Who Is He (And What Is He To You)? Jackson and April travel to Montana in order to perform a complicated surgery on a young patient, but Jacksons mind is elsewhere, and April is forced to step up and get him back on track, on Greys Anatomy, THURSDAY, MARCH 16 (8:00-9:01 p.m. EST), on the ABC Television Network.

Greys Anatomy stars Ellen Pompeo as Meredith Grey, Justin Chambers as Alex Karev, Chandra Wilson as Miranda Bailey, James Pickens Jr. as Richard Webber, Kevin McKidd as Owen Hunt, Jessica Capshaw as Arizona Robbins, Jesse Williams as Jackson Avery, Sarah Drew as April Kepner, Caterina Scorsone as Amelia Shepherd, Camilla Luddington as Jo Wilson, Jerrika Hinton as Stephanie Edwards, Kelly McCreary as Maggie Pierce, Jason George as Ben Warren, Martin Henderson as Nathan Riggs and Giacomo Gianniotti as Andrew DeLuca.

Greys Anatomy was created and is executive produced by Shonda Rhimes (Scandal, How to Get Away with Murder), Betsy Beers (Scandal, How to Get Away with Murder), Mark Gordon (Saving Private Ryan) and Rob Corn (Chicago Hope). William Harper, Stacy McKee, Zoanne Clack and Debbie Allen are executive producers. Greys Anatomy is produced by ABC Studios.

Who Is He (And What Is He To You)? was written by Elisabeth R. Finch and directed by Kevin McKidd.

Greys Anatomy is broadcasted in 720 Progressive (720P), ABCs selected HTV format, with 5.1-channel surround sound.

Read this article:
Scoop: GREY'S ANATOMY on ABC - Thursday, March 16, 2017 - Broadway World

Restricting housing construction does not just hurt developersit makes housing less affordable for everyone. But to overcome neighborhood resistance, you need to understand what drives it.

Birds sit on a telephone line near Skid Row Housing Trust's 102 pre-fabricated modular apartments under construction in Los Angeles.

Next week, Los Angeles will vote on Measure S, a ballot initiative that proposes a two-year moratorium on developments that required changes to land use.

The law could potentially limit both new developments and affordable housing. Even with an exception for affordable housing developments written into the law, critics say it could still further restrict affordability in the region.

For a growing chorus of urbanists, NIMBYism and land use restrictions are the culprit behind everything from growing income inequality to shrinking affordable housing, productivity, and innovation. A 2015 study estimated that land use restrictions costs the United States upwards of $1.5 trillion in lost productivity. The 2016 Economic Report of the President called for sweeping reform of zoning and land use restrictions to overcome these costly economic rents, build more housing, and stimulate the U.S. economy.

A recent white paper by Paavo Monkkonen sheds interesting new light on the connection between NIMBYism and housing affordability. It takes a deep dive into, on the one hand, neighborhood opposition and land use restrictions, as well as housing supply and housing costs in Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Californias other expensive housing markets. (The research was partially supported by an unrestricted grant from the Center for California Real Estate to the University of California Center Sacramento Center Housing, Land Use, and Development Public Leadership and White Paper Award.)

California offers an ideal case study in the effects of NIMBYism on housing prices. Its major metrosLos Angeles, San Francisco, Silicon Valley, San Diego, Santa Barbaraare some of the most expensive in the nation. They combine high levels of productivity and high levels of amenitytwo factors which create the high demand which puts pressure on housing prices, and have fallen victim to harsh land use restrictions.

San Francisco Is So Expensive Even Renters Can Be NIMBYs

My own research finds that knowledge and professional workers are able to pay Californias higher housing costs. The burden falls largely on less advantaged blue-collar and service workers who have very little money left over after paying for housing. San Francisco has the highest housing costs in the country, while L.A. has the highest share of rent-burdened households. Across the state as a whole, renters need to make almost four times the state minimum wage to afford an average rent.

