FACEBOOK = Beheadings- OK, Hate Groups- OK, Racist Hate-mongering Ex-Police Chief Rants- OK, Hateful TeaBagger Rants wishing my Death- OK!

Beheadings- OK, Hate Groups- OK, Racist Hate-mongering Ex-Police Chief Rants- OK, Hateful TeaBagger Rants wishing my Death- OK!

THE SOCIAL NETWORK Facebook has announced that it will not remove videos or images of people being beheaded as long as they are uploaded with good intentions.

The firm said that there are controversial acts that happen in the world and that often people want to share photos of them so that they can be condemned. This can be extended to all sorts of things, of course, and beheadings might just be one of them.

But God forbid if you post any pertinent political cartoons on Office of Speaker Boehner Facebook Page, and you get banned and blocked from posting on any group or page you are a member of or friendly too, and you can no longer give feedback to your own congressional delegation, and seeing as they are using Facebook for feedback from their constituents these days, well Facebook is now censoring political speech that they don't like or their benefactors don't like.
This corporate-government partnership is known a fascism!

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/10/22/beheading-videos-are-cool-with-facebook-but-topless-ladies-are-not/

My Politcal statement for Thanksgiving!

 

 

 

                Hi everybody....

Top reform advocate rails against the war on drugs!

Florida Statues

2011 Florida Statutes

Title XXIX PUBLIC HEALTH	Chapter 381 PUBLIC HEALTH: GENERAL PROVISIONS

381.026 Florida Patient's Bill of Rights and Responsibilities.—

(1) SHORT TITLE.—This section may be cited as the "Florida Patient's Bill of Rights and Responsibilities."

(2) DEFINITIONS.—As used in this section and s. 381.0261, the term:

(a) "Department" means the Department of Health.

(b) "Health care facility" means a facility licensed under chapter 395.

(c) "Health care provider" means a physician licensed under chapter 458, an osteopathic physician licensed under chapter 459, or a podiatric physician licensed under chapter 461.

(d) "Primary care provider" means a health care provider licensed under chapter 458, chapter 459, or chapter 464 who provides medical services to patients which are commonly provided without referral from another health care provider, including family and general practice, general pediatrics, and general internal medicine.

(e) "Responsible provider" means a health care provider who is primarily responsible for patient care in a health care facility or provider's office.

(3) PURPOSE.—It is the purpose of this section to promote the interests and well-being of the patients of health care providers and health care facilities and to promote better communication between the patient and the health care provider. It is the intent of the Legislature that health care providers understand their responsibility to give their patients a general understanding of the procedures to be performed on them and to provide information pertaining to their health care so that they may make decisions in an informed manner after considering the information relating to their condition, the available treatment alternatives, and substantial risks and hazards inherent in the treatments. It is the intent of the Legislature that patients have a general understanding of their responsibilities toward health care providers and health care facilities. It is the intent of the Legislature that the provision of such information to a patient eliminate potential misunderstandings between patients and health care providers. It is a public policy of the state that the interests of patients be recognized in a patient's bill of rights and responsibilities and that a health care facility or health care provider may not require a patient to waive his or her rights as a condition of treatment. This section shall not be used for any purpose in any civil or administrative action and neither expands nor limits any rights or remedies provided under any other law.

(4) RIGHTS OF PATIENTS.—Each health care facility or provider shall observe the following standards:

(a) Individual dignity.—

1. The individual dignity of a patient must be respected at all times and upon all occasions.

2. Every patient who is provided health care services retains certain rights to privacy, which must be respected without regard to the patient's economic status or source of payment for his or her care. The patient's rights to privacy must be respected to the extent consistent with providing adequate medical care to the patient and with the efficient administration of the health care facility or provider's office. However, this subparagraph does not preclude necessary and discreet discussion of a patient's case or examination by appropriate medical personnel.

3. A patient has the right to a prompt and reasonable response to a question or request. A health care facility shall respond in a reasonable manner to the request of a patient's health care provider for medical services to the patient. The health care facility shall also respond in a reasonable manner to the patient's request for other services customarily rendered by the health care facility to the extent such services do not require the approval of the patient's health care provider or are not inconsistent with the patient's treatment.

4. A patient in a health care facility has the right to retain and use personal clothing or possessions as space permits, unless for him or her to do so would infringe upon the right of another patient or is medically or programmatically contraindicated for documented medical, safety, or programmatic reasons.

(b) Information.—

1. A patient has the right to know the name, function, and qualifications of each health care provider who is providing medical services to the patient. A patient may request such information from his or her responsible provider or the health care facility in which he or she is receiving medical services.

2. A patient in a health care facility has the right to know what patient support services are available in the facility.

3. A patient has the right to be given by his or her health care provider information concerning diagnosis, planned course of treatment, alternatives, risks, and prognosis, unless it is medically inadvisable or impossible to give this information to the patient, in which case the information must be given to the patient's guardian or a person designated as the patient's representative. A patient has the right to refuse this information.

4. A patient has the right to refuse any treatment based on information required by this paragraph, except as otherwise provided by law. The responsible provider shall document any such refusal.

5. A patient in a health care facility has the right to know what facility rules and regulations apply to patient conduct.

6. A patient has the right to express grievances to a health care provider, a health care facility, or the appropriate state licensing agency regarding alleged violations of patients' rights. A patient has the right to know the health care provider's or health care facility's procedures for expressing a grievance.

7. A patient in a health care facility who does not speak English has the right to be provided an interpreter when receiving medical services if the facility has a person readily available who can interpret on behalf of the patient.

8. A health care provider or health care facility shall respect a patient's right to privacy and should refrain from making a written inquiry or asking questions concerning the ownership of a firearm or ammunition by the patient or by a family member of the patient, or the presence of a firearm in a private home or other domicile of the patient or a family member of the patient. Notwithstanding this provision, a health care provider or health care facility that in good faith believes that this information is relevant to the patient's medical care or safety, or safety ¹of others, may make such a verbal or written inquiry.

9. A patient may decline to answer or provide any information regarding ownership of a firearm by the patient or a family member of the patient, or the presence of a firearm in the domicile of the patient or a family member of the patient. A patient's decision not to answer a question relating to the presence or ownership of a firearm does not alter existing law regarding a physician's authorization to choose his or her patients.

10. A health care provider or health care facility may not discriminate against a patient based solely upon the patient's exercise of the constitutional right to own and possess firearms or ammunition.

11. A health care provider or health care facility shall respect a patient's legal right to own or possess a firearm and should refrain from unnecessarily harassing a patient about firearm ownership during an examination.

(c) Financial information and disclosure.—

1. A patient has the right to be given, upon request, by the responsible provider, his or her designee, or a representative of the health care facility full information and necessary counseling on the availability of known financial resources for the patient's health care.

2. A health care provider or a health care facility shall, upon request, disclose to each patient who is eligible for Medicare, before treatment, whether the health care provider or the health care facility in which the patient is receiving medical services accepts assignment under Medicare reimbursement as payment in full for medical services and treatment rendered in the health care provider's office or health care facility.

3. A primary care provider may publish a schedule of charges for the medical services that the provider offers to patients. The schedule must include the prices charged to an uninsured person paying for such services by cash, check, credit card, or debit card. The schedule must be posted in a conspicuous place in the reception area of the provider's office and must include, but is not limited to, the 50 services most frequently provided by the primary care provider. The schedule may group services by three price levels, listing services in each price level. The posting must be at least 15 square feet in size. A primary care provider who publishes and maintains a schedule of charges for medical services is exempt from the license fee requirements for a single period of renewal of a professional license under chapter 456 for that licensure term and is exempt from the continuing education requirements of chapter 456 and the rules implementing those requirements for a single 2-year period.

4. If a primary care provider publishes a schedule of charges pursuant to subparagraph 3., he or she must continually post it at all times for the duration of active licensure in this state when primary care services are provided to patients. If a primary care provider fails to post the schedule of charges in accordance with this subparagraph, the provider shall be required to pay any license fee and comply with any continuing education requirements for which an exemption was received.

5. A health care provider or a health care facility shall, upon request, furnish a person, before the provision of medical services, a reasonable estimate of charges for such services. The health care provider or the health care facility shall provide an uninsured person, before the provision of a planned nonemergency medical service, a reasonable estimate of charges for such service and information regarding the provider's or facility's discount or charity policies for which the uninsured person may be eligible. Such estimates by a primary care provider must be consistent with the schedule posted under subparagraph 3. Estimates shall, to the extent possible, be written in a language comprehensible to an ordinary layperson. Such reasonable estimate does not preclude the health care provider or health care facility from exceeding the estimate or making additional charges based on changes in the patient's condition or treatment needs.

6. Each licensed facility not operated by the state shall make available to the public on its Internet website or by other electronic means a description of and a link to the performance outcome and financial data that is published by the agency pursuant to s. 408.05(3)(k). The facility shall place a notice in the reception area that such information is available electronically and the website address. The licensed facility may indicate that the pricing information is based on a compilation of charges for the average patient and that each patient's bill may vary from the average depending upon the severity of illness and individual resources consumed. The licensed facility may also indicate that the price of service is negotiable for eligible patients based upon the patient's ability to pay.

7. A patient has the right to receive a copy of an itemized bill upon request. A patient has a right to be given an explanation of charges upon request.

(d) Access to health care.—

1. A patient has the right to impartial access to medical treatment or accommodations, regardless of race, national origin, religion, handicap, or source of payment.

2. A patient has the right to treatment for any emergency medical condition that will deteriorate from failure to provide such treatment.

3. A patient has the right to access any mode of treatment that is, in his or her own judgment and the judgment of his or her health care practitioner, in the best interests of the patient, including complementary or alternative health care treatments, in accordance with the provisions of s. 456.41.

(e) Experimental research.—In addition to the provisions of s. 766.103, a patient has the right to know if medical treatment is for purposes of experimental research and to consent prior to participation in such experimental research. For any patient, regardless of ability to pay or source of payment for his or her care, participation must be a voluntary matter; and a patient has the right to refuse to participate. The patient's consent or refusal must be documented in the patient's care record.

(f) Patient's knowledge of rights and responsibilities.—In receiving health care, patients have the right to know what their rights and responsibilities are.

(5) RESPONSIBILITIES OF PATIENTS.—Each patient of a health care provider or health care facility shall respect the health care provider's and health care facility's right to expect behavior on the part of patients which, considering the nature of their illness, is reasonable and responsible. Each patient shall observe the responsibilities described in the following summary.

(6) SUMMARY OF RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES.—Any health care provider who treats a patient in an office or any health care facility licensed under chapter 395 that provides emergency services and care or outpatient services and care to a patient, or admits and treats a patient, shall adopt and make available to the patient, in writing, a statement of the rights and responsibilities of patients, including the following:

SUMMARY OF THE FLORIDA PATIENT'S BILL
OF RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES

Florida law requires that your health care provider or health care facility recognize your rights while you are receiving medical care and that you respect the health care provider's or health care facility's right to expect certain behavior on the part of patients. You may request a copy of the full text of this law from your health care provider or health care facility. A summary of your rights and responsibilities follows:

A patient has the right to be treated with courtesy and respect, with appreciation of his or her individual dignity, and with protection of his or her need for privacy.

A patient has the right to a prompt and reasonable response to questions and requests.

A patient has the right to know who is providing medical services and who is responsible for his or her care.

A patient has the right to know what patient support services are available, including whether an interpreter is available if he or she does not speak English.

A patient has the right to know what rules and regulations apply to his or her conduct.

A patient has the right to be given by the health care provider information concerning diagnosis, planned course of treatment, alternatives, risks, and prognosis.

A patient has the right to refuse any treatment, except as otherwise provided by law.

A patient has the right to be given, upon request, full information and necessary counseling on the availability of known financial resources for his or her care.

A patient who is eligible for Medicare has the right to know, upon request and in advance of treatment, whether the health care provider or health care facility accepts the Medicare assignment rate.

A patient has the right to receive, upon request, prior to treatment, a reasonable estimate of charges for medical care.

A patient has the right to receive a copy of a reasonably clear and understandable, itemized bill and, upon request, to have the charges explained.

A patient has the right to impartial access to medical treatment or accommodations, regardless of race, national origin, religion, handicap, or source of payment.

A patient has the right to treatment for any emergency medical condition that will deteriorate from failure to provide treatment.

A patient has the right to know if medical treatment is for purposes of experimental research and to give his or her consent or refusal to participate in such experimental research.

A patient has the right to express grievances regarding any violation of his or her rights, as stated in Florida law, through the grievance procedure of the health care provider or health care facility which served him or her and to the appropriate state licensing agency.

A patient is responsible for providing to the health care provider, to the best of his or her knowledge, accurate and complete information about present complaints, past illnesses, hospitalizations, medications, and other matters relating to his or her health.

A patient is responsible for reporting unexpected changes in his or her condition to the health care provider.

A patient is responsible for reporting to the health care provider whether he or she comprehends a contemplated course of action and what is expected of him or her.

A patient is responsible for following the treatment plan recommended by the health care provider.

A patient is responsible for keeping appointments and, when he or she is unable to do so for any reason, for notifying the health care provider or health care facility.

A patient is responsible for his or her actions if he or she refuses treatment or does not follow the health care provider's instructions.

A patient is responsible for assuring that the financial obligations of his or her health care are fulfilled as promptly as possible.

A patient is responsible for following health care facility rules and regulations affecting patient care and conduct.

History.—s. 1, ch. 91-127; s. 65, ch. 92-289; s. 656, ch. 95-148; s. 21, ch. 98-89; s. 178, ch. 98-166; s. 64, ch. 99-397; s. 7, ch. 2001-53; s. 2, ch. 2001-116; s. 3, ch. 2004-297; s. 12, ch. 2006-261; s. 3, ch. 2008-47; s. 2, ch. 2011-112; s. 1, ch. 2011-122.

¹Note.—The word "of" was substituted for the "or" by the editors.

From the Desk of:
William D. Harasym

The HPSCI's Misinformation Campaign About the NSA! WTF?

The House Intelligence Committee's Misinformation Campaign About the NSA!

BY MARK M. JAYCOX

Rep. Mike Rogers, Chair of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI), is a busy man. Since June, he (and HPSCI) have been all over the media with press statements, TV appearances, and tweets, relentlessly trying to persuade the public that the National Security Agency (NSA) is merely doing its job when it collects innocent users' calling records, phone calls, and emails.
One such release is a "Myths v. Facts" page tackling the fact and fiction of the NSA's activities. In addition to collecting phone calls and emails, we now know these practices include deliberately weakening international cryptographic standards and hacking into companies' data centers, but, unfortunately, the page is misleading and full of NSA talking points. And one statement is downright false.

Wrong Information In the "Myths v. Facts" page, HPSCI touts company cooperation with the spying programs, writing: the NSA is not stealing data from tech companies without their knowledge. But two weeks ago, the Washington Post reported the exact opposite: the NSA secretly broke into the main links connecting data centers within Yahoo! and Google. Time for an update?
HPSCI is supposed to be informed of significant intelligence activities--and given Rep. Rogers'well-publicized concerns over cybersecurity (he introduced a bill called CISPA), we'd expect him to ensure the committee knew of such an attack if he'd been informed. Members of Congress must find out whether HPSCI knew about the attacks on private companies, and if they did, why they published such misinformation.

Word Games The document also uses two different word games. First, it sets up a straw man by focusing on how the phone records program using Section 215 of the Patriot Act doesn't collect the content of users' communications. But NSA is using Section 215 to collect "metadata" that reveals every American's calling records--calls to your doctor, your church, your partner, etc.--which severely chills core Constitutional freedoms.
HPSCI's site neglects to note that the ongoing leaks provide evidence that, while spying on foreigners, the NSA collects Americans' phone calls, emails, and other content using Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Instead of discarding emails belonging to innocent users, the NSA keeps the communications. The Intelligence Committee document completely ignores this point by focusing on Section 702's prohibition of "targeting" Americans. That's a red herring: regardless of "targeting," the NSA is still collecting and storing the content of Americans' phone calls and emails without a warrant.

The "Facts" Continue HPSCI also tells us that members of Congress were fully aware of the programs. But freshmen members of Congress have noted that that they were not shared important documents before key votes in December 2012 reauthorizing the Patriot Act and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Amendments Act. More generally, senior members of Congress have decried briefings by the intelligence community as playing a game of "20 questions." Just last week, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI, the Senate counterpart to HPSCI), admitted how hard it is to get straight answers. In a recent article, she noted: "Once it gets started in one administration or two administrations back, it just continues on. They grow, they mutate, whatever it may be. You wouldn't know to ask, that's the thing. I wouldn't have known to ask."
Lastly, HPSCI says that the NSA isn't "using the '[Business Records]' program to do extensive data mining on Americans' phone records." The Business Records program may not be doing the actual data mining, but as we noted in our recent post on Executive Order 12333, there are secret guidelines that supposedly allow NSA to use the metadata collected under Section 215 and Section 702 to map out social networks. Essentially, the data mining is occurring under a different  program that is still secret, and unknown, to the American public.

The Intelligence Committees' Role in Oversight and Information HPSCI, like SSCI, was originally created in the 1970s after the Church and Pike committees investigated the activities of the intelligence community, found systemic abuses of privacy and civil liberties, and recommended reforms to prevent those abuses from happening again. Its primary responsibility is to oversee the intelligence community and to inform the public and Congress about the intelligence community's activities. We need HPSCI to tell the truth. That's clearly not the case with the supposed "Myths v. Facts" website. And it's sad to see a committee originally created to rein in the abuses of the intelligence community--as when NSA collected every single telegram leaving the country--tout incorrect or misleading talking points.

Congress Must Investigate It's one of the many reasons why Congress must establish a special investigatory committee into the spying as a result of the Intelligence Committee's inability to release factual information about the spying. A special investigatory committee could look into the NSA's activities and perform a review of the current oversight regime--paying particular attention to what other information the NSA is collecting about innocent users and how Congress can be better informed. As this document shows, members of Congress and the general public should not rely solely on HPSCI for facts about the NSA's activities. It also forces us to ask: How much do these intelligence committees really know about what the intelligence community is doing? Do they understand enough about what they don't know to be able to avoid unwittingly misinforming us?

Reprinted from eff.org/deeplinks

Media Advisory: Covering Christie

​ Media Advisory Covering Christie Reporters focus on personality instead of policy November 13, 2013 The November 18 cover of Time magazine about New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie caused a stir because of this line of text: "The Elephant in the Room." Many saw that as a swipe at Christie's weight, as well as a feeble pun about Republicans. But the bigger problem with the Time piece, as with so much of the coverage of Christie, is more fundamental: The real elephant in the room is that Christie has an actual record of governing a state, and yet journalists seem almost totally uninterested in discussing it. There is no doubt that Christie is a media darling (Extra!, 5/11). On Meet the Press (11/10/13), Time's Mark Halperin said: Chris Christie is someone who is magical in the way politicians can be magical, like our last three presidents. People like having them on TV. He's a good talker. He won. The actual Time article, while not crediting Christie with magical powers, presented him in glowing terms. Christie "has run the Garden State with combustible passion, blunt talk and the kind of bipartisan dealmaking that no one seems to do anymore," Michael Scherer writes. "He's a workhorse with a temper and a tongue, the guy who loves his mother and gets it done." To Time, the Christie story that matters is how he can get the conservative base of the Republican Party to support him. Pushing the major political parties to the "center" is a well-worn, bipartisan media pattern; it's what caused much of the press enthusiasm for John McCain in 2000 and 2008 (Extra!, 7/08). But as Jonathan Martin of the New York Times (11/11/13) wrote, "The more the news media and the establishment cheer on Mr. Christie, the more grassroots activists--especially members of the Tea Party--resent it." This framing prioritizes criticism of Christie from the right. As Time put it: Like McCain and Romney before him, Christie is wide open to attack from his right. He opposes gay marriage, but in October he called off a legal fight to block same-sex unions in New Jersey, earning the ire of Christian conservatives who promptly complained of "serious" concerns about Christie's "reliability." So Christie, after successfully blocking marriage equality in New Jersey for years with his veto, eventually gave up what increasingly appeared to be an unwinnable legal battle--that's what Time means by Christie being "wide open to attack from his right."  But what about other policy outcomes in the state Christie governs? Christie made the rounds of the Sunday chat shows on November 10 after winning a landslide election, as seemingly every journalist made clear. But the journalists avoided Christie's record as governor, instead focusing squarely on whether Christie is right-wing enough to win the Republican presidential nomination. "Can you play in places like Iowa and South Carolina?" asked ABC This Week anchor George Stephanopoulos. On NBC's Meet the Press, David Gregory wondered: "Mitt Romney told me here last week that you could save the Republican Party. Does it need saving and are you the guy to save it?" Gregory did at one point mention an actual policy issue, noting that the Wall Street Journal editorial page had deemed Christie's economic record "the biggest area of disappointment." But that was the exception, despite the fact that there's plenty to examine. New York Times reporter Kate Zernike (10/30/13) wrote one of the few pieces that focused on Christie's actual record. She noted that Christie, who won election in 2009 attacking Democrat Jon Corzine's budget gimmicks, has relied on the same kind of short-term strategies, diverting money for things like affordable housing and property tax rebates to balance the budget, and tapping funds intended for development of new sources of energy to keep the lights on in state buildings. Zernike added that Christie has issued more debt for transportation projects than any of his predecessors. Overall spending has risen 14 percent, and while state surpluses nationwide are growing, New Jersey's has shrunk to its lowest percentage in a decade. The state's bond rating is among the worst in the country. And while Christie touted the state's private-sector jobs record on all of the Sunday shows, none of the reporters interviewing him thought to bring up the state's dismal jobs performance Compared to other states, New Jersey ranks near the bottom--with the 41st highest unemployment rate, and the 44th worst job growth record (Daily Beast, 11/11/13). As media portrayals stick with the "moderate" storyline, The Nation's John Nichols (6/3/13) had a different, more factually based analysis: Christie is no moderate. He's a social conservative who opposes reproductive rights, has defunded Planned Parenthood and has repeatedly rejected attempts to restore state funding for family planning centers. He has vetoed money for clinics that provide health screenings for women, including mammograms and pap smears. He vetoed marriage equality. Christie's consistent when it comes to reading from the right's playbook. The governor announced early in his tenure that he was pulling New Jersey out of a regional carbon emissions reduction program, and then declared his intention to scale back the state's renewable energy targets. Christie, Nichols added, has a record very much like controversial Republican Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker: Christie is at his most militant when it comes to implementing the austerity agenda associated with the most conservative Republican governors. There's a credible case to be made that he is "doing a Scott Walker on New Jersey," as a Garden State headline suggested in early May, after the governor proposed gutting civil service protections. Christie makes no bones about his admiration for the Wisconsin governor, whose anti-labor crusade inspired mass protests, a recall attempt and miserable job-creation numbers. But those serious issues remain off the corporate media radar as they lavish praise on the supposedly straight-talking, bipartisan Republican governor. "There is no doubt that Christie's personality is the dominant feature of his political style," as Washington Post reporter Dan Balz (11/4/13) put it. The same goes for the way media are covering Christie--which is surely exactly the way he likes it. http://fair.org/take-action/media-advisories/covering-christie/                     This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Long Island Girl does Good!

Natalie Portman: Hometown Heroine Posted: 08 Nov 2013 07:10 AM PST Long Island's own Natalie Portman stars in the upcoming superhero film "Thor." She's played a ballerina, a queen, a stripper and two famous Annes (Frank and Boleyn). She was named one of the 50 Most Beautiful People by People Magazine. She won the Academy Award for her performance in the psychological thriller Black Swan, along with a Golden Globe and several other major accolades. Yet during one of her nearly 20 David Letterman Show appearances, Natalie Portman told the host, "I'll always still be a kid from Long Island." Portman, who was born in Jerusalem and lived there until age 3, spent most of her formative years in Jericho, attending Solomon Schechter Day School in Glen Cove, and graduating in 1999 from Syosset High School, where she was valedictorian and also voted "Most Likely to Win Jeopardy." "Natalie was brilliant in every subject," says Jill Goldberg, her guidance counselor at Syosset High School when the actress was still known by her given name, Natalie Hershlag (Portman is her grandmother's maiden name). "She balanced her work here with her professional life seamlessly, maintaining a flawless average. She's just a brilliant, remarkable person, inside and out. I absolutely adore her." Portman studied ballet and modern dance at the American Theater Dance Workshop in New Hyde Park and attended the Usdan Center for the Creative and Performing Arts in Wheatley Heights. Her road to stardom began at age 10, when she was "discovered" at an LI pizza parlor by a Revlon scout looking for child models. By age 12, Portman was cast in her first film, Leon: The Professional. Roles followed in Heat (1995), Beautiful Girls (1996) and Mars Attacks! (1996). But despite her busy career, academics always came first—a value instilled by her parents, Dr. Avner Hershlag, chief of North Shore-LIJ's Center for Human Reproduction, and Shelley Hershlag, an artist. "Natalie's parents didn't let her work on major films during the school year," says Goldberg. "They valued education very highly." They made an exception for Portman's starring role on Broadway in The Diary of Anne Frank during her high school junior year. Natalie's grandfather's parents and his younger brother were killed in concentration camps, making it extremely personal. Promoting the play on the Today Show in 1997, she told Matt Lauer, "I read the diary at 12, and it's very close to my own family history. It's very important to remind people of the wrongs of racism and hatred." During her senior year, Portman reached superstardom as Queen Amidala in Star Wars Episode 1: The Phantom Menace, famously missing its premiere to study for finals. Her studiousness paid off. Portman graduated with a 4.0 average from Syosset High and continued her education at Harvard, majoring in psychology. At the time, Portman said, "I don't care if [college] ruins my career. I'd rather be smart than a movie star." The actress lived for a time in Sea Cliff, where longtime resident and Bart's Barber Shop owner Joseph Mazzeo once cut her hair. "She came in with her mom, and I had no idea who she was," Mazzeo recalls. "She was growing her hair out, and she said, 'Give me a Mohawk.'" He later learned that she'd shaved her head for a movie roll. "Her mom looked nervous," Mazzeo says, "but Natalie told me, 'I bet you think I'm 14, but I'm 24.'" Portman, now 32, reprises her role as astrophysicist Jane Foster in Marvel's Thor: The Dark World, debuting this month—and her science cred isn't fiction. In high school, Portman co-authored a paper titled "A Simple Method to Demonstrate the Enzymatic Production of Hydrogen from Sugar," which earned her semifinalist honors in the prestigious Intel Science Talent Search. She continued her distinguished science career at Harvard, contributing to a study on memory called "Frontal Lobe Activation during Object Permanence." She may still be "just a kid from Long Island," but with her brains, beauty and killer-acting chops, she's done LI proud.