Henry Holt, 2011

by Oline Eaton on November 9, 2011

The public image of Kurt Vonnegut is that of a crusty, irascible old man.  Someone with whom one would want to drink, but never ever fall in love. The Vonnegut we meet in Charles J. Shields’s insightful new biography, And So It Goes. Kurt Vonnegut: A Life (Henry Holt, 2011), is much the same. However, in Shields’s capable hands, Vonnegut’s crustiness is cast in a new light, and his black humor is leavened by the humanist sensibilities it cloaked. With the icon stripped away, we’re left to confront a real human being, and a life that was provocative in ways one might not imagine.

There are nearly 1,900 citations in And So It Goes, a fact that belies the book’s incredible readability. As a rave review in The New York Times noted, this is not a stodgy affair, but “an incisive, gossipy page-turner of a biography.” Shields eloquently tracks the soap operatic elements in the iconoclastic writer’s life, while also offering acute analysis on his private self and celebrity persona.

And So It Goesis full of memorable snapshots, but my favorite is this: “At home, [Kurt] secretly pored over an unabridged dictionary from his parents’ large library because he ‘suspected that there were dirty words hidden in there’ and puzzled over illustrations of the ‘trammel wheel, the arbalest, and the dugong.’” You can just see him—the man who bucked twentieth-century literary tradition—a curly-haired kid, canvassing the dictionary for words that were forbidden.

Image via Wikipedia

Related articles

• Book Review: And So It Goes: Kurt Vonnegut: A Life by Charles J. Shields (blogcritics.org)
• Quote for the Day: Kurt Vonnegut (Respect) (konkerer.com)
• Book Review: And So It Goes: Kurt Vonnegut: A Life by Charles J. Shields (blogcritics.org)
• And So It Goes, Kurt Vonnegut: A Life – Charles J. Shields (booklolly.wordpress.com)
• A Biography of Kurt Vonnegut, ‘And So It Goes’, Never Really Gets Going (Review) (popmatters.com)

By Minal Caron, Courts, Education, First Amendment, Labor and Employment

http://platform.twitter.com/widgets/tweet_button.1326407570.html#_=1327788399926&_version=2&count=vertical&enableNewSizing=false&id=twitter-widget-0&lang=en&original_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fharvardcrcl.org%2F2012%2F01%2F15%2Femployment-discrimation-and-who-is-a-minister%2F&size=m&text=Employment%20Discrimation%20and%20Who%20is%20a%20%E2%80%9CMinister%E2%80%9D%3F&url=http%3A%2F%2Fharvardcrcl.org%2F2012%2F01%2F15%2Femployment-discrimation-and-who-is-a-minister%2F&via=harvardcrclEmail Share

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court held on Wednesday that a “ministerial exception” barred a parochial school teacher from pursuing an employment discrimination claim against the church that runs the school.  In Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the church argued that the teacher, Cheryl Perich, was a minister, and thus that the decision to fire her was an internal church matter that should be free from judicial oversight.  The court agreed with the church, and in doing so has greatly limited the ability of a “minister” to sue his or her religious organization for any form of employment discrimination.

Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the court, recognized and applied a “ministerial exception” (embraced by many lower courts, but not formally recognized by the Supreme Court until this case): if a church employee is a minister, he or she cannot pursue an employment discrimination claim in court, because such a claim would result in a judge or jury infringing on that religious group’s right under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to decide which ministers should and should not be retained.  The opinion then addressed the question of what (legally) constitutes a “minister.” On this issue, Roberts greatly limited the judiciary’s role in determining whether or not a church employee is a “minister.”  As Harvard CR-CL Law Review described back in October, the plaintiff in this case had received the formal title of “Minister of Religion, Commissioned” after completing the requirements that entitled her to receive the parochial school’s equivalent of tenure.  The requirements included eight classes of theological study.  Perich then taught predominantly secular subjects, but did also teach one daily religion class and led students in prayer.  The Sixth Circuit applied a primary duties test—a test used by several federal circuits—to conclude that her “primary duties” were secular.  As a result, the Sixth Circuit held that Perich could pursue her employment discrimination claim, because she was not a minister for the purpose of invoking the ministerial exception, under the parameters provided by the primary duties test.

Chief Justice Roberts rejected the “primary duties” test and instead supported a broader exception.  Roberts first stated the conclusion, holding that “it was sufficient to conclude” that the exception covered Perich.  Importantly, the court would not “adopt a rigid formula for deciding when an employee qualifies as a minister.”  Instead, Roberts pointed to several factors that persuaded the court to accept the church’s claim that Perich was a minister: the formal title given to Perich by the church, the religion-based efforts involved in receiving that title (her classwork), Perich’s own use of the title (she had claimed tax breaks given only to ministers), and the important religious functions she performed for the church (teaching its tenets).  Furthermore, the opinion refused to consider whether or not there was merit to Perich’s claim that the church’s religious reason for firing her was pretextual: “that suggestion misses the point of the claim.  The purpose of the exception is not to safeguard a church’s decision to fire a minister only when it is made for a religious reason.”  Instead, any employment discrimination lawsuit must be dismissed when the church involved successfully demonstrates that the claim against it was brought by or on behalf of a minister of that church.

Arguably, the court has set forth a strong precedent.  This decision unambiguously rejects the “primary duties” test used by several circuits, and appears to close the door on all employment discrimination claims, when the plaintiff is a “minister.”  Still, two concurring opinions in Hosanna-Tabor pointed out that certain elements of the court’s role in determining whether a ministerial exception applies are still up for debate.  Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the Chief Justice’s opinion did not provide enough deference to religious organizations, stating that “judicial attempts to fashion a civil definition of ‘minister’ through a bright-line test or multi-factor analysis risk disadvantaging those religious groups whose beliefs, practices, and membership are outside of the ‘mainstream’ or unpalatable to some.”  Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Elena Kagan, wrote separately to clarify his understanding of the term “minister.”  Justice Alito pointed out that some religions do not even have a structure where any members of the faith perform functions similar to those performed by a “minister.”  Thus, Alito argued “it would be a mistake if the term ‘minister’ or the concept of ordination were viewed as central to the important issue of religious autonomy that is presented in cases like this one.  Instead, courts should focus on the function performed by persons who work for religious bodies.”  Alito’s resulting interpretation of this case: the ministerial exception applied to Perich because she engaged in “important religious functions” for the church.

