So you’ve completed your book. Its been edited and published, and now you’re trying to figure out how to get to your potential readers. While beginning your marketing campaign usually happens well before your book is completed, getting your first reviews can’t happen until your book is done or in a final draft status.
Many stores won’t carry a small press or self-published book that doesn’t have reviews from a recognizable publication. So how do you get someone to pay attention to your book among all of the hundreds, if not thousands, of submissions they see every month?
City Book Review, publishers of the San Francisco Book Review, Manhattan Book Review and Kids’ BookBuzz all have programs to help you. Kids BookBuzz is only for kids, tweens and young adult books, but the other two will take almost any book you have (including children’s books).
So how do you get your book reviewed by the San Francisco Book Review?
If your book is within 90 days of the publications date, you can submit it for general review (at no cost). The closer you are to the 90 days, the less of a chance it will have to be reviewed, but you can still start there. The SFBR gets more than 1000 submissions a month, and only reviews 300 or less, so your likelihood of getting your book reviewed in this way is less than 33%. But you can give it a try and see if it gets reviewed.
If your book is more than 90 days past its publishing date, or you really want to have it reviewed and don’t want to just hope it’ll get picked up through the general review, you can go through the Sponsored Review program. While there is some controversy about paying for a review, SFBR is a respected publication like Kirkus or Foreward Reviews and doesn’t offer vanity reviews for payment. You can expect the same level of professionalism from their standard reviews. And they don’t mark sponsored reviews any different than the other reviews.
Get My Book Reviewed from the San Francisco Book Review
There are a lot of different options for getting your book reviewed, mostly around how long it takes to get your review back, and if you want more than one or an interview as well.
Standard Reviews Take 8-10 weeks for turnaround from the time they receive your book Start at
Expedited Reviews Take 3-5 weeks for turnaround from the time they receive your book Start at
Get more than one review for the same book you’ll get a discount on the normal cost of 2 or 3 reviews. Reviews range in price from $150 to $299.
Getting a podcast interview for Audible Authors to promote yourself and your book, and you can add an interview to a review package at a discount.
And if you really like your review, you can have it posted on the other publication’s website for $99, or get a new review from a different reviewer. Both can help with your marketing and search engine optimization.
So how do you get your book reviewed by the Manhattan Book Review?
The Manhattan Book Review uses the same format for the San Francisco Book Review. Different audience, so if you’re an East Coast author, you might be more interested in having the credit from MBR over SFBR. Personal taste is the only difference between the two for reviews. If you are a local SF or Manhattan author, they will also flag that in your review.
So how do you get your book reviewed by Kids’ BookBuzz?
First thing, all of the reviews for Kids’ BookBuzz are done by kids. They are select age appropriate books, but the kids read them and write the reviews themselves. The younger kids have some help from their parents, but the words are all theirs. Don’t expect any easy reviews either. These kids see a lot of stories, so they know good books when they read them.
In fact, we are prone to hundreds of proven biases that cause us to think and act irrationally. In fact, even thinking we’re rational despite evidence of irrationality in others is known as blind-spot bias.
The study of how often human beings do irrational things was enough for psychologist Daniel Kahneman to win the Nobel Prize in Economics, and it opened the rapidly expanding field of behavioral economics. Similar insights are also reshaping everything from marketing to criminology.
Hoping to clue you — and ourselves — into the biases that frame our decisions, we’ve collected a long list of the most notable ones.
This is an update of an article that was previously published with additional contributions by Drake Baer and Gus Lubin.
The affect heuristic describes how humans sometimes make decisions based on emotion.
The psychologist Paul Slovic coined this term to describe the way people let their emotions color their beliefs about the world. For example, your political affiliation often determines which arguments you find persuasive.
Our emotions also affect the way we perceive the risks and benefits of different activities. For example, people tend to dread developing cancer, so they see activities related to cancer as much more dangerous than those linked to less dreaded forms of death, illness, and injury, such as accidents.
Anchoring bias means people rely too heavily on the first piece of information they hear when making decisions.
People are over-reliant on the first piece of information they hear.
In a salary negotiation, for instance, whoever makes the first offer establishes a range of reasonable possibilities in each person’s mind. Any counteroffer will naturally react to or be anchored by that opening offer.
“Most people come with the very strong belief they should never make an opening offer,” said Leigh Thompson, a professor at Northwestern University’s Kellogg School of Management. “Our research and lots of corroborating research shows that’s completely backwards. The guy or gal who makes a first offer is better off.”
Availability heuristic describes a shortcut where people make decisions based on information that’s easier to remember.
In one experiment, a professor asked students to list either two or 10 ways to improve his class. Students that had to come up with 10 ways gave the class much higher ratings, likely because they had a harder time thinking about what was wrong with the class.
This phenomenon could easily apply in the case of job interviews. If you have a hard time recalling what a candidate did wrong during an interview, you’ll likely rate him higher than if you can recall those things easily.
The bandwagon effect describes when people do something simply because others are also doing it.
Choice-supportive bias describes the tendency to have positive attitudes about the things or ideas we choose, even when they are flawed.
When you choose something, you tend to feel positive about it, even if the choice has flaws. You think that your dog is awesome — even if it bites people every once in a while — and that other dogs are stupid, since they’re not yours.
The clustering illusion happens when we see trends in random events that happen close together.
This is the tendency to see patterns in random events. It is central to various gambling fallacies, like the idea that red is more or less likely to turn up on a roulette table after a string of reds.
Confirmation bias describes the tendency to only listen to information that confirms our preconceptions.
We tend to listen only to the information that confirms our preconceptions. Once you’ve formed an initial opinion about someone, it’s hard to change your mind.
For example, researchers had participants watch a video of a student taking an academic test. Some participants were told that the student came from a high socioeconomic background; others were told the student came from a low socioeconomic background. Those in the first condition believed the student’s performance was above grade level, while those in the second condition believed the student’s performance was below.
If you know some information about a job candidate’s background, you might be inclined to use that information to make false judgments about his or her ability.
Conformity describes how people tend to behave similarly to other people.
This is the tendency of people to conform with other people. It is so powerful that it may lead people to do ridiculous things, as shown by the following experiment by Solomon Asch.
Ask one subject and several fake subjects (who are really working with the experimenter) which of lines B, C, D, and E is the same length as A. If all of the fake subjects say that D is the same length as A, the real subject will agree with this objectively false answer a shocking three-quarters of the time.
“That we have found the tendency to conformity in our society so strong that reasonably intelligent and well-meaning young people are willing to call white black is a matter of concern,” Asch wrote. “It raises questions about our ways of education and about the values that guide our conduct.”
Conservatism bias occurs when people believe prior evidence more than new evidence.
Decoy effect is a phenomenon in marketing where consumers have a specific change in preference between two choices after being presented with a third choice.
In his TED Talk, behavioral economist Dan Ariely explains the ” decoy effect” using an old Economist advertisement as an example.
The ad featured three subscription levels: $59 for online only, $159 for print only, and $159 for online and print. Ariely figured out that the option to pay $159 for print only exists so that it makes the option to pay $159 for online and print look more enticing than it would if it was just paired with the $59 option.
Denomination effect is when people are less likely to spend large bills than their equivalent value in small bills or coins.
Kahneman and colleagues tracked patients’ pain during colonoscopies (they used to be more uncomfortable) and found that the end of the procedure pretty much determined patients’ evaluations of the entire experience. One set of patients underwent a shorter procedure in which the end was relatively painful. The other set of patients underwent a longer procedure in which the end was less painful.
Results showed that the second set of patients (the longer colonoscopy) rated the procedure as less painful overall.
Empathy gap occurs when people in one state of mind fail to understand people in another state of mind.
Hindsight bias is when people claim to have predicted an outcome that was impossible to predict at the time.
Of course Apple and Google would become the two most important companies in phones — but tell that to Nokia, circa 2003.
One classic experiment on hindsight bias took place in the 1970s, when President Richard Nixon was about to depart for trips to China and the Soviet Union. Researchers asked the participants to predict various outcomes. After the trips, researchers asked participants to recall the probabilities that had initially assigned to each outcome.
Results showed that participants remembered having rated the events unlikely if the event had not occurred, and remembered having rated the events likely if the event had occurred.
Hyperbolic discounting happens when people make decisions for a smaller reward sooner, rather than a greater reward later.
In one study, people who knew the names of basketball teams as well as their performance records made less accurate predictions about the outcome of NBA games than people who only knew the teams’ performance records. However, most people believed that knowing the team names was helpful in making their predictions.
Inter-group bias is when we view people in our group differently from how see we someone in another group.
This bias helps illuminate the origins of prejudice and discrimination.
Unfortunately, researchers say we aren’t always aware of our preference for people in our social group.
Irrational escalation is when people make irrational decisions based on past rational decisions.
It may happen in an auction, when a bidding war spurs two bidders to offer more than they would otherwise be willing to pay.
Negativity bias is the tendency to put more emphasis on negative experiences rather than positive ones.
People with this bias feel that “bad is stronger than good” and will perceive threats more than opportunities in a given situation.
In modern times, the negativity bias has meaningful implications for our relationships. John Gottman, a relationship expert, found that a stable relationship requires that good experiences occur at least five times more often than bad experiences.
The observer-expectancy effect is when a researcher’s expectations impact the outcome of an experiment.
The omission bias creeps into our judgment calls on domestic arguments, work mishaps, and even national policy discussions. In March, President Obama pushed Congress to enact sweeping healthcare reforms. Republicans hope that voters will blame Democrats for any problems that arise after the law is enacted. But since there were problems with healthcare already, can they really expect that future outcomes will be blamed on Democrats, who passed new laws, rather than Republicans, who opposed them? Yes, they can — the omission bias is on their side.
The ostrich effect is the decision to ignore dangerous or negative information by “burying” one’s head in the sand, like an ostrich.
Research suggests that investors check the value of their holdings significantly less often during bad markets.
But there’s an upside to acting like a big bird, at least for investors. When you have limited knowledge about your holdings, you’re less likely to trade, which generally translates to higher returns in the long run.
Outcome bias refers to judging a decision based on the outcome, rather than how exactly the decision was made in the moment.
Just because you won a lot in Vegas doesn’t mean gambling your money was a smart decision.
Research illustrates the power of the outcome bias on the way we evaluate decisions.
In one study, students were asked whether a particular city should have paid for a full-time bridge monitor to protect against debris getting caught and blocking the flow of water. Some students only saw the information that was available at the time of the city’s decision; others saw the information that was available after the decision was already made: debris had blocked the river and caused flood damage.
As it turns out, 24% of students in the first group (with limited information) said the city should have paid for the bridge, compared to 56% of students in the second group (with all information). Hindsight had affected their judgment.
Overconfidence is when some of us are too confident about our abilities, and this causes us to take greater risks in our daily lives.
Perhaps surprisingly, experts are more prone to this bias than laypeople. An expert might make the same inaccurate prediction as someone unfamiliar with the topic — but the expert will probably be convinced that he’s right.
Overoptimism occurs when individuals believe they are less likely to encounter negative events.
On the flip side, overoptimism may have some benefits — hopefulness tends to improve physical health and reduce stress. In fact, researchers say we’re basically hardwired to underestimate the probability of negative events — meaning this bias is especially hard to overcome.
Pessimism bias occurs when individuals overestimate how often negative things will happen to them.
Those who are depressed are more likely to exhibit the pessimism bias.
Placebo effect is when simply believing that something will have a certain impact on you causes it to have that effect.
This is a basic principle of stock market cycles, as well as a supporting feature of medical treatment in general. People given “fake” pills often experience the same physiological effects as people given the real thing.
Planning fallacy is the tendency to underestimate how much time it will take to complete a task.
According to Kahneman, people generally think they’re more capable than they actually are and have greater power to influence the future than they really do. For example, even if you know that writing a project report typically takes your coworkers several hours, you might believe that you can finish it in under an hour because you’re especially skilled.
Post-purchase rationalization is when we overlook an expensive item’s flaws to justify the purchase.
Priming is when you more readily identify ideas related to a previously introduced idea.
Let’s take an experiment as an example, again from Less Wrong:
Suppose you ask subjects to press one button if a string of letters forms a word, and another button if the string does not form a word. (E.g., “banack” vs. “banner”.) Then you show them the string “water.” Later, they will more quickly identify the string “drink” as a word. This is known as “cognitive priming” …
Priming also reveals the massive parallelism of spreading activation: if seeing “water” activates the word “drink,” it probably also activates “river,” or “cup,” or “splash.”
Pro-innovation bias occurs when a proponent of an innovation tends to overvalue its usefulness and undervalue its limitations.
That happens largely because, when you set the weight-loss goal, you don’t take into account that there will be many instances when you’re confronted with cake and you don’t have a plan for managing your future impulses.
Reactance refers to the desire to do the opposite of what someone wants you to do, in order to prove your freedom of choice.
One study found that when people saw a sign that read, “Do not write on these walls under any circumstances,” they were more likely to deface the walls than when they saw a sign that read, “Please don’t write on these walls.” The study authors say that’s partly because the first sign posed a greater perceived threat to people’s freedom.
Recency is the tendency to weigh the latest information more heavily than older data.
As financial planner Carl Richards writes in The New York Times, investors often think the market will always look the way it looks today and therefore make unwise decisions: “When the market is down we become convinced that it will never climb out, so we cash out our portfolios and stick the money in a mattress.”
Reciprocity is the belief that fairness should trump other values, even when it’s not in our economic or other interests.
We learn the reciprocity norm from a young age, and it affects all kinds of interactions. One study found that, when restaurant waiters gave customers extra mints, the customers upped their tips. That’s likely because the customers felt obligated to return the favor.
Regression bias occurs when people take action in response to extreme situations. When the situations become less extreme, they take credit for causing the change, when a more likely explanation is that the situation was reverting to the mean.
In ” Thinking, Fast and Slow,” Kahneman gives an example of how the regression bias plays out in real life. An instructor in the Israeli Air Force asserted that when he chided cadets for bad execution, they always did better on their second try. The instructor believed that his reprimands were the cause of the improvement.
Yet Kahneman told him he was really observing regression to the mean, or random variations in the quality of performance. If you perform really badly one time, it’s highly probable that you’ll do better the next time, even if you do nothing to try to improve.
Restraint bias occurs when we overestimate our capacity for impulse control.
Salience is our tendency to focus on the most easily recognizable features of a person or concept.
For example, research suggests that when there’s only one member of a racial minority on a business team, other members use that individual’s performance to predict how any member of that racial group would perform.
Scope insensitivity is where your willingness to pay for something doesn’t correlate with the scale of the outcome.
Once upon a time, three groups of subjects were asked how much they would pay to save 2,000 / 20,000 / 200,000 migrating birds from drowning in uncovered oil ponds. The groups respectively answered $80, $78, and $88. This is scope insensitivity or scope neglect: the number of birds saved — the scope of the altruistic action — had little effect on willingness to pay.
Seersucker illusion is the over-reliance on expert advice.
Seersucker illusion has to do with the avoidance of responsibility. We call in “experts” to forecast when typically they have no greater chance of predicting an outcome than the rest of the population. In other words, “for every seer there’s a sucker.”
Selective attention occurs when we allow our expectations to influence how we perceive the world.
The classic study on selective attention is called the ” invisible gorilla” experiment. Psychologists Christopher Chabris and Daniel Simons created a short film in which a team wearing white and a team wearing black pass basketballs. Participants are asked to count the number of passes made by either the white or the black team. Halfway through the video, a woman wearing a gorilla suit crosses the court, thumps her chest, and walks off screen. She’s on screen for a total of nine seconds.
About half of the thousands of people who have watched the video (you can watch it here) don’t notice the gorilla, presumably because they’re so wrapped up in counting the basketball passes.
Of course, when asked if they would notice the gorilla in this situation, nearly everyone says they would.
Self-enhancing transmission bias occurs when everyone shares their successes more than their failures.
Status quo bias is the tendency to prefer things to stay the same.
This is similar to loss-aversion bias, where people prefer to avoid losses instead of acquiring gains.
Stereotyping occurs when people generalize characteristics about others based on the groups they belong to.
Stereotyping occurs when we expect a group or person to have certain qualities without having real information about the individual.
There may be some value to stereotyping because it allows us to quickly identify strangers as friends or enemies. But people tend to overuse it.
For example, one study found that people were more likely to hire a hypothetical male candidate over a female candidate to perform a mathematical task, even when they learned that the candidates would perform equally well.
Survivorship bias occurs when individuals focus on successful outcomes, yet overlook failure.
Survivorship bias is an error that comes from focusing only on surviving examples, causing us to misjudge a situation. For instance, we might think that being an entrepreneur is easy because we haven’t heard of all of the entrepreneurs who have failed.
It can also cause us to assume that survivors are inordinately better than failures, without regard for the importance of luck or other factors.
Tragedy of the commons occurs when individuals use public resources in their own self interest rather than for the common good.
Zero-risk bias occurs when we choose to eliminate risk absolutely in one area, rather than eliminate more risk spread out across different areas.
Sociologists have found that we love certainty — even if it’s counterproductive.
Thus the zero-risk bias.
In general, people tend to prefer approaches that eliminate some risks completely, as opposed to approaches that reduce all risks — even though the second option would produce a greater overall decrease in risk.
UK organiser Oliver Mayeux said the convention would enhance the network of a “rather eccentric tribe”.
The society – which has 185 members in 27 countries – was created in 2007 to “promote the art, craft and science of language creation”.
It came to recent prominence after the producers of Game of Thrones got in touch to find a language creator to develop Dothraki, from the few words and phrases in the original books by George RR Martin.
Linguist David J Peterson, a member of the society, was then chosen to devise an entire language for the series.
Conference host Bettina Beinhoff, of the Anglia Ruskin centre for Intercultural and Multilingual Studies, said most conlangers derived inspiration from Lord of the Rings author JRR Tolkien, who developed languages for much of his work.
“For many language creators, Tolkien was the starting point, many want to recreate his sense of aesthetics,” Dr Beinhoff said.
“I hope the conference will inspire conlangers to learn from each other, as well as get ideas and solutions to any dilemmas they face.”
Other constructed languages, such as Klingon, from Star Trek, have developed their own cultural appeal.
Esperanto, invented in the late 19th Century as a “universal second language to foster peace and international understanding”, is spoken by about two million speakers worldwide, according to language database Ethnologue.
Society president Joseph Windsor, said: “When you hear Klingons speaking Klingon, or the Dothraki speaking Dothraki, it adds a sense of believability to a fictional world.
“I’ve heard from different conlangers who engage with the craft as catharsis after a stressful day, or who use their languages to be able to keep a completely private journal.
“You can’t Google Translate a conlang that no-one else knows.”
Dr Mayeux, who has a PhD in linguistics from Cambridge University, said building a language from scratch is an “incredibly personal thing”.
“It’s like poetry or painting – people who do it have a natural expressiveness and admiration for language,” he said.
“We don’t do it for fame or notoriety, we’re a rather eccentric tribe of language nerds, coming together to discuss their creations.”
The convention takes place at Anglia Ruskin University’s Cambridge campus from 22 to 23 June.
Alternately, if you lived 2,500 years ago in what is now western China, you smoked the good stuff at funerals while playing ritualistic music and also maybe doing some human sacrifice.
So says a fascinating new study in the journal Science Advances. Researchers analyzed ancient incense burners (known as braziers) from burial grounds at the so-called Jirzankal Cemetery, nearly 10,000 feet up in the mountains of Central Asia, and found residue that tested positive for cannabis. Not only that, it’s cannabis high in THC content—at least by ancient standards—suggesting that these peoples were seeking out the most powerful plants for funerary rituals, perhaps aided by the fact that cannabis growing at high elevations tends to express more THC. It’s a glimpse both into how cannabis use spread around the ancient world, and how we humans have long exploited the plant’s malleability for our own purposes, be they for enjoying videogames or ushering compatriots into the afterlife.
The cannabis we grow today is wildly different from what our ancestors got their hands on. Just over the last few decades, growers—particularly in Northern California’s legendary weed country—have bred strains to produce ever more flower with ever higher THC content. We’re talking compositions of up to 30 percent THC, whereas in the ’60s the hippies could puff all day on 5 percent flower, which is more in line with the cannabis you’d find growing in the wild, and what these ancient peoples may have been using.
This study, however, couldn’t pinpoint what percent THC the residue contains, because technically it doesn’t contain any. Instead, the researchers tested for a sort of signal for THC called cannabinol, or CBN. “THC will turn into CBN via an oxidative degradation pathway,” says Jeff Raber, CEO of the cannabis lab the Werc Shop, who wasn’t involved in the work. “That's a fancy way of saying, in the presence of air and/or heat, it will go from THC to CBN.”
The mere presence of CBN in significant amounts is telling, as it suggests significant amounts of THC in the cannabis that burned in the braziers. Because plenty of cannabis growing out in the wild has vanishingly small amounts of THC. Hemp, for instance, is by definition less than 0.3 percent THC.
Where these ancient peoples got their product, though, isn’t clear. But one candidate might be the kafiristanica varieties, which today grow in the mountainous regions of Afghanistan. “In its wild state, it does have higher chemical production levels,” says study coauthor Robert Spengler, director of the Paleoethnobotany Laboratories at the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History. “So it's very possible this plant was existing farther north in the past, and that humans were targeting it.”
The researchers can’t be sure whether these peoples were actively domesticating and cultivating their cannabis, selecting for more intoxicating plants, or whether they were finding populations in the wild to exploit. “The findings suggest that humans may have harvested or traded for atypically psychoactive wild cannabis plants in order to achieve altered states of consciousness,” says Ryan Stoa, who studies the history of cannabis, but who wasn’t involved in the study. “Alternatively, humans may have obtained psychoactive cannabis by breeding and cultivating the plants themselves, which would represent one of the oldest examples of psychoactive cannabis cultivation.”
Even if these peoples weren’t breeding their own plants for higher THC content, they would have been coming across some pretty darn intoxicating cannabis, at least by wild standards, because of a delightful quirk of biology. Cannabis is a highly plastic plant, meaning you can take two genetically identical individuals and grow them in two different conditions, and you’ll get two different chemical compositions. Things like sunlight exposure and soil quality and water all may influence how much THC—and any number of other cannabinoids like CBD—the plant expresses.
Critically, at these higher altitudes, cannabis would be exposed to more UV radiation than at lower altitudes. “The plant is known to make THC as a UV protectant,” says Raber. A plant, you see, is not as defenseless as it might seem. “It’s sitting there trying to figure out what molecules to generate to ward off pests or protect itself from its own environment.”
So here in the mountains of Central Asia, ancient peoples may have stumbled into the ideal habitat for the growth of strong weed. How, though, do the researchers know they weren’t just burning the cannabis as incense for these rituals? For one, this particular landscape is dominated by two plant groups, junipers and artemisias—basically the Central Asian version of the American southwest’s sage brush. Both are highly aromatic and known to be prominent in ancient incense burning. Wild cannabis, on the other hand, has nowhere near the strong scent of today’s high-octane cultivated varieties. (That characteristic smell, by the way, comes from compounds called terpenoids.)
“So it really doesn't make much sense why they would target something that doesn't really have much of a scent in its wild state, when there were so many other options out there,” says Spengler.
In addition, historical accounts of the Greek historian Herodotus describe cannabis smoking among peoples to the west, in the Caspian Steppe, which an archaeological find has corroborated: A wooden tent frame and copper containers of burnt cannabis seeds, suggesting these folks were, well, hotboxing. This may well have been a cleansing ritual after a funeral, whereas this new finding appears to be more of a mid-ritual smoking.
“I think ancient people smoked cannabis to get to a special hallucinogenic state, to communicate with nature or spirits of deceased people,” says study coauthor Yimin Yang, of the University of Chinese Academy of Sciences.
In the Jirzankal Cemetery, then, someone was blazing. But it’s hard to tell who exactly. It may have been the community, or maybe just spiritual elites. It’s also hard to divine how the intoxication combined with other elements in the ritual, though there might have also been a musical component, given that the researchers discovered an angular harp in the burial grounds. In addition, they found what might be evidence of human sacrifice in the form of perimortem injuries to skeletal remains—that is, blows suffered near or at the time of death.
“So it's a plausible argument that there could have been human sacrifice attached to this whole ritual activity,” says Spengler. “How it all fits into one actual mortuary practice, I could only speculate.” The researchers stress that this evidence demands further investigation. (You can’t just go around accusing people willy-nilly of ritualistic human sacrifice, after all.)
But what’s becoming much clearer is a picture of a time in history when human populations were increasingly flowing in and out of Central Asia: By testing bones in the Jirzankal Cemetery, the researchers could determine that some of the individuals weren’t from around these parts. Moving along trade routes, various peoples disseminated ideas and goods. Cannabis was both an idea and a good, not just a resource for making things like rope but for getting high and influencing rituals.
“Cannabis smoking becomes a broad cultural practice that may have had linkages between people all across Western and Central Asia,” says Spengler.
Abrams could be a game-changer as a Democratic candidate for president, but she is carefully weighing her options
You can tell a lot about a person by the way they dont run for president.
With some two dozen Democrats officially in the race for 2020, Stacey Abrams is the only one by the starting line unsure if shell compete.
Indecision is a label most politicians will go to great lengths to avoid. George W Bush declared himself the decider, while the former White House spokesman Sean Spicer memorably characterized his old boss as unbelievably decisive.
But Abrams is leaning into her indecision, seeing it as an opportunity to more fully and intelligently explore her possible paths forward after her dramatic run for the governorship of Georgia last year ended in defeat but catapulted her on to the national stage.
We often push ourselves to make quick choices simply for the expediency of either ourselves or whoever is asking the question, she said in a private side room of the Renaissance Hotel in downtown Washington DC, where shes just off-stage from a speech at a liberal thinktank conference.
If you havent fully investigated, you can decide in haste and repent at leisure, she said.
Whatever Abrams does next, other 2020 runners will be watching closely.
I believe she would change the game, said Aimee Allison, founder of She The People, a group that works to elect women of color. She would change the calculus for the countrys strongest Democratic voting bloc: black women and other women of color.
The revered author still has two more books — “The Winds of Winter” and “A Dream of Spring” — he’s writing and has implied the TV show and the books will probably end differently. According to Martin, “How will it all end? I hear people asking. The same ending as the show? Different? Well… yes. And no. And yes. And no. And yes. And no. And yes.”
“I expect these last two books of mine will fill 3000 manuscript pages between them before I’m done… and if more pages and chapters and scenes are needed, I’ll add them,” he continued.
Aware of the criticism of the last few episodes, Martin said to his followers, “How about this? I’ll write it. You read it. Then everyone can make up their own mind, and argue about it on the internet.”
True health is not simply the absence of disease. It is a state of being in which the miraculous physical and mental forces that make us human work together in proper balance. True health allows us to be ourselves and live every day at our own personal best. Achieving true health is a journey—unique to every individual.
However, many of us do not feel the need to begin this journey until we experience symptoms, such as pain or dysfunction, that interfere with our quality of life. The disruption of our health becomes something that needs to be “fixed.” So we visit our doctors in the hope of finding relief. Traditional mainstream medicine, while immensely helpful in combatting disease and medical conditions, neglects the deeper concept of true health by treating the condition and its symptoms, not the total individual. Under our present system, doctors simply do not have the time to evaluate the overall health of their patients. Therefore, they are forced to focus on the specific symptom or condition, instead of trying to find the underlying source of the problem and treating it with an appropriate therapy to heal the entire body.
The fundamental weakness in this approach is that it doesn’t help the patient achieve true health. It applies general therapeutic procedures proven to address the condition, not the person. Often, what might be an effective treatment for one person might not prove as effective for another with the same condition because of their unique physiology and circumstances. Many patients might get temporary relief, but the underlying imbalance in their system tends to resurface in the future. As a result, too many people end the journey to healing before it has truly begun and never achieve optimal and lasting health.
Applied Kinesiology (AK) follows a different model. It is the science of healing the total person and supporting his or her true health through the study of movement and integral muscle function. Patients often visit an AK specialist after they have run the gamut of traditional medical professionals with little or no success. AK specialists take the time to do an extensive interview with each patient to assess his or her concerns regarding their health. They review the results of any standard tests the patient has undergone. Then, by observing how a person moves and subsequently testing various muscles by hand that are linked to a particular condition or symptom, the Applied Kinesiologist can create a unique treatment plan to alleviate the underlying dysfunction and restore the patient to health.
Applied Kinesiology utilizes a spectrum of noninvasive diagnostic and treatment protocols to restore optimal function to your body. These include various muscle manipulation techniques, chiropractic therapies, acupuncture, nutrition, cranial therapy, specific exercises, and mind/body procedures.
Current estimates suggest that 1,000,000 practitioners worldwide are using some form of AK manual muscle testing, and as more and more patients and medical professionals become aware of its benefits—this number will continue to climb. As its benefits become more mainstream, it is only a matter of time before Applied Kinesiology takes its place as one of the most effective healthcare disciplines in the world today.
Achieving true health is indeed a journey and it is not just simply the absence of disease. True health is unique to each person and will allow every individual to live each day of their lives at their personal best. Journey To Healing: The Art And Science of Applied Kinesiology by Eugene Charles, D.C. is about Applied Kinesiology which follows a different model. Healing is done through various muscle manipulation techniques, acupuncture, nutrition, chiropractic techniques, cranial therapy, specific exercises, and mind/body procedures. The author introduces this unique healing system which is relatively unknown and gives readers information about it.
Muscles, bones, nerves, and organs are interconnected and co-dependent. This book gives good insights on a topic that is not generally known to readers and will help them realize how helpful the technique is to patients and that there is an alternate way to healing and dealing with health problems. The book also tackles various health conditions and how Applied Kinesiology addresses these conditions. The author speaks about the topic in an expansive and methodical way and he uses simple language so that it will be easy for readers to comprehend. Traditional medicine may not be effective all the time. The author’s personal experiences make it easy for readers to understand Applied Kinesiology. This is an interesting and engaging book for readers who are on the lookout for alternative ways to heal themselves.
Reviewed by Mamta Madhavan
Dr. Eugene Charles is a doctor of chiropractic and a Diplomate in Applied Kinesiology. While in his early 20’s he experienced severe shoulder pain due to an athletic injury. He suffered with the pain for years until Dr. George Goodheart—the founder of Applied Kinesiology (AK)— diagnosed his condition and correctly devised a treatment plan. Since being healed, Dr. Charles has dedicated his life to helping people with difficult to treat conditions and teaching AK to other practitioners.
Dr. Charles has treated well over 6,000 patients and has taught thousands of doctors from many different specialties the art and science of Applied Kinesiology. He has been teaching AK for more than 30 years.
This weekend, a reasonable and thoughtful answer to a particularly thorny question about American history by Mayor Pete Buttigieg became the stuff of an over-simplified and uninformed controversy.
Buttigieg, who has seen his star his in the 2020 Democratic primary rise considerably, was asked about an annual Democratic fundraising tradition, Jefferson-Jackson Day, and whether it should be renamed because both men were slaveholders.
In 2016, Indiana, where Buttigieg is a mayor, dropped the name. Buttigieg called it the right decision. He added that because of President Andrew Jackson’s history of genocide against Native Americans, it was easy to not support him, but that Jefferson was a thornier issue.
You know, over time, you develop and evolve on the things you choose to honor. And I think we know enough, especially Jackson, you know, you just look at what basically amounts to genocide that happened here. Jeffersons more problematic.
He goes onto say that Jefferson knew about the evils of slave ownership and that even so, he continued to do own salves. And that removing people’s names from memorials is not erasing them, but that we should have a high standard for the people we look up to and consider how lionizing these people looks to the communities affected by their behavior.
Extremely reasonable stuff.
You know, theres a lot to, of course, admire in his thinking and his philosophy. Then again, as you plunge into his writings, especially the notes on the state of Virginia, you know that he knew that slavery was wrong …And yet, he did it. Now were all morally conflicted human beings. And its not like were blotting him out of the history books, or deleting him from being the founder fathers. But you know, naming something after somebody confers a certain amount of honor. And at a time, I mean, the real reason I think theres a lot of pressure on this is the relationship between the past and the present, that were finding in a million different ways that racism isnt some curiosity out of the past that were embarrassed about but moved on from. Its alive, its well, its hurting people.
Buttigieg didn’t really say Jefferson’s name should be removed from memorials, but naturally, it wasn’t framed that way in the conservative online discourse.
Suddenly, Buttigieg wants the Thomas Jefferson Memorial in D.C. torn down.
Thomas Jefferson may be the most influential person to have ever called himself a United States citizen. He created conditions such that a gay man could one day run for the highest office in the land. It's lost on this gay dude though. Too bad. https://t.co/vArtYwU0rj via @nypost
Last month, Game of Thrones actor Ian McElhinney, who was on the show for several seasons as Ser Barristan Selmy, told fans at Epic Con (a fan convention in St. Petersburg, Russia) that Martin had already written the final two books and that he was holding off on publishing them until Game of Thrones was over. Although the clip was originally posted to YouTube at the end of April, entertainment sites only caught wind of the McElhinneys comments over the past couple days.
George has already written books 6 and 7, and as far as hes concerned, there only are seven books, McElhinney told fans. But he struck an agreement with David [Benioff] and Dan [Weiss], the showrunners on the series, that he would not publish the final two books until the series has completed. So if all goes well, in another month or two we might get books 6 and 7, and Im intrigued to know how Barristan, for instance, ends up going through those final two books. George, I talked to him during season 1 and he did say to me that Barristan had a very interesting journey. But unfortunately, I didnt get to play all of that, so well have to wait and see.
McElhinney, who was disappointed that Barristan Selmy was killed off in the books as early as he wasthe character is still alive in ASOIAFis curious, like many book fans, to see what happens to the character he portrayed.
Once McElhinneys comments gained steam, Martin quickly shot down the idea that he had finished writing The Winds of Winter and A Dream of Spring.
I will, however, say for the record no, THE WINDS OF WINTER and A DREAM OF SPRING are not finished, Martin wrote. DREAM is not even begun; I am not going to start writing volume seven until I finish volume six.
Martin also pointedly shot down the idea that anybody made him hold off on publishing his books before Game of Thrones finished its run. As Martin highlighted, if he was holding onto finished works, hed be sitting on a lot of money for both him and his publishers. And given the symbiotic nature between ASOIAF and Game of Thrones, each of them garners interest for the other.
HBO did not ask me to delay them, Martin added. Nor did David & Dan. There is no ‘deal’ to hold back on the books. I assure you, HBO and David & Dan would both have been thrilled and delighted if THE WINDS OF WINTER had been delivered and published four or five years ago and NO ONE would have been more delighted than me.
The Winds of Winter does not yet have a release date, but Martin has said he will reveal it the moment that there is one to announce.
NOW HEAR THIS:
How linguist David J. Peterson created the Dothraki and Valyrian languages for Game of Thrones
Introducing 2 GIRLS 1 PODCAST, a weekly comedy show where Alli Goldberg and Jen Jamula (two actors who perform bizarre internet content on stage) have hilarious and humanizing conversations with Bronies, top Reddit mods, professional ticklers, video game archaeologists, dating app engineers, adult babies, cuddling specialists, vampires, Jedi, living dolls, and more.
Her comments were tweeted out by @rowlinglibrary on Sunday.
According to the Twitter account, the author said about Dumbledore and Grindelwald: “Their relationship was incredibly intense. It was passionate, and it was a love relationship.”
“But as it happens in any relationship, gay or straight or whatever label we want to put on it, one never knows really what the other person is feeling. You can’t know, you can believe you know,” she continued.
“So I’m less interested in the sexual side — though I believe there is a sexual dimension to this relationship — than I am in the sense of the emotions they felt for each other, which ultimately is the most fascinating thing about all human relationship,” she added.
That sexual relationship, however, was not made obvious in “The Crimes of Grindelwald,” which disappointed fans at the time.
Followers expressed their displeasure again on social media over the weekend.
One Twitter user posted: “J.K. Rowling Confirms Some Characters in Her Books and Movies Are Gay Everywhere Except in the Books or the Movies.”
Another person tweeted: “jk rowling reappearing every 2 months to say something literally no one asked about is me adding more random details to my essay to up my word count.”
Someone else wrote: “I love Harry Potter so much but JK’s blatant (and failing) attempts to make Dumbledore any gayer without actually having the guts or motive to actually write it… Smh, making a character gay to seem woke or give them more depth… Sloppy, Rowling.”
“Well, as an ‘intense’ homosexual, and a fan of her books, I’ve quite had it with J. K. Rowling piggybacking on LGBTQ+ folk because it’s trendy to do so now, when she wasn’t prepared to make the sacrifices and fight at a time when it wasn’t so easy,” another Twitter user wrote, adding: “Stop milking ££ our rainbow.”
Not all fans were upset with Rowling’s comments, however, with one person tweeting: “I can’t believe people are this up in arms about JK Rowling. Holy s–t no one is ever satisfied. It’s a book series. We all loved it. It was amazing. STFU and enjoy it.”
Rowling, who is known for announcing additions to her books and movies on social media and in interviews, declared Dumbledore was gay in 2007, 10 years after her first novel, “Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone,” was published in the U.K. in 1997.
However, the wizard’s sexuality is never explicitly mentioned in any of the books or movies.