US: 1968 Civil Rights Movement Comes To Ben & Jerry's Vermont Factory

Smithsonian curator Dr. Aaron Bryant gives a personal tour of the exhibit to Ben & Jerry’s co-founder Jerry Greenfield. 

Ben & Jerry's factory in Waterbury, VT is marking the 50th anniversary of the 1968 Poor People's Campaign with a special display from the Smithsonian's National Museum of African American History and Culture. 

⏩ The ice cream factory is Vermont's largest, single tourist attraction, receiving almost 400,000 people a year.

Dr. Bernard LaFayette and his wife, Kate, stroll through a new exhibit on the 1968 Poor People’s Campaign installed at Ben & Jerry’s factory in Waterbury, VT.

On Friday, June 22, Ben & Jerry's Co-Founder Jerry Greenfield dropped the curtain on a new display depicting Dr. King's 1968 Poor People's Campaign against racism, poverty, and militarism. 

"These issues are as pressing today as they were 50 years ago," said Ben & Jerry's CEO Jostein Solheim. "We're hoping these images will inspire people to join the Poor People's Campaign for racial and economic justice."

Dr. Bernard LaFayette, Chairman of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, was on hand to share his perspective as a long-time civil rights leader and organizer. Dr. LaFayette worked closely with Dr. King and was with him just hours before his assassination.

Dr. Aaron Bryant, curator at the National Museum of African American History and Culture in Washington, DC, gave an overview of the exhibit's significance. "This display explores Dr. King's final and most ambitious campaign to end poverty in America. It serves as an inspiration to the modern effort for economic justice and fairness, and reminds us how much more work needs to be done."

⏩ The exhibit will be on display through December 31, 2018.

Ben & Jerry’s CEO Jostein Solheim welcomes Co-Founder Jerry Greenfield at the opening of an exhibit on the 1968 Poor People’s Campaign at the company’s Vermont ice cream factory.

About Ben & Jerry's:

As an aspiring social justice company, Ben & Jerry's believes in a greater calling than simply making a profit for selling its goods. 

Ben & Jerry's incorporates its vision of Linked Prosperity into its business practices in a number of ways including a focus on values-led sourcing. In 2015 the company completed its transition to using entirely non-GMO (genetically modified organisms) ingredients by source as well as to fully source Fairtrade-certified ingredients wherever possible, which benefits farmers in developing countries. 

Ben & Jerry's, a Vermont corporation and wholly-owned subsidiary of Unilever, operates its business on a three-part Mission Statement emphasizing product quality, economic reward and a commitment to the community. 

Ben & Jerry's became a certified B Corp (Benefit Corporation) in 2012. The Ben & Jerry's Foundation's employee-led grant programs totaled $2.7MM in 2017 to support grassroots organizing for social and environmental justice around the country.

Dr. Bernard LaFayette shared his perspective as a long-time civil rights activist at the opening of an exhibit on the 1968 Poor People’s Campaign at Ben & Jerry’s Vermont factory.

About the National Museum of African American History and Culture:

The National Museum of African American History and Culture has welcomed almost 4 million visitors since opening Sept. 24, 2016, on the National Mall in Washington, D.C. 

Occupying a prominent location next to the Washington Monument, the nearly 400,000-square-foot museum is the nation's largest and most comprehensive cultural destination devoted exclusively to exploring, documenting and showcasing the African American story and its impact on American and world history. 

⏩ For more information about the museum, visit nmaahc.si.edu,

Saige Barton, 11, visits the Ben & Jerry’s factory in Waterbury, VT with his family from Ohio.

SOURCE: Ben & Jerry's

Martin Luther King Related Stories:

• BraveNewFilms.org Commemorates MLK's Speech Anniversary With ''I Have A Dream’ Belongs To Us, Too’ Re-release 
• Frist Center Presents "We Shall Overcome: Civil Rights and the Nashville Press, 1957-1968"

Martin Luther King Related Video:

Preventing Crimes Against Humanity in The US

Immigrant rights advocates speak against Trump’s policies in New Mexico. (AP Photo/Russell Contreras, File)

There are those who say that comparing President Donald Trump’s rhetoric to that of Adolf Hitler is alarmist, unfair and counterproductive.

And yet, there has been no dearth of such comparisons nearly one and a half years into his term.

Many commentators have also drawn parallels between the conduct and language of Trump supporters and Holocaust-era Nazis. Recent news of ICE agents separating immigrant families and housing children in cages have generated further comparisons by world leaders, as well as Holocaust survivors and scholars. Trump’s use of the word “infest” to refer to immigrants coming to the U.S. is particularly striking. Nazis referred to infestations of Jewish vermin, and Rwandan Hutu’s labeled Tutsi as cockroaches.

In August 2017, in the wake of the Charlottesville violence, the president used a familiar rhetorical strategy for signaling support to violent groups. He referenced violence on “both sides,” implying moral equivalence between protesters calling for the removal of Confederate statues and those asserting white supremacy. His comments gave white supremacists and neo-Nazis the implied approval of the president of the United States.

Many of these groups explicitly seek to eliminate from the U.S. African-Americans, Jews, immigrants and other groups, and are willing to do so through violence. As co-directors of Binghamton University’s Institute for Genocide and Mass Atrocity Prevention, we emphasize the importance of recognizing and responding to early warning signs of potential genocide and other atrocity crimes. Usually, government officials, scholars and nongovernmental organizations look for these signals in other parts of the world – Syria, Sudan or Burma.

But what about the U.S.? President Trump’s executive order halting family separations provides Congress an opportunity to act. How the legislators respond will be an important indicator of where the U.S. is headed.

Is it possible in the US? 

The term “genocide” invokes images of gas chambers the Nazis used to exterminate Jews during World War II, the Khmer Rouge killing fields of Cambodia and thousands of Tutsi bodies in the Kagera River in Rwanda. On that scale and in that manner, genocide is highly unlikely in the United States.

But genocidal violence can happen in the U.S. It has happened. Organized policies passed by elected U.S. lawmakers have targeted both Native Americans and African-Americans. Public policies defined these groups as not fully human and not protected by basic laws. Current policies treat immigrants the same way.

The threat of genocide is present wherever a country’s political leadership tolerates or even encourages acts with an intent to destroy a racial, ethnic, national or religious group, whether in whole or in part. While genocide is unlikely in the United States, atrocities which amount to mass violations of human rights and crimes against humanity are evident. The U.N. defines crimes against humanity as any “deliberate act, typically as part of a systematic campaign, that causes human suffering or death on a large scale.” Unlike genocide, it does not need to include the actual destruction or intent to destroy a group.

According to Holocaust survivors, the current visual and audio accounts of children separated from their parents in border detention facilities reminds them of practices of the Nazis in ghettos and concentration and extermination camps.

The Holocaust took the international community by surprise. In hindsight, there were many signs. In fact, scholars have learned a great deal about the danger signals for the risk of large-scale violence against vulnerable groups.

In 1996, the founder and first president of the U.S.-based advocacy group Genocide Watch, Gregory H. Stanton, introduced a model that identified eight stages – later increased to 10 – that societies frequently pass through on the way to genocidal violence and other mass atrocities. Stanton’s model has its critics. Like any such model, it can’t be applied in all cases and can’t predict the future. But it has been influential in our understanding of the sources of mass violence in Rwanda, Burma, Syria and other nations.

The 10 stages of genocide 

The early stages of Stanton’s model include “classification” and “symbolization.” These are processes in which groups of people are saddled with labels or imagined characteristics that encourage active discrimination. These stages emphasize “us-versus-them” thinking, and define a group as “the other.”



As Stanton makes clear, these processes are universally human. They do not necessarily result in a progression toward mass violence. But they prepare the ground for the next stages: active “discrimination,” “dehumanization,” “organization” and “polarization.” These middle stages may be warning signs of an increasing risk of large-scale violence.

Where are we now? 

Trump’s political rhetoric helped propel him into office by playing on the fears and resentments of the electorate. He has used derogatory labels for certain religious and ethnic groups, hinted at dark conspiracies, winked at violence and appealed to nativist and nationalist sentiments. He has promoted discriminatory policies including travel restrictions and gender-based exclusions.

Classification, symbolization, discrimination and dehumanization of Muslims, Mexicans, African-Americans, immigrants, the media and even the political opposition may be leading to polarization, stage six of Stanton’s model.

Stanton writes that polarization further drives wedges between social groups through extremism. Hate groups find an opening to send messages that further dehumanize and demonize targeted groups. Political moderates are edged out of the political arena, and extremist groups attempt to move from the former political fringes into mainstream politics.

Do Trump’s implied claims of a moral equivalence between neo-Nazis and counterprotesters in Charlottesville move us closer to the stage of polarization?

Does housing children in cages at border detention facilities in the name of deterrence represent a deepening dehumanization?

Certainly, there are reasons for deep concern. Moral equivalence – the claim that when both “sides” in a conflict use similar tactics, then one “side” must be as morally good or bad as the other – is what logicians call an informal fallacy. Philosophers take their red pens to student essays that commit it. But when a president is called on to address his nation in times of political turmoil, the claim of moral equivalence is a lot more than an undergraduate mistake.

Similarly, when warehousing children in cages and tent cities is justified as a policy of deterrence, this is more than an academic policy debate. We suggest this is a deliberate effort to dehumanize and polarize, and an invitation to what may come next.

While the U.S. may not be on the path to genocide in the sense of mass killings, it clearly is engaging in other crimes against humanity – deliberately and systematically causing human suffering on a large scale and violating fundamental human rights.

