Former California first lady and journalist Maria Shriver revealed that only “pre-determined questions” were allowed to be asked of Vice President Kamala Harris at a Michigan town hall event on Monday.  “Are we going to be able to ask a question?” a woman attending the Oakland County event asked Shriver ahead of Harris taking the stage with former Congresswoman Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.), according to the Daily Mail.   Shriver shut her down. “You’re not,...

Maria Shriver, the moderator of a town hall event with Vice President Kamala Harris and former Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) on Monday, told the audience that they would not be allowed to ask spontaneous questions as "pre-determined questions" had already been picked. "Hopefully, I'll be able to ask some of the questions that might be in your head. I hope so," Shriver said.

Vice President Kamala Harris said Monday she didn't imagine campaigning for president alongside Republican former U.S. Rep. Liz Cheney, of Wyoming, who, in turn, said she's voting for a Democrat for the first time. Cheney delivered a message to conservatives on the fence about Harris. "I would say, I don't know if anybody's more conservative than I am. And I understand the most conservative value there is is to defend the Constitution," she said, prompting loud applause from the audience...

We’ve all heard it before, parents and non-parents alike: “It takes a village.” And while there is certainly a whole lotta truth behind this statement, it can also be maddening to hear when modern life makes said village so darn hard to attain. This can lead parents into feeling guilty for having to rely on paid resources like child care. Or—perhaps even worse—they seek the “help" of family members that actually do more harm than good. But one mom is here to say that maybe we don’t need a village after all. “You know it doesn't really take a village, right?” a mom who goes by @nnelly.co on TikTok says. Nelly argues that more than anything, raising a kid “takes a lot of sacrifice.” And she points out that if you still want a village, “it doesn't have to be blood-related.” Nelly shares how she too felt the need to reach out to family members for support, saying “In the beginning, I was under the impression that I was supposed to have a village. So, I just tried to follow what everybody told me was supposed to happen.” But in the end, “those people created more stress than just us raising these children ourselves.” @nnelly.co ♬ original sound - . After finding it easier to manage her three kids of various ages and social activities alone, she has come to the conclusion that “blood villages,” as she calls them, aren’t all that, primarily because they “come with stipulations.” “I'd rather pay for childcare. I'd rather turn to my friends. The village is not for everyone. I'm pretty sure the village is on its way out. What parenting really takes is sacrifice, a lot of your time and money and energy and love. You don't need a village,” she concludes. Down in the comments, people were quick to agree with Nelly’s take. “Gen X here and did not have a village. I homeschooled and had a husband who traveled,” one person wrote. Another added, “My village has always been just me and my husband. Its been tough at times, but I wouldn't’ have it any other way.” Still another said, “I could not do parenting without my village (mostly not blood related).” Nelly clarified her intention in her response to this comment, saying “I’m sure a lot of people feel this way .I’m only saying it’s not a requirement of parenting and you can choose not to have one OR choose who it is.” And this is the real point to probably drive home here. Yes, it’s true that having a village can make raising a family easier. And yes, there are many barriers preventing folks from getting this kind of support, but that’s its own conversation. At the end of the day, so many parents have proven time and time again that they are not necessary. So while every situation is different, perhaps this conversation can help village-less parents feel a little less discouraged, and remind them that whatever village they do end up creating, it doesn’t have to include members who don’t offer real support.

Polls show that Democrats and Republicans believe they have less in common now than they did 17 years ago. In 2007, around half of Democrats (46%) and Republicans (43%) thought those on the opposite side of the aisle shared their values and goals. However, a 2024 poll found that only 31% of Democrats and 26% of Republicans believe they share the same values and goals as those in the other political party.The widening political divide makes addressing many of America's pressing issues harder. It has also created a political climate in which the parties favor extremists, and people in the political center feel they have no one to represent them. A new study from the British Journal of Social Psychology has identified one of the major reasons people are becoming increasingly divided over politics. The good news is that it points to a solution. Why are Americans so politically divided?According to the study, one of the most significant and disturbing aspects of the political divide is the belief that the other side is less-than-human. This happens when someone’s relationship with their party evolves from simple identification to political narcissism. Political narcissists are emotionally involved with their party and have an “unrealistic belief about the unparalleled greatness” of who they are.These people can't admit to their party's faults and believe that everything the other side does is wrong. — (@) People often become political narcissists when they feel dehumanized by the other side. This leads them to believe the other side is less-than-human, too.“Our findings suggest that dehumanization is not exclusive to any one political ideology,” one of the study’s authors, Marta Marchlewska, an associate professor and head of the Political Cognition Lab at the Polish Academy of Sciences, told PsyPost. “Both liberals and conservatives may dehumanize their opponents when they identify with their political group in a narcissistic way. Collective narcissism stems from self-related psychological issues, such as anxious attachment styles and low personal control, as well as group-related concerns like perceived in-group disadvantage.”The interesting takeaway from the study is that when one group or political leader lashes out at the other in a dehumanizing way, they are pushing for the other side to see them as less than human, too. So, in a way, dehumanizing the other side robs you of your humanity as well. People in a voting booth.via Canva/PhotosThe good news is that the study found that those who have little contact with people from the other side are more likely to become political narcissists. That means that the more we interact with people we disagree with, the more humanity we will begin to see in one another. The study also notes that many times, when people adopt extreme views, it can be more of a symptom of their insecurities than their feelings about the other party. “It’s crucial to recognize the role of psychological factors in shaping political attitudes and behaviors,” Marchlewska told PsyPost. “By acknowledging our biases and understanding the motivations behind our political identities, we can foster healthier dialogues. I encourage readers to reflect on their identification with political groups and how it might influence their perceptions of others. This awareness could lead to more empathetic interactions, even amidst differing viewpoints.”To prevent this partisan animosity from escalating, people must step out of their bubbles and engage with those on the other side of the aisle. You don’t have to talk about your thoughts on abortion, immigration, or how much the rich should pay in taxes. But socializing with people with whom you disagree exposes you to each other’s common humanity, which can help bridge the gap on the current divide. Once America's major political parties devolve to the point where their supporters become blind to the opposition's humanity, they open the door to committing the worst atrocities.

Many Americans were told to "clean your plate" growing up, meaning to eat everything you were served at mealtime. To leave food on your plate was considered rude, ungrateful or otherwise undesirable behavior, and the habit of eating everything in front of you became ingrained. Kids raised in Japan may have been brought up with an entirely different philosophy, one that tells them to stop eating before they are full. It's called hara hachi bu (or sometimes hara hachi bun me).Stop eating when you're 80% fullHara hachi bu literally translates to "belly 80% full" and on it's face that's literally what it means—stop eating when your stomach feels 80% full. Asako Miyashita, RDN, a New York-based dietitian who grew up in Japan, told Women's Health that the phrase comes from a 300-year-old book by Japanese philosopher and botanist Ekiken Kaibara, "Yojokun: Life Lessons From A Samurai." The book is about listening to your body, and its author lived to 83, which was a remarkably long life at a time when the life expectancy in Japan was 50. Fast forward to today, and the people of Okinawa, Japan, where hara hachi bu is a popular phrase, have some of the longest life expectancies on Earth. But can eating only until you're 80% full actually help you live longer?It's possible. One reason may be calorie restriction. According to longevity researcher Dan Buettner, Okinawans eat about 1,900 calories per day on average. Compare that to Americans who eat over 3,500 calories per day on average. Caloric restriction has been shown to increase the lifespan of multiple animal species and has also been shown to slow the aging process in healthy human adults, so simply not pushing our caloric intake by filling our bellies all the way full may be something to consider if we're looking to live a long life. Hara hachi bu encouraged mindful eatingAnother benefit of the 80% full idea is that it forces you to be mindful about how your body's feeling while you're eating, which may contribute to better physical health. According to Harvard University, mindless or distracted eating—the opposite of mindful eating—is associated with anxiety, overeating, and weight gain."Hara hachi bu is not a diet, but a lifestyle that can help promote a sustainable approach to eating," dietician Kouka Webb, RN, told Women's Health. "It encourages mindful eating and portion control without the need for strict calorie counting or eliminating certain food groups." A family eats dinner in Japan.Photo credit: CanvaHarvard shares that a literature review of 68 intervention and observational studies found that mindfulness and mindful eating slowed down the pace of people's eating and improved people's recognition of when they were full. Mindful eating also reduced binge eating and emotional eating. Overeating can lead to weight gain, of course, but it can also disrupt your hunger regulation, increase your risk for certain types of disease, cause stomach issues like nausea, gas and bloating, and can even impair your brain function. If you stop eating when you're 80% full means you're far less likely to overeat.But does that mean you're always left 20% hungry? Not necessarily. According to the Cleveland Clinic, it takes up to 30 minutes for your brain to actually process that your stomach is full, so if you stop when you feel 80% full, you'll most likely feel 100% full just a short while later.Eat until you're not hungry, not until you're full“There’s a huge gap between being physically satisfied and realizing in your mind that you’re full,” psychologist Susan Albers, PsyD. tells the Cleveland Clinic. “The connection between them is more like old-school dialup speed than instantaneous WiFi.”Eating to 80% full is probably closer to the "eat until you're no longer hungry" advice that she gives her patients to feel satiated without actually feeling "full." “When we think about the word ‘full,’ it’s often like filling up a cup or occupying every inch of a space,” Dr. Albers says. “But the fullness that we can feel and perceive in our stomachs is often being overly full. ‘Satiated’ is different, though. Satiated is meeting a need.”As Buettner writes, "There is a significant calorie gap between when an American says, ‘I’m full’ and an Okinawan says, ‘I’m no longer hungry.’"Of course, the traditional Japanese diet also tends to be quite healthy in terms of what they eat, but mindful eating, paying attention to how your stomach feels and stopping before getting full, is worth applying no matter what cuisine you're eating. Next time you sit down for a meal, give hara hachi bu a try and see how you feel. It definitely can't hurt.

For better or worse, pornography has never been easier to access. And with an increasing number of young people having their own phones and devices — which aren't always monitored — it makes sense that usage in that demographic would be on the rise.Watching porn has typically been thought of as a boy thing. What's surprising is just how common it's becoming among girls.A 2024 study showed that 60% of women ages 18-34 regularly watched porn, with a majority of those first starting when they were teenagers — or younger.What's especially fascinating about the study is that it also examined relationships between porn use in women and the type of sex education those women received in school.Young women who received abstinence-only education were actually more likely to watch porn. Photo by Sixteen Miles Out on Unsplash A large majority of the women surveyed who did use pornography cited it as a "source of sexuality learning, especially regarding sexual pleasure."The study adds that the participants generally admitted porn wasn't the ideal place to learn, but sought it out anyway.Whatever your attitude about porn, most people can probably agree — this development is not great!Actress Jameela Jamil famously said, "Learning to have sex from porn is like learning how to drive from The Fast and Furious. A bloody horrendous idea."But what other choice do young people have? Abstinence-only education gives very little, if any, information about the bare minimum of condoms, other contraception, and sexually transmitted infections (STIs). It preaches that abstaining from sex is the expected standard and the only solution to the risks inherent with sex. It's easy to see why young people would be frustrated, and why they would go online looking for answers.Sex education is still lacking at nearly every level. Including at home. Photo by charlesdeluvio on Unsplash We have known for years (and years and years and years) that abstinence-only education isn't effective. It's been shown again and again not to delay young people having intercourse — and it's not effective at reducing teen pregnancies or STD's. Worse, it leaves kids not knowing nearly enough about contraception, consent, and safe sex when they do choose to become active.It's a stubborn approach that won't seem to go away despite the mounting evidence against it. (Its popularity comes and goes depending on who's in political power at the time and is still quite common throughout the United States.)Even in some slightly more comprehensive sex education programs, however, the focus is still on risk-reduction and contraception. That's a decent start — but leaves young people frustrated with all the missing information."The findings suggest the need for comprehensive sexuality education that addresses essential topics, such as sexual pleasure and sexual script development, to cater to women’s diverse learning needs," the study's authors write, "ideally taught by parents or primary caregivers, but may be necessary for public education in the absence of parental instruction."The idea of schools teaching information about sexual pleasure feels... weird. But if parents can't or won't do it, someone has to. And it can't be worse than having kids trying to imitate what they see on PornHub.Public health experts Leslie Kantor and Laura Lindberg write, "Focusing on [risk-reduction] topics and measures overlooks many key aspects of young people’s current and future sexual lives, including the ability to form and maintain healthy relationships; the right to decide whether, when, and with whom to engage in sexual behavior; and the fact that sex should be pleasurable, to name just a few."It's a little hard to imagine a world where public schools are allowed to go deep on topics like pleasure, sexual identity and preference, consent, and more. (They can't even give out Tylenol without written permission!) So until that day comes, parents have got to pick up the slack at home.I know, the thought makes many of us want to curl up and die. But the benefits of going deeper into these, admittedly uncomfortable, topics with our kids are vast, including:Lower rates of homophobia and bullyingDecreases in partner and dating violenceReduced number of sexual partnersIncreased contraceptive useImproved sexual communication skillsAnd, just maybe, with better education, fewer young people would turn to porn to teach them about sex and pleasure.