Attempting to fully delineate the circumstances in which a court could overrule a church’s claim that an employee is a “minister,” in a fashion consistent with the strong First Amendment protection that Chief Justice Roberts articulated in this case, could have resulted in a controversial and messy standard.  The opinion avoids the problems associated with applying the exception as broadly as Thomas argues for, or as specifically as Alito argues for.  Instead, lower courts can continue to carve out areas in which exceptional circumstances may compel the conclusion that the ministerial exception need not apply, although Roberts did his best to limit the scope of such exceptions.  But by refusing to precisely define “ministerial exception,” the Supreme Court will have the benefit of future case law to help it flesh out the ramifications of Wednesday’s holding, if the court decides to revisit the issue in the future.  Thus, Roberts made an effective decision in concluding, “[T]here will be time enough to address the applicability of the [ministerial] exception to other circumstances if and when they arise.”

That being said, this opinion dramatically changes the scope of protection that was provided to religious employees under the “primary duties” test.  It allows churches to discriminate against a considerably larger subset of church employees in their hiring and firing decisions. Religious groups will shoulder a correspondingly greater burden of setting and applying internal policies that are capable of preventing such discrimination, because “ministers” now receive no protection under civil rights or other discrimination statutes.  Justice Sotomayor asked a difficult question at oral arguments: whether a church could be protected against a lawsuit by invoking the ministerial exception, when an employee claims that the church was discriminating by retaliating against that employee for reporting sexual abuse.  Through the holding in Hosanna-Tabor, it appears the court decided that even under the situation described by Justice Sotomayor, when a fired employee is subject to the ministerial exception, First Amendment considerations outweigh the countervailing public policy concerns involved in dealing with the potential unfairness.  The 9-0 holding suggests that the court will not anytime soon be changing its decision to give substantial discretion to religious groups in determining who is subject to the ministerial exception.

Image via Wikipedia

Related articles

• Justices give churches exception to job-bias laws (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• High court keeps judges out of church job disputes (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Supreme Court sides with church on decision to fire employee on religious grounds (foxnews.com)
• St. Louis Lutheran leader responds to landmark Supreme Court case – STLtoday.com (stltoday.com)
• Supreme Court Recognizes Religious Exception to Job Discrimination Laws (nytimes.com)

Autism: Brainwaves ‘show risk from age of six months’

By James Gallagher Health and science reporter, BBC News

Spotting autism earlier can help with treatment, it is believed

Continue reading the main story

Related Stories

• Brain find sheds light on autism
• Blind, autistic and a musical genius
• Low birthweight ‘link to autism’

It may be possible to detect autism at a much earlier age than previously thought, according to an international team of researchers.

A study published in Current Biology identified differences in infants’ brainwaves from as early as six months.

Behavioral symptoms of autism typically develop between a child’s first and second birthdays.

Autism charities said identifying the disorder at an earlier stage could help with treatment.

It is thought that one in every 100 children has an autism spectrum disorder in theUK. It affects more boys than girls. While there is no “cure”, education and behavioral programmes can help.

One of the researchers, Prof Mark Johnson fromBirkbeckCollege,UniversityofLondon, told the BBC: “The prevailing view is that if we are able to intervene before the onset of full symptoms, such as a training programme, at least in some cases we can maybe alleviate full symptoms.”

Continue reading the main story

“Start Quote

Ultimately, the earlier we can identify autism and provide early intervention, the better the outcomes will be”

End Quote Christine Swabey Autistica

His team looked for the earliest signs of autism in 104 children aged between six and 10 months. Half were known to be at risk of the disorder because they had on older sibling who had been diagnosed with autism. The rest were low risk.

Older children with autism can show a lack of eye contact, so the babies were shown pictures of people’s faces that switched between looking at or away from the baby.

Sensors attached to the scalp looked for differences in brain activity.

In low-risk babies, or high-risk babies that did not develop autism, there was a large difference in the brainwaves when looking at each type of image.

There was a much smaller difference in the brainwaves of babies who developed autism.

Professor Tony Charman: “This is the beginning of a number of steps”

‘Very effective’

Prof Johnson said: “It is important to note it is not a 100% predictor. We had babies who flagged up warning signs who did not develop autism.”

There were also babies who did develop autism who had low-risk brainwaves. The test would need to be more accurate before it was used routinely.

Prof Tony Charman, Centre for Research in Autism and Education at theInstituteofEducation, said: “Differences in the use of eye gaze to regulate social interaction are already a well-recognised early feature in many children with autism from the second year of life.

“Future studies will be required to determine whether measurements of brain function such as those used in our study might one day play a role in helping to identify children at an even earlier age.”

Autism symptoms

Repetitive behaviour and resistance to changes in routine

Obsessions with particular objects or routines

Poor co-ordination

Difficulties with fine movement control (especially in Asperger syndrome)

Absence of normal facial expression and body language

Lack of eye contact

Tendency to spend time alone, with very few friends

Lack of imaginative play

• BBC Health: Autism

Christine Swabey from the charity Autistica said: “The hope is that this important research will lead to improved identification and access to services for future generations.

“Ultimately, the earlier we can identify autism and provide early intervention, the better the outcomes will be.”

Dr Georgina Gomez-de-la-Cuesta from the National Autistic Society said: “Further research to investigate these differences will eventually lead to earlier recognition of the condition.

“Early intervention is very effective in supporting those with autism, so recognition in infancy can only be beneficial in helping individuals with autism reach their full potential.

“However, this important research is still in its early stages, and larger studies looking at several early markers of autism will be necessary before a robust clinical diagnosis could be possible at such a young age.”

Image via Wikipedia

Image via Wikipedia

Will Ron Paul-onomics beat Obama?

The libertarian Republican’s call to ‘end the Fed’ and return to the gold standard is catching on in the GOP — and it could shape the political year.

The race for the White House is in full swing with the top two candidates for the Republican nomination — Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney — exchanging body blows like bloodied boxers.

But it’s dark horse Ron Paul who seems to be tapping into the deep-seated cynicism with which many Americans view the economy, the prolonged downturn and how we can stop the boom-and-bust cycle.

His top target: The Federal Reserve. His solution: “End the Fed” and return to the gold standard.

How do I know this is catching on? Well, Gingrich, looking to expand on his win inSouth Carolinaand attack Romney from the populist angle, is now embracing some of Paul’s economic libertarianism. Last Friday, he announced that, if elected president, he would create a new commission on gold to “look at the whole concept of how do we get back to hard money” and how we can ensure the dollar is “worth 30 years from now what it is worth now.”

Anthony Mirhaydari

The move could be a master stroke if it fires up the Tea Party base and wins over Paul voters. And it could provide a valuable weapon if the eventual GOP nominee seizes on it as Republicans try to defeat President Barack Obama. Could the gold standard ever come back?

Taking on power and money

Monetary reform challenges the very center of the Wall Street/Washington power nexus so many dislike. Occupy Wall Street protesters have looked with anger at the $7.7 trillion the Fed committed, behind closed doors, to save big, over-bonused and bailed-out banks. The Tea Party gets angry when Fed policymakers push the government toward bailing out the housing market andMiami condo speculators.

Gold standard debate is back

All are tired of the Fed’s monetary policy experiments, its bouts of quantitative easing, a monetary base that has gone from $800 billion to nearly $2.8 trillion in the past few years, and the bouts of inflation in commodities such as gas and food that result from all this. Many realize that it was the Fed’s mistaken obsession with the risk of deflation — falling prices — and its overconfidence in its own abilities that incubated the housing bubble, starting in 2003, and led it to deny anything was wrong as the bubble started to burst in 2007.

Everything that’s happened since has been an effort to reverse that original mistake. The megabanks have been given cash at almost no cost, and play money has been pumped into Wall Street on the misguided hope that lower borrowing costs and higher stock prices will increase economic growth.

The strategy staved off catastrophe when it was first deployed in 2008 and early 2009. Now, however, it’s just making things worse.

Can’t the Fed see it’s not working? We can

The problem is that more debt and currency debasement isn’t the solution in an era of tight commodity markets and of deleveraging (the process of shedding household and business debt). The $600 billion “QE2″ initiative, which ended last summer, merely pumped up oil prices and cut consumer spending. Those levers had been pulled by former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and President George W. Bush to inflate us out of the 2001 downturn; they would not work again so soon.

The American people realize that what the Fed and Washington are doing isn’t working and that the policy elites are on a dangerous course. And the people are willing to consider dramatic moves, such as tying the dollar to gold once again.

Consider the longer term, too: The dollar has lost 85% of its value since President Richard Nixon and ended the de facto gold standard under the postwar “Bretton Woods” global exchange-rate regime. Under the true gold standard, which lasted from 1834 to 1914 (save for the Civil War years), the power of the dollar remained steady.

The chart above of consumer price inflation going back to 1913 tells you all you need to know. Once the dollar was unleashed from gold in ’71, the Fed was no longer constrained. Prices surged as new money was freely printed.

No wonder what we might call “Ron Paul-onomics” is resonating. A Rasmussen poll conducted last October found that 44% of Americans favor a return to the gold standard, with 28% opposed. That goes up with the belief that the change would to sock it to “the man”: When those surveyed were told the move would “dramatically reduce the powers of bankers and the political class to steer the economy,” support jumped to 57% while opposition dropped to 19%.

Evidence is building that we need a hard reset to harder money and a refocusing on the structural problems we face, from an inefficient health care system driving the government’s long-term deficit to a trade policy that allows Asian mercantilists to take advantage of blue-collar American workers.

But make no mistake: It would be a painful change, maybe too much for the country to handle.

Hard problems for hard money

The heavily indebted farmers clamoring for bimetallism and easier money in the Reconstruction Era after the Civil War understood the difficulty of repaying debts in the strong-dollar environment then favored by big business. Let the dollar’s value slip, and their debts would be easier to repay.

Current political realities suggest a dramatic restoration of the dollar’s convertibility into gold or silver — designed to end inflation and keep the dollar’s value steady — isn’t in the political cards for this reason. The nation is saddled with far too much debt, public and private.

There are also technical problems that ruined the legacy of the gold standard and deepened the Great Depression — many of which current Fed chairman Ben Bernanke has studied (.pdf file).

But the goals beneath the calls for the gold standard — the desire to end monetary shenanigans and restore the dollar’s stability — are still achievable.

And these issues are sure to hound Obama this year, especially if the Fed, as Wall Street expects, unleashes another round of quantitative easing this spring. With the central bank seeming to come to the president’s rescue with economic stimulus and the government’s huge budget deficit, Republicans will be livid. Obama, desperate to boost the economy before polls open in November, will want to talk about something else.

Red rates?

At issue is the fact that interest rates, which reflect the supply-demand balance for money and are a major driver of the overall economy, are determined by what to some sounds like central planning of the type deployed by the communists inBeijingorHavana. Ron Paul reflected on this point Monday in the Republican presidential debate when he said borrowing costs are determined by “a bunch of guys in secret deciding what interest rates should be.”

Gold standard debate is back

Compare this with how the Fed operated on the gold standard: Interest rates were determined by things like savings rates, investment returns and our balance of trade with foreign countries. In other words, it was based on rules and the free market.

And it mostly worked. We had more frequent but shallower recessions that kept banks and businesses from making poor investments as the ups and downs of the economic cycle became facts of life instead of an existential menace. After all, for capitalism to work there must be the fear of failure. Otherwise, it’s like having religion without sin.

This gets to the heart of an important debate that’s been under way for years among top economists: What should the Fed’s mandate be? Right now, it has policy discretion, a short-term outlook and a dual mandate to keep both inflation and unemployment low. This creates volatility as the Fed goes from worrying about growth (as it did in the 1960s and 1970s) to worrying about inflation (as it did in the 1980s) to worrying about growth (as it did in the 2000s).

A new, harder-dollar standard

Two respected Fed-watching economists I spoke to this week, “A History of the Federal Reserve” author Allan Meltzer and Stanford economist John Taylor, believe we need the opposite from the Fed: rules-based decision making, a long-term outlook and a single mandate to control inflation. And they know how to get it done.

These goals, while satisfied by the gold standard, are also satisfied by a rule-based approachTaylorcreated that has since been dubbed the “Taylor Rule.” It’s an equation that targets a specific interest rate based on inflation and how quickly the economy is growing relative to its potential, which acts as a speed limit. Go too fast, you get inflation. Go too slow, you get unemployment.

Using the Taylor Rule would’ve kept interest rates higher during the 2003-2005 period when the housing bubble took root. And right now, the Taylor Rule suggests short-term interest rates should be around 0.5% instead of near 0%. In other words, the Fed should be holding its fire — not preparing another money dump.

Moreover, and not to get too technical, but if, as I believe, the economy has suffered damage to its potential growth rate because of long-term joblessness and the like, then interest rates should be set even higher to prevent inflation. (Taylor himself discusses the Taylor Rule in the fourth chapter of his new book, “First Principles.”)

The time for action is now. Meltzer warned me that it’s not just Ron Paul-types who are angry at the dilettantes playing with the dollar. Over the past few months, some $85 billion worth of U.S. Treasury debt has been sold by investors in the Chinese and Japanese governments. While the overall amount is a pittance compared with the $15.2 trillion in government debt outstanding, it represents a sea change.

His contacts in the halls of power tell him the Asians are worriedAmericais on the path to a Great Inflation. In other words, the dollar is in serious trouble.

The impact until we reform

Still, no one seems to believe that serious monetary policy reform with bipartisan reform will be coming out ofWashingtonanytime soon. That’s already not happening on much easier issues.

But until reform happens — ideally, something that ties the Fed to an inflation-only mandate (like the European Central Bank) to be conducted using a Taylor Rule-like approach — the dollar will continue its long, downward path and inflation will continue to rage. The fall will be punctuated by multimonth rises whenever something goes bump in the world, be it eurozone debt problems or geopolitical tension. After all, (for now) we still issue the world’s reserve currency of choice; for all its problems, the dollar seems better than anything else.

Another leg down appears to be getting started now as calls for a QE3 round of Fed money printing grow louder. That’s causing precious metals, the classic anti-dollar play, to perk up. Silver in particular is showing strength as the more speculative, flashier alternative to gold. I talked about this in a recent blog post recommending the iShares Silver Trust (SLV +0.15%) exchange-traded fund.

To be sure, talk of potential growth rates, dual mandates and the Taylor Rule makes for an arcane discussion better suited to the professors’ lounges of economic departments than dinner tables inIowaandSouth Carolina.

But the gold standard works well as a rallying cry with broad appeal as presidential hopefuls look to tap into the discomfort that the Fed has overstepped its bounds, is fanning the flames of inflation and is in league with Wall Street titans. And because this debate is the key to the economic deliverance we all seek, I say the more people who talk about it, the better.

And the stakes are high. If the Fed ignores what the Taylor Rule suggests and unleashes QE3 in the months to come, expect a wave of anti-Fed, pro-dollar sentiment. I’m convinced this will make Obama a one-term president and push the Republican nominee to victory.

I’d bet a gold dollar on it.

At the time of publication, Anthony Mirhaydari did not own or control shares of any fund mentioned in this column.

Related articles

• Paul gives new life to an old issue: gold standard (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Aaron Task writes disinformation spin for the Fed (trutherator.wordpress.com)
• Fed stimulus pledge lifts world stocks (business.financialpost.com)
• Ron Paul Gives New Life To Gold Issue (dfw.cbslocal.com)
• Auditing the Fed’s Gold (lewrockwell.com)
• Fed extends low-rate vow in bid to help economy (johnhively.wordpress.com)
• Paul gives new life to old issue: gold standard (sfgate.com)
• The Greatest Little Book You’ve Ever Read (lewrockwell.com)

Image via Wikipedia

Ignorance and Unbelief

Understanding comes before Faith and Redemption.

1 John 5: 18-20

^KJV 1 John 5:18 We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.

492 eivdw/ eido {i-do’} or oi;da oida {oy’-da}

Meaning:  1) to see 1a) to perceive with the eyes 1b) to perceive by any of the senses 1c) to perceive, notice, discern, discover 1d)

Keepeth himself as in Jude 20-21

5083 thre,w tereo {tay-reh’-o}

Meaning:  1) to attend to carefully, take care of 1a) to guard 1b) metaph. to keep, one in the state in which he is 1c) to observe 1d) to reserve: to undergo something

^KJV Jude 1:20 But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,

^KJV Jude 1:21 Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.

^KJV 1 John 5:19 And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.

^KJV 1 John 5:20 And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.

Related articles

• Morning Glory Meditation- Boyace Van Harlan Jr., PhD (imageinme.wordpress.com)
• Covenant (imageinme.wordpress.com)
• The Holy Communion as a Weapon- Boyace Van Harlan Jr., PhD (imageinme.wordpress.com)
• God is Faithful- Boyace Van Harlan Jr., PhD (imageinme.wordpress.com)
• Remember- Boyace Van Harlan Jr. , PhD (imageinme.wordpress.com)

Image via Wikipedia

Pain Intensity Greater for Women Than Men, Study Finds

Medical record analysis reveals that pain scores are higher among females for a wide range of diseases

– Robert Preidt

MONDAY, Jan. 23 (HealthDay News) — According to the results of a study in which researchers examined pain scores from tens of thousands of patients in the United States, women experience more intense pain than men.

The findings, published in the Jan. 23 issue of the Journal of Pain, suggest that greater effort is needed to recruit women into studies in order to determine the reasons for this gender difference, the Stanford University School of Medicine investigators said.

For the study, the researchers analyzed electronic medical records to examine more than 160,000 pain scores reported for more than 72,000 adult patients. The results showed higher pain scores for women in virtually every disease category. The differences were both statistically and clinically significant, the authors noted in a Stanford news release.

“In many cases, the reported difference approached a full point on the 1-to-10 scale. How big is that? A pain-score improvement of one point is what clinical researchers view as indicating that a pain medication is working,” study senior author Dr. Atul Butte, a professor of systems medicine in pediatrics, said in the news release.

The overall results tended to confirm previous findings, such as the fact that women with fibromyalgia or migraine report more pain than men with those conditions. But the study also identified previously undocumented gender differences. For example, pain intensity among patients with acute sinusitis or neck pain is greater in women than in men.

Buttenoted that there are numerous studies showing that women report more pain than men for a number of diseases.

“We’re certainly not the first to find differences in pain among men and women. But we focused on pain intensity, whereas most previous studies have looked at prevalence: the percentage of men versus women with a particular clinical problem who are in pain,” he said.

“To the best of our knowledge, this is the first-ever systematic use of data from electronic medical records to examine pain on this large a scale, or across such a broad range of diseases,”Butteadded.

More information

The U.S. National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke has more about pain.

SOURCE:StanfordUniversity, news release, Jan. 23, 2012

Related articles

• Women report feeling pain more intensely than men, says Stanford study of electronic medical records (eurekalert.org)
• Women May Feel More Pain Than Men (women.webmd.com)
• Stanford study shows women report more intense pain than men (mercurynews.com)
• Study Says Women Feel More Pain Than Men (dfw.cbslocal.com)

Written by Jody Mace

When Liz Pack of Santa Clarita, California, was a very young child, she spent summers with her grandparents on their farm in Washington. It was there that she first learned to cook, helping her grandmother prepare hearty meals, like roasted chicken and potatoes, on a wood-burning stove.

Today, 48-year-old Liz owns her own catering company, and it was her experience feeding a group that inspired her to create a grown-up version of pigs in a blanket.

Everyone knows that pigs in a blanket — little sausages wrapped in biscuit dough — are the first appetizer to go at any party. Liz’s grown-up version features smoked-cheese-filled mini sausages topped with caramelized onions and wrapped in puff pastry.

From the first meals she cooked with her grandmother, Liz learned the pleasure of serving food to her family, and for more than two decades, her husband, two grown daughters and teenage son have been the lucky beneficiaries of her creativity in the kitchen. These pigs in a blanket have been a favorite appetizer at many family gatherings.

They may be a bit more sophisticated than the original, but one thing hasn’t changed: They’re still the first thing to go.

Ingredients:

• 1 package mini smoked cheese sausages
• 1 box (17.5 ounces) puff pastry
• 2 tablespoons brown sugar
• 2 tablespoons butter
• 1 large egg, beaten
• Sesame seeds (optional)

Directions:

Prep Time: 30 minutes
Cook Time: 20 minutes
Makes: About 24 servings

1. Caramelize onions in butter and add brown sugar.

2. Lay out strips of puff pastry and top each strip with a sausage and some caramelized onion.

3. Roll them up and top with egg wash and sesame seeds.

4. Bake in preheated, 450-degree oven until golden brown, 15-20 minutes.

Previous Recipe

All Recipes

Next Recipe

Image via Wikipedia

Related articles

• Elegant Turkey Pot Pies (lauralovinglife.wordpress.com)
• Potato, Chive and Cheese Bourekas (cookingwithsherlockspice.wordpress.com)
• Chicken, leek, mushroom and wine pie (itsnotartitsdinner.wordpress.com)
• A Birthday (with Cocktail Puffs) (eggton.com)

Real-life strategies that will help you to actually accomplish the goals you’ve set for yourself this year.

By Lesley Alderman

More from Real Simple

• What is on Your Not-to-Do List This Year?
• 10 Ways to Embrace Change
• 6 Steps to Stop Overthinking Your Life
• 5 Things Worth Admitting To
• How to Stop Procrastinating

New year, new you. It’s the perennial January catchphrase that holds such conquer-the-world promise. And then, well, you get sidetracked with conquering your to-do list. But even the loftiest resolutions (running a marathon, writing a book) don’t have to fall by the wayside come February. Staying motivated―and achieving what you set out to do on that bright New Year’s Day―is surprisingly possible. Just follow these nine mantras, provided by researchers who study motivation and backed up by women who have used them to realize their biggest ambitions.

1. When you make a plan, anticipate bumps. Before even trying to achieve a goal, target potential pitfalls and troubleshoot them. Peter Gollwitzer, a professor of psychology at New York University, in New York City, says that people who plan for obstacles are more likely to stick with projects than those who don’t. In a 2009 study published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Gollwitzer compared two groups of women who wanted to be more active. Both groups were given information on leading healthy lifestyles. But the second was also taught how to foresee obstacles (example: “The weather forecast is bad, but I’m planning to go for a jog”) and work around them using if-then statements (“If it rains, then I’ll go to the gym and use the treadmill rather than skip exercising altogether”). No surprise, those in the second group fared better. Michelle Tillis Lederman of New York City practiced this strategy when she was writing a book last year. She installed blinds on her home-office door to minimize disruptions and hired an editor to give feedback on each chapter so she wouldn’t get stuck along the way. She also established rules, like checking e-mails only after she had written for two hours. “It was easier to follow this plan,” says Lederman, “than to wrestle with every distraction in the moment.” Her book, The 11 Laws of Likability (American Management Association), will be published later this year.

2. Channel the little engine that could―really. A person’s drive is often based on what she believes about her abilities, not on how objectively talented she is, according to research by Albert Bandura, a professor of psychology at Stanford University. His work has shown that people who have perceived self-efficacy (that is, the belief that they can accomplish what they set out to do) perform better than those who don’t. That self-belief is what helped Ingrid Daniels ofNewark,New Jersey, leave a stable corporate job to develop a T-shirt line after the birth of her first child. “It never occurred to me I could fail, even though I had no experience,” she says. Today Daniels runs two successful small businesses (the T-shirt company and a line of stationery), which allows her to stay at home with her three children.

3. Don’t let your goals run wild… When your sights are too ambitious, they can backfire, burn you out, and actually become demotivating, says Lisa Ordóñez, a professor of management and organizations at the Eller College of Management, at the University of Arizona, in Tucson. Instead of aiming unrealistically high (such as trying to save enough money for a down payment on a home in six months), set goals that are a stretch but not an overreach (come up with a doable savings plan for your budget).

…But work on them everyday. According to Daniel Pink, author of Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us ($27, amazon.com), taking small steps every day will not only help hold your interest in what you’re trying to achieve but will also ensure that you move slowly, but surely, toward your goal. So, for example, set up a down-payment-fund jar and dump your change into it every night. You’ll get a sense of accomplishment each day, to boot.

4. Go public with it. Instead of keeping your intentions to yourself, make them known to many. “Other people can help reinforce your behavior,” says James Fowler, a political scientist who studies social networks at the University of California, San Diego. After all, it’s harder to abandon a dream when you know that people are tracking your progress. Take Stefanie Samarripa of Dallas, 25, who wanted to lose 20 pounds. She created a blog and told all her friends to read it. “I wanted something to hold me accountable,” she says. Samarripa weighs herself weekly and announces the result on Desperately Seeking Skinny (skinnystefsam.blogspot.com). During her first three weeks, she lost six pounds. “People read my updates and make comments, which helps me keep going,” she says.

5. Lean on a support crew when struggling. Think of the friends and family who truly want to see you succeed. Enlisting those with whom you have authentic relationships is key when your motivation begins to wane. Choose people who may have seen you fail in the past and who know how much success means to you, says Edward L. Deci, a professor of psychology at theUniversity ofRochester, inNew York. For Jane Arginteanu ofNew York City, support came in the form of her fiancé, Glenn. Arginteanu had smoked from the time she was a teenager and had tried to quit before. When she decided to give it another go, Arginteanu says, “Glenn stood by me and told me, without ever issuing an ultimatum, that he wanted to grow old with me. That was terrific motivation.” A year later, she’s smoke-free.

6. Make yourself a priority. Put your needs first, even when it feels utterly selfish. You will derail your progress if you sacrifice yourself for others in order to please them (such as eating a cupcake that a coworker baked even though you’re on a diet). A few years ago, Karen Holtgrefe of Cincinnati was at the bottom of her own priority list. “I had a demanding full-time job as a physical-therapy manager and was teaching physical therapy part-time,” she says. “Plus, I had a husband and two children to care for.” As a result, she found herself stressed-out, overweight, and suffering from constant backaches. “I hit a wall and realized I needed to make some changes for my sanity,” Holtgrefe says. So she quit the part-time teaching job, joined Weight Watchers, and scheduled nonnegotiable walks six days a week―just for her. In a year, she lost 85 pounds, and her back pain (and stress) disappeared.

7. Challenge yourself―and change things up. It’s hard to remain enthusiastic when everything stays the same, says Frank Busch, who has coached three Olympic swimming teams. To keep his athletes motivated, he constantly challenges and surprises them―adding a new exercise to a weight routine or giving them a break from one practice so they can recharge. Amy Litvak of Atlanta did the same thing. She had several half-marathons under her belt but wanted something new, so she signed up for a series of mini triathlons. “Each race was longer than the last or had a slightly different challenge,” she says. She breezed through them and is now training for a full marathon.

8. Keep on learning. To refuel your efforts, focus on enjoying the process of getting to the goal, rather than just eyeing the finish line. Janet Casson of Queens, New York, set out to teach yoga. She completed her training, but finding a position took longer than anticipated. So she wouldn’t lose steam and become discouraged, Casson used the time to perfect her skills. She attended workshops and studied with different teachers. “It was invigorating and kept me working toward my goal,” says Casson, who now teaches five classes a week.

9. Remember the deeper meaning. You’re more likely to realize a goal when it has true personal significance to you, according to Deci. (For example, “I want to learn to speak French so I can communicate with my Canadian relatives” is a more powerful reason than “I should learn French so that I can be a more cultured person.”) And when the process isn’t a pleasant one, it helps to recall that personal meaning. Not all dedicated gym-goers love working out, Deci points out, but because they have a deep desire to be healthy, they exercise week after week. Jennie Perez-Ray ofParsippany,New Jersey, is a good example of this. She was working full-time when she decided to get her master’s degree. However, she knew that pursuing that goal would mean spending less time with her friends and family. “But I was the first person in my family to get a degree, so it was very important to me,” Perez-Ray says. She kept this in mind every evening that she spent in the classroom. Although the sacrifices she made were hard, she reflects, “reaching my goal made it all worthwhile.”

Image by Netroots Nation via Flickr

Related articles

• To succeed at your New Year’s diet, keep mum (todayhealth.today.msnbc.msn.com)
• Using motivation with students – and a great motivator for teachers (teachinghighschoolpsychology.blogspot.com)
• Guest Post | Helping Students Motivate Themselves (learning.blogs.nytimes.com)

Only 45 percent of the highest functioning autistic people in the study would meet proposed criteria for diagnosis

By Benedict Carey

updated <:abbr title=2012-01-19T20:58:07>1 hour 39 minutes ago2012-01-19T20:58:07

Proposed changes in the definition of autism would sharply reduce the skyrocketing rate at which the disorder is diagnosed and may make it harder for many people who would no longer meet the criteria to get health, educational and social services, a new analysis suggests.

The definition is under review by an expert panel appointed by the American Psychiatric Association, which is completing work on the fifth edition of its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. The D.S.M, as the manual is known, is the standard reference for mental disorders, driving research, treatment and insurance decisions.

The study results, presented on Thursday at a meeting of the Icelandic Medical Association, are still preliminary, but they offer the latest and most dramatic estimate of how tightening the criteria for autism could affect the rate of diagnosis. Rates of autism and related disorders like Asperger syndrome have taken off since the early 1980s, to prevalence rates as high as one in 100 children in some places. Many researchers suspect that these numbers are inflated because of vagueness in the current criteria.

“The proposed changes would put an end to the autism epidemic,” said Dr. Fred R. Volkmar, director of theChildStudyCenterat Yale University School of Medicine and an author of the new analysis. “We would nip it in the bud — think of it that way.”

Experts working on the new definition strongly questioned the new estimate. “I don’t know how they’re getting those numbers,” said Catherine Lord, a member of the task force working on the diagnosis.

Previous projections have concluded that far fewer people would be excluded under the proposed diagnosis change, said Dr. Lord, director of the Institute for Brain Development, a joint project ofNewYork-PresbyterianHospital,WeillCornellMedicalCollege,ColumbiaUniversityMedicalCenterand theNew YorkCenterfor Autism.

Disagreement about the effect of the new definition will almost certainly increase scrutiny of the finer points of the psychiatric association’s changes to the manual The revisions are about 90 percent complete and will be final by December, according to Dr. David J. Kupfer, a professor of psychiatry at the University of Pittsburgh and chairman of the task force making the revisions.

At least a million children and adults have a diagnosis of autism or a related disorder, like Asperger syndrome or “pervasive developmental disorder, not otherwise specified” — or P.D.D.-N.O.S. People with Asperger’s or P.D.D.-N.O.S. endure some of the same social struggles as those with autism but do not meet the definition for the full-blown version. The proposed change would consolidate all three diagnoses under one category, autism spectrum disorder, eliminating Asperger syndrome and P.D.D.-N.O.S. from the manual. Under the current criteria a person can qualify for the diagnosis by exhibiting six or more of 12 behaviors; under the proposed definition, the person would have to exhibit three deficits in social interaction Proposed changes in the definition of autism would sharply reduce the skyrocketing rate at which the disorder is diagnosed and may make it harder for many people who would no longer meet the criteria to get health, educational and social services, a new analysis suggests.

The definition is under review by an expert panel appointed by the American Psychiatric Association, which is completing work on the fifth edition of its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. The D.S.M, as the manual is known, is the standard reference for mental disorders, driving research, treatment and insurance decisions.

The study results, presented on Thursday at a meeting of the Icelandic Medical Association, are still preliminary, but they offer the latest and most dramatic estimate of how tightening the criteria for autism could affect the rate of diagnosis. Rates of autism and related disorders like Asperger syndrome have taken off since the early 1980s, to prevalence rates as high as one in 100 children in some places. Many researchers suspect that these numbers are inflated because of vagueness in the current criteria.

“The proposed changes would put an end to the autism epidemic,” said Dr. Fred R. Volkmar, director of theChildStudyCenterat Yale University School of Medicine and an author of the new analysis. “We would nip it in the bud — think of it that way.”

Experts working on the new definition strongly questioned the new estimate. “I don’t know how they’re getting those numbers,” said Catherine Lord, a member of the task force working on the diagnosis.

Previous projections have concluded that far fewer people would be excluded under the proposed diagnosis change, said Dr. Lord, director of the Institute for Brain Development, a joint project ofNewYork-PresbyterianHospital,WeillCornellMedicalCollege,ColumbiaUniversityMedicalCenterand theNew YorkCenterfor Autism.

Disagreement about the effect of the new definition will almost certainly increase scrutiny of the finer points of the psychiatric association’s changes to the manual The revisions are about 90 percent complete and will be final by December, according to Dr. David J. Kupfer, a professor of psychiatry at the University of Pittsburgh and chairman of the task force making the revisions.

At least a million children and adults have a diagnosis of autism or a related disorder, like Asperger syndrome or “pervasive developmental disorder, not otherwise specified” — or P.D.D.-N.O.S. People with Asperger’s or P.D.D.-N.O.S. endure some of the same social struggles as those with autism but do not meet the definition for the full-blown version. The proposed change would consolidate all three diagnoses under one category, autism spectrum disorder, eliminating Asperger syndrome and P.D.D.-N.O.S. from the manual. Under the current criteria a person can qualify for the diagnosis by exhibiting six or more of 12 behaviors; under the proposed definition, the person would have to exhibit three deficits in social interaction and communication and at least two repetitive behaviors — a much narrower menu.

Dr. Kupfer said the proposed changes were an attempt to clarify these permutations and put them under one name.

Hundreds of thousands of people receive state-backed special services to help offset the disorders’ disabling effects, which include learning and social problems, and the diagnosis is in many ways central to their lives. Close networks of parents have bonded over common experiences with children; and the children, too, may grow to find a sense of their own identity in their struggle with the disorder.

Mary Meyer, ofRamsey,N.J., said that a diagnosis of Asperger syndrome was crucial in getting her daughter, who is 37, access to services that have helped tremendously. “I’m very concerned about the change in diagnosis because I wonder if my daughter would even qualify now,” she said. “She’s on disability, which is partly based on the Asperger’s, and I’m hoping to get her into supportive housing, which also depends on her diagnosis.”

Mark Roithmayr, president of Autism Speaks, an advocacy organization, said that the proposed diagnosis should bring needed clarity but that the effect on services was not yet clear. “We need to carefully monitor the impact of these diagnostic changes on access to services and ensure that no one is being denied the services they need,” Mr. Roithmayr said by e-mail. “Some treatments and services are driven solely by a person’s diagnosis, while other services may depend on other criteria such as age, I.Q. level or medical history.”

In the new analysis, Dr. Volkmar, along with Brian Reichow and James McPartland, both at Yale, used data from a large 1993 study that served as the basis for the current criteria. They focused on 372 children and adults who were among the highest-functioning and found that over all, only 45 percent of them would qualify for the proposed autism spectrum diagnosis now under review. The focus on a high-functioning group may have slightly exaggerated that percentage, the authors acknowledge.

The likelihood of being left out under the new definition depended on the original diagnosis: About a quarter of those identified with classic autism in 1993 would not be so identified under the proposed criteria; about three quarters of those with Asperger’s would not qualify; and 85 percent of those with P.D.D.-N.O.S. would not.

Dr. Volkmar presented the preliminary findings on Thursday. The researchers will publish a broader analysis, based on a larger and more representative sample of 1,000 cases, later this year. Dr. Volkmar said that although the proposed diagnosis would be for disorders on a spectrum and implies a broader net, it focuses tightly on “classically autistic” children on the more severe end of the scale. “The major impact here is on the more cognitively able,” he said.

Dr. Lord said that the study numbers are probably exaggerated because the research team relied on old data, collected by doctors who were not aware of what kinds of behaviors the proposed definition requires. “It’s not that the behaviors didn’t exist, but that they weren’t even asking about them — they wouldn’t show up at all in the data,” Dr. Lord said.