Responding and preventing 

Polarization is a warning of the increased risk of violence, not a guarantee. Stanton’s model also argues that every stage offers opportunities for prevention. Extremist groups can have their financial assets frozen. Hate crimes and hate atrocities can be more consistently investigated and prosecuted. Moderate politicians, human rights activists, representatives of threatened groups and members of the independent media can be provided increased security.

Encouraging responses have come from the international community, the electorate, business leaders and government officials. German Chancellor Angela Merkel condemned the racist and far-right violence displayed in Charlottesville, and U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May harshly criticized Trump’s use of moral equivalence. More recently, Pope Francis and the governments of various countries have spoken out about U.S. family separation practices.

The recent withdrawal of the U.S. from the U.N. Human Rights Council suggests that international pressure may not be effective. Domestic actors may have more luck.

Individuals and groups are following the recommendations presented in the Southern Poverty Law Center’s guide to combating hate in supporting victims, speaking up, pressuring leaders and staying engaged. Business leaders have also expressed their discontent with Trump’s polarizing statements and actions. The American Academy of Pediatrics has gone so far as to label the immigrant family separations a form of mass child abuse.

Local governments are struggling to maintain their status as sanctuary cities or cities of resistance. These cities try to provide refuge for immigrants despite ICE raids and arrests. The general public and politicians of both parties and at all levels are speaking out about the separations, and it appears they may be heard.

In our assessment, these actions represent essential forms of resistance to the movement toward escalating atrocities. The executive order issued by President Trump this week provides the elected representatives in Congress with an important opportunity. Will they be complicit in or act to prevent further atrocities?

It also provides the general public an opportunity to strongly assert a commitment to human rights. How Congress responds will be a clear indicator of whether our democratic checks and balances are functioning to stop atrocities from escalating, or whether we are continuing down a dangerous path.

About Today's Contributors:
Nadia Rubaii, Co-Director, Institute for Genocide and Mass Atrocity Prevention, and Associate Professor of Public Administration, Binghamton University, State University of New York and Max Pensky, Co-Director, Institute for Genocide and Mass Atrocity Prevention, Professor, Department of Philosophy, Binghamton University, State University of New York

This article was originally published on The Conversation. 

Five Mutants We Want To See Appear in The Gifted

The Gifted. (© 2017 Fox & its related entities. All Rights Reserved.)

The TV series, which premiered in October 2017, is connected to the X-Men film series but takes place in an alternate universe where the X-Men have all disappeared and humans fear, distrust, and even hate mutants. 

The show focuses on the Strucker family -- Reed Strucker (Stephen Moyer), a district attorney and mutant prosecutor, his wife Caitlin (Amy Acker), and their kids Andy (Percy Hynes White) and Lauren (Natalie Alyn Lind).

Viewers follow the Struckers as they go on the run when they discover that their children are actually mutants and have been targeted by the very government that their father works for. 

Running from the government, however, proves to be a gargantuan challenge because Sentinel services agent named Turner (Coby Bell) always seems to be a few steps behind them. 

⏩ The Struckers then have no choice but to seek help from the Mutant Underground for protection.

The show's first season which is on FOX+ proved to be a hit with Marvel and X-Men fans, receiving positive feedback and praise from critics as well. Reviewers lauded the show for tackling timely topics and straying away from overused superhero tropes. 

Fans are also excited about the mutants that star the series such as Blink, Polaris, Thunderbird, and the Strucker siblings -- mutants who otherwise have had minimal or even no exposure in the Marvel film or television universe.

The Gifted - Poster

Because the show explores lesser-known mutants, here are a few more super humans whose appearance we feel would be great in The Gifted:

1. Callisto

If the challenge on hand is going underground in order to escape from humans, the Morlocks would rise to that challenge the best. So who's better to help out the Strucker family than the leader of the Morlocks? Callisto ­­-­ a mutant with super strength, speed, and amplified senses. 

While Callisto has made an appearance on screen in X-Men: The Last Stand, a bigger role that is more aligned with the comics may await her should she be written into The Gifted.

2. Forge

As an often overlooked and underestimated mutant, Forge has the ability to be extremely brilliant at technology and inventing things. His resourcefulness and smartness are exactly what could help propel an underground resistance team and bolster their chances at winning the fight. 

From armor to weapons to traps, Forge could prove to be an extremely important part of the team.

3. Kid Omega

This mischievous psychic is known for being a troublemaker and for being incredibly powerful. His irreverent punk lifestyle and attitude makes him an interesting fit for resisting against humans. 

While his appearance could also mean trouble for the Mutant Underground, it will be an undeniably interesting mix.

4. Boom-boom

On the note of being mischievous and roguish, Boom-boom (also known as Time Bomb, Boomer, or Meltdown) is a great fit. With an outcast backstory, Boom-boom has the ability to create small orbs of mental energy that explode destructively. 

Her rebellious attitude together with her powers can create a great ally for the Mutant Underground.

5. Rachel Summers

Being the daughter of Jean Grey and Scott Summers, Rachel doesn't have much room to appear in other X-Men related media because it may mean a warped storyline. 

But due to the alternate-timeline nature of The Gifted where we don't see or know what happens to Jean or Scott, it could mean an opportunity for the show to include this powerful telepath and explore her as a character.

SOURCE: FOX+

Related Videos:

Trump And Sessions Can End Immigrant Family Separations Without Congress' Help

Children at an immigrant family separation protest in Phoenix. (AP Photo/Ross D. Franklin)

A recent poll shows that two-thirds of Americans oppose the Trump administration’s policy of separating immigrant families apprehended along the U.S.-Mexico border.

Amid a firestorm of criticism, President Donald Trump has blamed Democrats and inaction in Congress for the family separation policy.

Only Congress can provide the comprehensive immigration reform that would address the fundamental problems plaguing the American immigration system, including the statuses of undocumented immigrants already living in the U.S.

However, current immigration laws give the executive branch considerable discretion in deciding which immigrants to detain and release from custody.

Trump has at his disposal a variety of alternatives – other than separating families – that would promote his stated goal of deterring migration from Central America. Those alternatives could avoid violating international human rights norms.

Immigrant detention by past administrationsMany presidents have used the detention of migrants as a tool to enforce immigration law. At the same time, the courts have rejected heavy-handed attempts to deter migration that infringe on the rights of noncitizens.

For example, in Orantes-Hernandez v. Thornburgh, a court of appeals in 1990 found mass immigrant detention and various related policies by the Reagan and first Bush administrations to be unlawful. The policies included detaining immigrants in remote locations where it was difficult for them to retain legal counsel. Together, they formed a concerted effort to deter Central Americans from pursuing asylum claims.

Similarly, in 2014, the Obama administration’s mass detention of Central Americans brought many – and many successful – lawsuits. In Flores v. Lynch in 2016, the court of appeals found that a settlement agreement in a lawsuit required the release of detained children.

Under Trump’s administration, the policy of separating families in order to detain adults has struck a nerve and generated an unprecedented political outcry. Several lawsuits have been filed seeking to end the policy of family separation, including one filed by the American Civil Liberties Union in federal court in San Diego.

The courts have played major roles in moderating the Trump administration’s immigration policies. For example, they’ve issued rulings to block Trump’s “Muslim” or “travel ban” and his attempt to cut federal funding to “sanctuary” cities that refuse to fully cooperate with federal immigration enforcement efforts.

Although it ultimately may take a court ruling to stop family separations, it doesn’t have to be this way. President Trump has many other policy options available to him that he can implement without any Congressional action.

Detention without separation 

In 2014, the Obama administration faced a large number of Central American migrants crossing the border without inspection. Reports at that time suggest it was a much larger influx than what Trump is facing today.

With increasing numbers of families being apprehended by immigration agents at the border, the Obama administration began using what’s called “family detention.” Entire families were detained together in one facility.

Family detention centers operated in Pennsylvania, Texas and, for a time, New Mexico. Although critics argued that family detention was also inhumane, it certainly did not generate the same level of outrage at Trump’s policy of family separation.

Bonds for immigrants 

Currently, migrants apprehended at the border are placed in detention; migrant families are separated. Detention under the Trump administration’s “zero tolerance” policy is mandatory, without the possibility of being released on bond.

Prior to this policy, when someone was detained by U.S. immigration authorities, they were allowed a hearing and the opportunity to post a bond for release. Rather than remaining detained, they were released into the community until a hearing was scheduled to evaluate their asylum or other claim.

This is the norm for anyone held in detention in the United States. In fact, the Supreme Court has held that this is a constitutional requirement.

President Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions have both denigrated the ordinary approach to posting bonds when it comes to dealing with noncitizens who cross the border without documentation, even if they have a bona fide claim to asylum. Trump signed a memo to end the release of immigrants into the community in April.

Some critics argue that those who are released fail to appear in court when the time comes. However, data show that the vast majority of families who are apprehended and bond out of custody subsequently appear at their removal hearings.

The Trump administration could allow bond hearings for immigrant families and release them if they are not a flight risk or danger to the community. Children could be bonded out with their families and families would remain together. Devices like ankle bracelets could be used to help ensure court appearances.

Previous administrations have responded to similar situations at the U.S.-Mexico border, but none have resorted to the separation of families as a device to deter migration from Central America. The president has said that Congress should fix it. But the president has the power to do that himself.

About Today's Contributor: 
Kevin Johnson, Dean and Professor of Public Interest Law and Chicana/o Studies, University of California, Davis

This article was originally published on The Conversation. 

Bonus Picture: 
(Via Trumpton Facebook Page)

"This is America..."

Who's Walking and Who's Dead in Mid-Season 8 of The Walking Dead

"The Walking Dead" ((C) AMC Network Entertainment LLC. All Rights Reserved)

Based on a comic book series by the same name, The Walking Dead  is one of today's most popular TV shows. The post-apocalyptic zombie horror follows sheriff's deputy Rick Grimes (Andrew Lincoln) who navigates the world with the team of survivors that he leads. 

They're not only challenged with surviving the zombies, referred to as "walkers", but also other survivor groups who oppose them. Oftentimes, these opposing survivor groups prove to be more lethal than the walkers, resulting in Rick and his survivor groups to turn to any means necessary to ensure their safety and survival.

⏩ Since its premiere in 2010, the series has had one of the largest viewership of modern day TV shows and has received extremely positive reviews from fans and critics. It has also been nominated for several awards including the Golden Globe for Best Television Series and Best New Series from the Writers Guild of America.

Marking from the season 8 mid-season premiere, there has been a death toll of over 250 characters across the span of the show. These include both side characters and supporting characters. It could be a lot to keep up with, especially for those who might just be getting into the show. 

Here's a quick list of the important characters that are left walking and those that are dead for the mid-season of season 8:

➧ Who's Walking?

1. Rick Grimes - It's hard to imagine The Walking Dead without its main lead character and everybody' favorite deputy, Rick. He's survived a lot including being stabbed and shot, proving that he's definitely a tough one to take down.

2. Daryl Dixon - This archer and tracker is a definite fan favorite. His death would mean chaos in The Walking Dead community and for good reason too. Daryl has survived many dangerous situations and fans hope he keeps doing so.

3. Morgan Jones - Morgan, who reappeared in season 3, joined the survivors in the fifth season. The last known survivor of the Jones family, this former soldier proved to be a helpful ally and friend to both Rick and Daryl.

4. Carol Peletier - Also the last surviving member of her family, Carol has grown from a housewife to a killer weapon-wielding survivor. A very close ally of Daryl and advisor of Rick, Carol's strength and survival instincts help keep her and people around her alive.

5. Maggie Rhee - Hershel's only daughter Maggie and widow of Glenn, Maggie has risen to become one of the strongest leaders in The Walking Dead.  She is currently the leader of the Hilltop Colony and co-leads the Militia along with Rick, Ezekiel, and Cyndie.

6. Michonne - Sword-wielding fighter Michonne has become Rick's right-hand woman. After the death of her boyfriend and toddler, Michonne has proven to be a valuable ally who won't go down without a fight.

Other side characters still alive and kicking include Tara Chambler, Eugene Porter, Rosita, Gabriel Stokes, Aaron, Jesus, Enid, Dwight and King Ezekiel. Opposing Rick's group, Gregory, Simon, Jadis, and Negan are still kicking as well.

A Walking Dead walker. (Image via LoupDargent.info)

➧ Who's Dead?

While the death count of The Walking Dead is astronomical for any TV show, here are some of the most recent and central deaths in the show from mid-season 8. For those who have not yet caught up with the mid-season finale, this is a huge spoiler warning.

1. Morales - It was revealed he former member of Rick's group was taken in by the Saviors and converted into one of them when he holds Rick at gunpoint in season 8's second episode. Unfortunately, he finds his death at the hands of Daryl's crossbow.

2. Eric Raleigh - In a heartbreaking death during the attack on the Saviors, Aaron's boyfriend found himself shot in the abdomen. Sadly, Aaron was unable to save him, making Eric one of the earliest deaths in season 8.

3. The Saviors - The losses on the Saviors' side were heavy this season, being the target of the walkers, Alexandria, Hilltop, and the Kingdom. While not wiped out, a good number of them have definitely been killed.

4. Gunther - Killed by Jerry's Ax, Gunther was eventually executed while trying to bring Ezekiel back to the Sanctuary.

5. Shiva - Loyal pet to Ezekiel, Shiva proved her loyalty by protecting the King from a horde of walkers. Unfortunately, the tiger failed to escape them.

6. Carl - Arguably one of the most shocking and important deaths of not only season 8, but of the series as a whole, the death of Rick's son shook the entire Walking Dead fan base. Carl, who fans have watched since the series premiere, has been a mainstay until he was bitten by a walker in the eighth season.

SOURCE: FOX+

"The Walking Dead" Season 8 - Trailer:





More Zombies Related Stories 

For more zombies related stories, click here...

Filipinos React to 'Our Cartoon President'

"Our Cartoon President" ((C) 2018 Showtime Networks Inc. and Showtime Digital Inc. All rights reserved.)

Our Cartoon President, the American animated satire created by Stephen Colbert and his team, premiered in 2018, and is based off a prominent segment on Colbert's show The Late Show with Stephen Colbert.

The series is a parody of the Trump administration and aims to give viewers an "all access look" at the day-to-day of the White House, as satirized by the writers. 

Trump, voiced by Jeff Bergman, is the main focus of the series but is also heavily lampoons other characters that interact with Trump on a daily basis. This includes his family -- Melania, Ivanka, Don, and Eric -- and his administration, like the vice president, the White House secretary, and members of his staff. 

The show also includes real-life events such as the State of the Union address and the White House Correspondents' Dinner as well as fictional events such as Trump delivering a speech at the Academy Awards.

⏩ The series, which now has 10 episodes, has seven additional episodes upcoming which are scheduled to premiere on July 15, 2018 much to the delight of its fans. 

While the series is largely relevant to Americans, the show has also caught the attention of fans around the globe. 

"Our Cartoon President" (Image via LoupDargent.info)

Here are the reactions of Filipinos who watched the first few episodes of Our Cartoon President:

26-year-old Karl Echaluse, a freelance filmmaker and improviser from Manila, lauded the characterization of the series, commenting that the way the cast was caricatured was especially humorous. "The way they look and the way they were voiced made it easy for me to identify them, or at least recognize them even though I might have only seen them a few times on the news," Echaluse shared. "It does a great job of really finding a characteristic or a quality about one character and sticking to it," he adds.

"I'm not very well-versed in American politics but I feel like the show gives me an idea of how crazy things can get," 52-year-old housewife Althea Mendoza says. "They're very brave to do a show like this. I'm not sure we've seen anything like this in our country." Mendoza also commented on how the show is not afraid to take things into more absurd and surreal territory.

34-year-old manager and mother, Shayne Losenara, agrees. "It's daring. It's clear what the writers feel about the administration and they get their opinions across very sharply," she says. "And it helps me get sense of who the people are that Trump has chosen to surround him, even if they're all a spoof of the actual people. I feel like it's still anchored on true qualities that are just exaggerated."

"As a Filipino, sometimes we don't always know what's happening in American politics. While I'm not saying that you should watch this instead of the news, it at least helps us get familiar with the who and the what. It's a step towards being a little bit more informed, and it's an entertaining way to do that too," Echaluse closes.

SOURCE: FOX+

Astronaut Sally K. Ride's Legacy – Encouraging Young Women To Embrace Science And Engineering

Mission specialist Sally Ride became the first American woman to fly in space. (NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center)

On June 18, 1983, 35 years ago, Sally Ride became the first American woman to launch into space, riding the Space Shuttle STS-7 flight with four other crew members. Only five years earlier, in 1978, she had been selected to the first class of 35 astronauts – including six women – who would fly on the Space Shuttle.

Sally’s first ride, with her STS-7 crewmates. In addition to launching America’s first female astronaut, it was also the first mission with a five-member crew. Front row, left to right: Ride, commander Bob Crippen, pilot Frederick Hauck. Back row, left to right: John Fabian, Norm Thagard. (NASA)

Much has happened in the intervening years. During the span of three decades, the shuttles flew 135 times carrying hundreds of American and international astronauts into space before they were retired in 2011. The International Space Station began to fly in 1998 and has been continuously occupied since 2001, orbiting the Earth once every 90 minutes. More than 50 women have now flown into space, most of them Americans. One of these women, Dr. Peggy Whitson, became chief of the Astronaut Office and holds the American record for number of hours in space.

The Space Shuttle democratized spaceflight
The Space Shuttle was an amazing flight vehicle: It launched like a rocket into Low Earth Orbit in only eight minutes, and landed softly like a glider after its mission. What is not well known is that the Space Shuttle was an equalizer and enabler, opening up space exploration to a wider population of people from planet Earth.

STS-50 Crew photo with commander Richard N. Richards and pilot Kenneth D. Bowersox, mission specialists Bonnie J. Dunbar, Ellen S. Baker and Carl J. Meade, and payload specialists Lawrence J. DeLucas and Eugene H. Trinh. The photo was taken in front of the Columbia Shuttle, which Dunbar helped to build.(NASA)

This inclusive approach began in 1972 when Congress and the president approved the Space Shuttle budget and contract. Spacesuits, seats and all crew equipment were initially designed for a larger range of sizes to fit all body types, and the waste management system was modified for females. Unlike earlier vehicles, the Space Shuttle could carry up to eight astronauts at a time. It had a design more similar to an airplane than a small capsule, with two decks, sleeping berths, large laboratories and a galley. It also provided privacy.

I graduated with an engineering degree from the University of Washington in 1971 and, by 1976, I was a young engineer working on the first Space Shuttle, Columbia, with Rockwell International at Edwards Air Force Base, in California. I helped to design and produce the thermal protection system – those heat resistant ceramic tiles – which allowed the shuttle to re-enter the Earth’s atmosphere for up to 100 flights.

Mike Anderson and Bonnie Dunbar flew together on STS-89 in 1998. They both graduated from University of Washington. Anderson was killed in the Columbia accident, in 2003. (NASA)

It was a heady time; a new space vehicle could carry large crews and “cargo,” including space laboratories and the Hubble Space Telescope. The Shuttle also had a robotic arm, which was critical for the assembly of the International Space Station, and an “airlock” for space walks, and enabled us to build the International Space Station.

I knew from my first day at Rockwell that this vehicle had been designed for both men and women. A NASA engineer at the Langley Research Center gave me a very early “heads up” in 1973 that they would eventually select women astronauts for the Space Shuttle. In the 1970s there were visionary men and women in NASA, government and in the general public, who saw a future for more women in science and engineering, and for flying into space. Women were not beating down the door to be included in the Space Shuttle program, we were being invited to be an integral part of a larger grand design for exploring space.

1978: Becoming an astronaut
The selection process for the first class of Space Shuttle astronauts, to include women, opened in 1977. NASA approached the recruitment process with a large and innovative publicity campaign encouraging men and women of all ethnic backgrounds to apply. One of NASA’s recruiters was actress Nichelle Nichols who played Lt. Ohura on the “Star Trek” series, which was popular at the time. Sally learned about NASA’s astronaut recruitment drive through an announcement, possibly on a job bulletin board, somewhere at Stanford University. Sally had been a talented nationally ranked tennis player, but her passion was physics. The opportunity to fly into space intrigued her and looked like a challenge and rewarding career she could embrace.

Sally and I arrived at NASA at the same time in 1978 – she as part of the “TFNG” (“Thirty-Five New Guys”) astronaut class and I as a newly minted mission controller, training to support the Space Shuttle. I had already been in the aerospace industry for several years and had made my choice for “space” at the age of 9 on a cattle ranch in Washington state. I also applied for the 1978 astronaut class, but was not selected until 1980.

Sally and I connected on the Flight Crew Operations co-ed softball team. We both played softball from an early age and were both private pilots, flying our small planes together around southeast Texas. We also often discussed our perspectives on career selection, and how fortunate we were to have teachers and parents and other mentors who encouraged us to study math and science in school – the enabling subjects for becoming an astronaut.

STS-7: June 18 1983

In January 1978, NASA selected six women into the class of 35 new astronauts to fly on the Space Shuttle. From left to right are Shannon W. Lucid, Ph.D., Margaret Rhea Seddon, M.D., Kathryn D. Sullivan, Ph.D., Judith A. Resnik, Ph.D., Anna L. Fisher, M.D., and Sally K. Ride, Ph.D. (NASA)

Although Sally was one of six women in the 1978 class, she preferred to be considered one of 35 new astronauts – and to be judged by merit, not gender. It was important to all the women that the bar be as high as it was for the men. From an operational and safety point of view, that was also equally important. In an emergency, there are no special allowances for gender or ethnicity: Everyone had to pull their own weight. In fact, it has been said that those first six women were not just qualified, they were more than qualified.

While Sally was honored to be picked as the first woman from her class to fly, she shied away from the limelight. She believed that she flew for all Americans, regardless of gender, but she also understood the expectations on her for being selected “first.” As she flew on STS-7, she paid tribute to those who made it possible for her to be there: to her family and teachers, to those who made and operated the Space Shuttle, to her crewmates, and to all of her astronaut classmates including Dr. Kathy Sullivan, Dr. Rhea Seddon, Dr. Anna Fisher, Dr. Shannon Lucid, and Dr. Judy Resnick (who lost her life on Challenger). With all of the attention, Sally was a gracious “first.” And the launch of STS-7 had a unique celebratory flair. Signs around Kennedy Space Center said “Fly Sally Fly,” and John Denver gave a special concert the night before the launch, not far from the launch pad.

Continuing the momentum
One of the topics that Sally and I discussed frequently was why so few young girls were entering into math, technology, science and engineering – which became known as STEM careers in the late 1990s. Both of us had been encouraged and pushed by male and female mentors and “cheerleaders.” By 1972, companies with federal contracts were actively recruiting women engineers. NASA had opened up spaceflight to women in 1978, and was proud of the fact that they were recruiting and training women as astronauts and employing them in engineering and the sciences.

National needs for STEM talent and supportive employment laws were creating an environment such that if a young woman wished to become an aerospace engineer, a physicist, a chemist, a medical doctor, an astronomer or an astrophysicist, they could. One might have thought that Sally’s legendary flight, and those of other women astronauts over the last 35 years might have inspired a wave of young women (and men) into STEM careers. For example, when Sally flew into space in 1983, a 12-year-old middle school girl back then would now be 47. If she had a daughter, that daughter might be 25. After two generations, we might have expected that there would be large bow wave of young energized women entering into the STEM careers. But this hasn’t happened.

Rather, we have a growing national shortage of engineers and research scientists in this nation, which threatens our prosperity and national security. The numbers of women graduating in engineering grew from 1 percent in 1971 to about 20 percent in 35 years. But women make up 50 percent of the population, so there is room for growth. So what are the “root causes” for this lack of growth?

K-12 STEM education
Many reports have cited deficient K-12 math and science education as contributing to the relatively stagnant graduation rates in STEM careers.

Completing four years of math in high school, as well as physics, chemistry and biology is correlated with later success in science, mathematics and engineering in college. Without this preparation, career options are reduced significantly. Even though I graduated from a small school in rural Washington state, I was able to study algebra, geometry, trigonometry, math analysis, biology, chemistry and physics by the time I graduated. Those were all prerequisites for entry into the University of Washington College of Engineering. Sally had the same preparation before she entered into physics.

As part of NASA’s commitment to the next generation of explorers, NASA Ames collaborated with Sally Ride Science to sponsor and host the Sally Ride Science Festival at the NASA Research Park. Hundreds of San Francisco Bay Area girls, their teachers and parents enjoy a fun-filled interactive exploration of science, technology, engineering and mathematics on Sept. 27, 2008. (NASA Ames Research Center / Dominic Hart)

Although we have many great K-12 schools in the nation, too many schools now struggle to find qualified mathematics and physics teachers. Inspiring an interest in these topics is also key to retention and success. Being excited about a particular subject matter can keep a student engaged even through the tough times. Participation in “informal science education” at museums and camps is becoming instrumental for recruiting students into STEM careers, especially as teachers struggle to find the time in a cramped curriculum to teach math and science.

Research has shown that middle school is a critical period for young boys and girls to establish their attitudes toward math and science, to acquire fundamental skills that form the basis for progression into algebra, geometry and trigonometry, and to develop positive attitudes toward the pursuit of STEM careers. When Dr. Sally Ride retired from NASA, she understood this, and founded Imaginary Lines and, later, Sally Ride Science, to influence career aspirations for middle school girls. She hosted science camps throughout the nation, exposing young women and their parents to a variety of STEM career options. Sally Ride Science continues its outreach through the University of California at San Diego.

Challenging old stereotypes and honoring Sally’s legacy

Sally Ride and Bonnie Dunbar are fighting outdated stereotypes that women are not good at STEM subjects. (Creativa Images/shutterstock.com)

However, there are still challenges, especially in this social media-steeped society. I and other practicing women engineers have observed that young girls are often influenced by what they perceive “society thinks” of them.

In a recent discussion with an all-girl robotics team competing at NASA, I asked the high school girls if they had support from teachers and parents, and they all said “yes.” But then, they asked, “Why doesn’t society support us?” I was puzzled and asked them what they meant. They then directed me to the internet where searches on engineering careers returned a story after story of describing “hostile work environments.”

Sadly, most of these stories are very old and are often from studies with very small populations. The positive news, from companies, government, universities and such organizations as the National Academy of Engineers, Physics Girl and Society of Women Engineers, rarely rises to the top of the search results. Currently, companies and laboratories in the U.S. are desperate to employ STEM qualified and inspired women. But many of our young women continue to “opt out.”

Young women are influenced by the media images they see every day. We continue to see decades-old negative stereotypes and poor images of engineers and scientists on television programs and in the movies.

Popular TV celebrities continue to boast on air that they either didn’t like math or struggled with it. Sally Ride Science helps to combat misconceptions and dispel myths by bringing practicing scientists and engineers directly to the students. However, in order to make a more substantial difference, this program and others like it require help from the media organizations. The nation depends upon the technology and science produced by our scientists and engineers, but social media, TV hosts, writers and movie script developers rarely reflect this reality. So it may be, that in addition to K-12 challenges in our educational system, the “outdated stererotypes” portrayed in the media are also discouraging our young women from entering science and engineering careers.

Unlimited opportunities in science and engineering
The reality? More companies than ever are creating family-friendly work environments and competing for female talent. In fact, there is a higher demand from business, government and graduate schools in the U.S. for women engineers and scientists than can be met by the universities.

Both Sally and I had wonderful careers supported by both men and women. NASA was a great work environment and continues to be – the last two astronaut classes have been about 50 percent female.

I think that Sally would be proud of how far the nation has come with respect to women in space, but would also want us to focus on the future challenges for recruiting more women into science and engineering, and to reignite the passion for exploring space.

About Today's Contributor:
Bonnie J. Dunbar, NASA astronaut (Ret) and TEES Distinguished Research Professor, Aerospace Engineering, Texas A&M University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. 

Related Videos: