Connect with us

Washington

Fat Bear Week has arrived. Meet the chunky contenders.

Published

on

Fat Bear Week has arrived. Meet the chunky contenders.


After all 747 was 2020’s winner; he’s straight-up the most important bear — bar none. “Whenever you see him in particular person, you’re like, ‘yeah, there’s no comparability,’” Whatley mentioned. “He’s positively the fattest.” By the point hibernation comes round, “Bear Power One” weighs an estimated 1,400 kilos. That’s about half the load of a small automobile.“Bear Power One,” is roofed in scars and is often discovered feasting within the “Jacuzzi,” the most effective fishing spots within the river, the place he has to struggle off different huge bears to dine.



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Washington

Advice | Carolyn Hax: Last therapist said cold-calling her office was ‘weird.’ Now what?

Published

on

Advice | Carolyn Hax: Last therapist said cold-calling her office was ‘weird.’ Now what?


Adapted from an online discussion.

Dear Carolyn: I’m working up my nerve to seek therapy. Your “What is therapy like?” column really helped. I would like a reality check on one thing.

I’m lucky enough to have insurance. The last time I sought therapy, I did what my friends suggested and called a therapist who was near me and on my insurance plan, and I asked her if she was taking new patients.

She said she was open to new patients, but — did I know someone who was a client of hers? Because if I didn’t, if I was just calling her out of the blue, well, “that’s kind of weird.”

Advertisement

I did end up having a few sessions with her. Long story long, it was not good. I ended up feeling a lot worse and found it impossible to start trying to find someone else to talk to.

Was that a weird way to find a therapist? Should I be going about this a different way? The only person I know who’s local to me and in therapy is my 24-year-old. Their therapist is absolutely wonderful — my spouse and I helped our kiddo find her when kiddo was a teenager — but I’m hesitant to see her because I’m worried about boundaries. Plus, I think she’s not on our plan anymore and money is definitely an issue.

50-something Female: 1. The weirdest thing about the first therapist was her uncalled-for comment. Not okay at all.

2. It is okay to rule out a therapist for saying something to make you uncomfortable like that. Live and learn. Either speak up about it first — “Making this call was difficult for me, and saying I did something ‘weird’ is not helpful” — or just decline to make an appointment and restart your search. Fit really matters.

3. It can be helpful to get a therapist recommendation from someone you trust — friend, doctor, school counselor, clergy — but, no, looking up someone through your insurance is not “weird.” The baseline thing to expect from a provider is a supportive welcome to their practice. Yeesh. And finding someone is hard!

Advertisement

4. I doubt your child’s wonderful therapist would even agree to treat you, given the potential conflict of interest. But you can ask her for names of other therapists she respects. Then see if any are in your plan, and voilà.

But still say “no thanks” if one of those recommended therapists says something to put you off. Finding that good fit — therapist, friends, career, neighborhood, partner, pants — is rarely a quick process and rarely not worth the effort.

· I’m a therapist, and I get at least a dozen such calls and emails every week. They’re not weird or unusual; people are directed my way by their insurance company listings, by web searches (notably the Psychology Today website) or by taking notice of the little sign with my name on it outside my office door.

The fact is, the ranks of therapists include a percentage of less-than-capable individuals, same as auto mechanics, financial advisers, lawyers or [insert your favorite example here]. If you feel a need to talk with someone, stick with it until you find someone with whom you’re comfortable.

· The therapist who called cold-calling weird is … weird.

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

Washington

‘Civil War’ has a stark warning for Washington

Published

on

‘Civil War’ has a stark warning for Washington


In the 2014 film “Ex Machina,” director Alex Garland offered a chilling forecast of a future dominated by unchecked artificial intelligence. The groundbreaking sci-fi thriller prompted us to consider what happens when such technology is developed by an unscrupulous narcissist who sidesteps profound ethical quandaries. The film was both prescient and clear in its warnings: Be wary of concentrated power and take precautions to prevent such a catastrophe.

A decade later, “Civil War,” Garland’s latest dystopian offering, threads a similar cautionary tale, but with key differences. This time, the calamity is unfolding and its catalysts are largely unexplored.

The film’s vagueness has elicited mixed — yet strikingly similar — reactions across the political spectrum. On the left, critics accuse the film of “utter cowardice” and betraying audiences for not denouncing MAGA. Meanwhile, the right blasts the film for overlooking the “socialist, anarchist” roots of our divisions and its treatment of the media. Alas, both sides are essentially making the same argument by demanding that Hollywood vindicate their respective worldviews.

Advertisement

This isn’t just horseshoe theory. Social science teaches us this need for validation, known as confirmation bias, is endemic to the human condition. In this vein, central to “Civil War” is its auteur’s belief that Republicans and Democrats are more alike than partisans care to admit. The film is more concerned with probing the underlying psychology, incentives and structures that could precipitate a national cataclysm than it is with scapegoating individual politicians or the ideologies they champion as intellectual scaffolding. This approach may not flatter our partisan biases, but it offers a more truthful — and cinematically superior — alternative to more simplistic counterparts.

Like William Wyler’s portrayal of post–World War II America and Sergio Leone’s reinvention of the Western, “Civil War” follows the tradition of incisive commentaries on American life filtered through a foreign lens. The British Garland, himself the son of a newsman, seems especially interested in political journalism’s role in our decay. The film is hardly coy about this — it begins and ends at the nexus of media and politics in Washington. If Garland were to expose the Beltway any more explicitly, he would literally have to hold up a mirror to it in a cameo.

These bookends invite us to scrutinize the role of the “Grift Industrial Complex” — the sordid ecosystem of fame-first politicians and their networks of online influencers and clickbait media platforms — in eroding our politics and culture. With the help of social media companies, those at the top profit handsomely off the paranoia, resentment and pervasive sense of victimhood they cultivate among their audiences.

Their exploitation is particularly troubling, not only because of the psychological harm it inflicts, but because a victimhood mentality inherently requires an aggressor. Viewing the other half of the country as enemies rather than as neighbors with differing opinions sets the stage for animosity.

One of the film’s most critical insights is that hatred leads to asking others “what kind of Americans” they are. In fairness, the nation may already be lost if significant numbers despise their countrymen on account of a few grifters. But you don’t have to believe we’re on the brink of an armed internal conflict to see the prudence in pumping the brakes.

Advertisement

In addition to muting, unfollowing and unsubscribing, a critical first step is recognizing that the Grift Industrial Complex thrives on the demise of institutions. This underscores the urgent need for people of good conscience within ostensibly nonpartisan organizations to reassert their independence, exercise restraint and resist indulging in divisive ideological projects.

In theory, our system is built to withstand self-interest and audience capture, but, as Madison famously argued in Federalist No. 10, a republican form of government is crucial for mitigating their effects. Much of our dysfunction — evident in real life and implied in “Civil War” — is rooted in the outsized influence of the federal government, especially the executive branch. Why else would the film’s fictional president go to such extreme lengths to secure a blatantly unconstitutional third term, if not for its expansive reach?

Politics should matter in a healthy society, but not that much. As the son of Cuban exiles, I’ve seen what happens when every facet of life becomes politicized, and it isn’t pretty. We should heed the film’s call for introspection and turn our attention inward — to our communities, houses of worship, families, friends and civic associations as better sources of meaning in life than the dopamine kicks we derive from D.C.’s made-for-Twitter controversies

For all the argument about “Civil War,” its most profound lesson — one that movie studios will certainly appreciate — is relatively simple: We should tune out the outrage hustlers, put down our phones and spend more time sharing experiences with fellow Americans, like enjoying movies, instead of fighting over politics. By doing so, we can begin to heal the wounds that Garland vividly portrays in his haunting depiction of our fractured nation.

Giancarlo Sopo is the founder of Visto Media and cultural writer. Follow him @GiancarloSopo.

Advertisement

Copyright 2024 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.





Source link

Continue Reading

Washington

Schedule released for Washington Capitals and New York Rangers first round playoff series

Published

on

Schedule released for Washington Capitals and New York Rangers first round playoff series


Cancel your current plans because you have new plans. The NHL released the full schedule for the 2024 Stanley Cup playoffs early in the morning after the regular season finally concluded and we finally know when the Capitals’ first-round series against the Rangers is happening.

Per the NHL:

NY Rangers [M1] vs. Washington [WC2]

Game 1
3 pm – Sunday, April 21
at Madison Square Garden
ESPN, SN, TVAS

Game 2
7 pm – Tuesday, April 23
at Madison Square Garden
ESPN, SNE, SNO, SNW, TVAS

Advertisement

Game 3
7 pm – Friday, April 26
at Capital One Arena
TNT, truTV, MAX, SN360, TVAS

Game 4
8 pm – Sunday, April 28
at Capital One Arena
TBS, truTV, MAX, SNE, SNO, SNP, SN360, TVAS

*Game 5
Wednesday, May 1 TBD
at Madison Square Garden

*Game 6
Friday, May 3 TBD
at Capital One Arena

*Game 7
Sunday, May 5 TBD
at Madison Square Garden

Advertisement

* if necessary

The Capitals’ first round series will be aired on local TV as well. Per a Monumental Sports Network press release, “all Capitals games during the first round of the Stanley Cup Playoffs will be available on Monumental Sports Network to fans both on linear tv and via streaming platforms.”

The Capitals will enter the series as huge underdogs. The Rangers finished the regular season with the most standings points in the NHL while the Capitals squeaked in with the least, setting the salary cap era record as the team with worst goal differential to make NHL playoffs.

The victor of this series will go on to play the winner of the Carolina Hurricanes vs. New York Islanders in the second round.





Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending