Democrats are staging an incredible anti-gun protest on the House floor.

Upworthy's book GOOD PEOPLE, now available - take a look!

Shop
 Explore 

After every mass shooting, America holds its breath, wondering if this will be the one — the one that finally forces lawmakers to step up and enact the common-sense gun control measures that the majority of Americans support.

The one that gives us respite from the the tears, the anger, the candlelight vigils, and the mourning of children.

Students at Virginia Tech hold a candlelight vigil for the victims in Orlando. Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images.

It didn't happen after Aurora, when a man opened fire in a crowded movie theater, killing 12. It didn't happen after Newtown, when 20 children aged 6-7 and their teachers were killed in their elementary school. It hasn't happened for any of the thousands of families mourning the loss of a loved one to gun violence in 2016 alone.

After the killings in Orlando in June, the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history, in which one man killed 49 people and injured 53 more in the span of a few short hours, we held our breaths again, wondering again if things would change.

This time, though, it feels like common-sense gun control measures might actually, finally be within reach.

Days after the massacre, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Connecticut) staged a filibuster demanding action on gun control. He was joined by more than 30 of his colleagues.

The filibuster lasted 15 hours, and the Senate ultimately agreed to vote on the amendments Murphy was representing.

Sen. Chris Murphy led a 15-hour filibuster on gun control. Photo by Pete Marovich/Getty Images.

Days later, the Senate voted and rejectedboth amendments.

Today, House Democrats are staging a sit-in on the floor of the House of Representatives, demanding action on gun control.

The disruption has already forced the chamber into temporary recess twice, and eventually, C-SPAN cameras were shut off. Democrats began tweeting pictures from the sit-in with the hashtag #NoBillNoBreak.

The "No Bill No Break" campaign is designed to force Republican lawmakers into enacting gun control measures before the chamber takes a weeklong break.

Leading them: Rep. John Lewis, a civil rights leader who marched with Martin Luther King Jr. in the 1960s.

“For months, even for years, through seven sessions of Congress, I wondered, what would bring this body to take action?” Lewis (D-Georgia) said shortly before the sit-in.

"We have lost hundreds and thousands of innocent people to gun violence. Tiny little children. Babies. Students. And teachers. Mothers and fathers. Sisters and brothers. Daughters and sons. Friends and neighbors. And what has this body done? Mr. Speaker, not one thing.”

It's unclear if the House Democrats will have any more success than their colleagues in the Senate, but it's a relief to see lawmakers doing anything they can to enact effective gun control measures.

Even President Obama has voiced his support for Rep. Lewis and the protest:

And Rep. Keith Ellison's mom pulled him out of a meeting with an important message about the sit-in:

Ideally, lawmakers represent the will of the people. In reality, however, powerful lobbying forces like the National Rifle Association still hold major sway over many of our representatives.

The fact that the very people we elect to make the laws are resorting to protest tactics just to try to move things forward — after exhausting all their other by-the-books options — shows just how much of a stranglehold the NRA has on Congress.

Lawmakers doing more than just holding their breath is a welcome sight.

Whether the sit-in today will be enough remains to be seen.

But as the parable goes: "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed individuals can change the world.

It's the only thing that ever has."

Cycle for Survival

How can riding a bike help beat cancer? Just ask Reid Moritz, 10-year-old survivor and leader of his own “wolfpack”

Every year, Reid and his pack participate in Cycle for Survival to help raise money for the rare cancer research that’s helped him and so many others. You can too.

all photos courtesy of Reid Moritz

Together, let’s help fuel the next big breakthrough in cancer research

True

There are many things that ten-year-old Reid Wolf Moritz loves. His family, making watches (yes, really), basketball, cars (especially Ferraris), collecting super, ultra-rare Pokémon cards…and putting the pedal to the medal at Cycle for Survival.

Cycle for Survival is the official rare cancer fundraising program of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSK). One hundred percent of every dollar raised at Cycle for Survival events supports rare cancer research and lifesaving clinical trials at MSK.

At only two years old, Reid was diagnosed with pilocytic astrocytoma, a rare type of brain tumor.

Pediatric cancer research is severely underfunded. When standard treatments don't work, families rely on breakthrough clinical trials to give their children a real shot at long-term survival.

When Reid’s chemotherapy and brain surgery didn’t work, he was able to participate in one of MSK’s clinical trials, where he’s received some incredible results. “Memorial Sloan Kettering has done so much for me. It's just so nice how they did all this for me. They're just the best hospital ever,” Reid recalls.

And that’s why every year, you’ll find Reid with his team, aptly named Reid's Wolfpack, riding at Cycle for Survival. It’s just Reid’s way of paying it forward so that even more kids can have similar opportunities.

“I love sharing my story to inspire other kids to PERSEVERE, STAY STRONG and NEVER GIVE UP while also raising money for my amazing doctors and researchers to help other kids like me.”

Reid remembers the joy felt bouncing on his father’s shoulder and hearing the crowd cheer during his first Cycle for Survival ride. As he can attest, each fundraising event feels more like a party, with plenty of dancing, singing and celebrating.

Hoping to spread more of that positivity, Reid and his family started the Cycle for Survival team, Reid’s Wolfpack, which has raised close to $750,000 over the past eight years. All that money goes directly to Reid’s Neuro-Oncology team at Memorial Sloan Kettering.

In addition to cheering on participants and raising good vibes at Cycle for Survival events, Reid even designs some pretty epic looking merch—like basketball shorts, jerseys, and hoodies—to help raise money.

If you’re looking to help kids just like Reid, and have a ton of fun doing it, you’re in luck. Cycle for Survival events are held at Equinox locations nationwide, and welcome experienced riders and complete newbies alike. You can even join Reid and his Wolfpack in select cities!

And if cycling in any form isn’t your thing, a little donation really does go a long way.

Together, let’s help fuel the next big breakthrough in cancer research. Find out more information by checking out cycleforsurvival.org or filling out this interest form.

From Your Site Articles

best of humanity

Education

Why didn't people smile in old photographs? It wasn't just about the long exposure times.

People blame these serious expressions on how long they had to sit for a photo, but that's not the whole picture.

Public domain images

Photos from the 1800s were so serious.

If you've ever perused photographs from the 19th and early 20th century, you've likely noticed how serious everyone looked. If there's a hint of a smile at all, it's oh-so-slight, but more often than not, our ancestors looked like they were sitting for a sepia-toned mug shot or being held for ransom or something. Why didn't people smile in photographs? Was life just so hard back then that nobody smiled? Were dour, sour expressions just the norm?

Most often, people's serious faces in old photographs are blamed on the long exposure time of early cameras, and that's true. Taking a photo was not an instant event like it is now; people had to sit still for many minutes in the 1800s to have their photo taken.

Ever try holding a smile for only one full minute? It's surprisingly difficult and very quickly becomes unnatural. A smile is a quick reaction, not a constant state of expression. Even people we think of as "smiley" aren't toting around full-toothed smiles for minutes on end. When you had to be still for several minutes to get your photo taken, there was just no way you were going to hold a smile for that long.

But there are other reasons besides long exposure times that people didn't smile in early photographs.

1800s photographs Why so serious? Public domain

The non-smiling precedent had already been set by centuries of painted portraits

The long exposure times for early photos may have contributed to serious facial expressions, but so did the painted portraits that came before them. Look at all of the portraits of famous people throughout history prior to cameras. Sitting to be painted took hours, so smiling was out of the question. Other than the smallest of lip curls like the Mona Lisa, people didn't smile for painted portraits, so why would people suddenly think it normal to flash their pearly whites (which were not at all pearly white back then) for a photographed one? It simply wasn't how it was done.

A smirk? Sometimes. A full-on smile? Practically never.

"Mona Lisa" by Leonardo da Vinci, painted in 1503Public domain

Smiling usually indicated that you were a fool or a drunkard

Our perceptions of smiling have changed dramatically since the 1800s. In explaining why smiling was considered taboo in portraits and early photos, art historian Nicholas Jeeves wrote in Public Domain Review:

"Smiling also has a large number of discrete cultural and historical significances, few of them in line with our modern perceptions of it being a physical signal of warmth, enjoyment, or indeed of happiness. By the 17th century in Europe it was a well-established fact that the only people who smiled broadly, in life and in art, were the poor, the lewd, the drunk, the innocent, and the entertainment […] Showing the teeth was for the upper classes a more-or-less formal breach of etiquette."

"Malle Babbe" by Frans Hals, sometime between 1640 and 1646Public domain

In other words, to the Western sensibility, smiling was seen as undignified. If a painter did put a smile on the subject of a portrait, it was a notable departure from the norm, a deliberate stylistic choice that conveyed something about the artist or the subject.

Even the artists who attempted it had less-than-ideal results. It turns out that smiling is such a lively, fleeting expression that the artistically static nature of painted portraits didn't lend itself well to showcasing it. Paintings that did have subjects smiling made them look weird or disturbing or drunk. Simply put, painting a genuine, natural smile didn't work well in portraits of old.

As a result, the perception that smiling was an indication of lewdness or impropriety stuck for quite a while, even after Kodak created snapshot cameras that didn't have the long exposure time problem. Even happy occasions had people nary a hint of joy in the photographs that documented them.

Even wedding party photos didn't appear to be joyful occasions.Wikimedia Commons

Then along came movies, which may have changed the whole picture

So how did we end up coming around to grinning ear to ear for photos? Interestingly enough, it may have been the advent of motion pictures that pushed us towards smiling being the norm.

Photos could have captured people's natural smiles earlier—we had the technology for taking instant photos—but culturally, smiling wasn't widely favored for photos until the 1920s. One theory about that timing is that the explosion of movies enabled us to see emotions of all kinds playing out on screen, documenting the fleeting expressions that portraits had failed to capture. Culturally, it became normalized to capture, display and see all kind of emotions on people's faces. As we got more used to that, photo portraits began portraying people in a range of expression rather than trying to create a neutral image of a person's face.

Changing our own perceptions of old photo portraits to view them as neutral rather than grumpy or serious can help us remember that people back then were not a bunch of sourpusses, but people who experienced as wide a range of emotion as we do, including joy and mirth. Unfortunately, we just rarely get to see them in that state before the 1920s.

From Your Site Articles

history

Culture

People from other countries share 14 'obvious' signs that someone is an American

"Americans lean on anything they can while standing around…"

via zoetnet/Flickr, Ewen Roberts/Flickr and Tom Hodgkinson/Flickr

Some American tourists enjoying the sights

Americans have a style and personality all their own, which isn’t a bad thing. It’s just noticeable when they travel aboard. Americans often stand out because of their outgoing personalities. They are friendly and enjoy having casual conversations with strangers.

This is an endearing trait to a lot of people in more reserved cultures, although it can also come off as a little brash.

An American characteristic that isn’t quite endearing to people in other countries is that they can be rather loud. In Europe, one can always notice the Americans in the restaurant because they can be heard from across the room.

A Reddit user named Frosty-Ad3575 wanted to know the specific ways that Americans stand out when traveling abroad, so they asked the AskReddit subforum: “What’s an obvious sign that someone is an American?”

The post was popular, receiving nearly 6,000 responses in just 6 days. The most popular ones described how Americans' unique personalities, style of dress, dental hygiene and body language make them easy to spot.

Here are 14 “obvious” signs that someone is an American.

1. Posture

"Apparently, the CIA trains American agents to not lean on things if they go undercover in foreign countries because Americans lean on anything they can while standing around." — Clown1998

"I bet MI6 trains British agents to lean on everything if they go undercover in America because Americans lean on anything they can while standing around." — KingoftheMongoose

2. The date

"MMDDYYYY." — LowRevolution6175

3. Distances are different

"Anything under 4 hours is 'close by.'" — Grey-Canary

"Everything in Europe is around the corner if you're from the US. I can drive the whole day and not leave my state, but in Europe, I can pass through 4 countries in that same time frame." — JayHitter

4. They're polite to servers

"In the touristy cafe-restaurant I worked at:

If they asked me for the nicest spot we had

If they asked me my recommendation without seeing the menu first

I would walk to the table, and they would say right away ‘hey, how are you doing?’ This one threw me off a lot at first. Why is this person asking me how I'm doing?? I'm just there to take the order. I got used to it, and I think they found my awkwardness cute.

They would ask my name when I greeted them and took their order.

I'm Northern European." — Muc_99

"It’s under-appreciated just how polite, friendly, and sincere Americans are in general. It blew my mind the first time I came to the US, and I love that my children are growing up with those same values." — Irishweather5000

5. The water bottles

"I was told, 'Americans carry water bottles around like they're worried they'll never have access to clean water ever again.'" — Kosher_Dill

"I don't care what anyone says. If you think carrying a water bottle when walking a lot is weird, you're probably slightly dehydrated all the time and are just desensitized to it. You seriously need to drink water frequently if you want to be ideally healthy." — Tan11

6. Smiling

"I was in Germany this past summer, and I realized smiling at everyone you make eye contact with is very American. When I went to London on the same trip, they seemed less weirded out by it but would awkwardly return the smile. I was taught to always start with a disarming smile. Never realized it was American." — 12ozFitz

7. "More ice, please."

"I spent a year in Europe completely iceless to the point I forgot that was a thing. I stopped at a bar in Chicago fresh off the plane and not only did I get free tap water, but water with ice. I instantly felt at home." — Outside-Crezz8119

8. Personal space

"As an American man, I’ve been told repeatedly by European and Asian friends that we simply take up space (not by being fat) as though we’re entitled to it. Men in other countries apparently don’t claim the same personal space we do." — Potomacan

9. White teeth

"It’s even more bizarre that they assume we have braces or bleach our teeth because they’re straight and white. I have naturally straight white teeth. I brush them twice a day so they stay white. I don’t do anything special to them, but I remember being in London and some similar-aged students literally making fun of me for my teeth… it’s true that they don’t naturally look like headstones in an ancient graveyard, but there’s no need to make fun." — DPretilloZbornak

10. Casual dress

"My friend went to Germany recently, and what people said about Americans is you can spot them a mile away because they’re the ones wearing pajamas in public. Apparently, in other countries, at least Germany, they dress a little more formally and in less baggy clothes than we do in America." — MarcusWahlbezius

11. Baseball hats

"Baseball cap... even on an infant riding in a pram." — SyntheticOne

12. Shoes

"Americans are shoe snobs (they don’t think they are, but they are). Setting aside wealthier business types, Americans generally wear more on-brand, on-trend, high-quality shoes than others." — Mouflony

13. They're loud

"That was my first thought. Americans yell at each other in normal conversation in public. I noticed it years ago in Europe, and now I can’t stand it in the US." — SucccotashOther277

14. Occupation matters

"Immediately asking someone what they do for a living when meeting them. Our jobs and work are our entire identity." — Bealzu

"I hate that about American culture. I'm an American and recently became a SAHM, so I don't have an answer to 'What do you do for a living?' Half the time, I add the caveat, ‘Oh, my last job was with Apple,’ so that I'm not written off as an unemployed ‘loser.’ But it really is dumb to determine a person's worth by what they do in order to afford food and shelter." — WassupSassySasquatch

This article originally appeared in January.

From Your Site Articles

americans

Modern Families

Woman goes to huge lengths to adopt husband's ex-wife's baby to save him from foster care

She had lived in foster care and didn't want it for the newborn with no name.

via Christie Werts/TikTok and Christie Werts/TikTok

Christie Werts and her son, Levi

Christie and Wesley Werts have taken the idea of a blended family to the next level. When the couple fell in love five years ago and married, they brought together her children, Megan and Vance, and his children, Austin and Dakota.

As of January, the Ohio family has five children after adopting young Levi, 2. Levi is the son of Wesley’s ex-wife, who passed away four days after the child was born. The ex-wife had the boy prematurely, at 33 weeks, and died soon after from drug addiction and complications of COVID-19.

When Levi was born, he was a ward of the state with no first name or birth certificate.

“When I heard about Levi, without hesitation, I said we should take him,” Christie said, according to The Daily Mail, and her reason went far beyond the fact that the child was the half-brother to two of her recently adopted children. “I myself was a foster kid and, although for the most part, I had a great experience, I did not want him going to foster care,” Christie said.

@cjthemom5
Replying to @Journey♥️ Yes, they will always know of her and ill be there for every emotion good or bad. But im also mom, ive been to every game, every doctors appt, sat with them if they needed an ear loved unconditional . I am mom also. #adoption #srorytime #siblings #foryou #loveislove

Before the family knew of Levi’s birth, Christie had a recurring dream about a blue-eyed, blonde-haired boy.

"Before Levi, we had wanted to try to have a child of our own," she told Newsweek. "I'm in my forties, so we knew that we would probably need fertility treatment, so I thought let's just think about it and what will be will be."

The problem was that Levi was in Texas, so the family sold their house and moved to the Lone Star State to go through the arduous adoption process. The situation was further complicated because Levi’s biological father had parental rights even though he had substance abuse problems. The family couldn’t move out of Texas until his rights were legally terminated.

But after a 16-month process, in January 2023, Levi became a legal family member. Christie understands that adopting her husband’s ex-wife’s baby may seem unusual to some people. "It's a lot to process for a lot of people, but honestly, it seems a lot crazier than it was. At the time, it just made sense," she said.

@cjthemom5
Our adoption is official !!! after 17 months!!! #adoption #son #loveyou #ourstory#foryou #fyp

Even though Christie knew in her heart that she must adopt Levi, she wasn’t without reservations. “'If I said I did not [have concerns beforehand], that would not be honest,” she told The Daily Mail. “This was different—I was going to walk into a child I never met and was worried the circumstances would hinder this instant love. But [...] he stole my heart. I also felt this intense need to protect him.”

These days, Levi fits right in with the family, and the rest of the kids are happy to be back to living an everyday life without any caseworkers or inspections.

“He's great, he is the king of the house! We are all very close. He won't understand the journey right now, but someday, I will let him know we fought for him!” Christie said.

This article originally appeared 1 year ago.

From Your Site Articles

adoption

Health

Doctor's 4-7-8 relaxation technique can help you fall asleep in an instant

It's the "most powerful relaxation method" he knows.

via Andrea Piacquadio/Pexels

The 4-7-8 technique can help you fall asleep.

Are you having a hard time falling asleep? Dr. Andrew Weil has shared the “most powerful” relaxation technique he knows, and it doesn’t require any equipment or cost a dime. It’s known as the 4-7-8 method and it’s backed up by science.

Dr. Weil is an expert in integrative medicine and the founder and director of the Andrew Weil Center for Integrative Medicine at the University of Arizona.

The technique is simple:

Breathe in through your nose while you count to 4.
Hold your breath while you count to 7.
Exhale while you count to 8.

Dr. Weil says the method creates a "very pleasant, altered state of consciousness" that you may not experience the first time but will come as a "reward" of regular practice. Dr. Weil insists that the 4-7-8 technique is a practice, and you must do four breath cycles at least twice a day to get the benefits. "After a month, you can increase to 8 breath cycles if you're comfortable with it," adding that's the "absolute maximum."

Dr. Weil says that 4 to 6 weeks of doing the practice can lower heart rate, improve blood pressure, digestion and circulation and can promote sleep. A study published in Physiological Reports agrees, saying that practicing the 4-7-8 technique reduces heart rate and blood pressure for several minutes.

It’s also an easy way to help you fall asleep. "If you get up in the middle of the night for any reason, it is the most effective anti-anxiety technique that I've found,” Dr. Weil says.

This article originally appeared in January.

From Your Site Articles

sleep

Motherhood

Mom arrested for letting 10-year-old walk to town reignites Free Range Parenting debate

He was "found" less than a mile from home, and she was charged with reckless conduct.

Photo by asaf on Unsplash

Brittany Patterson's heart sank when she got a call from police about her 10-year-old son, Soren. As any parent would, she had to be in a complete panic. Was he OK? Did something terrible happen?

A deputy explained that, yes, Soren was OK, but that he'd been found alone "downtown" — in a rural Georgia town with a population of only a few hundred people. He'd apparently gotten bored at home and walked into town on his house, a distance of less than a mile.

A concerned citizen had called the police, who then brought Soren home.

And then Brittany Patterson was arrested.

This wild story has caught fire on social media and reignited a decades-old parenting debate.

— (@)

Patterson is a self-described Free Range Parent.

Her son hadn't told her that he'd left the house to go downtown, which she chastised him for, but overall she wasn't that concerned. She was used to giving her kids lots of freedom to explore nature around their home, visit nearby friends, and come and go more or less as they pleased.

Free Range Parenting is a controversial parenting style in stark contrast to Helicopter Parenting, which involves near constant supervision and intervention. Free Range Parents let their kids roam freely, often supervising very little — usually with a lot of communication about what is and isn't OK, and a lot of trust that their child has the tools to navigate situations properly on their own.

It's controversial because the line between fostering independence and pure neglect is extremely gray.

According to Parents Magazine, the term Free Range Parent gained initial popularity in response to a New York columnist who let her 9-year-old ride the subway alone. Some people thought the idea sounded ridiculously dangerous and neglectful. Others figured, if the kid has money and knows how to read the map, why not?

Anecdotally, it feels like we supervise children way more than previous generations did.

a young boy walking down a street with a backpack on Photo by Gilberto Peralta Bocio on Unsplash

It was common for Boomers and even Gen X kids to quite literally get kicked out of the house on Saturday morning and told not to come back until dinner!

Most parents I know, including me, hover a great deal more than our parents ever did.

Why is that? Has the world gotten more dangerous?

"Crime rates and many risks have actually decreased over the past few decades," says psychologist Caitlin Slavens, but "we’re more aware of them than ever, thanks to 24/7 news and social media. So [while] it might feel more dangerous now, the stats don't actually show that is the case. "

Proponents of Free Range Parenting say it works wonders in fostering confident, independent children.

"We’ve taught our children to trust themselves, fostering calm and thoughtful individuals rather than chaotic and anxious ones," says Michelle Shahbazyan, a marriage and family therapist who practices free range in her own home. "This approach not only benefits them but also sets a positive precedent for how they interact with the world and for future generations they will be a part of shaping."

But there are legitimate drawbacks to a more hands-off approach too.

"There are new risks, like the online world," says Slavens, "that make free range parenting not always a safe option, especially when dangers aren't necessarily apparent."

Your kid walking a half mile alone to meet a friend shouldn't be a huge deal (even if our own anxieties say otherwise), but what if they're really going to meet someone they met online? It's cool if kids want to be alone or hang by themselves in their room — you don't need to constantly check on them — but what if they're trying their hand at the latest deadly TikTok challenge?

It sounds absurd, but these are things parents legitimately have to fear in 2024.

These hard-to-see dangers are what complicate matters and make it difficult for many parents to let go of control.

Brittany Patterson's story isn't over yet.

It's shocking to know that she was arrested in front of her children for "reckless conduct" and booked at the county jail, just because her almost 11-year-old decided to go for a walk less than a mile from home.

She was charged a fine and, far worse, assigned a case manager from the Division of Family and Children Services.

They're currently trying to get her to sign a Safety Plan and agree to download a location-tracking app on her son's phone. She says she won't sign and is disputing the charges.

Parents everywhere are outraged, and in Patterson's case, it seems clear that law enforcement has way overstepped.

But the debate between the need for independence and safety remains, and we probably won't know exactly where the line between free range vs neglect really is any time soon.

From Your Site Articles

parenting