The crux of the California problem, the Monkkonen paper argues, is not the states restrictions on uber-high density building in and around urban centers, but the broader dependence on lower-density zoning across the board. Los Angeles may be a relatively dense city and metro (indeed, according to some basic measures, it is the densest metro in the country), but three-quarters of its residential land is devoted to relatively low-density single-family housing that only shelters half the citys population.

But adding new supply in the form of high-rise towers in and around the core will do little to solve the overall housing affordability problem. For one, those towers are usually built for the wealthy, and luxury buildings often boost the price of housing in neighborhoods in and around where theyre built (prompting calls like this one for a luxury housing tax to fund affordable units). They can also displace people from their neighborhoods and change the character of those neighborhoodsthings residents very much care about and will understandably seek to block.

Understanding NIMBYs

To get beyond NIMBYism, we first must understand it. Neighborhood resistance isnt just triggered by residents trying to prop up their home values or protect their neighborhoods from things they dont likeits the product of policies that provide incentives toward homeownership and a regulatory system that encourages and prompts opposition.

Even if the economic arguments about the costs and negative consequences of NIMBYism reflect sound economic logic, they amount to little if they fail to address the very real concerns of neighborhood groups. Most regular citizens and neighborhood residents dont think like dispassionate economists. According to a 2016 Building Industry Association poll, some two-thirds of San Franciscans surveyed do not think increasing housing supply improves affordability. Rather, they believe that land use regulations help to protect their neighborhoods.

Monkkonen goes on to parse four different strains of NIMBYism and their underlying motivations:

To fend off the four flavors of NIMBYism, the paper suggests several strategies:

There are other ways to combat NIMBYism. Yale Law School professor David Schleicher suggests using local tax policy to essentially co-opt NIMBY opposition to new development. The basic idea, referred to as tax increment local transfers, is to allow the residents of neighborhoods to share in the tax revenues that come from new developmentfor example, by rebating and reducing their own property taxes over a period of time. Others suggest that shifting from the current property tax to a land-value tax, which taxes property owners on the underlying value of the land itself, will create better incentives for more intensive land use.

But regardless of the precise mechanism employed, finding better ways to understand and counteract NIMBYism and create more vibrant and affordable cities is one of the most pressing policy issues facing urban America. The need to build more housing without removing community input is, as Monkkonen puts it, "a challenge we can no longer ignore."

See the original post:
Anatomy of a NIMBY - CityLab

In this week's edition of "Play Anatomy," CardinalsSource examines the impact nose tackle Corey Peters made stopping the run during the 2016 season.

Editor's note: Each week, CardinalsSource looks at a particular play or a particular skill demonstrated by a Cardinals' player from the 2016 season in great detail. This week's CardinalsSource is examining the run-stopping capabilities of nose tackle Corey Peters by looking at a week 16 play against Seattle.

After missing the 2015 season with a serious Achilles' injury, nose tackleCorey Petersreturned to the Arizona Cardinals in 2016 to play out the second year of a three-year contract.

Peters played the first five seasons of his career with the Atlanta Falcons before signing with Arizona to bolster the team's run-stopping capabilities in the interior of its defense.

During his first healthy season with Arizona, Peters proved to be a valuable asset, racking up 21 tackles and commanding enough attention on the line to allow players like Chandler Jones, Markus Golden and Calais Campbell to work in more favorable one-on-one situations.

Peters performed well against the run throughout the season, thanks in large part to a quick first step and a great initial burst that made him a challenging blocking assignment on zone run plays. To put that in perspective, CardinalsSource is looking at a week 16 run play the Seattle Seahawks ran against the Cardinals that Peters stopped in its tracks.

Prior to the snap, Arizona lined up with a 4-2-5 defensive front, allowing Jones to put his hand in the dirt and defensive endJosh Mauroto anchor the opposite side of the line of scrimmage.

In this alignment, Peters is set up in a four-shade on the outside shoulder of the right guard. If Seattle plans on running right, Peters knows he's responsible for shutting down the B-gap and pushing the offensive guard back off the line of scrimmage. if the Seahawks run left, Peters is responsible for tracking down the play from the back side of the line and beating the block of the right tackle.

At the snap, Seattle's linemen immediatelyrush left with zone blocking footwork that pits Peters against the Seattle right tackle. With the right guard attempting to reach the linebacker level and the right tackle responsible for Peters, the Seahawks leave Mauro unaccounted for and expect quarterback Russell Wilson to hold him with a play-action fake. By holding Mauro in his spot and reaching Peters with the right tackle, Seattle's goal is to set up a cutback lane for its running back if the play side becomes muddled.

Peters, however, foils the Seahawks plans almost immediately after the snap. Once he realizes the guard lined up in front of him wants to get to the linebacker level, he slides through the B-gap and begins scraping his way down the line of scrimmage, preventing the right tackle from securing a clean angle to block him from.

As a result, the cutback lane can't develop for the Seahawks' back, who must either follow his fullback into the hole, or attempt to bounce the play to the outside, where Jones has clearly established contain. Essentially, the back is out of options, and Peters makes his decision far more challenging because he's racing down the line of scrimmage to make a tackle in the backfield.

Eventually, when Seattle's fullback cuts up the field, so too does its running back, but Peters is already there to make the play. Peters secures a tackle and brings the back down for a two-yard loss, all because he started the play off with an excellent first step and reaction at the line of scrimmage that prevented the Seahawks' right tackle from having a clean angle to block from.

If Peters gets reached, perhaps a back side cutback lane develops and the Seahawks are able to make something out of nothing. However, because it does not, a simple zone play goes for a two-yard loss, and Peters forces Seattle to rethink the way it's going to block this play moving forward.

Read more here:
Play anatomy: Corey Peters - Scout

It will go down in history as the most awkward, embarrassing Oscar moment of all time: an extraordinary failure in the Oscars voting procedure. The traditional high point of the marathon Oscars telecast collapsed in ignominy as organisers were forced to acknowledge that the wrong film La La Land had been named best picture winner, instead of the actual victor, Moonlight. We piece together the sequence of events that led to the chaotic scenes.

1. Faye Dunaway and Warren Beatty emerge from the back of the stage to announce the best picture win.

2. A close-up photograph shows he is clearly carrying a winners envelope for best actress the award for which (to La La Lands Emma Stone) has just taken place.

3. Beatty begins to read out the winners card, and is obviously puzzled by what he is reading, looking in the envelope to see if there is anything else in there.

4. Beatty, uncertain, hands the card to Dunaway, who doesnt appear to know anything is wrong, and reads out the only film title she can see: La La Land.

5. As the La La Land producer Mark Platt (front) gives his thank you speech, a member of the shows staff (in headset) takes back the envelopes that have been given to the La La Land producers Jordan Horowitz (holding Oscar) and Fred Berger.

6. By now, the La La Land team know they havnt won. Producer Fred Berger says: We lost. Behind him, the PricewaterhouseCoopers overseers Brian Cullinan (holding envelope) and Martha Ruiz (in red dress) are on stage, examining the envelopes. The accountancy firm have apologised and promised an investigation.

7. Horowitz holds up his hand to stop the celebrations as the La La Land crew realise they havent won. This is not a joke, he tells the audience.

8. By now Beatty has been given the right card, and Horowitz takes it out of his hand and holds it up. Moonlight is clearly the winner.

9. As the Moonlight team come forward, Beatty steps out front to explain to Kimmel and the La La Land team what happened. The card he had been given, he says, read Emma Stone. I wasnt trying to be funny.

10. Horowitz hands his Oscar to Barry Jenkins, Moonlights director.

11. Jenkins closes the show by summing up the extraordinary turn of events. Even in my dreams this could not be true. But to hell with it, Im done with dreams because this is true.

Continued here:
Anatomy of an Oscars fiasco: how La La Land was mistakenly announced as best picture - The Guardian

On the latest Real Men Feel, Andy Grant and Appio Hunter are joined by their friend, Emotional Strength Trainer Amanda Foy, to explore emotions, awareness, and how emotional trauma affects our cells and health.

Video:

. .

Audio alone:

.

The Anatomy of Awareness with Amanda Foy, Episode 48, February 21, 2017

Amanda says that guilt and shame are the only useless emotions. They have no purpose but to make you feel horrible. Guilt is acceptance without positive action. Shame is a lack of acceptance or acknowledgment of having a human experience. While trauma is defined by each person. What one person finds traumatic another person may not. It can depend on what we were taught and how we are expected to be.

When you get sick, it is your bodys way of taking you out of a situation you dont know how to handle. Illness comes when you are too stubborn to do the work you need to do, so it is a good thing. ~ Amanda Foy

Do you want to talk about how to have richer, more mindful, and enduring relationships?

Photo credit: Pixabay

The Real Men Feel Show is a weekly podcasthosted by RMF founder, Andy Grant and his friend and fellow coach, Appio Hunter. Each episodeis recorded live with Zoom, a video meeting service that allows up to fifty people to be part of a live video conversation. Viewers can watch, make comments and ask questions in a chat room, or even request to join the live program on video and audio, and really be part of the show. Real Men Feel Show is live each (most) Tuesdays at 8pm Eastern at RealMenFeel.org/show Some weeks feature Andy and Appio discussing what is going on with them, while other shows feature invited guests. Live participants are always welcome and can share comments in a chat room or even ask to be seen and heard as part of the show.

See a directory of past shows here.

Here is the original post:
The Anatomy of Awareness: Emotional Trauma and Health - The Good Men Project (blog)

Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers escort an arrestee in an apartment building in the Bronx on March 3, 2015, during a series of early-morning raids. (AP/Richard Drew)

On Feb. 22, websites favorable to President Donald Trump touted a poll result that showed wide support for one of the presidents highest-profile immigration policies -- cracking down on "sanctuary cities."

"SHOCK POLL: 80% OF AMERICANS OPPOSE SANCTUARY CITIES," said a headline in the conspiracy-minded site InfoWars. The poll also got prominent play on the conservative websites NewsMax, BizPacReview. Breitbart, Town Hall and American Thinker, as well as on the Russian websites RT and Sputnik.

One of our readers asked us to investigate. We decided not to put the 80 percent finding to the Truth-O-Meter, because we dont doubt the reliability of the poll itself. But questions phrased differently can show dramatically different results.

All told, the finding is a case study in how poll results can be seized by advocates for one side of an issue -- and how some of the nuances in the questions and the answers can be lost in the hubbub.

About the Harvard-Harris poll

The poll result in question came from a new and relatively little-known poll -- the Harvard-Harris survey -- that initially didnt put its full data documentation online. The shortage of information about the poll caused one contributor to the liberal website Daily Kos to wonder whether someone had "catfished" the media with fake data.

We can confirm that the polling partnership is real -- and legitimate. It is headed by longtime Democratic pollster Mark Penn and Stephen Ansolabehere, a professor of government at Harvard University and the director of its Center for American Political Studies. The poll grew out of courses the two have taught together at Harvard. Penn and Ansolabehere are collaborating on the project with the Harris Poll, a venerable public-opinion pollster.

The poll, conducted online between Feb. 11 and 13, was initially released exclusively to the Capitol Hill newspaper The Hill, and the pollsters posted a detailed presentation of the results here,

A closer look at the questions

The question in the poll that attracted the most attention -- certainly from the political right -- was this one: "Should cities that arrest illegal immigrants for crimes be required to turn them over to immigration authorities?" On this question, 80 percent of respondents said yes.

But as we looked into the question, we noticed a couple things.

One was that, despite the blaring headlines about sanctuary cities, the question being asked didnt actually use the words "sanctuary cities." The other concerned words that the question did use -- "arrest" and "crimes."

To understand why such wording choices matter -- and why they could potentially change the results of the poll -- we first need to review what the term "sanctuary city" actually means.

What is a sanctuary city?

There isnt a federal law defining "sanctuary city." Different jurisdictions that use the term -- and even some that shy away from it -- may have some policies in place that other cities dont, and vice versa. But generally speaking, it means they have policies limiting how much local law enforcement assists federal immigration authorities seeking to apprehend and deport people in the United States illegally.

For instance, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Diego do not hold immigrants for immigration officials unless they have violent felonies on their records or current charges, according to the Los Angeles Times.

Supporters of sanctuary cities argue that not questioning people about their immigration status builds trust between police and the community, encouraging residents to report crime and help in prosecutions. If an undocumented immigrant gets arrested for a non-immigration offense, they can still be charged, tried and convicted for that crime, Lena Graber, a special projects attorney for the Immigrant Legal Resource Center, told PolitiFact.

Opponents counter that sanctuary cities attract illegal immigration and undermine enforcement of the law. Any crime by someone in the country illegally is a crime that could have been avoided by having removed that person, Ira Mehlman, a spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which seeks to reduce immigration levels, told PolitiFact in November.

The question wording

The specific wording used to ask any poll question is always important. Its not even necessarily a comparison of "good wording" vs."bad wording" -- if a question is asked a certain way, it could nudge respondents to answer in one direction.

In this case, respondents were asked about "crimes." To many, that could bring to mind "violent crimes," especially when paired with the term "arrest."

But the experts we spoke to said the jurisdictions described as sanctuary cities dont simply let murderers, rapists, armed robbers and other people they arrest for violent crimes go free. Not only would federal immigration officials be notified, but the violent crimes they were charged with would be prosecuted.

Instead, where the rubber hits the road with sanctuary cities is with lesser, non-violent offenses, even down to a broken tail light -- or simply any interaction with police, such as an undocumented immigrant becoming a happenstance witness to a crime. These are the cases in which police in sanctuary cities would typically be trained to refrain from asking for immigration status or informing federal immigration officials.

And this nuance is not captured by the question that garnered 80 percent support in the Harvard-Harris poll -- as well as the lions share of headlines.

"Question wording always affects responses," said Steven S. Smith, a political scientist and pollster at Washington University in St. Louis. "Arrest for crimes certainly primes the respondent to think that the person is dangerous and therefore should be a high priority in immigration law enforcement."

Karlyn Bowman, a polling analyst at the American Enterprise Institute, noted that there is little history of past polling on the issue of sanctuary cities. But she did uncover one poll released a few days after the Harvard-Harris poll that seems to back up the idea that different wording can substantially change the result.

The poll, conducted by Quinnipiac University and released on Feb. 23, asked, "Thinking about people who have immigrated to the U.S. illegally, who do you think should be deported: Should no illegal immigrants be deported, only illegal immigrants that have committed serious crimes, only illegal immigrants that have committed any crime, or should all illegal immigrants be deported?"

The results: Only 3 percent said no illegal immigrants should be deported, and 19 percent said all illegal immigrants should be deported. But 53 percent of respondents said deportations should only be done for "serious crimes," compared to 22 percent for "any crime."

Thats not just a plurality -- its a majority. And that tells a different story than the Internet headlines.

The pollsters speak

Both Ansolabehere and Penn responded to our inquiries.

Penn called our question about wording differences "an important one" and agreed that finding the right wording in a case like this one is tricky,

"We think the question is fair and clear as worded to obtain the sentiment on the issue," he said. "Had we said serious crimes, that would have tilted it one way and minor crimes would have tilted it the other way. In either case, it would be a different question about the gradations of policy, and a deep dive would surely find some nuances as with all policy."

He added that the task was made more difficult given his teams failure to find any questions on sanctuary cities that had been road-tested in previous polls.

Ansolabehere added, "If you can think of alternative wordings that capture the policy better, please send them to me."

Continue reading here:
Anatomy of a statistic: Do 80 percent of Americans oppose sanctuary cities? - PolitiFact

Getty Images Randy Holmes / ABC

Katherine Heigl's newest series, Doubt, has been cancelled after just TWO episodes. Yikes!

Two episodes hardly seems like enough time to pass judgement, but it seems like CBS had seen enough, according to TVLine and already have a replacement filling its slot.

The former Grey's Anatomy star was leading an all-star cast that included the likes of Laverne Cox and Dule Hill and it was forecast to be a hit, but ratings have bombed something sharpish.

Advertisement - Continue Reading Below

The series focused on Heigl, an attorney that falls for her client who has been accused of murdering his girlfriend.

CBS has not made a decision when or if the further 11 episodes will air.

The actress was tweeting about the show on Thursday (February 23) after the second episode aired and all seemed fine then.

Oh how things have changed.

Elsewhere, she and husband Josh Kelley welcomed their first son, Joshua Bishop Kelley, on December 20.

The couple are already parents to two adopted daughters and now big sisters 8-year-old Naleigh and 4-year-old Adelaide.

Last year, she opened up about her 2008 Emmy Awards controversy that saw her withdraw herself from the race because she didn't consider her Grey's Anatomy material was enough "to warrant an Emmy nomination".

Grey's Anatomy is currently in it's 13th season and airs on ABC.

Want up-to-the-minute entertainment and tech news? Just hit 'Like' on our Digital Spy Facebook page and 'Follow' on our @digitalspy Twitter account and you're all set.

Follow this link:
Former Grey's Anatomy star Katherine Heigl's new show has been cancelled after TWO episodes - Digital Spy

The Fashion and Beauty Editor at OK! Pakistan, and the force behind the blog, Diary Of A Pasha, breaks down her style

The Fashion and Beauty Editor at OK! Pakistan, and the force behind the blog, Diary Of A Pasha, breaks down her style. Learn from her why sometimes, its best to break the rules

Understanding your body is the key to looking good and a trait found amongst all impeccably dressed fashionistas. While people shy away from talking about their bodies, these brave souls explain how they work their anatomies to their advantage.

How would you describe your body type?

Im definitely apple-shaped and slightly rectangular too. I dont have those desi hips but I do have a huge belly.

Has your body type changed over the last five years?

My body type hasnt changed, but my body size has. Unfortunately I have increased from a European size 8 to a 12!

How has your style changed over the years?

My style mantra has always been classic with a twist of glam or classic with a little bit of funk. My size doesnt allow me to be too trendy, and I feel one should dress according to what flatters them no matter what the trends are. So if I want to incorporate a trend, I usually use it as an accessory.

In your opinion what is your most troublesome area?

My belly!

How do you dress your body according to your body type?

I wear looser and longer shirts, add a belt to hide the bulges, wear a jacket when necessary, or wear something flattering like an empire-line or a one-shoulder top.

In your opinion what is the biggest mistake a person can make while dressing here?

Fashion is a way of expression, and I dont think it should be taken too seriously. I believe people can make whatever mistakes they want. Trying to dress proportionately is important, but attaining fulfilment and happiness is more valuable. So wear a short dress even if you have cankles because you only live once!

Which silhouettes suit your body the most?

I prefer to go with the flow. If something pleases me Ill wear it, but I stay clear of short tops, if my pants are tighter.

What is the one piece of clothing that you shy away from wearing and why?

I would say a short choli or a crop-top, because of my shape.

Read the original post:
Style anatomy: Alizeh Pasha - The Express Tribune

Jessica Capshaw as Arizona, James Pickens Jr. as Webber. Photo: Eric McCandless/ABC

Back Where You Belong Season 13 Episode 14

Editor's Rating 3 stars

If youve read even one of these Greys Anatomy recaps, you know that my fuse is short when it comes to Jo Wilson. Does it make me cold and unfeeling if I admit to spending the majority of Back Where You Belong yelling at Jo whenever she appeared onscreen? Listen, I am not making light of the terrible things she has endured. The girl has had it rough. BUT COME ON. You are a doctor, lady. When your patient is in trouble, you set aside your feelings no matter how valid they may be and you save that patients life. I feel like that must be the No. 1 rule of doctorhood. At least top five.

Of course, it wasnt surprising that this happened. Jo makes everything about herself! When shes put on a mother-son kidney transplant and her patients abusive father shows up uninvited to the life-saving party, its only a matter of time until she makes this about her own tragic situation.

After the transplant goes awry and the abusive jerk of a father, Ken, offers his own kidney to keep both his son and estranged wife alive, Jo goes ballistic. She doesnt want him anywhere near them. He shouldnt be given a chance to worm his way back into their lives and Cynthia, his wife, should most certainly not be left without a choice in the matter. While all of this is true, there is no time to debate. Two lives are on the line. No one wants to use this guys kidney, but there is no time. As Arizona points out, The choice that keeps everyone alive is the right one.

Jo goes on to harass Ken before hes put under. NO, JO. You suck it up now, then after youve done your job, you go out into the parking lot and sob into Owen Hunts strong, caring arms. Do you think Stephanie wanted to operate on a young boy so soon after her traumatic experience losing one on the table? No. But Stephanie Edwards is a professional. Anyway, Jo fans out there: Help a recapper out. Sell me on your girl, because I am struggling here.

If Jo would like to see how its done, all she has to do is take a quick peek at what Nathan Riggs is up to at the moment. He, too, is faced with a patient story that hits way too close to home, but he keeps his feelings out in the hallway, thank you very much. All jokes aside, this is a great story line that sheds light on both the stigma of mental health and a supporting character who could use a little shading. Its easily the highlight of the episode.

A homeless, mentally unstable woman wanders into the ER and shes put under the care of Riggs, DeLuca, and Maggie. The woman is incoherent, but the good docs discover her ancient-looking pacemaker is causing issues, so they need to replace it. Riggs comes up with the bright idea to use the serial number on the womans pacemaker to figure out her name and maybe, like, an emergency contact or two.

The plan works! Before long, the womans mother, Gwen, arrives at Grey Sloan Memorial. She explains that her daughter, Claire, has been gone for 12 years after seemingly being abducted from her college dorm room. The family had a funeral for her. She has a gravestone. So imagine Gwens (and later her ex-husband Tims) complete and utter shock when she learns that her daughter is alive. Its a bittersweet moment.

Meanwhile, Maggie is standing by very confused. Why isnt this reunion more of a happy ending? Riggs has to spell it out for her. Gwen and Tim buried their daughter. They gave up on her, moved on, and have been living their lives while their own daughter was out in the world, homeless and alone. Theyll never forgive themselves for that, he explains. And they never should. Oof. Rough stuff, right? Sure, its an on-the-nose parallel to Riggss situation with his missing fiance, but that doesnt make his rare moment of vulnerability any less moving.

Claire is eventually diagnosed with schizophrenia and put on a heavy round of meds. Gwen and Tim are warned that their daughter may not recognize her own parents. She doesnt at first, but after shes given some time to calm down, she finally greets them. From the hallway, Riggs watches the family get the happy ending that hell never have. (Or will he?!) RIGGS IS CRYING, YOU GUYS. Be still my heart. Tears coming out of a face that has a head of hair like that? Yes, please and thank you.

Maggie is also moved by seeing a new side of Riggs. She goes home, crawls into the Sister Bed, and tells Meredith about what went down. Meredith gets it. When Derek died, she had one day of not knowing where she was. She tried to stay calm, she explains, but inside was going crazy. I guess its like that for Nathan every day. Even Maggie admits that Meredith understands what Riggs must be going through. So, I guess were getting back into the whole Meredith-Riggs-Maggie thing of it all. More important, does this Riggs story line mean that were one step closer to Megan turning up alive? Am I the only one still holding out hope for this?

