State's Medicaid program will be handled by managed care companies starting tomorrow

Update, Nov. 1: Kentucky Voices for Health, a coalition of more than 250 health care organizations, individuals and advocates, released its views on the move to managed care, which they said must be as much about improving the quality of health care as it is about saving money. "We want Medicaid managed care to be a positive move for both the fiscal health of Kentucky and the health of Kentuckians, so we must continually strive to ensure that all who are eligible have access to high-quality, affordable, effective health care regardless of poverty status or disability," said Dr. Rev. Marian McClure Taylor, KVH board member and executive director of the Kentucky Council of Churches.

The transition must also run smoothly, said Jody Mitchell, KVH executive director. "Our priority is ensuring that the 540,000 Medicaid members affected continue to receive the best health care possible, without interruption." (Read more)

About 560,000 Kentuckians on Medicaid will have a new way of getting health care starting tomorrow when the state switches to managed care.

So far, 68 acute-care hospitals, including some out-of-state facilities, have signed on to at least one of three of the managed care organizations chosen earlier this year by the state to run the program, reports Beth Musgrave of the Lexington Herald-Leader. Excluding the Louisville area, which has long been and will continue to be served by the Passport managed-care organization, there are 96 acute-care hospitals in Kentucky.

"A significant number of hospitals have signed in the last couple of weeks, and we anticipate that these numbers will continue to grow," said Jill Midkiff, spokeswoman for the Cabinet for Health and Family Services. The state had delayed the switch to managed care, which had been scheduled to begin Oct. 1, by one month to give providers time to sign contracts.

Gov. Steve Beshear said today the federal Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services have approved the transition. "We have worked hard to make the transition as seamless as possible, and I appreciate the collaborative efforts that allowed us to reach this goal under aggressive deadlines."

Switching to managed care has been Beshear's answer to overcoming a Medicaid budget deficit. The program will be run by four managed care companies, which will be paid a predetermined per-patient, per-month amount regardless of what care is needed. Because they won't be paid using a fee-for-service model — believed to be more costly — and will try to streamline care, Beshear (right, photo by H-L's Pablo Alcala) said the move will save $1.3 billion in the next three years.

Delaying the move by another month could have cost the state $9.2 million in savings, Musgrave reports. (Read more)

Most beverage companies targeting kids, teens even more to sell sugary drinks, despite pledges; Pepsi an exception

A study analyzing the marketing practices for 600 products made by 14 companies found there is more advertising of sugary drinks to children, despite industry pledges to the contrary.

Child and teen exposure to TV ads for full-calorie soda doubled from 2008 to 2010. "This increase was driven by Coca-Cola and Dr. Pepper Snapple Group. Children were exposed to nearly twice as many TV ads for sugary drinks from these companies," the report by the Yale Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity reads. "In contrast, children were exposed to 22 percent fewer ads for PepsiCo sugary drink products." PepsiCo makes Mountain Dew, so sugary and popular among youth in Eastern Kentucky that dentists have identified a tooth-decay syndrome of "Mountain Dew mouth."

Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Dr. Pepper Snapple Group and Kraft Foods produce two-thirds of the 900 products analyzed.

Coca-Cola accounted for three out of four brand appearances seen by children and teens. Nearly two-thirds of all full-calorie soda or energy drink ads on TV included sponsorship of an athlete, sports league or teams, or an event or cause.

In 2010, black children and Hispanic teens saw 80 to 90 percent more TV ads than white children. Marketing on Spanish-language TV is also growing. In 2010, Hispanic children and teens saw nearly twice the number of sugary drink and energy drink ads as in 2008.

The American Academy of Pediatrics says highly caffeinated energy drinks "have no place in the diet of children and adolescents." But in 2010, teenagers saw 18 percent more TV ads and heard nearly twice as many radio ads for energy drinks than adults did. (Read more)

Halloween Weekend At Occupy Oakland

By Eva Paterson, cross-posted from Equal Justice Society

All is well here in Oakland after the police went wild. I went down to Occupy Oakland Friday night. There were hundreds of people there. The faint scent of marijuana was in one of the areas where a long line of people were assembled. I kept walking and saw a field of tents.

I then came to the plaza in front of Oakland City Hall. The last time I had been there was to hear Senator Obama in May of 2008 ask for our support for his candidacy. Last night, the plaza was filled with hundreds of people talking in small circles. I heard earnest conversations about how the Occupy Oakland folks were interacting with each other. As I continued walking around, I was struck by how serious these folks were.

Two young women then told those assembled that they had to wrap up their conversations. They asked one representative from each group to come up and talk about the topic they had all been given to discuss: “How is privilege a part of the Occupy Oakland movement?” Folks were instructed to line up behind a man named Sweet Potato. I loved that and wondered if he often said “Who yam I?”

The crowd was filled with young people, but the first speaker was a 70-year-old woman who did not start off talking about race or class. She said that she envied the energy and physical dexterity of the young. She also said that the activists should make sure that those with physical impairments or with hearing difficulties were treated with respect and had their needs taken into account during the occupation. I smiled.

I then left feeling conspicuous in a dress and stockings. I had started the evening at a wake for the daughter of a friend whose 22-year-old daughter had suffocated after having an epileptic seizure. It was a very sad, sad moment. All the parents had a common refrain. “This is a parent’s worst nightmare.”

We hugged each other and cried and let old grievances and hurts wash away with our tears. A colleague and a friend had a similar reaction to seeing young people look at one of their friends in a coffin. They both said that young people in Oakland frequently are in funeral homes and mortuaries viewing the bodies of fallen friends. That realization deepened our collective grief.

Yet later that evening at Occupy Oakland, I brushed by young Black men walking through the encampment. I thought that perhaps the Occupy Wall Street movement might provide a way out of the misery and despair that sometimes leads to violence. One can only hope.

Life is good and goes on in Oakland.

Walling In Or Walling Out?

Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
What I was walling in or walling out,
And to whom I was like to give offence.
-- Mending Wall, Robert Frost

After three frustrating seasons in their big new ballpark, where Met hitters showed their unerring penchant for warning track power, the fences are coming in.  The struggles of erstwhile sluggers David Wright and Jason Bay, who appeared to have been psyched out by the large dimensions of Citi Field, have led the team to make things a little more cozy.

Here are the details:

The walls will be uniformly lowered to eight feet, with a new wall of that height being placed in front of the current 15-foot wall in left field, which some people have come to call the Great Wall of Flushing . . . In right-center field, the fences will be moved in so the distance from home plate will be 398 feet instead of 415. And in right field, the gimmicky Mo Zone cutout will be eliminated, which will shorten the distance there to 375 feet. 

It remains to be seen whether this will help Met hitters or hurt Met pitchers.  Walling in or walling out?

The Occupiers' Responsive Chord

By Robert Reich, cross-posted from his website

A combination of police crackdowns and bad weather are testing the young Occupy movement. But rumors of its demise are premature, to say the least. Although numbers are hard to come by, anecdotal evidence suggests the movement is growing.

As importantly, the movement has already changed the public debate in America.

Consider, for example, last week’s Congressional Budget Office report on widening disparities of income in America. It was hardly news – it’s already well known that the top 1 percent now gets 20 percent of the nation’s income, up from 9 percent in the late 1970s.

But it’s the first time such news made the front page of the nation’s major newspapers.

Why? Because for the first time in more than half a century, a broad cross-section of the American public is talking about the concentration of income, wealth, and political power at the top.

Score a big one for the Occupiers.

Even more startling is the change in public opinion. Not since the 1930s has a majority of Americans called for redistribution of income or wealth. But according to a recent New York Times/CBS News poll, an astounding 66 percent of Americans said the nation’s wealth should be more evenly distributed.

A similar majority believes the rich should pay more in taxes. According to a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, even a majority of people who describe themselves as Republicans believe taxes should be increased on the rich.

I remember the days when even raising the subject of inequality made you a “class warrior.” Now, it seems, most Americans have become class warriors.


And they blame Republicans for stacking the deck in favor of the rich. On that New York Times/CBS News poll, 69 percent of respondents said Republican policies favor the rich (28 percent said the same of Obama’s policies).

The old view was anyone could make it in America with enough guts and gumption. We believed in the self-made man (or, more recently, woman) who rose from rags to riches – inventors and entrepreneurs born into poverty, like Benjamin Franklin; generations of young men from humble beginnings who grew up to became president, like Abe Lincoln. We loved the novellas of Horatio Alger, and their more modern equivalents – stories that proved the American dream was open to anyone who worked hard.

In that old view, being rich was proof of hard work, and lack of money proof of indolence or worse. As Herman Cain still says “if you don’t have a job and you’re not rich, blame yourself.”

But Cain’s line isn’t hitting a responsive chord. In fact, he’s backtracked from it (along with much of the rest of what he’s said).

A profound change has come over America. Guts, gumption, and hard work don’t seem to pay off as they once did – or at least as they did in our national morality play. Instead, the game seems rigged in favor of people who are already rich and powerful – as well as their children.

Instead of lionizing the rich, we’re beginning to suspect they gained their wealth by ripping us off.
Mitt Romney is defensive about his vast wealth (reputed to total a quarter of a billion). He’s reverted to scolding his audiences on the campaign trail for “attacking people based on heir success.”

The old view was also that great wealth trickled downward – that the rich made investments in jobs and growth that benefitted all of us. So even if we doubted we’d be wealthy, we still gained from the fortunes made by a few.

But that view, too, has lost its sheen. Nothing has trickled down. The rich have become far richer over the last three decades but the rest of us haven’t. In fact, median incomes are dropping.

Wall Street moguls are doing better than ever – after having been bailed out by the rest of us. But the rest of us are doing worse. CEOs are hauling in more than 300 times the pay of average workers (up from 40 times the pay only three decades ago), as average workers lose jobs, wages, and benefits.

Instead of investing in jobs and growth, the super rich are putting their money into gold or Treasury bills, or investing it in Brazil or South Asia or anywhere else it can reap the highest return.

Meanwhile, it’s dawning on Americans that in the real economy (as opposed to the financial one) our spending is vital. And without enough jobs or wages, that spending is drying up.

The economy is in trouble because so much income and wealth have been going to the top that the rest us no longer have the purchasing power to buy the goods and services we would produce at or near full employment.

The jobs depression shows no sign of ending. Personal disposable income, adjusted for inflation, was down 1.7 percent in the third quarter of this year – the biggest drop since the third quarter of 2009. Housing prices have stalled, home sales are down.

The only reason consumer spending rose in September is because we drew from our meager savings – mostly in order to pay medical bills, health insurance, and utilities. That’s the third month of savings declines, according to the Commerce Department’s report last Friday.

This can’t and won’t continue. Savings are now down to 3.6 percent of personal disposable income, their lowest level since the recession began.

Americans know a rigged game when they see one. They understand how much money is flowing into politics from the super rich, big corporations, and Wall Street — in order to keep their taxes low and entrench their privileged position.

The Occupy movement is gaining ground because it’s hitting a responsive chord. What happens from here on depends on whether other Americans begin to march to the music — and organize.

Robert Reich, Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley, writes a blog at www.robertreich.org.   His most recent book is Aftershock.

Effortless

Image courtesy of www.ffonts.net

Before he even joined show business, this actor had a benefactor who taught him how to enjoy "backdoor action". So when his acting career began to slow down, he started accepting bookings again on the side. He would even offer "backdoor action" to his clients since he can do this effortlessly.

Do you know who this actor is? I would like to request you to observe the guidelines in posting comments. Keep in mind that initials and comments that are too explicit are not allowed.

Follow micsylim on Twitter to get the latest update on Fashion PULIS. Thank you very much for all your support. Please continue to send your juicy stories and letters to: michaelsylim@gmail.com.

Austerity Class Warfare

We all know that during high unemployment and a stagnant economy, what is needed is a boost from the federal government -- or what one might call "stimulus."  (As John Maynard Keynes explained 75 years ago, and Robert Reich continues to instruct us today, when consumers and businesses can’t boost the economy on their own, the responsibility must fall to the government.)  But instead, the focus over the last two years has been on the need for less federal spending and the overarching concern has been to reduce the long-term deficit.  Only recently, thanks to Occupy Wall Street and the President's belated "pivot" to jobs has the conversation begun to change.  But this still leaves the question why the deficit fetishists remain so prominent  -- why failed policies of the past that involve tax cuts for the rich, reduced federal spending and more federal regulation continue to remain so influential -- and not just in Republican circles.

Ari Berman, in a great new piece in The Nation, describes this as "a central paradox" in American politics:

How, in the midst of a massive unemployment crisis—when it’s painfully obvious that not enough jobs are being created and the public overwhelmingly wants policy-makers to focus on creating them—did the deficit emerge as the most pressing issue in the country? And why, when the global evidence clearly indicates that austerity measures will raise unemployment and hinder, not accelerate, growth, do advocates of austerity retain such distinction today?

Berman provides the answer:

An explanation can be found in the prominence of an influential and aggressive austerity class—an allegedly centrist coalition of politicians, wonks and pundits who are considered indisputably wise custodians of US economic policy. These “very serious people,” as New York Times columnist Paul Krugman wryly dubs them, have achieved what University of California, Berkeley, economist Brad DeLong calls “intellectual hegemony over the course of the debate in Washington, from 2009 until today.”

Its members include Wall Street titans like Pete Peterson and Robert Rubin; deficit-hawk groups like the CRFB, the Concord Coalition, the Hamilton Project, the Committee for Economic Development, Third Way and the Bipartisan Policy Center; budget wonks like Peter Orszag, Alice Rivlin, David Walker and Douglas Holtz-Eakin; red state Democrats in Congress like Mark Warner and Kent Conrad, the bipartisan “Gang of Six” and what’s left of the Blue Dog Coalition; influential pundits like Tom Friedman and David Brooks of the New York Times, Niall Ferguson and the Washington Post editorial page; and a parade of blue ribbon commissions, most notably Bowles-Simpson, whose members formed the all-star team of the austerity class.

This "austerity class" is a relentless presence in Washington and in the mainstream media.  Its various strands "form a reinforcing web that is difficult to break. Its think tanks and wonks produce a relentless stream of disturbing statistics warning of skyrocketing debt and looming bankruptcy, which in turn is trumpeted by politicians and the press and internalized by the public."  The result is what Greg Sargent calls "a Beltway Deficit Feedback Loop, wherein the hypothetical possibility of a US debt crisis somewhere in the future takes precedence over the very real jobs crisis now."

In addition, much to our misfortune, this group is profoundly influential over the current Administration:

Obama and his main economic advisers (Tim Geithner, Orszag, Larry Summers) were devotees of former Clinton Treasury Secretary and Goldman Sachs/Citigroup alum Rubin, who co-founded the pro–Wall Street Hamilton Project think tank at the Brookings Institution in 2006. The Hamiltonians had warned of “the adverse consequences of sustained large budget deficits” during the Bush administration and advocated “painful adjustments,” namely cuts to social insurance programs like Social Security and Medicare in exchange for more liberal policies like tax increases and healthcare reform. Obama entered office with the Hamilton plan in his back pocket.

It is thus no coincidence that in February 2009, "just weeks after the stimulus passed, Obama pivoted to the deficit, holding a Fiscal Responsibility Summit at the White House and assuring Blue Dog Democrats he supported a special deficit-reduction commission."  And that in his 2010 State of the Union address, Obama "announced a three-year freeze on nondefense discretionary spending . . . along with the creation of Bowles-Simpson."  Adopting the Republican framing of economic policy, he told us:  “Families across the country are tightening their belts and making tough decision. The federal government should do the same.”

Of course, this was exactly the wrong prescription.  As Jared Bernstein, former chief economist to Vice President Biden explains, “When families are tightening their belt in a recession, the government has to loosen its belt.”

 “Having gotten a stimulus that he knew was too small, Obama should have said, This is a good first step, but we’re likely going to need more,” says Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. “And gone on the offensive. Instead he turned to balancing the budget. That set the stage for the Tea Party and the Peterson crowd, because ‘deficits’ were all anyone heard.” Indeed, conservatives were emboldened by Obama’s speech. “If the arguments in the coming years are between spending freezes and spending cuts, then we’ve already won,” wrote Jim Geraghty of National Review in January 2010.

As Berman continues, "the austerity-class chorus grew louder following the release of the Bowles-Simpson report shortly after the 2010 midterm elections and framed the debate for 2011."

Instead of rolling back the Bush administration policies that had turned Clinton’s surplus into a deficit—such as the Bush tax cuts, Medicare Part D plan and costly wars in Afghanistan and Iraq—the commission took aim at the social safety net and promoted pet conservative causes, like cutting the federal workforce by 10 percent, cutting funds for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and capping medical malpractice lawsuits.

Obama's budget for 2012 "proposed cutting discretionary spending to its lowest share of GDP since the Eisenhower administration."  Still not good enough for the Republicans, who demanded even more cuts.  And "by the time of the summer debt ceiling showdown, the parties were trying to out-cut each other, with the president increasingly espousing conservative talking points (such as the discredited ideas that government budgets are like family budgets, that spending cuts will create jobs and that slashing the deficit will return “confidence” to the market)."

The triumph of the austerity class set the stage for Obama’s “grand bargain” offer to House Speaker John Boehner, which included $3 trillion in spending cuts in exchange for $800 billion in new revenue (roughly the equivalent of letting the Bush tax cuts for the rich expire). Times columnist Brooks called it “an astonishing concession” by the White House and “the deal of the century” for the GOP. Yet Boehner balked when Obama asked for $400 billion in additional revenue to help balance the lopsided plan. The parties agreed instead to $917 billion in cuts over the next decade, with the supercommittee tasked with finding $1.2 trillion in additional savings. The austerity debate is guaranteed to last until Christmas, at the very least.

With most dissident voices sidelined, the "Washington debate seems permanently skewed to the right," and it is doubtful that "Obama’s belated pivot back to jobs will break the power of the austerity class."  This is in large part due to "the administration’s schizophrenic approach to the economic crisis has left voters perplexed about where it stands on the biggest issue of the day."  Obama's current position, "more spending to boost the economy, followed by deficit reduction once the economy recovers" is pretty nuanced, while the “the Republicans’ message, ‘Government spending is a problem,’ is much easier to penetrate.” Unfortunately, the administration is failing to make the point that creating jobs will reduce the deficit.

Berman concludes that "the austerity class has done such a good job of demonizing deficits that it’s difficult to make the case for their necessity, even in the short term. 'The damn thing has such a bad rap, it’s almost unimaginable for a policy-maker to argue that we need a bigger deficit,' says [Jared] Bernstein. 'But there are times when that argument is absolutely correct.'  Now is one of those times."

Medical apps are a wonderful thing but those drug ads may sway doctors' choices

From the NYTimes:

Epocrates drug reference app has won over 50% of U.S. doctors. But like so much else on the Web, “free” comes with a price: doctors must wade through marketing messages on Epocrates that try to sway their choices of which drugs to prescribe.

The marketing messages are difficult to ignore. For example, a psychiatrist who recently opened Epocrates on his iPhone said that before he could look up any drugs, he had to click past “DocAlert” messages on hypertension, bipolar disorder and migraines.

Epocrates says drug makers get $3 in increased sales from every dollar spent on DocAlerts.

One in five doctors will not see drug sales representatives at work, and Epocrates sees DocAlerts as a way to get a sales pitch in front of doctors.

Pharmaceutical companies provide at 70% of Epocrates’s revenue, which totaled $104 million last year. According to the former CEO: “It is a unique market. You have a drug industry that spends $14 billion a year to influence people who prescribe drugs. There are only 600,000 people who are allowed to prescribe drugs, so there is $14 billion spent against 600,000 people ($23,333 per U.S. physician). If you have a channel to reach these physicians, it is a gold mine.”

I use the online version of Epocrates. It is free and has a useful integration with a clinical evidence reference database provided by BMJ which works similarly to UpToDate. There are no DocAlerts that you need to click through to access the website.

References:

The Epocrates App Provides Drug Information, and Drug Ads. NYTimes.
"Cocaine for toothache" and other ads that would never be allowed now http://goo.gl/eeYX3 - Cocaine was sold over the counter in the U.S. until 1914.

Comments from Google Plus:

Darin Swonger - Palm or now HP and Epocrates parted ways and is now not supported with my Palm Pre, therefore, I have been using Medscape Reference and have found it to be adequate in most areas and better in others.

Ellen Richter - Gee, I use it every day & I've I never had a problem with the app due to ads getting in the way. I dont even recall seeing any ads! Do you think its because I'm not a doctor? It asks for your profession at registration, so I specified that I am a nurse. For once, could that be a benefit!!? :)

Nancy Onyett, FNP-C - It is the confidence to look past the drug ads, just like immunity to drug reps that hound me on a daily basis. I only practice from EBM and guidelines then I am protected. New drugs to the market are always a worry, they have been trialed and FDA approved, they are more costly to patients and the outcome is still muddy until they have been around awhile. I personally like to use the older drugs that have been around with subsequent studies proving their efficacy.

Road office in a box (video)

An “office in a box briefcase, with a place for everything and everything in its place". Check it out, by ePatient Dave:

Estate Planning:Selection of a Trustee

Selection of a Trustee....A Search for Wisdom

by Bill Roberts

We have seen in 30+ years of our practice, clients struggle with the selection of a trustee and successor trustees to oversee the trusts they are creating under their will and trust documents.  Do they select individuals or corporate trustees?  

Should they use their local bank trust department as the trustee?  If selecting individuals, should it be a family member or a trusted friend? 

If using an individual, who will be a back up or successor trustee, should the individual not be able to continue to serve?  Should the successor be a trust department of a bank, or a trust company?  What financial parameters should the selection have to qualify?

Further complicating this decision is a growth in litigation cases between beneficiaries and trustees, making the selection of trustees and the acceptance by the trustee even more thought provoking.

In considering the selection of a trustee, many people turn to family members.  This may be appropriate for a number of reasons, the knowledge of the family by the trustee and the awareness of the assets owned by the family; both are advantages in selecting a family member. 

However, on the other side of the ledger is the potential for family conflict (and possible litigation) because a family member is "in control" of the distributions to other family members.

Since this is often a difficult decision, we thought it would be helpful to think about a checklist of characteristics to consider in your selection.  

1. An early consideration is the amount of time required to handle the duties of the trustee, filing annual tax returns, making sure the records are kept up to date and following the requirements for distributions to beneficiaries as set forth in the trust document. 
2. What remuneration is appropriate for the trustee? 
3.  Expertise – Often individual trustees lean on the family lawyer for the expertise to handle basic administration of the trust.  If that is not available, will the individual trustee have the skills to handle the basic administrative items?  
4. Wisdom – Does the selected trustee(s) have the wisdom to follow the trust provisions, as well as making wise investment decisions with the assets of the trust?  Will the trust assets include stock of the family business?  Does the trustee have the skills and wisdom to make decisions regarding the business?  
5.  Knowledge – Closely aligned with wisdom, does the trustee have the pertinent knowledge to manage the assets in the trust?  Will they make the necessary effort to acquaint themselves with the uniqueness of the trust assets, or to acquire the appropriate advisor(s) to assist them? 
6. Integrity – Trustees are sometimes in a position that can be abused by an unscrupulous investment advisor, a self-centered beneficiary, or the beneficiary’s spouse.  Selecting a person or a corporate trustee who you trust to maintain the integrity of your wishes and direction in the trust is vitally important. 
7. Successor Trustees – Clients often have not put as much thought into the selection of a successor trustee as with the selected trustee.  Obviously a successor trustee may be put in the same position if the original trustee dies, becomes disabled or is incompetent to serve.  You will want to consider this as you design your trustee arrangement and consult your attorney regarding their recommendation.  Often attorneys will suggest a corporate trustee to back up an individual trustee.

The selection of a trustee is often difficult and requires a great deal of thought.  A poor choice could have significant impact on your beneficiaries.  A discussion with your attorney and other estate planning advisors will help guide you to a wise decision.

Need an Estate Planning financial advisor ? Call us at 716-565-1300

Email: anecamara@mintcofinancial.com

www.MintcoFinancial.com 

Cyber predators have easier access to children because of phones, video games

Child predators have it easier than ever to entice their young victims, due to the ever-growing accessibility of the Internet. "It's a lot easier now than everybody has the Internet in their pocket," Lexington Police Detective David Flannery told Karla Ward of the Lexington Herald-Leader. "Every day that we think of a way to combat it, people are thinking of a way to get around us," Flannery said. "It changes every day, and you have to keep up with it."

Using the World Wide Web to lure children for sex acts has skyrocketed since 1998, when the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children received 707 reports of people trying to entice children via the Internet. In 2008, there were 8,787 reports.

"Computers and cell phones remain the primary means of communication, but game systems including Xbox 360, Nintendo DS and Wii also can be connected to the Internet, giving predators another way to gain access to children," Ward reports.

Though parents are becoming more aware, more education is needed, said Erin May Roth, an assistant U.S. attorney and the Project Safe Childhood coordinator for the Eastern District of Kentucky. "What they don't really think about is the fact that their kids are going to sleep with their phone," she said.

Flannery is the only police officer in Lexington assigned full-time to investigate Internet crimes against children. While he does not go into detail about his methods to track down predators, the concept involves pretending. "Anything that a kid can do, we can do," Flannery said.

Sometimes officers from several agencies and departments work together. The Kentucky State Police administers an Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force, the state attorney general's office has a similar unit, and, because cases can involve a number of jurisdictions, sometimes the Federal Bureau of Investigations, the U.S. Postal Service, the Secret Service and U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement are involved.

Mother Frieda Curry, right, discovered her 14-year-old daughter was entangled with a 38-year-old man who initially pretended to be 16. She contacted the Richmond Police Department and found more than 40 text messages and 10,000 pages of messages and videos on the computer. "I was frantic," she said. "I was in the worst state I've ever been in." (Photo by H-L's David Perry)

But Curry, whose daughter is now in college, dealt with the problem and the predator was sentenced in U.S. District Court to 10 years in prison. Thinking about the crimes can be difficult, but "only by shining a light on the problem will we ever hope to find a solution for it," said Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney Lou Anna Red Corn. (Read more)

Brain-injured man disappeared when home staff wasn't looking

On the day of his disappearance, a resident of a personal-care home who was found dead four weeks later had not been checked on by staff for nearly three hours, reports Valarie Honeycutt Spears of the Lexington Herald-Leader, citing documents from a state investigation.

Additionally, Falmouth Nursing Home did not have a policy to make sure residents were under constant supervision and "the facility failed to establish" one, investigators found.

Larry Joe Lee, right, was a ward of the state and had a brain injury stemming from a childhood accident. He was "schizophrenic, bipolar and diabetic," Spears writes. He disappeared from the nursing home Aug. 4. His body was found Sept. 3 near the Licking River by bow hunters. The cause of his death has not yet been determined.

Spears' calls to the  home were not returned. It has since submitted a plan of correction to the state, which includes professional development for staff and new policies to keep track of patients' whereabouts.

"Since Lee's death, advocates and state lawmakers have been questioning whether personal care homes are the appropriate plate for people with brain injuries," Spears reports. Republican Sen. Jimmy Higdon, who comes from Lee's hometown of Lebanon, said he is on a fact-finding mission to see what changes need to be made to prevent a similar occurrence from happening. (Read more)

Halloween Round-Up

Well, here we are at Halloween. I don't know about you, but with the hectic Vegan Mofo schedule this month and lots of traveling, I'm super excited for October to be coming to a close. I'm definitely ready to embrace a new month filled with yellow leaves, windy mornings, and lots of holiday food.

But, it wouldn't be Halloween without first indulging in some tasty treats!  I've rounded up five of my favorite treats and snacks and I promise that there is something for everyone.  Enjoy!

Missing the candy corn and caramel apples of your youth?  Then this sweet and sticky Caramel Corn with Sea Salt is for you.  You can eat it by the handful (or bowlful!) without waking up to a sugar hangover the next day. 

Or perhaps you're looking for a less-conventional Halloween treat?  Found it!  Treat yourself and your guests to this yummy Apple Crisp.  Not too sweet, but not too tart... this one is sure to please everyone while making your house smell like fall.

Hey, chocolate fan.  Yeah, that's right.  I'm looking at you.  How about some Samoa Cookies to satisfy that sweet tooth?  Sweet, luscious coconut topped off with melted chocolate?  See, I got your back.

Alright savory lovers.  I know who you are.  You're the kind of person that picks potato chips over brownies.  I don't quite understand you, but I adore you anyway.  We've got some Chickpea Nibbles and Crispy Baked Kale Chips in store for you. Crunchy, salty, and flavorful.  Happy Halloween.

Film Review: How To Start A Revolution

By Dan Siegel, cross-posted from Huffington Post

The sweeping changes of the Arab Spring demonstrated to the world how "the people without the guns are winning." So declares the new documentary, How to Start a Revolution, a film that profiles the ideas and impact of Gene Sharp, a Nobel Peace Prize-nominated academic who can be described as the intellectual architect of non-violent, people-powered revolutions that have swept the globe over the past generation.

Nearly 30 years ago, I read Sharp's rather obscure but classic three-volume series on civil disobedience in college. While being inspired by the success of Gandhian nonviolence in rolling back the British empire, I wondered how such theories could be applied against iron-fisted regimes in the present age. In the fall of 1989, I was fortunate to witness first-hand how unarmed civic revolutions swept away authoritarian governments on the streets of Budapest, Prague and Warsaw.

How to Start a Revolution documents how Gene Sharp's ideas and tactics have inspired and guided democratic activists, notably contained in his book From Dictatorship to Democracy, originally written in 1993 for Burma's freedom movement. The free downloadable book -- which offers 198 steps for overthrowing dictators -- has been translated into over 30 languages.

The documentary, by first-time Scottish director and journalist Ruaridh Arrow, introduces us to the soft-spoken, 83-year-old Sharp in his modest Boston brick row house carefully tending to his orchids. This constant gardener plants the seeds of resistance and revolution, not knowing when and where they will sprout, and cultivates a world where the oppressed liberate themselves through peaceful means.

The film demonstrates that nonviolent resistance is anything but passive, and when properly planned and deployed, it utilizes a strategic mix of political social, psychological and economic weapons to destabilize illegitimate regimes.


Sharp's theories, and the seven lessons of nonviolent struggle highlighted in the documentary, are based on the core belief that all states depend upon the obedience and consent of the people. This popular cooperation and legitimacy can be withdrawn to undermine and expose the fragile facade of power. In the end, dictators can only cling to their monopoly of violence for so long.

How to Start a Revolution tells often overlooked stories and case studies of successful civil disobedience over the past two decades. Especially instructive is the Serbian example, which spotlights how a youth-led civic movement led to the toppling of Slobodan Milošević's regime in 2000 after it had tried to steal an election won by the opposition coalition. Serbian activists trained and influenced by Sharp in that struggle went on to train leaders of the civic revolts in the Ukraine, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan and other parts of the world.

The film makes clear that the world's dictators seriously fear nonviolent handbooks and practical civic tools spreading within their societies. We see rather humorous attacks on Sharp by Iran's leaders, who aired an animated propaganda film on state TV depicting the mild octogenarian as a CIA mastermind in the White House coldly plotting the demise of Tehran's reign. Venezuela's Hugo Chavez lumps Sharp and Bush together as evil twins trying to pull the rug out from his rule.
It's all rather pitiful after viewing the modest two-room office of the Albert Einstein Institution, the nonprofit based on the ground floor of Sharp's home (Einstein wrote the forward to Sharp's first book). The Institute has trouble getting foundation funding, even though it has probably contributed more to support positive "regime change" than the billions of U.S. tax dollars spent on countless weapon systems and failed military adventures.

The film also features retired U.S. Army Colonel Bob Helvey, who has applied Sharp's principles and trained leaders in other countries. We are also moved by the personal story of a former Afghan refugee, Jamila Raqib, who was inspired by the message of nonviolent change and joined Sharp as his dedicated assistant 10 years ago.

Of course, Gene Sharp is no singular messiah of nonviolent revolution. As the film makes clear, Sharp does not presume to know the local contexts where civil disobedience is being applied, or seek to take credit for its success. He simply offers a powerful set of principles and tools for local activists to adapt and apply to their own circumstances. It is the brave souls on the ground demanding change who make history.

How to Start a Revolution could have been strengthened by more historical context, pointing out the history of nonviolent resistance from the underground railroad to Gandhi's Salt March to the civil rights movement. It could have also demonstrated how violent revolution and change throughout history has often served to reproduce undemocratic and authoritarian regimes.

However, the film was made on a shoestring, tapping small-dollar online donations on Kickstarter to complete its production. It is a vital conversation starter and educational tool for a world awash in violence and driven by an outmoded mindset that power only comes through the barrel of a gun.

The film ends on an upbeat note, as we watch a Syrian freedom activist make a sojourn to Boston to get advice from Gene Sharp. We see how leaders today have advanced nonviolent change strategies utilizing social media tools and digital cameras to document and expose government repression and tyranny.

The release of How to Start a Revolution this fall is even more relevant and timely as the Occupy movement peacefully seeks democratic change and economic reform here in the United States. Those marching across America, and throughout the world today, are better equipped to create the world they want because of the long, quiet march of Gene Sharp, a man aptly called the Machiavelli of nonviolence.

The Flirtatious Gatecrasher

Image courtesy of www.djsets.co.uk

Last Saturday, this television personality showed up uninvited at the afterparty for this foreign celebrity endorser held somewhere in Makati. Despite that the organizers were not expecting her, they still welcomed her with open arms and even introduced her to some of the other guests.

After she was introduced to this certain VJ, she stayed next to him and flirted with him. She even purposely allowed her voluptuous body to rub against his chiseled chest. What was funny is that she did not know that the VJ was not interested with her but with this other local male endorser who was also invited to the party.

When the VJ finally got a chance to speak to the local endorser, he immediately asked for his mobile number. Later that night, out of his eagerness to meet the local endorser at this club, he secretly left the hotel with the foreign endorser. He did this without informing the organizers who invited them to Manila and without considering the security of the foreign endorser.

Do you know who this television personality is? How about the VJ? Follow micsylim on Twitter if you need additional clues. Kindly observe the guidelines in posting comments. Keep in mind that initials and comments that are too explicit will not be accepted.

Thank you very much for always supporting Fashion PULIS. Please continue to send your juicy stories and letters to: michaelsylim@gmail.com.

Very Naughty

Image courtesy of www.zazzle.com

This television host recently visited a spa located somewhere in Makati. This was a spa known for its legitimate massages and qualified therapists. What was mind-boggling was that after his massage, this host suddenly asked the female therapist if she offers "extra service".

The therapist politely said no despite the fact that she was offended by the question. Was the host just being very naughty that night? Or perhaps he mistook the decent spa for a hanky panky massage parlor?

Do you know who this television host is? Follow micsylim on Twitter if you need additional clues. Please observe the guidelines in posting comments. Keep in mind that initials and comments that are too explicit will not be accepted.

Thank you very much for making Fashion PULIS a daily habit. Kindly continue to send your juicy stories and letters to: michaelsylim@gmail.com.

What is Your Favorite Color?

Segnatempo, with branches in Greenbelt 3 and Resorts World, presents The Nixon Timeteller P Watch Collection in different colors. Get one now in your favorite color for only 3,550 PhP!

Black

Bordeaux

Bright Blue

Green

 

Matte Grey

Navy Blue

Purple

Red

Rubine

 

White

 

Yellow

Matte Army

The Most Important Thing In The World Now

On October 6, 2011, Naomi Klein, journalist, activist, author (most recently of The Shock Doctrine) addressed Occupy Wall Street.  Her powerful and moving speech was truncated due to the need to filter it through the so-called "human microphone."  

She has permitted me to post the uncut version below: 

 I love you.

And I didn’t just say that so that hundreds of you would shout “I love you” back, though that is obviously a bonus feature of the human microphone. Say unto others what you would have them say unto you, only way louder.

Yesterday, one of the speakers at the labor rally said: “We found each other.” That sentiment captures the beauty of what is being created here. A wide-open space (as well as an idea so big it can’t be contained by any space) for all the people who want a better world to find each other. We are so grateful.

If there is one thing I know, it is that the 1 percent loves a crisis. When people are panicked and desperate and no one seems to know what to do, that is the ideal time to push through their wish list of pro-corporate policies: privatizing education and social security, slashing public services, getting rid of the last constraints on corporate power. Amidst the economic crisis, this is happening the world over.

And there is only one thing that can block this tactic, and fortunately, it’s a very big thing: the 99 percent. And that 99 percent is taking to the streets from Madison to Madrid to say “No. We will not pay for your crisis.”

That slogan began in Italy in 2008. It ricocheted to Greece and France and Ireland and finally it has made its way to the square mile where the crisis began.

“Why are they protesting?” ask the baffled pundits on TV. Meanwhile, the rest of the world asks: “What took you so long?” “We’ve been wondering when you were going to show up.” And most of all: “Welcome.”

Many people have drawn parallels between Occupy Wall Street and the so-called anti-globalization protests that came to world attention in Seattle in 1999. That was the last time a global, youth-led, decentralized movement took direct aim at corporate power. And I am proud to have been part of what we called “the movement of movements.”

But there are important differences too. For instance, we chose summits as our targets: the World Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund, the G8. Summits are transient by their nature, they only last a week. That made us transient too. We’d appear, grab world headlines, then disappear. And in the frenzy of hyper patriotism and militarism that followed the 9/11 attacks, it was easy to sweep us away completely, at least in North America.

Occupy Wall Street, on the other hand, has chosen a fixed target. And you have put no end date on your presence here. This is wise. Only when you stay put can you grow roots. This is crucial. It is a fact of the information age that too many movements spring up like beautiful flowers but quickly die off. It’s because they don’t have roots. And they don’t have long term plans for how they are going to sustain themselves. So when storms come, they get washed away.

Being horizontal and deeply democratic is wonderful. But these principles are compatible with the hard work of building structures and institutions that are sturdy enough to weather the storms ahead. I have great faith that this will happen.

Something else this movement is doing right: You have committed yourselves to non-violence. You have refused to give the media the images of broken windows and street fights it craves so desperately. And that tremendous discipline has meant that, again and again, the story has been the disgraceful and unprovoked police brutality. Which we saw more of just last night. Meanwhile, support for this movement grows and grows. More wisdom.

But the biggest difference a decade makes is that in 1999, we were taking on capitalism at the peak of a frenzied economic boom. Unemployment was low, stock portfolios were bulging. The media was drunk on easy money. Back then it was all about start-ups, not shut downs.

We pointed out that the deregulation behind the frenzy came at a price. It was damaging to labor standards. It was damaging to environmental standards. Corporations were becoming more powerful than governments and that was damaging to our democracies. But to be honest with you, while the good times rolled, taking on an economic system based on greed was a tough sell, at least in rich countries.

Ten years later, it seems as if there aren’t any more rich countries. Just a whole lot of rich people. People who got rich looting the public wealth and exhausting natural resources around the world.

The point is, today everyone can see that the system is deeply unjust and careening out of control. Unfettered greed has trashed the global economy. And it is trashing the natural world as well. We are overfishing our oceans, polluting our water with fracking and deepwater drilling, turning to the dirtiest forms of energy on the planet, like the Alberta tar sands. And the atmosphere cannot absorb the amount of carbon we are putting into it, creating dangerous warming. The new normal is serial disasters: economic and ecological.

These are the facts on the ground. They are so blatant, so obvious, that it is a lot easier to connect with the public than it was in 1999, and to build the movement quickly.

We all know, or at least sense, that the world is upside down: we act as if there is no end to what is actually finite -- fossil fuels and the atmospheric space to absorb their emissions. And we act as if there are strict and immovable limits to what is actually bountiful -- the financial resources to build the kind of society we need.

The task of our time is to turn this around: to challenge this false scarcity. To insist that we can afford to build a decent, inclusive society – while at the same time, respect the real limits to what the earth can take.

What climate change means is that we have to do this on a deadline. This time our movement cannot get distracted, divided, burned out or swept away by events. This time we have to succeed. And I’m not talking about regulating the banks and increasing taxes on the rich, though that’s important.

I am talking about changing the underlying values that govern our society. That is hard to fit into a single media-friendly demand, and it’s also hard to figure out how to do it. But it is no less urgent for being difficult.

That is what I see happening in this square. In the way you are feeding each other, keeping each other warm, sharing information freely and proving health care, meditation classes and empowerment training. My favorite sign here says “I care about you.” In a culture that trains people to avoid each other’s gaze, to say, “Let them die,” that is a deeply radical statement.

A few final thoughts. In this great struggle, here are some things that don’t matter.

- What we wear.

- Whether we shake our fists or make peace signs.

- Whether we can fit our dreams for a better world into a media soundbite.

And here are a few things that do matter.

- Our courage.

- Our moral compass.

- How we treat each other.

We have picked a fight with the most powerful economic and political forces on the planet. That’s frightening. And as this movement grows from strength to strength, it will get more frightening. Always be aware that there will be a temptation to shift to smaller targets – like, say, the person sitting next to you at this meeting. After all, that is a battle that’s easier to win.

Don’t give in to the temptation. I’m not saying don’t call each other on shit. But this time, let’s treat each other as if we plan to work side by side in struggle for many, many years to come. Because the task before will demand nothing less.

Let’s treat this beautiful movement as if it is most important thing in the world. Because it is. It really is.

The Liebster Award!

I'd been feeling a little bummed that I haven't been able to find a block of time to get a blog post completed in some time.  I've been burning candles at both ends.  I'm sure that this isn't unusual for moms.  It's been tough as a working mom, a mom to a very active toddler, and a mom trying to care for her sick mom.  My mom is a stubborn one who doesn't know how to take a break or admit that she is ill.  Enough about this for now.

I did get a ray of sunshine recently from a fellow blogger.  It truly brightened my day!   I received my first Liebster Award from Smart Cents Review.  THANK YOU for picking my humble little blog!

Please visit her blog!  She's an awesome lady!  Somewhat of a Super Hero. Get this: She is a wife with 20+ years under her belt, has SIX kids ranging from less than 1 year to 20 years old. HOW does she do this?  In comparison, I am a wife with 3 years of experience with ONE child just over 1 year old. We are vastly different but share a love of blogging, and a love of saving!

The Liebster Blog Award is given to up and coming bloggers who have less than 200 followers. Liebster is a German word meaning dear, sweet, kind, nice, good, beloved, lovely, kindly, pleasant, valued, cute, endearing, and welcome.

To keep this award going and pass it along to other new deserving blogs, the recipient must now recognize five other bloggers with less than 200 followers that have really stood out in the crowd.

The rules for the Liebster Award are:
1. Thank the giver and link back to the blogger who gave it to you.
2. Reveal your top five picks and let them know by leaving a comment on their blog.
3. Copy and paste the award on your blog.
4. Have faith that your followers will spread the love too!

I pass the Liebster Award on to some of my favorite bloggers:

A Wide Line
Adventures of a Maui Momprenuer
Cool Bean Mommas
Happiness Delivered 
My Dishwasher's Possessed!

Please visit my dear friends and tell them that I said hello!

Kentucky court hearing more than 100 cases about drug that caused heart arrhythmia

More than 100 lawsuits filed by people who say they or their family members were hurt by Darvon, Darvocet or other drugs that contain the ingredient propoxyphene have been heard in U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Kentucky since August. So far, none of the cases originated in Kentucky, but stem from people living in other parts of the country.

The effort is the result of U.S. District Judge Danny Reeves being selected by a federal panel to handle all cases pertaining to the subject, reports Jennifer Hewlett of the Lexington Herald-Leader. "It's basically in the interest of judicial economy so that multiple judges aren't handling the same issue," said deputy U.S. District Clerk Susan Baker.

Last last year, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration asked Xanodyne Pharmaceuticals to withdraw Darvon and Darvocet from the market after receiving evidence propoxyphene can cause serious or fatal heart rhythm abnormalities. Now, thousands of suits are being filed by people who took the drug. "Our issue is people took a bad drug that hurt people and they want to have their day in court," said attorney Richard Schulte of Dayton, Ohio, whose firm is dealing with 2,000 cases or potential cases. "We're looking for justice for our clients. You're not supposed to die when you take a pill for mild pain." (Read more)

Palate Cleanser: Ra Ra Riot

Ra Ra Riot perform Shadow Casting

R.I.P. Frank Garcia

Roman Colosseum lit to protest an execution

On October 27, 2011, Texas executed Frank Garcia, for the shooting death of San Antonio police officer Hector Garza, who had responded to a domestic dispute between Garcia and his wife.  Garcia also fatally shot his wife, Jessica, in the incident.

Garcia's attorneys argued that he was ineligible for the death penalty because he suffered from an intellectual disability, and that his trial lawyers unreasonably failed to investigate and present evidence of his mental impairments at his trial.

 This is the 39th execution in the United States in 2011, the 12th in Texas.

Tunisia's Elections: Consolidating Democracy

By Ayman Ayoub, cross-posted from open Democracy

The Tunisian people in December 2010 sparked the popular movement that became known as the Arab spring and opened new horizons for freedom in the region. Now, on 23 October 2011, they completed a vital round of their nascent democracy by delivering Tunisia's first genuinely democratic and competitive elections since the country's independence in 1956.

This achievement belongs to Tunisians above all, but it is also a great occasion for democrats and supporters of democracy around the world. To see the long queues of Tunisians awaiting their chance to cast a vote for the future of democracy in their country is a delight and a source of hope. For many of these voters - young and old, women and men - this was the first occasion to express their real choice freely, in an orderly fashion and with no fear or intimidation.

The remarkably high turnout - up to an astonishing 90% of the electorate in many areas, according to official data released by the electoral authorities - is a clear indicator of the Tunisian people’s thirst for dignity, and their determined will to build a democratic society. It is notable here that some waiting voters protested against an attempt by the head of one leading political party to bypass the queue by using a common expression from the days of revolution: "Dégage!" In calling him back to join the queue, they were also affirming something profound about equality of citizenship. That is where democracy starts.

This exceptional expression of "civism" in Tunisia also represents a clear signal of the real objectives of the Arab uprisings at large. This is a region that has suffered from long decades of dictatorships, oppression and injustice. Now, a new generation is crying out "enough" - and voicing to the entire world that it also deserves a chance to join the ever increasing community of democratic nations. The success of the elections in Tunisia is undeniable evidence of the popular will underlying the peaceful demands sweeping the Arab world for freedom and democracy.

The next task

The newly elected constituent assembly will now face the task of delivering what could be the Arab world's pioneering democratic constitution, to be developed by a legitimate and representative body. The unquestioned legitimacy of the assembly, regardless of the exact balance of seats between the various parties, ensures that large parts of Tunisian society will feel directly included and involved in its work.

The participation of such a big number of political parties and forces also shows the exceptional levels of expectation that the Tunisian people and its emerging elites have in these elections - albeit this very diversity also represents a technical challenge for both voters and the Instance Supérieure Independante pour les Elections (ISIE, the independent electoral management body).


What now remains to be seen is the ability of all parties, in principle and in practice, peacefully to accept the results; and especially of those in the lead to take the responsibility of respecting and building on the evident political diversity of Tunisian society. The elected constituent assembly needs to ensure that the constitutional process continues to be as inclusive and participatory as the elections have been, beyond the actual electoral results; and to benefit from the input and contributions of all Tunisians, both winners and losers of these elections.

Tunisia's elections also have a vital regional dimension. Egyptians and now Libyans have been able to topple their dictatorships, while Syrians and Yemenis (among others) are continuing their struggle for freedom. Many in both categories may see in Tunisia's elections an additional sign of hope, for these offer tangible evidence that the path to democracy is a viable one - confirming that democracy is possible here and now.

In their procedures and processes too, the elections should provide relevant lessons that can be used in the actual or potential democratic transitions of other Arab countries. The coincidence that the elections came on the same day as National Transitional Council's declaration that Libya was at last fully liberated from Gaddafi´s rule is a further positive symbolic augury.

It is important to remember amid the celebration that elections only constitute one pillar, however fundamental, of the democratic "construct". Indeed, democracy-building is a long-term process that involves much more than elections alone. The creation of a society based on the rule of law, toleration of different views, freedom of the press and media, and the integrity and accountability of public institutions are also vital components. The successful step in the right direction that the elections represent should encourage movement towards the full accomplishment of these goals.

Tunisians have made a giant leap towards democracy. The tyrannical regimes that continue to resist their society's demands, such as Syria and Yemen, should see in it a clinching argument that there is no force on earth able of defying an awakened people's call for freedom, justice and dignity.

Ayman Ayoub is regional director of the west Asia and north Africa programme at International IDEA. He is lawyer by training whose work has primarily focused on the provision of specialised assistance services for elections and democratisation processes in transitional and post-conflict countries

Browsing on Mobile Phone

Image courtesy of www.mobilemarketingwatch.com

Last week, when this actor was backstage waiting for his turn to walk the runway, the model who was rumored to be his newest inspiration was hanging out in the show's dressing area. He was not part of the production but he was just quietly seated in one of the corners, browsing something on his mobile phone.

When the show was over and the actor was about to leave the venue, the model suddenly stood up and walked behind the actor. Although they were not talking to each other, it was pretty obvious that he was part of the actor's entourage. 

Do you know who this actor is? How about the model? Follow micsylim on Twitter if you need additional clues. Please observe the guidelines in posting comments. Keep in mind that initials and comments that are too explicit will not be accepted.

Thank you very much for loving Fashion PULIS. Kindly continue to send your juicy stories and letters to: michaelsylim@gmail.com.

Seventh Heaven

For my friends who were uninspired by a Cardinals-Rangers match up and decided to sit this one out, you are missing one of the most thrilling World Series in quite a while.

The teams split the first two exciting games, each decided by one run.  The Cards won in a blow out in Game #3, but watching the epic performance of Albert Pujols, with five hits, three of them home runs (joining only Babe Ruth and Reggie Jackson with 3-homers in a World Series game) provided its own joy.  In Game #4, we were treated to a pitching gem by the Rangers' Derek Holland, with his adolescent mustache and refreshing sense of humor. The fifth game was another tight one, also going to the Rangers, who scored the winning runs in the 8th inning.  (Managers still communicate with their bullpen coaches by way of the old fashioned telephone, and in the pivotal 8th inning, the coach didn't have the right guy warming up because he didn't hear the manager's instructions.  I love old school stuff, but maybe they should text.) 

Which brings us to last night.  A game for the ages.  Sloppy play early on and repeated heroics by game's end.  Texas was on the verge of winning its first World Series in franchise history, only to see St. Louis tie the game in the ninth inning with David Freese's two-out triple just out of the reach of outfielder Nelson Cruz.  After a two-run homer in the tenth by Ranger Josh Hamilton, the Cardinals came back again, with two runs of their own in the bottom of the inning, and then won it in the 11th, with a home run by Freese over the center field wall.  (Hamilton, by the way, said that God told him he would hit the home run but didn't mention anything about winning the game.)

There is nothing like the seventh game of the World Series.  First, as always with baseball, there is history and tradition:  heroics by Bill Mazeroski in 1960, Sandy Koufax in 1965, Bob Gibson in 1967, Mickey Lolich in 1968, Willie Stargell in 1979, Ray Knight in 1986, and Jack Morris in 1991; Willie McCovey lining out to end the 1962 Series and Mariano Rivera blowing a save in 2001.

Almost by definition, if the series has gone to the limit (something that hasn't happened in 9 years) it means the teams are evenly matched and that we have been treated to some dramatic performances, as we surely have this year.  Also, after six games we have gotten up close and personal with the players on each team, so even if we didn't care about these guys before, we do now.  And, finally, Game #7, the last game of the year, has a special intensity in which it seems that every pitch, every hit, every play could provide the deciding moment in a season that began back in April. 

Now you're caught up.  Even if you aren't much of a baseball fan or if you haven't really paid attention to the Series, it's not too late.  So, as legendary announcer Vin Scully would say, "pull up a chair."

Baking Soda & Vinegar Hair Care

Welcome to the final Beaty Food Friday, a special feature I am doing every Friday for the month of October that shows beauty products that can be made from everyday items in your kitchen.

I am super excited to share my final Beauty Food Friday recipe with you beause it's something new that I've been trying and I am loving it. That's right... we're talking about baking soda and vinegar for hair care!

Now, before you judge and think I've gone off to Hippieville (which, maybe I have... and maybe I like it there...), hear me out for a minute. I've done my research and I know that there are mixed reviews about the baking soda and vinegar method.  The top complaints I've heard are:

1. Ease of use
2. The strong smell from the vinegar
3. Dry, brittle hair

What if I told you that I have solved these issues?  And that this method is super cheap and will save you  money on shampoo?  And, that using natural ingredients on your head keeps hundreds of toxic chemicals off your body and away from your brain?  Trust me, it's time you get on board.

Method:

It might be hard to adjust to the lack of shampoo foaming action at first, but using the right quanties of ingredients will make this a lot easier.  Start by mixing 1 part baking soda with 3 parts water.  I have chin-length hair, so 1 Tablespoon of baking soda mixed with 3 Tablespoons of water was the perfect amount for me.  You can adjust this depending on your hair length.

To make application easier, I recommend mixing individual batches in travel-sized squeeze bottles (pictured above).  Apply to dry hair by squeezing a little at the roots and working to the ends.  Repeat this process all over your head.  Let it sit for 1 - 3 minutes then rinse with water. 

Once you get the hang of this and are able to judge the right amount for your hair, you can make a big batch of the mixture in a large squeeze bottle and keep it in your shower.  The baking soda and water will separate so make sure to shake the bottle prior to each application.  Super easy!

After washing and rinsing with the baking soda mixture, you'll want to apply a vinegar rinse.  Mix 1 part vinegar (both plain white vinegar and apple cider vinegar work well) with 4 parts water.  For my hair, I used 1 Tablespoon plain white vinegar and 4 Tablespoons of water.  I also mixed this in travel-sized squeeze bottles.  Tilt your head back (to avoid getting this mixture in your eyes) and distribute through your hair.  Rinse after a few seconds. 

The vinegar rinse does have a strong smell, so I like to mix 1 teaspoon of vanilla extract, 1 pinch of cinnamon, and 1 pinch of nutmeg with it.  This not only masks the vinegar scent, but it's a nice scent for fall.  I've also been enjoying different combinations of essential oils and if you are looking for a stronger scent I would recommend experiementing with different oils. My favorite combinations are:

• Rose Mint (1 drop rose essential oil and 2 drops mint essential oil)
• Vanilla Lavender (2 drops of lavender essential oil and 2 drops of vanilla essential oil)
• Orange Rosemary (1 drop orange essential oil and 2 drops rosemary essential oil)

These amounts are for a single rinse so if you are making a larger batch, experiment and find the right amount of oils for you.

If you find that your hair is becoming dry, simply use some coconut oil!  You can apply it to your hair and let it sit for a few minutes before washing with the baking soda mixture or use it as an intense overnight hair mask.  

I found baking soda in the bulk section of my natural grocery store for $.92/pound.  A 16 ounce plastic squeeze bottle cost $2 and my travel-sized bottles cost $1 each.  This is a very accessible and affordable way to get rid of unnecessary chemicals in your life, green your beauty routine, and stay healthy! Now that I've solved all your complaints, you have no reason to not try this out at home! 

Note: I have an updated post about this method with revised tips.