What do you think about the new proposed criteria for a diagnosis of autism? Tell us on Facebook.

This article, “ New Definition of Autism May Exclude Many, Study Suggests” first appeared in The New York Times.

Copyright © 2012 The New York Times

Sponsored links

Image by Send Chocolate via Flickr

Related articles

• Special Edition – Aspergers (education.com)
• Asperger’s Syndrome (crossroadscounselingcenter.wordpress.com)
• Autism, As I See It. (icantbrain.com)

Image via Wikipedia

salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

 ¹⁷For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

Barne’s Notes

For I am not ashamed … – The Jews had cast him off, and regarded him as an apostate; and by the wise among the Gentiles he had been persecuted, and despised, and driven from place to place, and regarded as the filth of the world, and the offscouring of all things 1 Corinthians 4:13, but still he was not ashamed of the gospel. He had so firm a conviction of its value and its truth; he had experienced so much of its consolations; and had seen so much of its efficacy; that he was so far from being ashamed of it that he gloried in it as the power of God unto salvation. People should be ashamed of crime and folly. They are ashamed of their own offences, and of the follies of their conduct, when they come to reflect on it. But they are not ashamed of what they feel to be right, and of what they know will contribute to their welfare, and to the benefit of their fellow-men. Such were the views of Paul about the gospel; and it is one of his favorite doctrines that they who believe on Christ shall not be ashamed, Romans 10:11; Romans 5:5; 2 Corinthians 7:14; 2 Timothy 1:12; Philippians 1:20; Romans 9:33; 2 Timothy 1:8; compare Mark 8:38; 1 Peter 4:16; 1 John 2:28.

Of the gospel – This word means the “good news,” or the glad intelligence; see the note at Mark 1:1. It is so called because it contains the glad annunciation that sin may be pardoned, and the soul saved.

Of Christ – The good news respecting the Messiah; or which the Messiah has brought. The expression probably refers to the former, the good news which relates to the Messiah, to his character, advent, preaching, death, resurrection, and ascension. Though this was “to the Jews a stumbling-block, and to the Greeks foolishness,” yet he regarded it as the only hope of salvation, and was ready to preach it even in the rich and splendid capital of the world.

The power of God – This expression means that it is the way in which God exerts his power in the salvation of people. It is the efficacious or mighty plan, by which power goes forth to save, and by which all the obstacles of man’s redemption are taken away. This expression implies,

(1) That it is God’s plan, or his appointment. It is not the device of man.

(2) it is adapted to the end. It is suited to overcome the obstacles in the way. It is not merely the instrument by which God exerts his power, but it has an inherent adaptedness to the end, it is suited to accomplish salvation to man so that it may be denominated power.

(3) it is mighty, hence, it is called power, and the power of God. If is not a feeble and ineffectual instrumentality, but it is “mighty to the pulling down of strongholds,” 2 Corinthians 10:4-5. It has shown its power as applicable to every degree of sin, to every combination of wickedness. It has gone against the sins of the world, and evinced its power to save sinners of all grades, and to overcome and subdue every mighty form of iniquity, compare Jeremiah 23:29, “Is not my word like as a fire? saith the Lord; and like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces?” 1 Corinthians 1:18, “the preaching of the cross is to them that perish, foolishness, but unto us which are saved, it is the power of God.”

Unto salvation – This word means complete deliverance from sin and death, and all the foes and dangers that beset man. It cannot imply anything less than eternal life. If a man should believe and then fall away, he could in no correct sense be said to be saved. And hence, when the apostle declares that it is the power of God unto salvation “to everyone that believeth,” it implies that all who become believers “shall be kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation” (see 1 Peter 1:5), and that none shall ever fall away and be lost. The apostle thus commences his discussion with one of the important doctrines of the Christian religion, the final preservation of the saints. He is not defending the gospel for any temporary object, or with any temporary hope. He looks through the system, and sees in it a plan for the complete and eternal recovery of all those who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. When he says it is the power of God unto salvation, he means that it is the power of God for the attainment of salvation. This is the end, or the design of this exertion of power.

To everyone that believeth – Compare Mark 16:16-17. This expresses the condition, or the terms, on which salvation is conferred through the gospel. It is not indiscriminately to all people, whatever may be their character. It is only to those who confide or trust in it; and it is conferred on all who receive it in this manner. If this qualification is possessed, it bestows its blessings freely and fully. All people know what “faith” is. It is exercised when we confide in a parent, a friend, a benefactor. It is such a reception of a promise, a truth, or a threatening, as to suffer it to make its appropriate impression on the mind, and such as to lead us to act under its influence, or to act as we should on the supposition that it is true. Thus, a sinner credits the threatenings of God, and fears. This is faith. He credits his promises, and hopes. This is faith. He feels that he is lost, and relies on Jesus Christ for mercy. This is faith. And, in general, faith is such an impression on the mind made by truth as to lead us to feel and act as if it were true; to have the appropriate feelings, and views, and conduct under the commands, and promises, and threatenings of God; see the note at Mark 16:16.

To the Jew first – First in order of time, Not that the gospel was any more adapted to Jews than to others; but to them had been committed the oracles of God; the Messiah had come through them; they had had the Law, the temple, and the service of God, and it was natural that the gospel should be proclaimed to them before it was to the Gentiles. This was the order in which the gospel was actually preached to the world, first to the Jews, and then to the Gentiles. Compare Acts 2 and Acts 10; Matthew 10:6; Luke 24:49; Acts 13:46, “It was necessary that the Word of God should first have been spoken to you; but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.” Compare Matthew 21:43.

And also to the Greek – To all who were nor Jews, that is, to all the world. It was nor confined in its intention or efficacy to any class or nation of people. It was adapted to all, and was designed to be extended to all.

Related articles

• Light and Darkness: Experiencing God (frted.wordpress.com)
• Modern Christianity (churchatliberty.com)
• Suffering Now? No problem-Glory Later (shirlblake.com)
• The Power of God for Salvation (lifereference.wordpress.com)
• The Power of God to Salvation: Romans 1:16-17 (narypstra.wordpress.com)