Recipe: Pumpkin and black bean quesadillas are a fall twist on a classic

posted in: All news | 0

These pumpkin and black bean quesadillas are a cozy, fall twist on a classic, perfect for cooler days when you’re craving something hearty yet simple.

Related Articles


Sugarcone cabbage a sweet, fresh take on one of the world’s oldest vegetables


A recipe for Fish Stick Panzanella from ‘The Blue Food Cookbook’ elevates a frozen staple


A new ‘Blue Food’ cookbook champions fish and other seafood for any meal


Quick Fix: Teriyaki Glazed Pork with Chinese Noodles


This 3-course vegan meal is great for Vegetarian Awareness Month

The creamy pumpkin purée adds a subtle sweetness and velvety texture that pairs beautifully with the earthy black beans and warming spices like cumin and chili powder. Everything comes together quickly with pantry staples, making this an ideal weeknight meal or satisfying lunch—and a great way to use up pumpkin puree beyond pie.

Crisped in a skillet until golden and melty, these quesadillas are endlessly adaptable. Swap in corn tortillas or use pinto beans instead of black. Optional toppings like avocado, salsa, or sour cream let you customize each plate to your taste. For a more complete meal, serve with a crisp side salad or a tangy cabbage-lime slaw.

Pumpkin and Black Bean Quesadillas

Serves 4

INGREDIENTS

1 tablespoon olive oil

1 small onion, minced

1 bell pepper, seeded and minced

1 garlic clove, minced

1 teaspoon ground cumin

½ teaspoon chili powder

1 teaspoon dried oregano

1 (15-ounce) can black beans, drained and rinsed

1 ½ cups canned pumpkin purée

Salt and pepper, to taste

1½ cups shredded cheese (Monterey Jack, cheddar, or a mixture)4 large flour tortillas

Oil for the skillet

Optional toppings: avocado, sour cream, salsa, hot sauce

DIRECTIONS

Heat olive oil in a skillet over medium heat. Add onion and bell pepper and sauté until soft and lightly browned, about 10 minutes. Stir in the garlic, cumin, chili powder, and oregano, cooking for 1 minute more. Add the black beans and pumpkin purée. Stir to combine, mashing some of the beans slightly for texture. Season with salt and pepper to taste. Cook for 3-5 minutes until heated through, then remove from heat.

Spread the pumpkin-black bean mixture over half of each tortilla. Top with shredded cheese, then fold the tortillas in half.

Heat a bit oil in a clean skillet over medium heat. Cook each quesadilla for 2-3 minutes per side until golden and the cheese is melted. Slice into wedges and serve warm with desired toppings.

Registered dietitian and food writer Laura McLively is the author of “The Berkeley Bowl Cookbook.” Follow her at @myberkeleybowl and www.lauramclively.com.

When a hearing aid isn’t enough

posted in: All news | 0

By Paula Span, KFF Health News

Kitty Grutzmacher had contended with poor hearing for a decade, but the problem had worsened over the past year. Even with her hearing aids, “there was little or no sound,” she said.

Related Articles


FDA’s top drug regulator resigns after federal officials probe ‘serious concerns’


As sports betting explodes, states try to set limits to stop gambling addiction


‘Colorado sober’ movement ditches alcohol for cannabis, psychedelics. Is it for real?


FDA restricts use of kids’ fluoride supplements citing emerging health risks


Your latest prescription is to get outside

“I was avoiding going out in groups. I stopped playing cards, stopped going to Bible study, even going to church.”

Her audiologist was unable to offer Grutzmacher, a retired nurse in Elgin, Illinois, a solution. But she found her way to the cochlear implant program at Northwestern University.

There, Krystine Mullins, an audiologist who assesses patients’ hearing and counsels them about their options, explained that surgically implanting this electronic device usually substantially improved a patient’s ability to understand speech.

“I had never even thought about it,” Grutzmacher said.

That she was 84 was, in itself, immaterial. “As long as you’re healthy enough to undergo surgery, age is not a concern,” Mullins said. One recent Northwestern implant patient had been 99.

Some patients need to ponder this decision, given that after the operation, clearer hearing still requires months of practice and adaptation, and the degree of improvement is hard to predict. “You can’t try it out in advance,” Mullins said.

But Grutzmacher didn’t hesitate. “I couldn’t go on the way I was,” she said in a postimplant phone interview — one that involved frustrating repetition, but would have been impossible a few weeks earlier. “I was completely isolated.”

Hearing loss among older adults remains vastly undertreated. Federal epidemiologists have estimated that it affects about 1 in 5 people ages 65 to 74 and more than half of those over 75.

“The inner ear mechanisms weren’t built for longevity,” said Cameron Wick, an ear, nose, and throat specialist at University Hospitals in Cleveland.

Although hearing loss can contribute to depression, social disconnection, and cognitive decline, fewer than a third of people over 70 who could benefit from hearing aids have worn them.

For those who do, “if your hearing aids no longer give you clarity, you should ask for a cochlear implant assessment,” Wick said.

Twenty-five years ago, “it was a novelty to implant people over 80,” said Charles Della Santina, director of the Johns Hopkins Cochlear Implant Center. “Now, it’s pretty routine practice.”

In fact, a study published in 2023 in the journal Otology & Neurotology reported that cochlear implantation was increasing at a higher rate in patients over 80 than in any other age group.

Until recently, Medicare covered the procedure for only those with extremely limited hearing who could correctly repeat less than 40% of the words on a word recognition test. Without insurance — cochlear implantation can cost $100,000 or more for the device, surgery, counseling, and follow-up — many older people don’t have the option.

“It was incredibly frustrating, because patients on Medicare were being excluded,” Della Santina said. (Similarly, traditional Medicare doesn’t cover hearing aids, and Medicare Advantage plans with hearing benefits still leave patients paying most of the tab.)

Then, in 2022, Medicare expanded cochlear implant coverage to include older adults who could identify up to 60% of words on a speech recognition test, increasing the pool of eligible patients.

Still, while the American Cochlear Implant Alliance estimates that implants are increasing by about 10% annually, public awareness and referrals from audiologists remain low. Less than 10% of eligible adults with “moderate to profound” hearing loss receive them, the alliance says.

Cochlear implantation requires commitment. After the patient receives testing and counseling, the surgery, which is an outpatient procedure, typically takes two to three hours. Many adults undergo surgery on one ear and continue using a hearing aid in the other; some later go on to get a second implant.

The surgeon implants an internal receiver beneath the patient’s scalp and inserts electrodes, which stimulate the auditory nerve, into the inner ear; patients also wear an external processor behind the ear. (Clinical trials of an entirely internal device are underway.)

Two or three weeks later, after the swelling recedes and the patient’s stitches have been removed, an audiologist activates the device.

“When we first turn it on, you won’t like what you hear,” Wick cautioned. Voices initially sound robotic, mechanical. It takes several weeks for the brain to adjust and for patients to reliably decipher words and sentences.

“A cochlear implant is not something you just turn on and it works,” Mullins said. “It takes time and some training to get used to the new sound quality.” She assigns homework, like reading aloud for 20 minutes a day and watching television while reading the captions.

Within one to three months, “boom, the brain starts getting it, and speech clarity takes off,” Wick said. By six months, older adults will have reached most of their enhanced clarity, though some improvement continues for a year or longer.

How much improvement? That’s measured by two hearing tests: The CNC (consonant-nucleus-consonant) test, in which patients are asked to repeat individual words, and the AzBio Sentence Test, in which the words to be repeated are part of full sentences.

At Northwestern, Mullins tells older prospective patients that one year after activation, a 60% to 70% AzBio score — correctly repeating 60 to 70 words out of 100 — is typical.

A Johns Hopkins study of about 1,100 adults, published in 2023, found that after implantation, patients 65 and older could correctly identify about 50 additional words (out of 100) on the AzBio test, an increase comparable to the younger cohort’s results.

Participants over 80 showed roughly as much improvement as those in their late 60s and 70s.

“They transition from having a hard time following a conversation to being able to participate,” said Della Santina, an author of the study. “Decade by decade, cochlear implant results have gotten better and better.”

Moreover, an analysis of 70 older patients’ experiences at 13 implantation centers, for which Wick was the lead author, found not only “clinically important” hearing improvements but also higher quality-of-life ratings.

Scores on a standard cognitive test climbed, too: After six months of using a cochlear implant, 54% of participants had a passing score, compared with 36% presurgery. Studies that focus on people in their 80s and 90s have shown that those with mild cognitive impairment also benefit from implants.

Nevertheless, “we’re cautious not to overpromise,” Wick said. Usually, the longer that older patients have had significant hearing loss, the harder they must work to regain their hearing and the less improvement they may see.

A minority of patients feel dizzy or nauseated after surgery, though most recover quickly. Some struggle with the technology, including phone apps that adjust the sound. Implants are less effective in noisy settings like crowded restaurants, and since they are designed to clarify speech, music may not sound great.

For those at the upper end of Medicare eligibility who already understand roughly half of the speech they hear, implantation may not seem worth the effort. “Just because someone is eligible doesn’t mean it’s in their best interests,” Wick said.

For Grutzmacher, though, the choice seemed clear. Her initial testing found that even with hearing aids, she understood only 4% of words on the AzBio. Two weeks after Mullins turned on the cochlear implant, Grutzmacher could understand 46% using a hearing aid in her other ear.

She reported that after a few rough days, her ability to talk by phone had improved, and instead of turning the television volume up to 80, “I can hear it at 20,” she said.

So she was making plans. “This week, I’m going out to lunch with a friend,” she said. “I’m going to play cards with a small group of women. I have a luncheon at church on Saturday.”

The New Old Age is produced through a partnership with The New York Times.

©2025 Kaiser Health News. Visit khn.org. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC. ©2025 KFF Health News. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Should couples have a separate or joint bank account?

posted in: All news | 0

René Bennett, Bankrate.com

Joint bank accounts allow couples to manage budgets together, monitor spending and save for shared goals. But they aren’t right for every couple. And you don’t have to go with an all-or-nothing approach, either. You can have a joint account without merging all your finances.

Related Articles


Tylenol, Kleenex, Band-Aid and more put under one roof in $48.7 billion consumer brands deal


Nvidia and other tech companies prop up Wall Street as most stocks fall


Business People: Retired Rise CEO Lynn Noren honored for disability community work


‘Catastrophic’ hack underscores public defender security gaps


Real World Economics: Senators wake up and smell the tariffs

Here’s what you should consider before deciding whether a joint account, separate account, or a blend of both, is right for your relationship.

Banking statistics for couples

38 percent of couples in committed relationships use exclusively joint bank accounts.
More than one-third of couples (34 percent) have a mix of joint and separate bank accounts, while 27 percent have completely separate accounts.
40 percent of coupled U.S. adults say they have committed some form of financial infidelity, the most common of which is spending more than their partner would be OK with.

Why have a joint bank account?

Some couples maintain a joint bank account because it may make it easier to track spending and save for shared goals. But don’t set up a joint account simply because it seems like “the thing to do.” This decision should only be made with open communication and a lot of self-reflection.

Here are a few main reasons to open a joint account with your significant other:

Saving for joint goals: You don’t have to go all-in on joint accounts to have a joint account. If you’re saving for a joint goal, such as a house or a wedding, consider opening a savings account so you can both contribute to a shared goal.
Paying down shared debt: Similarly, you may want to contribute to a shared account if the money leaving it is going to paying a shared debt, such as a mortgage.
Transparency in household spending and easier budgeting: With a joint bank account, you and your partner will be able to have a good running tally of fixed expenses, but you’ll also be able to keep track of variable costs.
Increased communication about finances: Having a joint account is very likely to lead to you talking more about your finances and plans. A 2024 study by Fidelity found that those who say they communicate well are less likely to report money as their greatest relationship challenge, and they’re more likely to rate their household’s financial health as excellent or very good.
Easier access to the other’s money in case of an emergency: By having each of you listed as an authorized account holder, you won’t need to jump through any hoops to access your money if the other is unavailable. For example, if one of you is in a terrible accident, the other will be able to access the funds without worrying about any red tape.

Joint savings may be the easier account to manage

A joint savings account where you’re both contributing to a goal or building an emergency fund may be the far less challenging account to manage together because you don’t have to track outgoing expenditures.

A joint checking account, on the other hand, can be more difficult to keep up with if both parties spend money without being clear on what the other person has done (or will do).

Why keep separate bank accounts instead of joint accounts?

More control over your money: When you open a joint account, both owners have full control of the money. That means your partner can drain the account without asking, and you’d have no recourse to get it back.
Avoid big conflicts: There’s a good chance that you have a different definition of financial responsibility than your partner does. If each of you is working to make money, it can be up to you how you choose to spend it without worrying about your partner questioning your decision.
Avoid being accountable for your partner’s debts: If you wind up merging all your finances — credit cards, too — you could be on the hook for your partner’s spending habits. For example, your partner may overspend and incur overdraft fees on a joint checking account, which may strain your relationship along with your finances.
A semblance of financial privacy: You don’t have to share everything with your partner or agree (or even discuss) every single spending decision. You can keep a separate checking account for yourself, even if you have a joint checking account with your partner, to spend on your own hobbies or gifts for friends you may not share.

Summary of pros and cons of joint accounts

Pros

You can work together to save for bigger life goals.
You may be able to create a plan to pay off debt.
You’ll create an easy path to budgeting together for the long term.
You will be able to set up regular discussions about money by looking at the account history.
You can both access the money in a worst-case scenario, particularly if one of you is incapacitated.

Cons

You’ll no longer have full control over your money.
You’ll have a messy road ahead if you break up.
You can wind up arguing more about overspending.
You’re getting on the pathway to sharing all of your finances, including debts, which requires careful consideration.

Try a combination of joint accounts and separate accounts

Fortunately, couples aren’t forced into an either-or solution here. You can easily use a separate account for your personal spending and a joint account for joint payments, such as rent or a mortgage, childcare, utilities and the like. Similarly, you can set up a shared savings account for joint savings goals, and separate savings for yourself. You and your significant other can enjoy the benefits of both accounts, such as joint bill paying, without so much of the concern about differences in spending habits.

With more bank accounts to manage, more coordination will be required to ensure that money is moved into a joint account for paying bills and other shared expenses each month. But that may also give room for both partners to be more communicative about their finances and work together to achieve that coordination.

Bottom line

Navigating personal finances as a couple requires trust and communication in any situation. Whether you’re creating a new account for the both of you or keeping your accounts separate, it’s important to make sure both partners are on the same page when it comes to where your money goes. You don’t have to combine all your money, but you should both have a clear understanding of how your money comes in and goes out.

Key takeaways

Couples who share expenses can consider a joint bank account to track spending but should understand the pros and cons before opening one.
Joint savings accounts can be helpful to save for shared goals or a shared emergency fund.
There are downsides to joint accounts, such as the lack of privacy.

(Visit Bankrate online at bankrate.com.)

©2025 Bankrate.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Judge again bars Trump administration from deploying troops to Portland

posted in: All news | 0

By CLAIRE RUSH and GENE JOHNSON, Associated Press

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — A federal judge in Oregon on Sunday barred President Donald Trump’s administration from deploying the National Guard to Portland, Oregon until at least Friday, saying she “found no credible evidence” that protests in the city grew out of control before the president federalized the troops earlier this fall.

The city and state sued in September to block the deployment.

It’s the latest development in weeks of legal back-and-forth in Portland, Chicago and other U.S. cities as the Trump administration has moved to federalize and deploy the National Guard in city streets to quell protests.

The ruling from U.S. District Court Judge Karin Immergut, a Trump appointee, followed a three-day trial in which both sides argued over whether protests at the city’s U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement building met the conditions for using the military domestically under federal law.

In a 16-page filing late Sunday, Immergut said she would issue a final order on Friday due to the voluminous evidence presented at trial, including more than 750 exhibits.

Related Articles


California law to protect Jewish students faces challenge over free speech concerns


Hearings to focus on National Guard deployments in the nation’s capital and Memphis, Tennessee


Some Head Start preschools shutter as government shutdown continues


Hegseth visits inter-Korean border ahead of security talks with South Korean officials


A major question for the Supreme Court: Will it treat Trump as it did Biden?

Judge says claims of protest violence are overstated

The purpose of the deployment, according to the Trump administration, is to protect federal personnel and property where protests are occurring or likely to occur. Legal experts said that a higher appellate court order that remains in effect would have barred troops from being deployed anyway.

Immergut wrote that most violence appeared to be between protesters and counter-protesters and found no evidence of “significant damage” to the immigration facility at the center of the protests.

“Based on the trial testimony, this Court finds no credible evidence that during the approximately two months before the President’s federalization order, protests grew out of control or involved more than isolated and sporadic instances of violent conduct that resulted in no serious injuries to federal personnel,” she wrote.

Ruling follows weeks of back and forth in federal court

The complex case comes as Democratic cities targeted by Trump for military involvement — including Chicago, which has filed a separate lawsuit on the issue — seek to push back. They argue the president has not satisfied the legal threshold for deploying troops and that doing so would violate states’ sovereignty. The administration argues that it needs the troops because it has been unable to enforce the law with regular forces — one of the conditions set by Congress for calling up troops.

Immergut issued two orders in early October that blocked the deployment of the troops leading up to the trial. She previously found that Trump had failed to show that he met the legal requirements for mobilizing the National Guard. She described his assessment of Portland, which Trump has called “war-ravaged” with “fires all over the place,” as “simply untethered to the facts.”

One of Immergut’s orders was paused Oct. 20 by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. But late Tuesday, the appeals court vacated that decision and said it would rehear the matter before an 11-judge panel. Until the larger panel rehears the case, the appeals court’s initial order from early October — under which the National Guard is federalized but not deployed — remains in effect.

Federal witness describes ‘surprise’ at troop deployment

During the Portland trial, witnesses including local police and federal officials were questioned about the law enforcement response to the nightly protests at the city’s ICE building. The demonstrations peaked in June, when Portland police declared one a riot. The demonstrations typically drew a couple dozen people in the weeks leading up to Trump’s National Guard announcement.

The Trump administration said it has had to shuffle federal agents from elsewhere around the country to respond to the Portland protests, which it has characterized as a “rebellion” or “danger of rebellion” — another one of the conditions for calling up troops under federal law.

Federal officials working in the region testified about staffing shortages and requests for more personnel that have yet to be fulfilled. Among them was an official with the Federal Protective Service, the agency within the Department of Homeland Security that provides security at federal buildings, whom the judge allowed to be sworn in as a witness under his initials, R.C., due to safety concerns.

R.C., who said he would be one of the most knowledgeable people in DHS about security at Portland’s ICE building, testified that a troop deployment would alleviate the strain on staff. When cross-examined, however, he said he did not request troops and that he was not consulted on the matter. He also said he was “surprised” to learn about the deployment and that he did not agree with statements about Portland burning down.

Attorneys for Portland and Oregon said city police have been able to respond to the protests. After the police department declared a riot on June 14, it changed its strategy to direct officers to intervene when person and property crime occurs, and crowd numbers have largely diminished since the end of that month, police officials testified.

Another Federal Protective Service official whom the judge also allowed to testify under his initials said protesters have at times been violent, damaged the facility and acted aggressively toward officers working at the building.

The ICE building closed for three weeks over the summer due to property damage, according to court documents and testimony. The regional field office director for ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations, Cammilla Wamsley, said her employees worked from another building during that period. The plaintiffs argued that was evidence that they were able to continue their work functions.

Oregon Senior Assistant Attorney General Scott Kennedy said that “without minimizing or condoning offensive expressions” or certain instances of criminal conduct, “none of these incidents suggest … that there’s a rebellion or an inability to execute the laws.”

Johnson reported from Seattle.