Banksy bids adieu to NYC

Graffiti artist Banksy's final artwork floated near the Long Island Expressway Artist stirred controversy, raised money for charity during his month in New York He left daily works, including performance art and traveling exhibits, throughout city

An Obama voter's cry of despair

Nathaniel Morris: I voted for President Obama twice, sharing hope in possibility of change He says Obama has had worthy efforts thwarted by GOP obstructionism Morris: Obstructionism can't excuse Obamacare website woes, drone attacks Morris: Obama's 2008 campaign memoir is a sad reminder of what might have been

Editor's note: Nathaniel P. Morris is a second-year student at Harvard Medical School.

(CNN) -- I'm reading a terribly sad book these days. It's a book that I thought would uplift me during the doldrums of second-year medical school, and renew in me a sense of hope. It's called "The Audacity to Win," and it's a memoir of Barack Obama's 2008 presidential campaign.

When I'm finished with my patient write-ups at night and get into bed, the book returns me to a time when politics inspired millions and speeches could take your breath away. The election turned out to be a landslide, and news anchors paused to reflect on the historic nature of the hour.

My classmates cried with joy, and my parents saved every newspaper they could find. A young team of visionaries was headed for the White House, and the nation was ready for change. During Obama's transition to office in 2008, he had an 82% approval rating. There was something in the air.

Nathaniel Morris

And then I close the book. Cutting to the present is a rude awakening, like snapping out of a dream. It's hard to remember those days of optimism -- they seem a distant memory, a sad reminder of opportunities gone by. Change indeed happened, in the years since I cast my first ballot. It was simply nothing I could have imagined.

I credit Obama with great and varied accomplishments, from the passage of the Affordable Care Act to our military exit from Iraq, the end of "don't ask don't tell," to the killing of Osama bin Laden. Moreover, I believe that partisan obstructionism has upended too many efforts to push our nation forward: immigration reform, a public option for health care, and closing the base at Guantanamo Bay, among others. But, after the countless times in which I have found myself defending the Obama administration to colleagues and peers, I've reached a limit to the explanations that I can provide. I've reached a point of political despair.

Republican obstructionism cannot explain allowing the bugging of foreign leaders, nor having drones strike innocent children overseas. It cannot explain having the National Security Agency collect data on the private lives of Americans, nor prosecuting whistle-blowers who reveal government wrongdoing. It cannot account for assassinating Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen, without a trial, nor shirking public funding and spending limits during presidential campaigns.

It cannot justify the findings of a report that says the White House's efforts to silence the media are the "most aggressive ... since the Nixon Administration".

And, most recently, it cannot excuse the failure to design a simple website more than three years since the Affordable Care Act was signed into law.

I don't know if this is what I should have expected. If, at 18 years old, I was supposed to figure out that governance may contradict the political campaigns that precede it. Obviously, elective office isn't a predictable course, as the opposing political party and random events, such as the Newtown massacre, will shape our public conversation. Yet, of all of the examples that I have listed above, they largely seem to be of the administration's own choosing. That is what troubles me most of all.

I voted for Obama again in 2012, but not because I was excited by his candidacy. Mitt Romney presented a confusing and unrefined alternative who could not seem to lock down his policies or his positions. I felt that a second term for Obama, free from the pressures of future elections, would fulfill the hope that we had heard of for so long.

Still, as Obama's approval rating sank below 45% this week, returning to 2008 through that book has become that much harder. It makes me yearn for the many promises that disappeared.

This week I was reading the portion of the book describing how Obama suffered a huge loss to Clinton in the Pennsylvania primary. At a post-mortem campaign meeting, he told his staff that they needed to get back on track and stay true to the purpose of their cause. " 'I want us to get our mojo back,' he said. 'We've got to remember who we are.' "

It's five years later, Mr. President, and I couldn't agree with you more.

Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion.

Join us on Facebook/CNNOpinion.

Pilot: Which gadgets are ok on planes?

Les Abend: FAA relaxing rules on electronics in flight; is it safe? He says electronic device signals don't interfere with flight navigation much anymore He says FAA still bans cell phone calls; they risk overload of cellular systems on ground During emergency instructions, airlines should ban use of earphones, Abend says

Editor's note: Les Abend is a 777 captain for a major airline with 29 years of flying experience. He is a longtime contributing editor to Flying magazine, a worldwide publication in print for more than 75 years.

(CNN) -- As we begin our initial descent into JFK, I lightly press the tip of my index finger to the iPad screen. A brief jostle from a bout of turbulence results in the display of the wrong page. I grumble in silence but grin because I no longer have to wrestle through pages of paper charts and manuals. Instead, my office -- the cockpit of a 777 -- is mostly void of paper. Cool stuff.

My airline was the first to have the iPad approved for all phases of flight, takeoff and landing included. Almost a year has passed since that approval, a process that required six months of trials and training on each airplane type. And now the FAA is relaxing its rules on the use of personal electronic devices for passengers. It was inevitable. But is the new policy safe?

Most safety concerns focus on the effect of electronic interference to navigation systems. But in most of today's airliners, those concerns are minimal.

Navigation is no longer wholly dependent on signals sent from the ground from one of the VOR (Very High Omni Bearing Range) stations that dot the landscape around the world. Now GPS and sophisticated internal navigation systems integrate VOR signals into the calculations from onboard computers.

Les Abend

The design of aircraft prevents electronic signals from interfering -- not only signals from outside sources but ones generated from inside the airplane, such as engines and generators. In short, the chance of a passenger's Kindle interfering with an automated landing in low visibility conditions is minimal if not nonexistent.

Calls from cell phones are a separate story.

I'm gratified that the FAA acknowledges that usage as potential interference. For one thing, in some circumstances, cell phone frequencies are close to those of VOR stations. The FCC prohibits their usage for calls because of the risk of overloading cellular systems from airborne phones traveling at the Mach speeds of jets. If you want a dead phone for your business meeting after a three-hour flight, be certain to leave it on for the entire trip. The phone will attempt to lock on to almost every cell tower signal available en route.

So where is the potential safety threat?

It comes mostly from electronic devices creating a distraction. How so?

Takeoffs and landings are the most critical phases of any flight. In an abnormal situation, such as an aborted takeoff or an emergency landing that dictates a ground evacuation, time is of the essence. If you are focused on Angry Birds, will you have situational awareness? Will you understand the emergency instructions of the flight attendants in a highly stressful situation?

In-flight cell call? It'll cost you FAA scolds passenger for iPad on plane

And for that matter, if your concentration is on composing an e-mail to the manager of your biggest account, are you really paying attention to the location of the emergency exits during the departure briefing?

You may say: How does the distraction of electronics differ from the distraction of The New York Times or People magazine? To which I would answer: They don't come with headphones. In any case, as it has never been done in the past, it would be an absurdity to regulate ink-on-paper reading now.

Although the FAA has granted approval for the use of your iPad during takeoff and landing, each airline must incorporate the policy into its own operations. Assuming airlines will relax their policies just for the sake of competing with their counterparts, I would advocate that they hold the line on electronic devices being used with headphones or anything else that could potentially block passengers from hearing and understanding emergency instructions from crew members.

One perk of this new electronic regulation? Some of the burden will be lifted from flight attendant duties. Although they still have to scold you about the seat back and tray table, the electronic device admonishment will be diminished.

But don't be having a phone conversation with the spouse or be texting a buddy. Cell phone calls are still prohibited when that entry door closes.

From my perspective as a flight crew member, I am pleased that our customers will have the opportunity to enjoy their electronic devices. But as cliched as it may sound, we are there for your safety. Regulation aside, I ask that you exercise discretion.

There is a method to our madness, even for Alec Baldwin.

Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion.

Join us on Facebook/CNNOpinion.

Cuts will take food off table for millions

Food stamp benefits will be cut about 5% starting Nov. 1 Bob Aiken says this will hurt America's struggling families, and more cuts could come Aiken says food banks won't be able to fully take up the slack He says Americans already often use up food stamps and need help from food banks

Editor's note: Bob Aiken is chief executive of Feeding America, a nonprofit organization that seeks to feed the hungry through a national network of member food banks and also fosters efforts to end hunger.

(CNN) -- In the last few weeks, the media has been ablaze with news of the government shutdown, the debt limit and health care reform. Missing from most public debate, however, is the cut to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, benefits that will take place on November 1 and will affect every one of the more than 47 million Americans who depend on the program to help meet their basic nutritional needs.

When the changes are implemented, everyone enrolled in the SNAP program will see their benefits cut. For example, a family of four that qualifies for the maximum monthly benefit will lose $36 a month -- that's a 5% reduction.

While this may not seem like a lot, I speak from experience when I say $36 provides much more than you might think. This past September, I participated in the SNAP challenge.

Bob Aiken

For a week, I stuck to a budget of about $1.50 per meal, the average SNAP benefit for one person. It was a tough week. I found myself drained and constantly thinking of food.

When the SNAP cuts take effect next week, benefits will average about $1.40 per meal. I can't imagine the strain this will place on struggling families who are counting every penny and trying to stretch their benefits.

Most families do not have enough to make it through the month already -- 90% of SNAP benefits are redeemed by the third week of the month and 58% of food bank clients currently receiving SNAP turn to food banks for help at least six months out of the year.

The upcoming cuts will result in an increased need for food assistance at food pantries and soup kitchens across the nation when many are already stretched meeting sustained high need in the wake of the recession.

Panera CEO takes food stamp challenge McDonald's helpline: try foodstamps John King: We were on food stamps

At Feeding America, we're doing everything we can to prepare our network of food banks for the increased demand, but charity alone cannot make up for the impending $5 billion loss in SNAP funding. The reduced funding will result in the loss of nearly 1.9 billion meals in the next year. That's more than half of Feeding America's total projected output for 2014.

The cuts this week are significant and will put a strain on millions of families struggling with food insecurity, hitting them right before the holiday season. Adding to this is the fact that Congress is considering much deeper cuts to SNAP benefits and eligibility restrictions that will affect millions of low-income people as part of the farm bill.

In September, the House passed legislation cutting $40 billion in SNAP over the next 10 years, according to a Feeding America analysis. Together with this week's cuts, the pending legislation will result in a loss of nearly 3.4 billion meals for low-income Americans in 2014 alone, according to a Feeding America analysis. These are meals our most vulnerable citizens cannot afford to lose, and food banks and other charities simply cannot fill that gap.

While we cannot stop this week's SNAP cuts, we can prevent further cuts from taking place. Call your member of Congress and tell them not to cut SNAP.

Helping our neighbors in need is a fundamental American value, and fighting hunger is a public-private partnership. We need a strong charitable system and a strong federal anti-hunger safety net. Working together, individuals, charities, business and government can solve hunger. Do your part to make sure no one in America goes hungry.

Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion.

Join us on Facebook/CNNOpinion.

Roman eagle unearthed in London

Archaeologists says the statue is in an "almost unbelievable" state of preservation The sculpture of an eagle grasping a snake was found in a dig in the City of London The limestone statue may once have graced a mausoleum, archaeologists say It's been dated by experts to the first or second century