NEWS FLASH: PARENTS HAVE A BIG IMPACT ON KIDS WITH DISABILITIES
This probably won't surprise many of you.  But it's a good reminder:  what you do as parents--your parenting style--really impacts your child, whether he or she has Moebius Syndrome or any other physical difference:

"The approach that parents take with their children who have developmental disabilities is directly tied to how cooperative and independent they become, new research suggests.

In an analysis of existing studies looking at the influence of parenting on children with special needs, researchers found that when moms and dads employed so-called positive parenting, their kids exhibited greater independence, better language skills, stronger emotional expression and social interaction as well as improved temperament.

“In households where positive parenting is applied, the symptoms and severity of the child’s disability are more likely to decrease over time,” said Tim Smith of Brigham Young University who worked on the study, which was published in the journal Research in Developmental Disabilities this month.

“Research has consistently shown that the earlier and more consistently positive parenting is provided, the greater the child’s development,” he said.

Smith and his colleagues identified three main approaches to parenting. Permissive moms and dads are accepting and not demanding, while authoritarian parents are more controlling of their kids. Positive parents fall in the middle, striking a balance by allowing their child self-will while also maintaining expectations of discipline.

Despite the clear benefits observed from the balanced approach, researchers said that taking the middle road can be especially challenging when a child has a disability.

“When you think of parenting a child with a developmental disability, it might be more intuitive to be authoritarian and assume that the child can’t figure out things alone. On the other hand, with a child who has autism, it may seem easier and less contentious to be more permissive with the child and thereby avoid conflict,” said Tina Dyches of Brigham Young University who also worked on the review. “But there needs to be a balance. A child with a disability should not be subject to different rules in a family, nor be the center of a family.”

The findings from the analysis are among the first to assess the role of parenting style specifically in kids with developmental disabilities, researchers said. Thousands of studies exist examining parenting of typically developing children, but researchers behind the new review say they found just 14 studies between 1990 and 2008 focusing on those with autism, Down syndrome and other developmental disabilities.

Despite the small body of research, however, the benefits of positive parenting are clear for children with all types of developmental disabilities no matter their age, the study found.

Researchers said their findings highlight the importance of promoting effective parenting skills as part of early intervention services."

"Not all those who wander are lost."--J.R.R. Tolkien (1892-1973)

WHAT MAKES YOU HAPPY?
You know, one of the things Moebius Syndrome gets one to do is to think about a fundamental question:  just what truly makes us happy?  For example, many in "normal" society would assume that the facts that our looks are different; that we're not considered "beautiful"--should make us with Moebius unhappy.  And yet--we lead full, happy lives.  And many of those considered hot and good-looking in society?  The models and the Hollywood stars out there?  We know that many of them are in fact NOT happy; their divorces, trips to rehab, angry public outbursts, etc tell us that.

So--does money then make you happy?  As we all focus in on the big Powerball jackpot this week, the answer, unsurprisingly, is--not necessarily.  Read on:

"You surely know by now that the Powerball jackpot is set to hit at least $500 million tonight. You should also know that your odds of winning the grand prize are somewhere around 1 in 176 million (at least, we really hope you know that). So here's a bit of comfort for you tonight as you stare dejectedly at your losing ticket: Most lottery winners don't end up any happier than the rest of us.
Yeah, yeah, you can probably name 500 million reasons why winning the jackpot tonight will make you happy. But here's the truth: A handful of psychology studies over the years have evaluated the happiness of lottery winners over time, and found that after the initial glee of getting one of those big giant checks has faded away, most winners actually end up no happier than they were before hitting the jackpot.
Arguably the most famous paper on this subject was published the late 1970s, and it's a doozy: Psychologists interviewed winners of the Illinois State Lottery and compared them with non-winners -- and, just for good measure, people who had suffered some terrible accident that left them paraplegic or quadriplegic. (You can find the abstract here, but you'll have to pay to read the full report.) Each group answered a series of questions designed to measure their level of happiness.What they found was counterintuitive, to say the least: In terms of overall happiness, the lottery winners were not significantly happier than the non-lottery winners. (The accident victims were less happy, but not by much.) But when it came to rating everyday happiness, the lottery winners took "significantly less pleasure" in the simple things like chatting with a friend, reading a magazine or receiving a compliment.
"Humans tend to have a relatively set point of mood," explains Gail Saltz, a New York City psychiatrist and frequent TODAY contributor. Most people tend to bounce back to that set point after a major life event, whether it's something negative or positive. But for some lottery winners, psychologists believe hitting an especially huge jackpot may alter that happiness baseline, making it harder to see the joy in everyday things.
More recently than the '70s research, a 2008 University of California, Santa Barbara, paper measured people's happiness six months after winning a relatively modest lottery prize -- a lump sum equivalent to about eight months' worth of income. "We found that this had zero detectable effect on happiness at that time," says Peter Kuhn, one of the study authors and a professor of economics at the university.
You've heard the stories of lottery winnerswhose post-jackpot lives turned sour. There's Jack Whittaker, the West Virginia man who in 2002 won the nearly $315 million Powerball jackpot. Initially, he generously gave millions to charities, including $14 million to start his own Jack Whittaker Foundation. But later, the dream turned to nightmare: A briefcase with $545,000 in cash and cashier's checks was stolen from his car while it was parked outside of a Cross Lanes, W. Va., strip club. His office and home were broken into, he was arrested twice for drunken-driving -- and the list goes on.
Or there's Alex Toth, a Florida man who in 1990 won $13 million to be doled out in 20-year-payments of $666,666. (Seriously.) At his death in 2008, the Tampa Bay Times reported on the sad direction his life had taken: Years of living it up led to a split from his wife and charges of fradulent tax returns, among other serious woes.
What gives? Behavior experts have a couple theories. One is simply that we humans just tend to get used to stuff -- the good and the bad. The psychological concept is called "happiness adaptation," and Michael Norton, associate professor at Harvard Business School, co-authored a 2007 paper that sought to uncover why hitting major life goals -- including the dreamlike goal of winning the lottery and the more down-to-earth goal of getting married -- don't end up making us as happy as we expect them to.

"The idea of adaptation seems like a negative thing -- it's a shame that we have to get used to the good things in our life, from lottery winnings to ice cream. But adaptation also helps us when bad things happen to us, making the impact of losing our job or getting divorced less painful over time," explains Norton, who is also the coauthor of the forthcoming book, "Happy Money: The Science of Smarter Spending."

He continues, "Big positive and negative events can have a lasting impact on our happiness, but this impact tends to decrease over time. In some sense, because people have so many facets of their life - from their job to their friends to their family to their hobbies - the impact of a change in any one of those facets is less extreme than we think, because many of the other things in our lives stay the same. (We win the lottery but we are still stuck with our same siblings, for example.) As a result of this, people tend to adapt to life events and end up closer to where they were than they think they'd be."
This is partially because we are terrible at predicting how happy more money is going to make us. The truth is, money can make you happy -- but only up to a point. "Research shows that the impact of additional income on happiness begins to level off around $75,000 of income - but people keep trying to make more and more money in the mistaken belief that their happiness will continue to increase," Norton says. "As a result of this mistaken belief, people think that big windfalls will change their happiness dramatically - and may end up with less happiness than they expected."
On the other end of the spectrum, landing a windfall that lifts you out of a financial pit really can provide significant, lasting happiness. In 2006, Sandra Hayes, then a 46-year-old social worker making $25,000 a year, and 12 of her coworkers won the $224 million Powerball jackpot. After taxes and splitting the money with her coworkers, Hayes had won $10 million. She bought her dream car (a brand-new Lexus) and her dream home (a half-million dollar house in St. Louis). But first, she paid off her current home and then gave that house to her daughter and grandchildren, who'd been living in a rough neighborhood. She quit her job and now spends her days writing -- she's already published one book and is working on a second one.
"Yes, my life is different, and it feels good," says Hayes. "This summer I had a $900 water bill. Six years ago, well, if I had a substantially huge bill, I would’ve had to make payment arrangements. That’s one of the things I like, that I’m able to pay my bills in full and not scuffle."
The first secret, as Hayes tells it, to winning the lottery without losing your mind is to immediately meet with a financial planner you trust and make a plan that works for you. The second is a little simpler. She says, "Just because you win the lottery, it does not change you as a person."


Wise words.

BRAIN TALK DEPT
So as we all know, Moebius Syndrome has something to do with the brain.  Certain nerves connected with your face don't quite work right; that leads to facial paralysis.  So here on this blog we're always interested in figuring out more about how the brain works, how we can make it work better, etc etc.  We sure as heck don't want to be losing brain power; we want to gain it.  But did you know--there are in fact ways in which you CAN lose brain power??  Sure enough--read on, and know what to avoid:

"Bad news: You’re not just getting older—you’re getting dumber.

Yep, according to a new study published in the journal Trends in Genetics, humans have lost the smarts they once had in the days of fending off saber tooth tigers and seeking refuge in caves.
See, the stakes just aren’t the same as they used to be, the study authors argue. They write that while our ancestors lived and died by the ability to find food and shelter, those processes simply don’t require as much brain power in today’s world. The other side: Humans have simply evolved to do tons more cool things—way better than the cavemen could have.
While the jury’s still out, there are plenty of things you do every day that certainly don’t help your noggin—like these five.
1. You Abuse Google
Why rack your brain for the name of that great Chinese restaurant downtown when you can just Google it? Having a search engine in your pocket 24/7 makes things super convenient—but it also makes you super forgetful, according to a 2011 study from Columbia University.  When you’re constantly Googling things, you’re not helping yourself remember stuff—just where to find it, the study’s researchers say. A better approach: When you want to remember something, repeat the information a few times aloud. You may sound crazy, but rehearsal is one of the best tricks for memory. (Keep your mind in tip-top shape with these 27 Ways to Power Up Your Brain.)
2. You Drive Everywhere
If a caveman skipped his cardio, he likely made up for it walking those long miles home from work at night. Meanwhile, you hop in your car. The problem: Falling short in the fitness department hurts more than just your physique. A 2011 study found that the brain’s striatum—an area associated with executive function and working memory—was smaller in non-athletes than in basketball players. But there’s hope: A year of regular aerobic exercise can up the size of an adult’s hippocampus by 2 percent, according to research from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Experts believe that exercise can balance the chemical cocktail in your brain, strengthening connections and boosting brain power.
3. You Go With the Fries Instead of the Salad
Obesity rates are up since ancient times—so much so that more than two-thirds of Americans are now overweight, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That’s bad news for your brain: The brains of obese people work harder than those of normal weight people to achieve the same results, according to researchers at Carnegie Mellon University. See, high blood pressure and inflammation—both of which strike obese people hard—irritate your brain’s communication networks, which makes it more difficult for your brain to receive messages. (For smart nutrition suggestions, stock up on these 125 Best Foods for Men.)
4. You Stay Cooped Up in the Office
In a recent study of 22 people, researchers gave participants a decision-making test while pumping the room full of carbon dioxide. (Normal levels of carbon dioxide are about 600 parts per million, and the study raised levels up to almost 2,500 ppm.) They found that at as the levels of carbon dioxide increased, people’s focus and ability to strategize plummeted. It could be that excess CO2 in your blood leads to a lack of oxygen in the brain. Some plants, like peace lilies and lady palms, have been found to remove air pollutants, according to research at NASA. But the best option is fresh air—15 minutes or so can help level out the amount. (Are harmful chemicals lurking in your cube? Learn Why Your Office Is Making You Dumb.)
5. You Travel for Business All the Time
Different time zones aren’t just messing with your sleep patterns—they’re messing with your smarts. Researchers at Cal Berkeley changed hamsters’ sleep schedules—the equivalent of traveling from New York to Paris—every 3 days for a month. They found that the jet-lagged hamsters weren’t as smart: They produced 50 percent fewer neurons than they did when they were sleeping normally. Researchers speculate that the production of the sleep hormone melatonin, stress, and an increase of cell deaths from lack of sleep could be to blame."

"The two most important days in your life are the day you were born, and the day you find out why."--Mark Twain (1835-1910)

SOME PARENTS WITH DISABILITIES FACE PREJUDICE, REPORT SAYS
This is kind of alarming; we need to keep raising awareness.  Read on:
"Millions of Americans with disabilities have gained innumerable rights and opportunities since Congress passed landmark legislation on their behalf in 1990. And yet advocates say barriers and bias still abound when it comes to one basic human right: To be a parent.
A Kansas City, Mo., couple had their daughter taken into custody by the state two days after her birth because both parents were blind. A Chicago mother, because she is quadriplegic, endured an 18-month legal battle to keep custody of her young son. A California woman paid an advance fee to an adoption agency, then was told she might be unfit to adopt because she has cerebral palsy.
Such cases are found nationwide, according to a new report by the National Council on Disability, an independent federal agency. The 445-page document is viewed by the disability-rights community as by far the most comprehensive ever on the topic — simultaneously an encyclopedic accounting of the status quo and an emotional plea for change.
"Parents with disabilities continue to be the only distinct community that has to fight to retain — and sometimes gain — custody of their own children," said autism-rights activist Ari Ne'eman, a member of the council. "The need to correct this unfair bias could not be more urgent or clear."

The U.S. legal system is not adequately protecting the rights of parents with disabilities, the report says, citing child welfare laws in most states allowing courts to determine that a parent is unfit on the basis of a disability. Terminating parental rights on such grounds "clearly violates" the intent of the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act, the report contends.

Child-welfare experts, responding to the report, said they shared its goals of expanding supports for disabled parents and striving to keep their families together. But they said removals of children from their parents — notably in cases of significant intellectual disabilities — are sometimes necessary even if wrenching.
"At the end of the day, the child's interest in having permanence and stability has to be the priority over the interests of their parents," said Judith Schagrin, a veteran child-welfare administrator in Maryland.
In the bulk of difficult cases, ensuring vital support for disabled parents may be all that's needed to eliminate risks or lessen problems, many advocates say.
The new report, titled "Rocking the Cradle: Ensuring the Rights of Parents with Disabilities and Their Children," estimates that 6.1 million U.S. children have disabled parents. It says these parents are more at risk than other parents of losing custody of their children, including removal rates as high as 80 percent for parents with psychiatric or intellectual disabilities.
Parents with all types of disabilities — physical or mental — are more likely to lose custody of their children after divorce, have more difficulty accessing assisted-reproductive treatments to bear children, and face significant barriers to adopting children, the report says.
One of the cases it details involved Erika Johnson and Blake Sinnett of Kansas City, whose 2-day-old daughter, Mikaela, was taken into custody by Missouri authorities because both parents were blind. The action occurred after a hospital nurse reported that Johnson seemed to be having trouble with her first attempts at breast-feeding — which Johnson said happens with many first-time mothers."

There's more; read the whole thing.

"As you grow older, you will find that you have two hands; one for helping yourself, and the other for helping others."--Audrey Hepburn (1929-1993)

MORE FOOTBALL PICKS! (special Sunday edition).
Because I forgot to do them earlier due to the Thanksgiving rush...
I was 2-0-1 in my picks for Turkey Day.

NY GIANTS 3 over Green Bay.  My pick:  GIANTS.  I expect the Giants to bounce back at home; and as I've said before, I don't think the Pack have fired on all cylinders yet.

San Francisco 1 over NEW ORLEANS.  My pick:  SAINTS.  They're hot; they are at home; they are the more desperate team.

Atlanta 1 over TAMPA BAY.  My pick:  BUCS.  This is one of those games where Atlanta is the better team, but...Tampa Bay is playing well, they are at home, and right at this point in time they are playing better.  Go with the hot, more desperate team (Tampa Bay).

Minnesota at CHICAGO.  My pick:  VIKINGS.  Not to win; but to keep it close.  The Bears' offense will struggle, even with Jay Cutler's return.  Look for the Bears to pull this one out late in a very tight game.

Baltimore 1 over SAN DIEGO.  My pick:  RAVENS.  San Diego is reeling; Baltimore's offense is humming along.

Buffalo at INDIANAPOLIS.  My pick:  COLTS.  Andrew Luck plays well at home, and should especially play well against the leaky Buffalo defense.

Pittsburgh 1 over CLEVELAND.  My pick;  STEELERS.  This is not as easy of a pick as one would think.  The  Browns have been improving; meanwhile, with Big Ben's injury, the Steelers must start Charlie Batch at QB.  But I expect Pittsburgh will just somehow find a way to pull this one out.

Denver 10.5 over KANSAS CITY.  My pick:  BRONCOS.  Look for Peyton Manning and the Broncos to run the table the rest of the season; they should especially have an easy time against the punchless Chiefs.

Seattle 3 over MIAMI.  My pick:  SEAHAWKS.  You stop the run game, you stop Miami; and the Seahawks can stop the run.

CINCINNAT 8.5 over Oakland.  My pick:  BENGALS.  Look for Andy Dalton and A.J. Green to torch a porous Raiders' secondary. 

Tennessee 4 over JACKSONVILLE.  My pick:  JAGUARS.  My upset special.  Did you see how Chad Henne jump-started the Jags' offense last week?  I bet he can do it again this week.

ARIZONA 1.5 over St. Louis.  My pick:  RAMS.  Because the Cards' offense is that bad with all their injuries at QB.

Carolina 3 over PHILADELPHIA.  My pick:  PANTHERS.  Because someone's got to win; Philly is on the downward slide.

THANKSGIVING FOOTBALL PICKS
And by the way, here's some pre-Turkey Day football picks.

DALLAS 3.5 over Washington.  My pick:  REDSKINS.  The Cowboys just have a hard time playing consistent football; the problems they exhibited last week vs the Browns are not new.  Making those same mistakes this week will get them beat.

Houston 3 over DETROIT.  My pick:  TEXANS.  The Lions will find a way to lose, and for the Texans to cover.

New England 6.5 over NY JETS.  My pick:  PATRIOTS.  The Jets played better than expected last week, but no way can they keep up with the increasingly high-powered Patriots' offense.

HEALTH NEWS
It's very good, I think, for teenagers with Moebius Syndrome--who sometimes might have low muscle tone--to seek to build up their muscles.  But, moms and dads, there are some things they will want to avoid:
"More teens are using muscle enhancing products, according to a study published Monday in Pediatrics, a journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics.
"These behaviors are a little more common among young people than we previously thought," said lead study author Dr. Marla Eisenberg "We want to put it on the radar for pediatricians, parents and other people working with adolescents."
Dr. Jennifer Shu, a pediatrician in Atlanta, says some teens don't always realize that these type behaviors can be harmful.
"First thing to do is try to educate and say, 'You know, I’m glad you are active and playing sports and trying to be happy. Just remember most kids don’t need protein supplements, or even energy drinks because they are getting the electrolytes in their diet,'" Shu says. "It's good for parents to be aware because they might think it’s good and buy teens these protein powders."
Researchers found the number of teens reporting muscle enhancing behavior to be substantially higher than in previous years. Boys were more likely to report these behaviors, which included supplement use and consumption of protein shakes. The concern is that this type of behavior leads to more serious behavior, excessive use and use of illegal substances (something that was reported by some of the teens).

"I think that having an open discussion about the use of any of these products designed to increase body mass and strength are important," says Dr. Nicholas Fletcher, an assistant professor of orthopaedic surgery at Emory University School of Medicine who treats teenagers. "If you don't get at the point early and discuss danger areas such as steroid use then it may get away from you."
Parents need to be aware of what to look for in their kids, says Eisenberg, especially if they notice a big change in exercise patterns. She says parents should treat it the same way they would a body image disorder.
Fletcher says he definitely sees kids working towards increasing their body mass and overall strength. While he says hasn't found muscle enhancing products an issue in his practice, he says he does find kids trying to be like their idols.
"As their idols have increased in size they are continually pushed to get stronger, bigger and faster... there is that trickle down effect."
Researchers looked at a diverse group of about 3,000 teens who were attending urban middle or high schools in the Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area during the 2009-2010 school year. Of the study subjects, 46.8% were male and 53.2% were female. The average age was 14 years old.
Thirty-five percent of boys reported using protein powders; 6% reported using steroids; and two-thirds reported changing their diet to increase muscle tone or size. Twenty-one percent of girls reported using protein powders; 4.6% used steroids; 5.5% used other muscle-enhancing substances. Twelve percent of boys and 6% of girls said they used three or more of these substances and/or behaviors.
Teens were monitored using the EAT (eating and activity in teens) 2010 data analysis - a 235 question survey where teens self report their weight status, dietary intake, physical activity, weight control behaviors and other related factors.
Prevention programs need to alert pediatricians, parents and coaches so they are aware this is happening, Eisenberg said. She does't want this study to make it seem as though exercising isn't important.
"We want kids to be active and eating right to improve overall health and well-being," she said.

I JUST THOUGHT THIS WAS INTERESTING DEPT
Do any of you have long communtes, to work or elsewhere?  If so, beware:
"Like many big cities in America, Atlanta is surrounded by a circular highway that connects with various freeway arteries that go through the downtown area. Weekday mornings and early evenings, no matter which highway you're on, or what direction you're going, you'll likely end up stuck in some hot traffic hell.

Dana Jones, 26, used to drive from the south end of the city by the airport to a northern suburb at peak commuting times, right through the daily mess.

"There were so many people out," Jones says. "You get road rage because nobody will let you in; nobody will merge right. It's just aggravating."

Despite the perils of a long commute, most people in the United States drive to work, according to the American Community Survey (PDF). In fact, more than 75% of Americans make the trek to work alone.

The stress of waiting in gridlock can get intense if you're in a hurry, leaving you feeling frustrated and anxious about the traffic. That stress can translate into deeper health hazards. Try to distract yourself with your smartphone, and you can put yourself and other drivers in even more danger.

Road rage: An 'emotional spin cycle'

LeeAnne Minnick was sitting in gridlocked traffic, waiting to get on an on-ramp, in a line of cars that had pulled over to let an ambulance pass. Suddenly, another driver darted out behind Minnick to tail the ambulance, taking advantage of the cars that had been moved, to enter the freeway.

"That incensed me," says Minnick, who makes a lengthy commute from Athens, Georgia, to Atlanta -- about a 70-mile trip -- three days a week. "I immediately flew into a rage over it."

That happened a couple months ago, and Minnick still sounds irritated when she describes it. She doesn't act aggressively toward other drivers, but she does get bothered by disrespectful behavior on the road.

It's easy to get lost in a cycle of emotions where you're talking to yourself and ruminating about traffic situations, says Leon James, professor of psychology at the University of Hawaii and co-author of "Road Rage and Aggressive Driving."

"Impatience, if you don't handle it at the beginning, tends to turn into resentment and anger," James says.

The back seat of the car is what James calls the "road rage nursery." It's where kids hear their parents cursing out other drivers and expressing their disbelief about everyone else's poor skills on the road. Children learn the culture of aggressive driving in this way, he says.

"We use it as an opportunity to disrespect everything and say bad words that we would be shocked to say in any other place."

Another problem is that after a bad commute, people tend not to let it go, James says. They walk into the office and complain about their experiences, which leads to entire conversations about bad traffic and bad drivers. This venting may feel good in the moment, but it reinforces the emotions for the next driving trip, he says.

James' solution: Monitor your traffic emotions. You might try keeping a diary of how you feel every day after your commute, or just keep a mental note about your state of mind. What are your negative thoughts while on the road? Are they justified?

Confronting your internal dialogue about commuting frustrations may help. You may realize that your negative thoughts may not be proportional to the offenses you perceive from other drivers.

James recommends asking yourself: "Am I the kind of person who thinks these things about people?" and "Is this the kind of person I want to be?"

Stress: When driving kills slowly

Traffic situations may trigger in us primal instincts that evolved in humans to promote survival, so that we can protect ourselves against threats, experts say.

The "aggressive, combative, competitive frame for driving" may be linked to our evolutionary past, but it could have implications for cardiovascular disease, says David Strayer, a psychology professor at the University of Utah.

In one experiment, Strayer and colleagues ran a simulation where people drove under the assumption that they were late to a meeting, and there was a financial incentive to get there before other people. One group drove in high-density traffic, another had an easier traffic environment. Some people were told there was a time limit.

Men more then women got into aggressive driving mode, showing an elevated blood pressure when under pressure to weave their way through heavy traffic. In general, both men and women who adopt an aggressive driving persona seem to show this, Strayer says.

"In the simulator studies we've done, they'll actually start driving by cars and flipping them off and honking at them," Strayer says. "That's just a computer, a computer rendition!"

Long-term stress increases the risk of cardiovascular disease, he says. Research on the precise level of cardiovascular risk is limited, but recent data doesn't paint a flattering picture for the vehicular commuter.

A 2012 study in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine found that the farther people commute by vehicle, the higher their blood pressure and body mass index is likely to be. Also, the farther the commute, the less physical activity the person was likely to get.

Experts recommend making the extra effort to avoid peak driving hours. You may even end up getting home at the same time as if you had left earlier.

"Maybe it is better off to say, 'I'm going to put the radio on a station that's nice, and kind of chill out for the 30 or 40 minutes, rather than aggressively try to get home and beat everyone else,'" Strayer says.

Distractions: When driving kills quickly

People get bored while driving for a long time. They want something else going on while they're just looking at cars crawling around them. But some forms of entertainment are far more dangerous than others.

Strayer and colleagues used a driving simulator to look at just how distracting technology can be in the car. A 2008 study from his group, published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, found that people made more errors driving while talking on a cell phone than while chatting with another passenger.

The impact of those errors is more than you might imagine. The researchers showed in a 2006 study (PDF) that talking on a cell phone, in terms of how it impairs driving, is comparable to a blood alcohol level of .08, which is the legal limit in the United States.

About one in three fatalities on the road can be linked to some kind of distraction; some estimates put this figure even higher, Strayer says.

Distractions in your car can slow everyone else down, too, Strayer says. Computer modeling shows that if one car is not keeping up with the flow of traffic, the number of vehicles per lane, per hour, declines as more drivers are distracted. That can add precious minutes onto the commute you're complaining is too long anyway.

We all know that texting while driving is risky. But even hands-free, voice-activated interaction with phones can be distracting, Strayer says. Some conversations are not mundane -- you may find yourself in a heated argument or in the middle of a breakup talk (not to mention a breakup text).

What are the precise demands on your brain with voice-activated systems and what are the consequences of that? Bryan Reimer, research scientist at the MIT AgeLab and associate director of the New England University Transportation Center, is looking into this question.

Reimer is working with Toyota's Collaborative Safety Research Center to study the visual and nonvisual demands of your attention while driving. Results should be out sometime next year.

"If you feel anxiety and your phone goes off, that's a problem," Strayer says. With all of the notifications barraging our smartphones from e-mail, text, social media and calendars, "It's a little unclear what long-term consequences of that are."

Changing your commute?

After several years, the daily drive to and from work in high-traffic areas can really get under some people's skin.

"It was something that was taking an enormous toll on my overall happiness, on my ability to deal with stress, on the amount of free time that I had," says Micah Puett, who used to live in Atlanta and worked for Turner Broadcasting in the 1990s.

It wasn't until Puett moved to Denver and found himself in a similarly perilous commuting situation that he realized how much the driving was affecting him. He made a bold choice: centralizing where he lives and works.

Puett now lives in a more urban neighborhood of Denver, where he can walk and bike around. In the warmer months, he'll ride a motor scooter, and two weeks might pass without him using a car. Since he is a contractor, Puett can be selective about which companies he works for based on travel time. (He'll accept longer commutes if they're short-term commitments.)

"Having lived the way I live now, you couldn't pay me enough for me to live out in the suburbs, or live anywhere, and commit to a 45-minute or hourlong commute every day," he says. "There's no amount of money that I would accept to do that."

But there are plenty of people who don't -- or can't -- draw that line. Ramona Patrick is the principal of an elementary school and drives 55 miles through Los Angeles to get to work Monday through Friday. She'll leave later in the evening to avoid traffic, but "your life is either on the road or at work."

And Minnick says she loves her job enough to make the trek from Athens three times a week. Podcasts and audio books help her get through.

"I would never say that this is fun," she says of her commute. "I feel like I've done a good job of making it more enjoyable. I'm really good at knowing what's going to make me happy for two hours."

 

"There are far, far better things ahead than any we leave behind."--C.S. Lewis

FRIDAY FOOTBALL PICKS!
Last week:  won 7, lost 6.  Not quite as strong as I hoped; but that puts me at 78-79-4 for the season; this week--time to get over .500!

NFL PICKS

ATLANTA 10 over Arizona.  My pick:  FALCONS.  A tough loss for them last week; but it was going to come sooner or later.  Meanwhile, Matt Ryan still played well.  The Cardinals' offense?  Hasn't played well in weeks.

Baltimore 3.5 over PITTSBURGH.  My pick:  RAVENS.  Mainly because:  no Ben Roethlisberger for the Steelers.  He means that much.

Cincinnati 3.5 over KANSAS CITY.  My pick:  BENGALS.  The Bengals have momentum with their big win last week over the Giants.  And they tend to beat lesser teams such as this one. 

DALLAS 8 over Cleveland.  My pick:  BROWNS.  Not to win; the Cowboys will take this one in the end.  But--Dallas tends to play to the level of its competition.

DENVER 7.5 over San Diego.  My pick:  BRONCOS.  They're hot and playing very consistent football.  Norv Turner's Chargers, as always, find ways to beat themselves.

Green Bay 3.5 over DETROIT.  My pick:  LIONS.  I know--I picked the Lions to win last week at Minnesota, and look at how that turned out.  But--the Packers have injuries; coming off a bye, they might be stale; this is a bigger game for the Lions than for the Pack...Detroit loses this one, and the playoffs are just a pipe dream.  They will be the more desperate team.  Just a gut feeling...

HOUSTON 15.5 over Jacksonville.  My pick:  JAGUARS.  Not to win; but if you're Houston, how do you maintain focus and cover such a huge spread, yet again?  My guess is that Houston will win comfortably, but maybe by 10.

NEW ENGLAND 9.5 over Indianapolis.  My pick:  PATRIOTS.  The Colts have done well for themselves, and shown great improvement.  But on the whole, Andrew Luck has struggled a bit on the road, and against the high-powered Pats, who figure to put up points in this game, that's a bad combo.

NEW ORLEANS 5 over Oakland.  My pick:  SAINTS.  This game began at 6 and 1./2; so some betting steam has gone Oakland's way.  I think that's a mistake; look for the Raiders' leaky defense to allow Drew Brees and co. to score at will.

ST. LOUIS 3.5 over NY Jets.  My pick:  RAMS.  The Jets' offense continues to get worse and worse.  The Rams played well last week in tying up the 49ers.

Tampa Bay 1.5 over CAROLINA.  My pick:  BUCS.  Hey, the Bucs are hot; ride 'em.  And they know how to handle the Panthers--it was the Bucs' shut-down of Carolina and Cam Newton, way back in week 1, that should have told us that Cam Newton part II might have problems.

WASHINGTON 3.5 over Philadelphia.  My pick:  REDSKINS.  Nick Foles isn't bad; but wouldn't you rather have RGIII at home?

SAN FRANCISCO 5 over Chicago.  My pick:  49ers.  I have great respect for the Bears' defense.  But the Niners' D is pretty good too; and it seems certain that Chicago will not have Jay Cutler...and that just might prove decisive in this one.

COLLEGE PICKS

Ohio State at Wisconsin.  My pick:  BADGERS.  Ohio State's defense is leaky (they gave up 49 points to Indiana a few weeks ago).  They've been getting by week after week...somehow.  They can score.  But so is Wisconsin.  You get the feeling it's time for Buckeye luck to run out.

Stanford at Oregon.  My pick:  DUCKS.  A lot of people like Stanford here, due to Oregon's injuries on defense, etc.  But the Oregon offense is just fine; and I think they'll outscore their opponents, yet again.

WHEN A HERO FALLS
Hey, Moebius moms and dads; and hey moms and dads in general--you know your children have heroes, have persons whom they look up to.  Any child does.  So what do you say to them when their hero maybe turns out to have done things he/she should not have done?  This interesting article explores:
"Two weeks ago, my neighborhood was overrun with heroes. Buzz Lightyear came to my door and took a handful of Butterfingers. Across the street, the repulsors on Iron Man's hands glowed like Bunsen burners. The Incredible Hulk skipped down the sidewalk alongside Batman. Dorothy from The Wizard of Oz traveled in a group with an astronaut and an Army soldier.

What is Halloween if not a chance for kids to be their idols?

I bet some of our real-life heroes wish they could take off the costumes at the end of the night and just be anonymous. But they can't. Heroes make mistakes—big, huge, press-released mistakes—and our children can be the ones most affected by their fall.

In the past few months, a number of faces familiar to today's youth have faltered. Lance Armstrong has been stripped of his seven Tour de France titles. Olympic gold medalist Shaun White, my 8-year-old son's favorite person, pled guilty to drunkenly vandalizing a hotel in Nashville. I don't have the time or word count to include Tiger Woods or Marion Jones or Roger Clemens or Barry Bonds.

Most recently, Kevin Clash, the puppeteer behind Elmo, was accused of having an inappropriate relationship with a minor. Clash denied the allegation -- and his accuser quickly recanted. But the speculation put Elmo's furry face on the front page nonetheless.

How is a parent supposed to talk to their child about such things? When they come home asking what doping is, or why Shaun White is sporting a black eye on the local news, how do you rectify that with the poster over their bed or the yellow bracelet on their wrist?

"At a minimum, validate the emotions of the child," says Paul Coleman, a psychologist in Wappingers Falls, New York, and author of "How To Say It To Your Child When Bad Things Happen." "If they say they're sad or worried, say 'Yeah, I am too.'"

And be honest with your responses. "Sometimes 'I don't know' is a good answer, because it might be true."

Parenting: Easy Thanksgiving craft ideas

But a hero's misstep can create an opportunity, says Dana Dorfman, a psychotherapist and family counselor in New York City. "For a school-age child, this can be a springboard for a valuable discussion," she says.

"Start by asking them questions. Why do you think this happened? What would make them act that way? Nothing thrills a child more than being asked their opinion. Showing that you value how they perceive things is important."

From there, personalize it. "Connect it to your child," says Dorfman. "Say, 'Remember when you and your buddy were throwing snowballs and broke that window?' Your child already projects these idealized attributes onto their heroes. This gives them the opportunity to identify with them. They learn that we're all human, and we all make mistakes. But they also see that there are ramifications for all of us when we make mistakes, even heroes."

Parenting: 9 things you should never say to your child

Parents should make no effort to choose or edit the personalities our offspring want on their lunchboxes and T-shirts. "Hero worship is a developmental inevitability," Dorfman explains. "Once kids reach a certain age, they learn that their parents are not the end-all-be-all, and other heroes—both real and fictional—begin to show up."

Sometimes your kid's hero will be a bad guy. (Mine always were. My favorite character in G.I. Joe? Cobra Commander. He-Man and the Masters of the Universe? Skeletor. Care Bears? Grumpy Bear.)

But that's not necessarily a bad thing. In 2005, California State University, Los Angeles, conducted a survey about the appeal of movie monsters (Dracula, Frankenstein, Freddie Kruger, Mike Myers, et al). It found that superhuman strength and intelligence—both potentially productive qualities—were the top traits we like in our bad guys.

Parenting: Are you a good role model?

"Talk to your kids about their heroes," says Dorfman. "Ask them, 'What do you like about them?' or 'What qualities do you admire?' If you want to know your child better, understanding why they admire their heroes is a great start."

Now that all the heroes have left my neighborhood, my two sons are left with mortal ol' me. And they have seen me falter. They've seen me go from G-rated to F-bomb. I will do my best to be their hero, with the understanding that at some point, I may be passing the baton to Optimus Prime."

 

“The real things haven't changed. It is still best to be honest and truthful; to make the most of what we have; to be happy with simple pleasures; and have courage when things go wrong.”

Laura Ingalls Wilder (1867-1957)

PERSONS WITH MOEBIUS SYNDROME CAN'T SMILE--BUT...
Did you know there's a syndrome in which, for those who have it, one cannot STOP smiling?  Read on:
"A toddler has been diagnosed with a rare genetic condition, which means he can’t stop smiling.
Little Elliot Eland suffers from Angelman syndrome, a chromosome disorder that causes severe learning difficulties. It has also left him with a permanent grin on his face.
The 2-year-old always appears happy; he smiles and laughs as a result of the genetic condition, which affects fewer than 1,000 people in the UK.
“When we feel down, Elliot’s laughter keeps us all going," said Elliot’s mum Gale, of Preston, Lancashire, England. "You just have to look at him and his happiness takes over."
Gale, 41, and husband Craig, 34, discovered Elliot’s condition when he had trouble feeding as a baby.
Angelman syndrome was identified in 1965 by Dr Harry Angelman, a pediatrician working in Warrington, Cheshire in England.
The condition means Elliot will never be able to talk and may not be able to walk, either.
“Elliot will never be able to speak, but we’ve done a signing course in the hope that we’ll still be able to communicate with him," Gale said.
“It must be frustrating for him because he can understand what we say, but he can’t respond."
Actor Colin Farrell's son, James, 9, also has the genetic condition."

And yet Elliott faces his condition with courage.  So many of us do the same...

“At the center of your being you have the answer; you know who you are and you know what you want.”

Lao Tzu (600-531

SOMETHING TO LEARN FROM
Now the man in this story has a physical difference because unfortunately he acquired it--he suffered a horrible injury.  But he is different, as are we, and we can learn from him.  As he put it--what happened to him doesn't define him.  See what he means:

"It's something most of us take for granted, but for him, it's a big deal.

"Three years ago, I could only stand 20 minutes at a time," said Clark, 34, who injured his spine 10 years ago. "Now it's an hour and a half every day."

In 2002, Clark was 24 and had landed a dream job at a major magazine when he took a trip to a summer house just outside New York.

It was a perfect summer evening, and the pool was dimly lit.

Clark recalls the moment: It was as if the pool was begging him to dive in. Without hesitation, he listened.

His chin hit the floor of the pool.

"How can you describe knowing what (being) paralyzed feels like?" he said. "I lay underwater completely awake and completely conscious."

"The first thing I thought was, 'You're an idiot!'"

Approximately 1.3 million people in the United States are living with a spinal cord injury (SCI), according to the Christopher and Dana Reeve Foundation. Most of these injuries affect people between the ages of 15 and 35, the majority of them men.

Clark describes spending three years after his injury wallowing in guilt and self-pity. His desire to become who he used to be, he says, helped him find the will to not only move again -- but to move on.

Clark's recovery is documented in his book "Walking Papers."

In the intensive care unit, his prognosis was hopeless. Doctors told his parents that their son would live the rest of his life on a ventilator and never speak. There was no chance of him ever moving anything below his neck.

"The man next door to me was screaming for morphine because he was in the final stages of cancer," says Clark. "The thing that really scared me was that when I got in my room, he had a higher chance of living. It really made me fight."

He attributes this perseverance to his family and their unconditional support.

Clark's sister, Charlotte, had just graduated from college when he was paralyzed. She and the rest of his family have helped Clark battle his injury from the start.

"We've come to appreciate early on the small improvements that he makes because they become actually quite big," said Charlotte Clark.

"He'll be walking, I know he will be. When it's time, I know his body is going to be ready."

In the months after the accident, Clark pushed his health insurance provider to double his physical therapy sessions and cover more of his therapy equipment.

When doctors urged him to just accept that he would never move again, Clark defied the prognosis. Less than a year after his injury, he could feel his shoulders.

"I never wanted to believe that there would never be a cure for SCI. I was showing people how I already defied what my diagnosis meant. So why couldn't I push for more?"

Clark completes five hours of physical therapy a week. While standing, he does cardio for an hour and a half. He lifts weights in his garage.

He practices kicking his legs while playing a dance game with his niece. He undergoes electrical stimulation on his hands, legs and abs. On the weekends, he practices lifting his body off his bed. He describes his therapy like training for the Olympics.

He was tenacious, pursuing conventional therapies alongside less-proven ones. From stem cell surgery in Beijing to different clinical trials, Clark was fiercely determined to move again.

Dr. Manuel Avedissian, a research fellow involved with one of these clinical trials, refers to Clark as his "star pupil."

"If there's a door shut for him, he'll check elsewhere," said Avedissian. "He's constantly looking for other things. He wants to make more of a difference than anyone I know."

Clark attributes his progress to intense physical therapy and clinical studies, as well as to the stem cell therapy.

He describes his motor movement as more fluid and refined; he can now move his toes, stretch his calves and feel hot and cold on his legs.

Clark also lost the ability to sweat, which led to flaky skin and chronic acne. So he started experimenting with botanical extracts in his kitchen and developed the Clark's Botanicals skin-care line.

"The power of something as seemingly innocuous as beauty -- the power it has to make you feel strong and empowered -- there's something to be said about that," explains Clark.

He recalls being afraid of asking what he could do to walk, worrying that people would laugh at him.

"Now I'm not afraid of that, and it's evolving, because I'm feeling more and doing more," he says. "The people who I thought would laugh at me now look at me and say, 'Oh, my gosh, this recovery is incredible.'"

Clark hopes to empower other patients to take control of their recovery.

"Your injury doesn't define you. You will get better," he says when asked what he would say to those newly diagnosed with paralysis. "... You should want more and you should ask the questions that you really want to ask and then find the answers, and don't take anybody's word as truth. Use your curiosity and imagination to benefit your recovery."

Clark is seeking more cutting-edge SCI studies and continues to spread the word as a national ambassador for the Christopher and Dana Reeve Foundation.

He believes he is "definitely going to be walking" in the next five years and hopes to finally take a vacation. Most recently, he says, his feet began sweating, another sign of success.

But after his near-death experience, his priority is to just be happy.

Hearing that something is impossible "doesn't make sense to me anymore," he says. "I was three breaths away from dying ... It's about prioritizing what's important to you. My priority is being happy and feeling fulfilled. It's more about giving back to a bigger community with the experience that I have."

For what it’s worth: it’s never too late or, in my case, too early to be whoever you want to be. There’s no time limit, stop whenever you want. You can change or stay the same, there are no rules to this thing. We can make the best or the worst of it. I hope you make the best of it. And I hope you see things that startle you. I hope you feel things you never felt before. I hope you meet people with a different point of view. I hope you live a life you’re proud of. If you find that you’re not, I hope you have the courage to start all over again.” F. Scott Fitzgerald (1896-1940)

INSPIRATIONAL STORY OF THE DAY
A bullied girl finds defenders in a place you maybe wouldn't expect:
"When Chy Johnson, who has a brain disorder, faced a torrent of bullies, she found an unexpected set of heroes in her high school’s football team.
Johnson, 16, came home from school crying every day after classmates picked on her because of her differences, even throwing trash at her. Fed up, Johnson’s mom reached out to a family friend in hopes of identifying the girl’s tormentors.
Instead, that friend — Carson Jones — took action. As a senior on the Queen Creek, Ariz. school’s varsity football team, Jones rallied the squad to support Johnson, inviting her to eat lunch with them and watching out for her during the school day.
The team’s efforts have made all the difference. “They save me because I won’t get hurt again,” Johnson told KTVK in Phoenix. “They’re not mean to me, because all my boys love me.”

“Let us be grateful to people who make us happy; they are the charming gardeners who make our souls blossom.”
Marcel Proust (1871-1922)

FRIDAY FOOTBALL PICKS!!
And hey!  Last week I went 12-3...finally!  A big week.  That puts me at 71-73-4 for the year.  Time to keep it going!

NFL PICKS

Atlanta 2.5 over NEW ORLEANS.  My pick:  SAINTS.  Just a gut feeling---the Falcons are good.  But not overwhelming, and the Saints are coming on, and at home.  I just suspect the Falcons are due for a bad day, and the Saints will be revved.

BALTIMORE 7.5 over Oakland.  My pick:  RAVENS.  Joe Flacco to have his way against the suspect Raider secondary.

CHICAGO 1 over Houston.  My pick:  TEXANS.  Because the Texans are good enough offensively to avoid turnovers; and I still sense the Bears' offense struggling.

Dallas 1.5 over PHILADELPHIA.  My pick:  COWBOYS.  Because while both teams are struggling, the Eagles' struggles go deeper.

Denver 4 over CAROLINA.  My pick:  BRONCOS.  Yes, the Panthers have played better lately...but the Broncos and Peyton Manning are on a roll.

Detroit 2 over MINNESOTA.  My pick:  LIONS.  The Lions began the week as a 3 point underdog for this game; but the line has massively shifted as the steam in the betting world has gone Detroit's way.  There'a a reason for that--Christian Ponder and the Vikings are struggling, and the Lions are heating up.

MIAMI 6 over Tennessee.  My pick:  DOLPHINS.  Miami is much improved; Tennessee, as the debacle last week against the Bears showed, is reeling.

NEW ENGLAND 11 over Buffalo.  My pick:  PATRIOTS.  That's a lot of points, but the Pats always seem to have the Bills' number (they put up a bunch on them earlier this year).

NY Giants 4 over Cincinnati.  My pick:  GIANTS.  Have the Bengals beaten a winning team yet this year?  Answer:  nope.  It's a trend.  And the Giants are a winning team...

SAN FRANCISCO 11.5 over St. Louis.  My pick:  49ERS.  Again, a lot of points, but the Niners have shown this year they can cover such spreads against lesser teams.

SEATTLE 6 over NY Jets.  My pick:  SEAHAWKS.  So now the Jets and their struggling offense have to face the Seahawks and their tough defense in the very loud environs of Seattle.  Yikes.

TAMPA BAY 3 over San Diego.  My pick:  BUCCANEERS.  In the last two weeks, the Bucs have put up 36 and 42 points; now they face a struggling Chargers team.  I say the Bucs remain hot.

PITTSBURGH 12.5 over Kansas City.  My pick:  STEELERS.  Again, a lot of points, but...the Chiefs are just bad, and have shown few signs of life.

BRAIN TALK DEPT.
And since Moebius Syndrome has something to do with the brain and how we are wired (or not!), we're always interested in learning more about it.  Today:  how is the concept of art and brain connected?  Read all about it:
"Pablo Picasso once said, "We all know that Art is not truth. Art is a lie that makes us realize truth, at least the truth that is given us to understand. The artist must know the manner whereby to convince others of the truthfulness of his lies."

If we didn't buy in to the "lie" of art, there would obviously be no galleries or exhibitions, no art history textbooks or curators; there would not have been cave paintings or Egyptian statues or Picasso himself. Yet, we seem to agree as a species that it's possible to recognize familiar things in art and that art can be pleasing.

To explain why, look no further than the brain.

The human brain is wired in such a way that we can make sense of lines, colors and patterns on a flat canvas. Artists throughout human history have figured out ways to create illusions such as depth and brightness that aren't actually there but make works of art seem somehow more real.

And while individual tastes are varied and have cultural influences, the brain also seems to respond especially strongly to certain artistic conventions that mimic what we see in nature.

What we recognize in art

It goes without saying that most paintings and drawings are, from an objective standpoint, two-dimensional. Yet our minds know immediately if there's a clear representation of familiar aspects of everyday life, such as people, animals, plants, food or places. And several elements of art that we take for granted trick our brains into interpreting meaning from the arbitrary.

Lines

For instance, when you look around the room in which you're sitting, there are no black lines outlining all of the objects in your view; yet, if someone were to present you with a line-drawing of your surroundings, you would probably be able to identify it.

This concept of line drawings probably dates back to a human ancestor tracing lines in the sand and realizing that they resembled an animal, said Patrick Cavanagh, professor at Universite Paris Descartes.

"For science, we're just fascinated by this process: Why things that are not real, like lines, would have that effect," Cavanagh said. "Artists do the discoveries, and we figure out why those tricks work."

That a line drawing of a face can be recognized as a face is not specific to any culture. Infants and monkeys can do it. Stone Age peoples did line drawings; the Egyptians outlined their figures, too.

It turns out that these outlines tap into the same neural processes as the edges of objects that we observe in the real world. The individual cells in the visual system that pick out light-dark edges also happen to respond to lines, Cavanagh said. We'll never know who was the first person to create the first "sketch," but he or she opened the avenue to our entire visual culture.

Faces

This brings us to modern-day emoticons; everyone can agree that this :-) is a sideways happy face, even though it doesn't look like any particular person and has only the bare minimum of facial features. Our brains have a special affinity for faces and for finding representations of them (some say they see the man in the moon, for instance). Even infants have been shown in several studies to prefer face-like patterns over patterns that don't resemble anything.

That makes sense from an evolutionary perspective: It benefits babies to establish a bond with their caregivers early on, notes Mark H. Johnson in a 2001 Nature Reviews Neuroscience article.

Our primitive human ancestors needed to be attuned to animals around them; those who were most aware of potential predators would have been more likely to survive and pass on their genes.

So our brains readily find faces in art, including in Impressionist paintings where faces are constructed from colored lines or discrete patches of color. This "coarse information" can trigger emotional responses, even without you bearing aware of it, Cavanagh and David Melcher write in the essay "Pictorial Cues in Art and in Visual Perception."

Patrik Vuilleumier at the University of Geneva and colleagues figured out that the amygdala, a part of the brain involved in emotions and the "flight or fight response," responds more to blurry photos of faces depicting fear than unaltered or sharply detailed images. At the same time, the part of our brain that recognizes faces is less engaged when the face is blurry.

Cavanagh explains that this may mean we are more emotionally engaged when the detail-oriented part of our visual system is distracted, such as in Impressionist works where faces are unrealistically colorful or patchy.

Color vs. luminance

Artists also play with the difference between color and luminance.

Most people have three kinds of cones in the eye's retina: red, blue and green. You know what color you're looking at because your brain compares the activities in two or three cones. A different phenomenon, called luminance, adds the activities from the cones together as a measure of how much light appears to be passing through a given area.

Usually when there is color contrast, there is also luminance contrast, but not always. In the research of Margaret Livingstone, professor of neurobiology at Harvard University, she explored the painting "Impression Sunrise" by Claude Monet, which features a shimmering sun over water. Although the orange sun appears bright, it objectively has the same luminance as the background, Livingstone found.

So why does it look so bright to the human eye?

Livingstone explained in a 2009 lecture at the University of Michigan that there are two major processing streams for our visual system, which Livingstone calls the "what" and "where" streams. The "what" allows us to see in color and recognize faces and objects. The "where" is a faster and less detail-oriented but helps us navigate our environment but is insensitive to color.

When our brains recognize a color contrast but no light contrast, that's called "equal luminance," and it creates a sort of shimmering quality, Livingstone said. And that's what's going on in a Monet painting.

Artists often play with luminance in order to give the illusion of three dimensions, since the range of luminance in real life is far greater than what can be portrayed in a painting, Livingstone said. By placing shadows and lights that wouldn't be present in real life, paintings are able to trick the eye into perceiving depth.

In an icon by an artist of the Moscow School from about 1450, the Virgin Mary does not have a lot of depth.

For instance, medieval paintings portrayed the Virgin Mary in a dark blue dress, which makes her look flat. Leonardo da Vinci, however, revolutionized her appearance by adding extra lights to contrast with darks.

The bottom line: To trick the brain into thinking something looks three-dimensional and lifelike, artists add elements -- lightness and shadows -- that wouldn't be present in real life but that tap into our hard-wired visual sensibilities.

Mona Lisa's smile

The Mona Lisa is undoubtedly one of the world's most famous paintings; the face of the woman in the painting is iconic.

Da Vinci gave her facial expression a dynamic quality by playing with a discrepancy that exists in our peripheral and central vision systems, Livingstone says.

The human visual system is organized such that the center of gaze is specialized for small, detailed things, and the peripheral vision has a lower resolution -- it's better at big, blurry things.

That's why, as your eyes move around the Mona Lisa's face, her expression appears to change, Livingstone says. The woman was painted such that, looking directly at the mouth, she appears to smile less than when you're staring into her eyes. When you look away from the mouth, your peripheral visual system picks up shadows from her cheeks that appear to extend the smile.

Van Gogh's self-portrait is remade with 2,070 polo shirts, created by Japan's apparel maker Onward Kashiyama Co. You can see both the portrait and the shirts.

Photomosaics also take advantage of this difference between visual systems: With your peripheral visual system you might see a picture of a cat that's composed of individual photos of cats that are completely different.

Shadows and mirrors

From a scientific standpoint, it's possible to determine exactly how shadows are supposed to look based on the placements of light and how mirror reflections appear at given angles. But the brain doesn't perform such calculations naturally.

It turns out that we don't really notice when shadows in paintings are unrealistically placed, unless glaringly so, or when mirrors don't work exactly the way they do in real life, Cavanagh explained in a 2005 article in "Nature."

Shadows are colored more darkly than what's around them; it's not readily apparent if the lighting direction is inconsistent. They can even be the wrong shape; as long as they don't look opaque, they help convince us of a three-dimensional figure.

Studies have shown that people don't generally have a good working knowledge of how reflections should appear, or where, in relation to the original object, Cavanagh said. Paintings with people looking into mirrors or birds reflected in ponds have been fooling us for centuries.

Why we like art

There are certain aspects of art that seem universally appealing, regardless of the environment or culture in which you grew up, argues V.S. Ramachandran, a neuroscientist at the University of California, San Diego. He discusses these ideas in his recent book "The Tell Tale Brain."

Symmetry, for instance, is widely considered to be beautiful. There's an evolutionary reason for that, he says: In the natural world, anything symmetrical is usually alive. Animals, for instance, have symmetrical shapes.

That we find symmetry artistically appealing is probably based on a hard-wired system meant to alert us to the possibility of a living thing, he said.

Can you fool the brain?

And then there's what Ramachandran calls the "peak shift principle." The basic idea is that animals attracted to a particular shape will be even more attracted to an exaggerated version of that form.

This was shown in an experiment by Niko Tinbergen involving Herring seagull chicks. In a natural environment, the chick recognizes its mother by her beak. Mommy seagull beaks are yellow with a red spot at the end. So if you wave an isolated beak in front of a chick, it believes the disembodied beak is the mother and taps it as a way of asking to be fed.

But even more striking, if you have a long yellow stick with a red stripe on it, the chick still begs for food. The red spot is the trigger that tells the chick this is the mother who will feed it. Now here's the crazy part: the chick is even more excited if the stick has multiple red stripes.

The point of the seagull experiment is that although the actual mother's beak is attractive to the chick, a "super beak" that exaggerates the original beak hyperactivates a neural system.

"I think you're seeing the same thing with all kinds of abstract art," Ramachandran said. "It looks distorted to the eye, but pleasing to the emotional center to the brain."

In this self portrait, Vincent van Gogh distorts his own face with his signature style, which may increase its appeal.

In other words, the distorted faces of famous artists such as Pablo Picasso and Gustav Klimt may be hyperactivating our neurons and drawing us in, so to speak. Impressionism, with its soft brushstrokes, is another form of distortion of familiar human and natural forms.

Further research: Can we know what is art?

There's now a whole field called neuroesthetics devoted to the neural basis of why and how people appreciate art and music and what is beauty.

Semir Zeki at University College London is credited with establishing this discipline, and says it's mushrooming. Many scientists who study emotion are collaborating in this area. Zeki is studying why people tend prefer certain patterns of moving dots to others.

Stanford Journal of Neuroscience: The Neuroscience of Art

There have been several criticisms about neuroesthetics as a field. Philosopher Alva Noe wrote in The New York Times last year that this branch of science has not produced any interesting or surprising insights, and that perhaps it won't because of the very nature of art itself -- how can anyone ever say definitively what it is?

Zeki said many challenges against his field are based on the false assumption that he and colleagues are trying to explain works of art.

"We're not trying to explain any work of art," he said. "We're trying to use works of art to understand the brain."

Neuroscientists can make art, too.

Zeki had works in an exhibit that opened last year in Italy called "White on White: Beyond Malevich." The series included white painted sculptures on white walls, illuminated by white light and color projections. With red and white light, the shadow of the object appears in the complementary color -- cyan -- and the shadows change as your angle of vision changes.

The biological basis for this complementary color effect is not well understood, nor is the depth of shadow, which is also an illusion.

So was Picasso right -- is art a lie? The description of Zeki's exhibition in Italy may highlight the truth:

"Our purpose is to show how the brain reality even overrides the objective reality."

OTHER VIEWS
What are others around the country and around the web saying about Moebius Syndrome? 

A young lady named Samantha writes on her blog concerning her discovery of Moebius Syndrome, and what it has taught her.  Read on, and check out the video at her site:
"

When telling a joke or a crazy story people usually look for your reaction, a facial expression to determine if you understand or like what they are telling you or not. If you look like your really not interested people might perceive you as not caring about what they say or that they aren't that good at story telling. It is a natural thing to look at the eyes and mouth to determine whether someone is sad, angry, surprised, happy, or afraid. For people with Moebius syndrome, making friends can be difficult.

Moebius syndrome is a rare condition where a person is unable to move their facial muscles to make a smile. Apparently, studies have shown that people who smile feel happier than people who do not smile or laugh at a something. However people with this syndrome experience happiness just as anyone else. After hearing about this condition I wanted to hear about it from a person who is living with this rare syndrome.

As you can see in the video, Alonso is laughing and acting like a normal teenage girl but while laughing, is unable to move her mouth to show smiling. Because Moebius does not allow facial movements, Alonso has a hard time pronouncing words that have to do with the lips. She seems to be able to move her tongue but I have heard from other videos of people speaking about their condition, that they can not move their tongue so speaking is even more difficult. Some surgeries have been done to help the people express emotion on their face, such as, taking muscles from other parts of the body and putting it in the face.
I am glad that this individual is able to overcome the bullying that comes to her way because of her condition. Thanks to Alonso sharing her experience of Moebius syndrome, I better understand what it is about."

“Have a heart that never hardens, and a temper that never tires, and a touch that never hurts.”

Charles Dickens (1812-1870)

OPEN LETTER TO THE REST OF THE WORLD

That is, to people who don't have Moebius Syndrome or some other kind of facial or physical difference.  So what do I have to say?

Well, today is election day here in America.  It's a special day, with lots of excitement.  So many people are proud to have been able to exercise their right.  But really, when it comes down to it, all of you people out there can "vote" every single day on a very important issue--on the issue of raising awareness of things like Moebius; on the issue of just because one looks different doesn't mean you should be prejudiced towards that person. 

See, we know for example that America, despite its problems, has a lot going for it.  And that's because people around the world every day "vote with their feet"--they choose to come live in America.  In other words, their actions tell a tale. 

But you can vote in other ways through your actions, too.  Every time you befriend and show acceptance towards someone who has Moebius, or any other kind of physical difference, you're voting against a certain kind of prejudice.  Every time you realize that person A may look different than the "norm", but still he or she is as normal as you--is just as much a person as you, you're standing up for inclusion.  Every time you do something and raise your voice against bullying, one is casting a very important vote.  For treating others as you would wish to be treated.  For acceptance.

Elections go on every day in society, really.  Your actions say a lot about you.  So get out there and vote--and do it today, but do it every day, too!

“…A great gift has been made to each and every one of us—the privilege of living in the world for a short span of years and the opportunity of doing our part to help the less fortunate; to improve civilization; to advance knowledge, both the scientific knowledge of men and the wisdom which is from above. The gift of human life and the opportunity which is ours to serve others…should be regarded as a sacred trust.”
George Pepperdine (1886-1962)

IS INCLUSION ALWAYS BEST?
For Moebius moms and dads with children on the autism spectrum--you may be interested in this:
"Inclusion is often believed to be the best option for students with disabilities, but a new study calls into question whether or not the practice truly leads to better outcomes long term.

Researchers found that students with autism who spent 75 to 100 percent of their time in general education classrooms were no more likely to complete high school, go to college or see improvements in cognitive functioning than those who spent more time in segregated environments.

The results published Thursday in a special supplement to the journal Pediatrics come from a study of nearly 500 young adults with autism who received special education services at public schools nationwide. Researchers assessed data on the students collected in the federal government’s National Longitudinal Transition Study-2.

“We find no systematic indication that the level of inclusivity improves key future outcomes,” researchers from the University of Alabama at Birmingham and Johns Hopkins University wrote.

Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, students who qualify for special education are supposed to be served in the least restrictive environment. However, the study authors said their results call into question whether or not that requirement is associated with achieving the best long-term outcomes."

"When you say 'yes' to others, make sure you aren't saying 'no' to yourself."--Paulo Coelho (born 1947)

FRIDAY FOOTBALL PICKS!
Last week:  I was 9-7; for the year, I'm 59-70-4.  Still movin' on up...but let's see if I can have a big week this week.

NFL PICKS

ATLANTA 4 over Dallas.  My pick:  FALCONS.  I do not expect a blowout here.  But Atlanta played probably it's best, most efficient game yet last week vs the Eagles.  While the inconsistent Cowboys are...the inconsistent Cowboys.  The Falcons will do enough to cover; they'll win, say, 27-21.

Baltimore 3.5 over CLEVELAND.   My pick:  RAVENS.  The Ravens have injuries on defense, and have not always been a good road team.  That's why the spread on this one is so close.  But I just think the young Brandon Weeden and his Browns will make enough mistakes in this game to allow Baltimore to cover.

Chicago 3.5 over TENNESSEE.  My pick:  TITANS.  My upset special.  Why?  The Bears' offense has sputtered lately.  They had to rely on yet another defensive TD and other breaks to pull out a win over Carolina last week.  They gave up 5 sacks in the first half alone.  That stuff can eventually come back to bite you; you can't rely on the defense scoring every week.  Matt Hasselbeck, at home, is the kind of experienced QB who can avoid big mistakes.

Denver 3.5 over CINCINNATI.  My pick:  BRONCOS.  Peyton and the Broncos are peaking; the Bengals meanwhile don't have the defense to slow them down.

Detroit 4 over Jacksonville.  My pick:  LIONS.  Matthew Stafford and his receivers for another week will do just enough to help the Lions win...and cover.

GREEN BAY 11 over Arizona.  My pick:  PACKERS.  Did you see that Cardinals offense last week?  Especially their offensive line?  Look for lots more Pack sacks of AZ quarterbacks.

HOUSTON 10 over Buffalo.  My pick:  TEXANS.  The Texans are fresh off a bye and a thrashing of the Ravens.  Hard to see how the Bills' D can slow down Schaub, Andre Johnson and company.

Miami 2 over INDIANAPOLIS.  My pick:  COLTS.  Yes, I know--the Dolphins, their defense and Reggie Bush have been quite a story.  But, if you look closely, the Colts' defense has improved too, along with Andrew Luck and other youngsters of course.  And the Colts have played pretty well at home.  I see the Colts surprising folks again.

NY GIANTS 3.5 over Pittsburgh.  My pick:  GIANTS.  These are two good teams and two good QBs; but I like the G-men, as the Steelers have struggled a bit on the road.

OAKLAND 1.5 over Tampa Bay.  My pick:  BUCCANEERS.  Because both Josh Freeman and the Bucs' exciting new RB, Doug Martin, are playing well.

SEATTLE 5 over Minnesota.  My pick:  SEAHAWKS.  Several reasons to pick Seattle:  1] they're at home, and they've played well there--especially their defense has played well there; 2] Vikings QB Christian Ponder has struggled mightily in his last few games; 3] the Vikings as a whole have not been a great road team.

WASHINGTON 3.5 over Carolina.  My pick:  REDSKINS.  RGIII to pick himself up and play much better at home.

NEW ORLEANS 3 over Philadelphia.  My pick:  SAINTS.  Both teams have big problems.  Both teams should be desperate.  Who will be more desperate and, more importantly, fix some of their issues at least for one week?  My guess:  Drew Brees and company.

COLLEGE PICKS:

There are two very big games this weekend.

Alabama vs LSU.  My pick:  CRIMSON TIDE.  The game is in Baton Rouge.  Usually that tends to make you think:  possible upset.  But--this Tide team is like a machine.  I don't see them being stopped.

Oregon vs USC.  My pick:  DUCKS.  Again, it's a road game for an undefeated team (Oregon) against a pretty quality opponent.  Upset, maybe?  But:  the Trojans' defense has issues, has given up points--and this Oregon offense can go, go, go.  The Ducks will be quacking loudly over this victory.