Meds are super expensive and my Insurance doesn't cover it. Are there any programs that help pay for medication for kids that need it, but can't afford it?? Im 15 btw.

actuallyadhd:

Check the manufacturers’ web sites. They often have plans to help with this sort of thing. Also, if there’s a Costco near you, medication is usually cheaper there and you don’t need a membership to get prescriptions. When you go in, just tell the person who checks the cards that you’re doing prescriptions and they’ll let you through. (I actually asked the pharmacy tech who helped me last time because I wanted to get more information on this for people.)

-J

futurejournalismproject:

10 Tips for Filming Protests, Demonstrations & Police Misconduct
Remember though, if you can’t run with it, probably best not to bring it.
This and other timely filming tips are available here (PDFs).
Images: Via WITNESS. Select to embiggen. futurejournalismproject:

10 Tips for Filming Protests, Demonstrations & Police Misconduct
Remember though, if you can’t run with it, probably best not to bring it.
This and other timely filming tips are available here (PDFs).
Images: Via WITNESS. Select to embiggen.

    futurejournalismproject:

    10 Tips for Filming Protests, Demonstrations & Police Misconduct

    Remember though, if you can’t run with it, probably best not to bring it.

    This and other timely filming tips are available here (PDFs).

    ImagesVia WITNESS. Select to embiggen.

    From The Desk Of

    Controlling the narrative: Ferguson police target journalists - YouTube »

    Me tonight talking about police and press

    That face you get when you have a summer cold, are depressed from talking about #mikebrown on TV and radio…and them someone emails you about a single typo in a syllabus… Can we add another month to #summer2014 ? (at Georgetown University)

    It’s not about weakness or moral failing, and it kills. #depression #robinwilliams

    Style

    Good points are out there about Hamas using “human shields,” but is some of this mere propaganda and ignorance? Perhaps the correct term is “hostage,” but that involves dispassionate empirical and anecdotal digging no one is willing to make. Certainly not Israel, or Fox News. And nothing beyond kneejerk battle cries from the Palestinians. Then again, Palestinians don’t have the burden of proof to show someone isn’t a hostage. Israel does—unless (and here’s the irony referenced below—they want to punt the righteousness and narrative behind the casus belli they cite, and just say this land is ours, the Palestinians are a lost and conquered people vexing us, thus we can spill their blood and destroy their homes, hospitals, sources or water, sanitation, no matter who they are. Even kids, babies. No matter the poverty and despair in which they live. They can solve that by being quiet serfs. Honesty in the use of deadly power obviates the need for silly terms like human shield…

    …and moreover, every insurgency including our own American Revolution and even in our Civil War ( as Northern Armies penetrated the South) has a critical element of “human shielding.” Yes, Gaza is an insurgency, not a contest of equals. Mixing in non-combatants is pivotal to the victory, if not survival, of the insurgency. These aren’t “human shields” but rather one’s own people, own kin, own tribe, or the neighborhoods from which you draw strength against a technologically and/or numerically superior enemy. This enemy could invaders, or occupiers, or neighbors with a blood beef.

    Had the IRA not switched from “traditional” military operations to neighborhood-based guerilla warfare against the British Army, would there have been an independent Ireland in the 1920s, for example? Or, yes— a successful revolt by Jewish paramilitary and saboteur groups against the British in 1947? Would India and Pakistan be independent, as with most nations that were once colonial possessions? I suppose “terrorists” are only brown and Muslim. But history tells us that unless you can match up a shifting set of metrics and narratives coupled with nihilism and even criminal motives, from the beginning of human civilization quite a number of “terrorists” were deemed liberators, founding fathers (or mothers), military geniuses. I suppose the nihilism tag would stick to Hamas, as many folk  here in the US, Jewish or not, and in Israel, would agree. But  there are plenty of people in Gaza, bombed and bloodied, and millions worldwide who would disagree with me. So its ironic as well as stupid to use this term human shield so freely. War becomes about principal and right and wrong, civilizing people, Marxism, capitalism, religion, or self defense or preemptive self defense after the fact. In its inception, its always about resources and tribalism.

    So let’s say this isn’t an insurgency. Yet even in “standard” battles—where someone’s invading another’s home—you cannot bandy around  this term “human shields.”  Russians fighting Germans, cheek and jowl with civilians, in the streets of Stalingrad in 1942? The flipside in the streets of Berlin in 1945? Americans attacking Saipan, Okinawa—and Japanese civilians…children, old people…among the soldiers in terror yes but willingly, as we were the invaders. The only examples contra in standard warfare might be Americans fighting to liberate Manila from the Japanese, or British forces bursting into Antwerp or Rotterdam to oust the Germans, all in World War two. There you had genuine hostage situations,  where the now ragged occupiers were trying to leverage the lives of the very people they’d been terrorizing, so they could buy time or escape.

    Here’s another one, sad but true: George Armstrong Custer  lamented how Cheyenne braves “melted in” among Indian encampments, and you couldn’t tell who was a hostile and who was a mere hanger-on. So he declared that everyone was a hostile and everyone was subject to a bullet or sabre…unless they expressly surrendered. Everyone. And he blamed the Indians for his need to cut down kids, old people—because the warriors, and leaders like Sitting Bull, Crazy Horse et al were using their families as human shields. Implying there was no kinship, ignoring or the reality that all were refugees, bound together and being hounded off their own ancestral lands. Indeed when the 7th Cavalry attacked what turned out to be a gigantic camp of such refugee Sioux and Cheyenne on the Little Bighorn River, Custer had planned to either anybody, “combatant” or otherwise, if they didn’t surrender immediately…or take women and children as hostages to force any bands of braves to lay down their arms.  

    Accordingly,  “human shield” is a term you can’t just throw around or bark over, even against a group like Hamas, unless you have all of the context, past and present, there in Gaza or right around the corner from my house, in Washington, DC. MPD officers, DEA agents and US Marshals raided a rowhouse looking for two young men, both drug dealers and one a fugitive wanted for shooting another thug. The men’s mother, aunt and uncle, and three young children lived in the house; the men laid low in the basement for months. I was there when the mother screamed and sobbed as her bloodied kids were lead to a police car from the wrecked house. Wrecked by law enforcement battering rams and crow bars. One of the cops snapped: “Those boys used you as human shields.” To which she replied, tears and convulsions replaced by a defiant and icy, scary glare: “That’s how you see it but you wrong. I ain’t nobody’s ‘shield.’ I’m their mother….”

     

     

    D.N.

    “Journalists justify their treachery in various ways according to their temperaments. The more pompous talk about freedom of speech and ‘the public’s right to know’; the least talented talk about Art; the seemliest murmur about earning a living.”
    from The Journalist and the Murderer By Janet Malcolm (via vintageanchorbooks)

    fadedsignals:

    Television was still a relatively new phenomenon in 1950. Fewer than 1 million U.S. households had a TV set, and fewer than 100 TV stations were on the air. Many parts of the country did not have TV service.

    It was a new medium, but it grew rapidly in the 1950s. The radio industry, which had enjoyed a 20-year grip on America’s attention and advertisers’ dollars, found itself facing a new rival. Radio seemed to shrink as rapidly as television grew. An NBC survey in Fort Wayne, Ind., conducted in the early 1950s found radio listening fell 50 percent after the introduction of television service.

    Nighttime radio audiences plummeted. Long-running staples of network radio’s golden era moved to TV. The radio networks slashed advertising rates. They focused on advertising to women during daytime programming and gradually reduced nighttime shows.

    Of course, radio did not die. Stations adapted to the changes TV brought. As listeners’ relationship with radio changed, broadcasters responded with new formats based around music, talk and news programming.  

    Historians often cite the final episodes of “Yours Truly, Johnny Dollar” and “Suspense” as marking the end of radio’s golden age. The programs aired the evening of September 30, 1962 over the CBS Radio Network.

    (via broadcastarchive-umd)

    Theme by Pixel Union