Meredith finally answers the question thats been on everyones mind: If Mer is on the board of the hospital, how on Earth could Bailey have the power to suspend her? Checks and balances, people. Or plot contrivances, maybe.

Poor Mer realizes that her suspension might be less of a vacation and more of a prison sentence. Shes stuck in the house all day with Amelia, back from Stephanies and still moping around the house.

A thing I do not find amusing: Arizona being into Eliza Minnick for real. (Wheres the heat?) A thing I find very amusing: Richard Webbers repeated use of the word menace to describe Eliza Minnick. Hes going to be so hurt when he finds out!

Bailey takes her coffee black, and also, no prisoners.

Weve been deprived of a good Meredith-Richard scene for a while, so having Richard tell Meredith to stop sticking up for him and get back to work, all while poking a little fun at Ellis, is a welcome return. Also, its only right that Webber gets Meredith to return to Grey Sloan.

Merediths impression of Ellis Grey for days and days, please.

Jacksons as snarky as a teenage girl when hes angry. Most people have seemingly gotten over Aprils decision to take Merediths job, but not her baby daddy. Since this is probably all leading up to a big romantic reunion, I will allow it for now.

The Greys Anatomy Kid Watch is back on. Zola, Bailey, and Ellis: If you can hear this, call out!

It took two words to undo me: Hi, mom.

Karl Lagerfeld Calls Out Meryl Streep for Canceling Oscars Dress Order; Streeps Reps Deny It

Pamela Anderson Certainly Seems Fine With You Believing That She and Julian Assange Are Romantically Involved

Connie Britton Leaves Nashville Fans With the Cold Comfort of a Heartfelt Coda After That Momentous Episode

These flamingos know how to party.

Ronald Reagan was the last president to skip the event, but that was because he was recovering from an assassination attempt.

Time to test your patience.

I have had more stimulating conversation with this man than all my ex husbands and lovers combined.

Unwind and get some rest, Nat.

The boxing legends family is considering a lawsuit over the incident.

Just some wise counsel from a good friend.

To which we say, ohhhhhh.

Dont cry because its over, smile because you screamed a lot.

Yikes.

Industry veterans discuss whether they truly can separate art from artist.

Edward R. Murrow and political activism, two of George Clooneys favorite things!

Retiring in (bloody, hyper-violent) style.

Khateeb worked on the film The White Helmets.

The man was reportedly found with a bag over his head.

More here:
Grey's Anatomy Recap: All Stirred Up - Vulture

PARIS For at least the past year, populism has been wreaking havoc on Western democracies. Populist forces parties, leaders, and ideas underpinned the Leave campaigns victory in the United Kingdoms Brexit referendum and Donald Trumps election as President of the United States. Now, populism lurks ominously in the background of the Netherlands general election in March and the French presidential election in April and May.

But, despite populisms seeming ubiquity, it is a hard concept to pin down. Populists are often intolerant of outsiders and those who are different; and yet Geert Wilders, the far-right Dutch populist leader, is a firm believer in gay rights. In the US, Trumps presidential campaign was described as an anti-elite movement; and yet his administration is already practically a subsidiary of Goldman Sachs.

While todays populist resurgence comes from the nationalist right, some of the leading populist exponents in recent decades such as Venezuelas late president, Hugo Chvez were firmly on the left. What they share is a zero-sum view of the world, which necessitates the creation of scapegoats who can be blamed for all problems. Moreover, because populist leaders claim to embody the uniform will of a mythical people, they consider democracy to be a means to power, rather than a desirable end in itself.

But populists have more in common than an obsession with cultural boundaries and political borders. They also share a recipe for economic governance, one that Project Syndicate commentators have been tracking since long before todays brand of populism began dominating the worlds headlines. Guided by their insights, we can begin to understand the origins of todays populist resurgence, and what is in store for Western countries where its avatars come to power.

See the article here:
The Anatomy of Populist Economics - Project Syndicate