, whether existing or planned," writes Seltzer. "This comes at the expense of paying attention to the dirt on which the house stands and which surrounds it. We do this, I think, because all of us have a passing familiarity with houses. So we evaluate country property in terms of what we know rather than what we don't."
[See 10 Places to Buy a Retirement Home for Under $100,000.]
Seltzer offers these tips:
-- Look first at how the land lays--its topography. Which direction do its slopes face? How steep are they? If the land is flat, will it drain quickly or hold water because the subsurface contains a lot of clay? The surface vegetation and the feel of the dirt in your hands will give you an initial reading. Topographically interesting land is usually more interesting to spend time on, but it's also more expensive to work with and much harder to work against.
-- Second, look at your soils. Different soils have different characteristics and capabilities which will determine what you can do with your property at a reasonable cost. Your first stop in scoping property is to pick up a copy of the county's Soil Survey at the local U.S. Department of Agriculture office. County-level aerial maps and soil-survey information are available for some states and counties, and can be found at soils.usda.gov/survey.
-- Third, look at the location of your dirt. Will it be hard to get to in bad weather? Is it subject to flooding, earthquakes, mudslides, windstorms, fires, and prevailing weather? If you have shoreline, is the land low (bad) or high (good)? Is the shoreline eroding? Is the land facing in the right compass direction for your plans?
-- Finally, look at your dirt in terms of proximity to local goods and bads--hospital, fire station, public water and sewerage, rescue squad, floodplain, job opportunities, and distance from your current residence, post office, bank, supermarket, and objectionable facilities--however you care to define them.
Trending now. United Country's Duffy says rural destinations in the Mid-Atlantic are drawing rising interest for their temperate climate, mix of mountains and shoreline, and reasonable distance to centers such as Washington, D.C. This way, retirees may maintain consulting positions and ease into their retirement. One micro-trend is what he terms the "half-backers." It's a population that spent their working years in the Northeast, then retired to Florida, but are now finding unattractive pricing (or lack of housing or elbow room there) and are moving halfway back to the Northeast.
Duffy says "small" ranches of a few hundred acres in Texas are popular searches on his firm's website. He also notes increasing migration from California to the "unspoiled" and less-expensive mountain retreats of Colorado, Montana, and Idaho.

Read More..

10 Great Opportunities for Older Volunteers

If you have time and an interest in volunteering, you can literally create your own program. Aided by Internet sites that match needs and volunteers, along with other do-it-yourself online tools, boomers are rewriting the book on how volunteering works.

[See Top 10 U.S. Places for Healthcare.]

AARP has kicked off a large volunteer effort through its "Create the Good" program and website. "People want more flexibility in their volunteering," says Barb Quaintance, AARP senior vice president for volunteer and civic engagement. There is a preference for self-directed volunteer efforts: More than half of all boomers select this approach, according to AARP, as it allows them to satisfy their needs as well as those of the recipients they help.

Americans' willingness to volunteer has been steadily increasing, according to a survey from the government's Corporation for National & Community Service, which oversees the Senior Corps, AmeriCorps, and related volunteering programs. Across different age groups, the rate of volunteering has grown dramatically. More than 26.5 percent of adults ages 45 to 64 volunteer, the corporation says, up from 22 percent 20 years ago. For older volunteers, the rate has increased during the same period, from 17 percent to more than 28 percent. In 2010, 21.9 million baby boomers dedicated 2.9 billion hours of service to communities throughout the country, most often with a religious institution--the most popular organizations through which this age group volunteers.

"The baby boomer generation is the largest, healthiest, and most educated generation in history," says Robert Velasco, II, acting CEO of the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS). "While a large portion of older adults volunteer, it's crucial to not place them in the same category. Seniors aren't monolithic," he says. "All of them want to make a difference, but I think they may want to make a difference in different ways."

At the younger end of the senior age spectrum are people who are still working or have recently retired. They might have a preference for skills-based volunteering, in which they can put their career skills to work in volunteer settings. Funding cutbacks during the recession have increased the needs of nonprofits, he notes. Accountants are needed to work on agency finances. Social workers are needed to work with children and at-risk populations. Various nonprofits may need a range of skilled tradespeople--plumbers, electricians, and the like.

[See AARP Moves to Protect Social Security and Medicare.]

But it's the wave of younger volunteers that is changing the model. "There's a whole new world of volunteering," Quaintance says. In some cases, volunteers' demand for flexibility and control has been hard for nonprofits to accept. Some agencies are accustomed to recruiting volunteers who go where they are directed and do what they're told. "Nonprofits are waking up to the fact that they need to be more flexible," and it can be a difficult adjustment, Quaintance says.

On the Create the Good site, volunteers can access local volunteer needs by ZIP code and see these needs broken down into several categories: Show-Up, DIY (Do It Yourself), Online, and what it calls "5 Minute" opportunities that may be nonrecurring, relatively quick ways that people can help.

"The strategic nonprofits have figured out how volunteers can be a critical part of their solution," Velasco says. "Many boomers bring advanced professional and management skills that can help nonprofits increase their impact on community issues. Engaging boomers in more challenging assignments has the added benefit of increasing the likelihood they will continue to volunteer over a longer period of time because they find the work more engaging."

Here is a list of volunteering opportunities that might be of interest:

Preparing income taxes. The AARP Tax Aide program has more than 34,000 volunteers throughout the country who donate their time and expertise to help people with their taxes. It is a major example of "skills-based" volunteering, which is growing.

Road and waterway clean-ups. If it's green, people want to help. Weekend clean-up campaigns are great opportunities for people to improve their communities, meet like-minded neighbors, and get outside for some exercise. These activities also meet volunteers' growing interest in flexible and even one-shot volunteer opportunities.

Helping the helpers. Nonprofits have seen funding decline even as demand for their services soars. Skills-based volunteers are increasingly filling key roles at agencies that had been performed by full-time staffers.

[See The Secret to a Long and Happy Life.]

Applying for benefits. The steep recession has led to record increases in food and other assistance programs. Often, people need help in applying for benefits, to make sure they qualify and obtain benefits promptly.

Helping kids at school. Just about anything that has to do with children is high on the list of desired activities, ranging from reading to younger children, tutoring, helping coach sports teams, and assisting with a wide range of extracurricular enrichment programs. There are many other school-based volunteer opportunities, and the need will grow this fall because of widespread school funding cutbacks throughout the country.

Helping kids at home. The slow economic recovery has put tremendous stress on families, forcing all adults in a household to seek work and creating rising demand for home-based caregivers and after-school support programs.

Repairing safety nets. From assisting food banks to driving people to healthcare clinics, there is plenty of help needed. Cash-strapped governments and social-service support programs badly need volunteers to help meet a range of human needs.

Live the dream. There are loads of opportunities to volunteer in activities you've always wanted to try: working with animals, being a docent or tour guide, helping arts organizations, and the like. Someone needs and will appreciate having the benefit of your skills.

National and state parks. Parks often take an early hit when budgets are cut. The government regularly seeks volunteers to clean and even help manage the under-staffed and under-funded National Park Service.

When disaster hits. Americans step up when their neighbors are hurting. Recent weather volatility has produced unusually severe storm damage throughout the country, and a related increase in volunteer activity.

Read More..

Keeping Cartier contemporary: the jewelry house discusses modern art, mass market collaborations and the revival of classics

Ahead of the launch of Cartier, Jeweler of the Arts, the latest expo from Cartier's art museum the Fondation Cartier, which begins April 3 in Paris, Relaxnews met up with Cartier Europe's managing director Cyrille Vigneron to discuss how a prestigious maison stays ahead in an ever evolving luxury market.
Relaxnews: Cartier, Jeweler of the Arts brings together four artworks commissioned by Cartier and made by four very different artists (David Lynch, Takeshi Kitano, Alessandro Mendini, Beatriz Milhazes) using precious and semi-precious stones no longer deemed suitable for the brand's jewelry. What makes a luxury house decide to team up with contemporary artists?
Cyrille Vigneron: The artists can see what others don't see in terms of trends, arts, design, all forms of expression. They see a different way to represent the world and the foundation doesn't think about what Cartier is doing -- it just thinks about the art world. The Fondation won't become a design studio for Cartier products. Some other brands are doing that, calling artists or designers and saying 'sign our products' or making something that is co-branded. I won't say who but you can easily see. It becomes a hybrid which has some value but it changes the orientation and perception. A brand should be true to its own creative past, its own patrimony, and the designer should serve that as a purpose. When it comes to a designer working for himself it's something different.
RN: The Fondation Cartier is known for championing emerging contemporary artists from across the globe, but where does Cartier stand on rising US jewelry designers such as Alexis Bittar and Pamela Love? Do you feel a challenge to compete or consider them separate?
CV: For jewelry I say the more players the better. Having more famous designers gets people interested and creates stimulation and diversity. But each has to find its own style. For example, Hermès is moving into it and exploring its own way with the famous Hermès handbags being transformed into jewelry for the luxury market. This is something exploratory, something no one has done before. As long as we have many designers doing something genuine it's fine, when a designer starts to copy another one that's not fine.
RN: Cartier was one of the main luxury jewelers in the limelight following last year's Elizabeth Taylor jewelry auction, and some of the opulent designs inspired by the star's collection have been reinterpreted on a mass scale. What is your take on this?
CV: When you are copied it means that you're interesting, but if some brands just come and copy others without making any innovation or developments then it's counterfeit. You should respect others. If you just say, "We'll copy this and make it cheaper and it will be fine," it's just disgusting. But if you really go further and try something new and I'll find clients for that then it's great, then it stimulates everyone's creativity and inspires us to do things better.
RN: So would Cartier ever collaborate with a more affordable brand?
CV: No, never. There can be room for premium jewelry or costume jewelry; it can all be something interesting as far it is what it is. Then there is fine jewelry, then there is high jewelry and it's a different world. We can have simple designs; for example the trinity ring is very simple, a wedding band is a wedding band -- simple, straight, symbolic -- we're happy to do it.  But a lower end collaboration to diffuse via a mass production -- never. Projects such as the recent Cartier Odyssey movie make Cartier universal. Whether you intend to buy or not doesn't matter.
RN: How does Cartier maintain a balance between keeping traditional clients happy and attracting new ones?
CV: The maison has a stature and has been endorsed by really famous people from past and present: Liz Taylor, the Duchess of Windsor, Grace Kelly. But this can only continue if our contemporary creations are rejuvenated. Now the most demanded pieces come from the Tutti Frutti collection, each of them is new but has been inspired by the 1920s. We can make new ones out of the same inspired style and then have something really daring and new in terms of shape and style and ways to wear. Classics are the kind of designer pieces or products which can talk to anyone at anytime -- a design that has been outstanding whether made in the 1930s or 1970s or this generation. That's why collections go through generations; whether it's a trinity ring or a love bracelet. At some point they were daring and then they become classic because someone wears them. Our creations are constantly kept alive, adding new variants to the same model but also keeping the initial model alive itself and that's why we have many variants on the Tank watch collection or the trinity collection.
RN: What advice would you give someone considering investing in an expensive item of jewelry?
CV: The best way is to see what suits you; your style, lifestyle, what you want to express, who you want to look good for. Talk and let the magic work. You buy it for life. We have a lot of respect for people like mothers who will give their daughter their trinity ring when she turns 18. Our creations keep their value over time and there is currently a lot of demand for vintage pieces.

Read More..

Uncle Sam to Start Tracking Tobacco Use in Movies Aimed at Kids

Federal health authorities said Friday they will begin monitoring how well movie studios are doing to reduce depictions of smoking and other tobacco use in youth-rated movies.

Authorities at the Center for Disease Control and Prevention's Office on Smoking and Health said that voluntary efforts by movie studios to reduce tobacco use in youth-rated movies have been unimpressive. Data on tobacco use in movies will  be added to regular CDC reports to the public on smoking prevalence among youth and adults, total and per-capita cigarette consumption, and progress on tobacco control policies.

"We all have a responsibility to prevent youth from becoming tobacco users, and the movie industry has a responsibility to protect our youth from exposure to tobacco use and other pro-tobacco imagery in movies that are produced and rated as appropriate for children and adolescents," said the lead author of the paper, Dr. Tim McAfee. "Eliminating tobacco imagery in movies is an important step that should be easy to take."

MORE: PG-13 Movies May Start Teens Smoking

Understanding what motivates kids to smoke is a high priority of public-health experts. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, more than 3,800 kids a day smoke their first cigarette. And, while smoking rates fell over the past 40 years, rates in both adults and youths have held steady in more recent years.

Previous research shows that kids who see smoking on television and in the movies are more likely to take up smoking. But depictions of smoking continue to turn up in youth-rated movies. Last year, the number of on-screen smoking scenes increased, according to a study published in the October issue of the journal Preventing Chronic Disease.

The data, from Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!, a project of  Breathe California-Emigrant Trails, is based on tobacco incidents in top-grossing movies each year rated G, PG and PG-13. The study looked at 134 movies that were among the 10 top-grossing, youth-rated movies last year for at least one week.

The study found the number of tobacco incidents rose 3 percent (1,881 incidents) in 2011 compared to 2010 despite the fact that there were five fewer movies in the 2011 sample. The number of tobacco incidents per movie rose 7 percent over 2010 -- 13.1 incidents per movie in 2010 and 14 last year. The biggest increase in smoking depictions occurred in G and PG movies.

MORE: Smoking Rates Around the World Are Astronomical

And, while kids aren't supposed to see R-rated movies, smoking incidents in those films rose 7 percent in 2011, said the author of the study, Dr. Stanton A. Glantz, a professor of medicine for the Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education at the University of California, San Francisco. Glantz has been studying smoking in the movies for many years.

"There are going to be hundreds or thousands of kids who will take up smoking due to this backsliding," Glantz told Take Part. "There is a dose response here, too -- the more kids see, the more likely they will smoke."

The uptick in smoking comes at a time when health professionals are unified behind the idea that kids are influenced by such depictions in the media. In a report released earlier this year, U.S. Surgeon General Regina Benjamin identified smoking in movies and tobacco-company advertising as the primary forces that cause kids to take up smoking.

"The evidence is sufficient to conclude that there is a causal relationship between depictions of smoking in the movies and the initiation of smoking among young people," the Surgeon General's report noted. Images of smoking in the movies, "are powerful because they can make smoking seem like a normal, acceptable, or even attractive activity. Young people may also look up to movie stars, both on and off screen, and may want to imitate behaviors they see."

MORE: Teen Smoking an 'Epidemic,' Surgeon General Says

Previous studies have also showed that depictions of smoking in the movies are more likely to influence low-risk kids to smoke; "the kids whose parents don't smoke or kids who do well in school," Glantz says.

The increase in on-screen smoking is further disappointing because top officials for three studios -- Comcast (Universal), Disney and Time Warner -- had previously committed to reductions in smoking in their movies, Glantz says. Smoking in youth-rated movies declined from 2005 to 2010.

Among these companies with stated policies discouraging smoking in movies, the percentage of movies that were tobacco-free declined by 17 percent from 2010 to 2011.

"A few studios had taken the lead in reducing the amount of smoking in their films," Glantz says.  "They accomplished it and showed it could be done. But now there is this serious back-sliding. I don't know what accounts for that.  These three studios are now about as bad as the studios that hadn't made a lot of progress. I don't know what happened."

The Walt Disney Company "actively seeks to limit the depiction of smoking in

movies marketed to youth," according to a statement released by the company to Take Part.

MORE: U.S. Appeals Court Strikes Down Graphic Cigarette Warning Labels

"Disney discourages depictions of cigarette smoking in movies produced in the United States for which a Disney entity is the sole or lead producer and which are released either as a Touchstone movie or Marvel movie, and seeks to limit cigarette smoking in those movies that are not rated “R” to: scenes in which smoking is part of the historical, biographical or cultural context of the scene or is important to the character or scene from a factual or creative standpoint, or to scenes in which cigarette smoking is portrayed in an unfavorable light or the negative consequences of smoking are emphasized," according to the statement.

The company also said it prohibits tobacco product placement and promotions and will  place anti-smoking public service announcements on DVD’s of new and newly re-mastered titles, not rated “R,” that depict cigarette smoking and will work with theater owners to encourage the exhibition of an anti-smoking public service announcement before the theatrical exhibition of any such movie.

But the World Health Organization and other public health groups have recommended formal policies aimed at eliminating smoking in the movies, McAfee noted.

MORE: Teens: Smoking Less, Calling It 'Scummy' More

The Glantz study raises "serious concerns about this individual company approach," he wrote. "This difference suggests that individual company policies may not be sufficient to sustain a reduction in youth exposure to tobacco-use and other pro-tobacco imagery in movies and that more formal, industry-wide policies are needed."

Glantz has long argued for a modernized rating system to give movies with any tobacco use an R rating, unless the presentation of tobacco "clearly and unambiguously reflects the dangers and consequences of tobacco use," he says. Other options to discourage smoking are to run anti-smoking messages prior to the movie and persuading movie studies to adopt policies to certify they receive no payments for depicting particular tobacco brands in their movies.

Read More..

Study tentatively links flu in pregnancy and autism

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Kids whose mothers had the flu while pregnant were slightly more likely to be diagnosed with "infantile autism" before age three in a new Danish study. But the children's overall risk for the developmental disorder was not higher than that of other kids.

Researchers said it's possible that activation of a mother's immune system - such as by infection with the influenza virus - could affect a fetus's developing brain. But they urged caution with the new findings, especially because of statistical limitations in their number-crunching.

"I really want to emphasize that this is not something you should worry about," said lead author Dr. Hjordis Osk Atladottir, from the University of Aarhus.

"Ninety-nine percent of women with influenza do not have a child with autism," she told Reuters Health. "If it were me that was pregnant, I wouldn't do anything different from before, because our research is so early and exploratory."

Her team's data came from a study that originally recruited more than 100,000 pregnant women in Denmark between 1996 and 2002. The women were called multiple times during their pregnancies, and once afterward, to ask about any new infections they had or medications they had taken.

The new report includes 96,736 kids born from that initial cohort who were between 8 and 14 years old at the time of the analysis.

Using a country-wide register of psychiatric diagnoses, Atladottir and her colleagues found that 1 percent of all kids were diagnosed with autism, including 0.4 percent with infantile autism - in which the main symptoms all show up before age three.

There was no link between a range of infections in pregnancy - including herpes, coughs and colds and cystitis - and the chance a baby would develop autism or infantile autism, according to the report published Monday in Pediatrics.

And among 808 women who reported having the flu while pregnant, there was no increased risk of autism in their children. However, seven of those babies, or 0.87 percent, were diagnosed with infantile autism, compared to the rate of 0.4 percent among kids in general.

There was also an increased - albeit sometimes borderline - risk of both autism and infantile autism in babies of women who had fevers for a week or more during pregnancy, as well as mothers who took some types of antibiotics.

Atladottir said there is some research in rodents suggesting women's activated immune cells can cross the placenta and affect chemicals in a fetus's brain. But how those findings apply to humans is still a question mark.

"It's all very unsure now - we don't really know anything," she said.

In the United States, about one in 88 children is now diagnosed with autism or a related disorder.

One limitation of the new study, the researchers noted, is that they did 106 statistical tests comparing the risk of autism or infantile autism with various infections and drugs.

In medical research, a significant finding is typically considered one where there is less than a five percent likelihood the result would have occurred by chance.

But when so many calculations are done, scientists would expect that at least some would pass this test of significance, even if there is no real link between the pregnancy variables and autism.

In addition, women's flu reports weren't confirmed by doctors - and the frequency of mistaking the flu for another infection, or vice versa, is "likely to be considerable," the researchers noted.

Because of those limitations, Atladottir said the findings could encourage future research, but shouldn't be at the front of pregnant women's minds.

"We don't want to create panic," she said.

Still, one expert who wasn't involved in the new study thought the researchers were "soft peddling" their conclusions.

"It is highly recommended that women avoid infection during pregnancy, and there are a variety of very practical ways to decrease the likelihood of this," Paul Patterson, who studies the immune system and brain development at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, told Reuters Health by email.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend all women get a flu vaccine during pregnancy - in part because serious flu complications are more common in pregnant women.

But, said Patterson, "It is also worth emphasizing that even though the risk (of infantile autism) is significantly increased, the risk is still quite low."

Read More..

Nesquik Recall Q and A: Are Your Kids Safe?

 Nestlé announced late last week a recall of Nesquik for possible Salmonella contamination. Promoted by the Nesquik Bunny, the chocolate milk flavoring is consumed primarily by children. Here's what you need to know to make sure your kids are safe from this Salmonella risk.

How Do I Know If My Nesquik Is Part of the Recall?

The Nesquik recall covers only chocolate powder in 10.9, 21.8 and 40.7 ounce canisters manufactured during October 2012. Any other Nesquik products are not subject to recall. According to CNN, 200,000 canisters of Nesquik are included in the recall.

Nesquik subject to the recall bears a Best Before date of October 2014. The applicable UPC codes and production codes include: for 40.7 ounce containers UPC 0 28000 68230 9 with production codes 2282574810 or 2282574820; for 21.8 ounce size, UPC 0 28000 68090 9 and production codes 2278574810, 2278574820, 2279574810, 2279574820, 2284574820, 2284574830, 2285574810, 2285574820, 2287574820, 2289574810, or 2289574820; and, for 10.9 ounce canisters, UPC 0 28000 67990 3 and product code 2278574810.

What About Ready-to-Drink Nesquik Served at My Kid's School?

In June, Nestlé went after the school lunch market by offering eight-ounce ready-to-drink Nesquik. If your child's school is serving ready-to-drink Nesquik, there's no cause for concern. The recall covers only the powder variety of Nesquik, not the ready-to-drink type.

What Led to the Nesquik Recall?

Nestlé identifies a supplier of calcium carbonate used in the drink powder as the culprit. The recall notice says Omya, Inc., notified Nestlé of its own product recall due to Salmonella concerns. There have been no reports of illness associated with the Nesquik recall, Nestlé says.

What Is Calcium Carbonate?

Calcium carbonate is an additive included in powdered products to prevent caking and/or to increase calcium content, according to Self.

If My Child Gets Sick, How Will I Know Whether or Not It's from Salmonella?

Salmonella infection symptoms include diarrhea, abdominal cramps, and fever. These normally develop within 72 hours of consuming contaminated food or drink. Most people who do contract salmonellosis get better in about a week without treatment. For infants, the elderly, pregnant women, and people with compromised immune systems, salmonellosis can be life threatening and medical treatment is advised.

Read More..

Kids with Down syndrome twice as likely to be heavy

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - More than one in four children with Down syndrome in The Netherlands is overweight, a rate double that of Dutch youth without the developmental disability, according to a new study.

"We were alarmed by the high prevalence of overweight in children with Down syndrome," said Dr. Helma van Gameren-Oosterom, the lead author of the study from the Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research in Leiden.

"Of course we knew that the prevalence of overweight is rising; for Dutch standards a twofold level, however, was not expected."

Previous studies have suggested children with Down syndrome are especially prone to being heavy. But researchers still aren't sure why that is, according to Dr. Sheela Magge, an endocrinologist at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, who was not part of the new study.

Theories have ranged from physiological differences in metabolism or the way the body suppresses appetite to behavioral differences, such as in how much exercise children get, she said, but no studies have been able to pin down the definitive cause.

About 6,000 babies - or one in every 691 - are born with Down syndrome each year in the U.S., according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

For the latest study, the researchers compared growth patterns among 659 children with Down syndrome and no other health problems to general data on youth in The Netherlands.

By calculating kids' weight relative to their height - a unit called body mass index (BMI) - the research team determined which children were overweight and which were obese. The BMI cutoffs for obesity and overweight are different for each age in children.

Magge said they're not a perfect measure for children with Down syndrome because their body proportions are different than those of other children, but it's the best available yardstick for now.

Gameren-Oosterom and her colleagues found 25.5 percent of boys with Down syndrome were overweight and 4.2 percent were obese.

Among girls with the condition, 32 percent were overweight and 5.1 percent obese, they report in the medical journal Pediatrics.

In comparison, children in the rest of the Dutch population had much lower rates: for boys, 12.3 percent were overweight and 1.7 percent obese; for girls, 14.7 percent were overweight and 2.2 percent were obese.

Magge said researchers have also observed higher rates of overweight among children with Down syndrome in the U.S.

Gameren-Oosterom wrote in an email to Reuters Health that she and her colleagues suspect lifestyle has something to do with that pattern. Because it's harder for young people with Down syndrome to develop their motor skills, they may be less active.

Low muscle tone and poor coordination often accompany the disability as well, Magge told Reuters Health.

Her concern with so many kids being overweight is that as people with Down syndrome are living longer, "we may start seeing more complications and comorbidities such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease (and) hypertension, all those things that we worry about in all of our obese adolescents."

Gameren-Oosterom said it's difficult to develop a prevention or treatment strategy to target overweight and obesity in children with Down syndrome, given that the causes are unknown.

But like all youth, she added, those children will benefit from a healthy diet and sufficient exercise.

Magge said people with Down syndrome tend to prefer keeping strict routines, which could be something parents can take advantage of to help instill healthy habits.

Read More..

A Good Reason -- Pregnancy, Your Dog, Money, Anything -- is Key to Quitting Smoking

 FIRST PERSON | I remember when I quit smoking one weekend. It was a Saturday night and I was pre-gaming with some friends before going out. Someone suggested taking a smoke break, and I went along to be with the crowd. Last thing I remember was having a great time, surrounded by secondhand smoke  from cigarettes and Black & Milds. Then I woke up the next morning with a fresh pack of Newports in my purse. There was a few missing from the pack. I wasn't sure who bought these cigarettes for me, but the taste in my mouth told me who smoked them. That was the first time I realized that I'd have to change my friends if I was going to change my lifestyle.

However, that didn't happen until over a year later.

Make the choice and follow through

The moment I found out I was pregnant, I knew my cigarette days had to be over. The people that I partied with were not of the "best friends forever" variety, so it was not an impossible challenge to stop going out with them.

Being pregnant turned me off to the smell of smoke, anyway. It was after I gave birth that I had to really stick to my guns about quitting. I haven't smoked in more than two years, but I'd be lying if I said that I don't crave a cigarette every now and then. I doubt those cravings will go away completely, but my child is my motivation to stay away for good.

You don't have to have a child to quit smoking. The most important thing to keep in mind is the reason why you need to quit. It can be for your health, for your dog, to save money -- anything. Anything that you feel passionate about, keep it in your mind because, without a reason, you're not going to make it. You may fail, and that's OK. But never give up.

It may be tough to make changes to your life or change your friends, but that's a necessary change to make if you want to succeed. At least keep yourself away from temptation until you having a good handle on your life as an ex-smoker.

The easy thing about quitting is after you stomp out your cigarette, you quit. It's up to you if you want to light another one up.

Read More..

Even moderate drinking in pregnancy may affect child's IQ

LONDON (Reuters) - Women who drink even moderate amounts of alcohol while pregnant may risk lowering child's intelligence levels, according to a study by British scientists.

Advice to pregnant women about drinking is contradictory, with some guidelines recommending no alcohol at all and others suggesting the odd drink now and then is safe.

But in a study described as "hugely important" by one expert, researchers using genetic analysis of more than 4,000 mothers and children found that drinking between one and six units of alcohol a week during pregnancy can lead to lower Intelligence Quotient (IQ) scores by the time a child is eight.

"Even at levels of alcohol consumption which are normally considered to be harmless, we can detect differences in childhood IQ which are dependent on the ability of the fetus to clear this alcohol," said Sarah Lewis of Bristol University, who led the study. "This is evidence that even at these moderate levels, alcohol is influencing fetal brain development."

This study used genetic data from women and children who were part of another study called the Children of the 90s study.

Since the individual genetic variations that people have in their DNA are not connected to lifestyle and social factors, this kind of study avoids potential complications.

Most previous studies have used observational evidence, but experts say this can be misleading because, for example, mothers who drink in moderation while pregnant are typically also well educated, have good diets and are unlikely to smoke - all factors linked to higher IQ in children and which could mask any negative effects of alcohol.

A U.S. study published in July found that older, educated women are more likely to drink while pregnant.

GENES AFFECT ALCOHOL METABOLISM

This study, published in the journal PLOS ONE on Wednesday, used a new technique analyzing the genetic variants which modify the effects of alcohol exposure levels.

When a person drinks alcohol, ethanol is converted to acetaldehyde by a group of enzymes, the researchers explained.

Variations in genes that 'encode' these enzymes lead to differences in a person's ability to metabolize ethanol, so in "slow metabolizes", alcohol levels may be higher for longer than in "fast metabolizes". Scientists think fast ethanol metabolism protects against abnormal brain development because less alcohol goes to the fetus.

The mothers were asked to record their alcohol consumption at various stages during pregnancy, and one drink was specified as one unit of alcohol.

The results showed that four genetic variants in alcohol-metabolizing genes among the 4,167 children were strongly related to lower IQ at age eight. The child's IQ was on average almost two points lower per genetic variation they had.

The effect was only seen among children of women who were moderate drinkers and there was no effect evident in children of mothers who abstained during pregnancy. This strongly suggests it was exposure to alcohol in the womb that led to the difference in child IQ, the researchers said.

"This is a complex study but the message is simple: even moderate amounts of alcohol during pregnancy can have an effect on future child intelligence." said Ron Gray of Oxford University, who was part of Lewis's team.

David Nutt, a professor of neuropsychopharmacology at Imperial College London who was not involved in the research, said it was "a hugely important study from the best UK cohort that can study this question".

"Even though the IQ effects are small, if at all possible women should avoid ethanol in pregnancy as it's a known toxin," he said in an emailed comment.

Read More..