In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On March 11 2014 13:58 Livelovedie wrote: What does everyone think about this #banbossy stuff? From my experience, guys don't tend to use the word bossy so I'm not sure what this campaign is getting at. In my experience girls tend to use the word bossy.. guys use a different B word.
This brings me to a different point, why does everyone have to be a leader in society and why does that role need to be looked upon as superior anyways.
i need more context for this. is this a young people thing or something?
This a campaign started by the COO of facebook, a lot of other prominent female movie stars, politicians, and women in prominent positions in companies are also supporting and doing commercials for it.
1. I think its weird that so few women go into comp sci and STEM, especially because the numbers are actually declining in comp sci from where they were 20-30 years ago 2. I think its weird -- considering how many young MBAs or JDs are women, or the fact that college graduates are majorly women -- that at the end of the whole thing its mostly guys in charge. As an interesting addendum, its interesting that in a recent poll I read women also think men should be bosses, wahtsup with that? So sure, there must be some cultural aspects in regards what leadership qualities are 3. I hate Sandberg and her faux philosophies, if there is ever a person who lucked out the whole bubble its the Whatsapp guys but she is surely up there, literally the only Harvard Econ undergrad who got to be the chief of staff to the secretary of treasury literally out of college. So taking those together, it seems like it is a real issue but Sandberg's approach isnt going to accomplish anything more than promote her as some sort of thought leader, just like her lean in book, for future political ambitions see seems to have.
So also, I came across this data on students in econ courses. Males and Females who get As in an intro to econ class are equally likely to major in Econ. But women will not major in it if their grades are bad while dudes will.
Sorry if I missed something along the way but why is health care registration only open for 6 months or so out of the year? I never knew that and its causing a huge problem in my state with a lot of minorities not knowing it and waiting to register for when the lines to wait to get help registering goes down (the form to fill out for obamacare is only in english so they need a translator for non English speakers)
On March 11 2014 13:58 Livelovedie wrote: What does everyone think about this #banbossy stuff? From my experience, guys don't tend to use the word bossy so I'm not sure what this campaign is getting at. In my experience girls tend to use the word bossy.. guys use a different B word.
This brings me to a different point, why does everyone have to be a leader in society and why does that role need to be looked upon as superior anyways.
i need more context for this. is this a young people thing or something?
This a campaign started by the COO of facebook, a lot of other prominent female movie stars, politicians, and women in prominent positions in companies are also supporting and doing commercials for it.
1. I think its weird that so few women go into comp sci and STEM, especially because the numbers are actually declining in comp sci from where they were 20-30 years ago 2. I think its weird -- considering how many young MBAs or JDs are women, or the fact that college graduates are majorly women -- that at the end of the whole thing its mostly guys in charge. As an interesting addendum, its interesting that in a recent poll I read women also think men should be bosses, wahtsup with that? So sure, there must be some cultural aspects in regards what leadership qualities are 3. I hate Sandberg and her faux philosophies, if there is ever a person who lucked out the whole bubble its the Whatsapp guys but she is surely up there, literally the only Harvard Econ undergrad who got to be the chief of staff to the secretary of treasury literally out of college. So taking those together, it seems like it is a real issue but Sandberg's approach isnt going to accomplish anything more than promote her as some sort of thought leader, just like her lean in book, for future political ambitions see seems to have.
Its not just a women bias thing they've done studies where different ethnicities also said that they perfer the white doll over other different colored dolls. Its a giant cultural bias that white christian stright males are "normal" and anything else is considered "not normal".
I don't like that site beacuse they have an article linked on there bashing LEGO for not having more women legos in it. I've really never seen anything less gender specific then lego people.
Goodbye, labor That misconception makes a lot of sense when you consider that business in many ways has never been better in part because so many people have been laid off. Indeed, wages are the single-largest corporate cost, so when companies need to pare expenses, the first thing they do is fire employees. InvestorPlace: How Washington & Wall Street affect your wallet That's why a stock rallies when a company says it's canning people. Lower costs mean fatter margins, and fatter margins mean bigger profits -- even if revenue is stagnant (more on this in a minute.)
The result is that stocks are at all-time highs partly because corporate profits are at record highs, closing in on nearly $1.9 trillion.
At the same time, nearly 9 million jobs were lost in the recession and its aftermath, according to the Bureau of Labor statistics. More than 10 million people are still unemployed today. First-time claims for unemployment insurance routinely top 300,000 a week, and layoffs are still happening at a pace of 1,600 per quarter.
WASHINGTON -- Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) delivered a devastating broadside against the CIA Tuesday, alleging that the agency was trying to intimidate Congress and may have broken the law in spying on Senate staffers.
Feinstein, head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, was responding to CIA charges that Senate staffers had hacked CIA computers to learn that the spy agency was in fact spying on the people charged with overseeing its activities. Those revelations surfaced last week, prompting the countercharge against the CIA and a CIA complaint to the Justice Department.
But Feinstein, who is often a strong defender of the intelligence community, hammered the agency in a morning Senate floor speech, saying that the CIA knew of every step the Intelligence Committee staffers took and that the CIA provided all the documents that the agency later questioned.
To allege that staffers may have broken the law was dishonest, she said, and smacked of an attempt to bully civilians responsible for checking agency abuses.
"Our staff involved in this matter have the appropriate clearances, handled the sensitive material according to established procedures and practice to protect classified information, and were provided access to the [documents] by the CIA itself," Feinstein said. "As a result, there is no legitimate reason to allege to the Justice Department that Senate staff may have committed a crime. I view the [CIA's] acting general counsel's referral [to the Justice Department] as a potential effort to intimidate this staff, and I am not taking it lightly."
What do House Republicans want to do with Obamacare? Depends on the day.
Last week, they passed a delay of the law's individual mandate, pure political showmanship that appealed to the right-wing base that hasn't given up the dream of fully repealing the law.
But Tuesday they're expected to pass three minor tweaks to the law, with Democratic support -- a rare bit of actual governing for the House when it comes to the Affordable Care Act.
Hold on, though. They're not done yet.
Later this week they'll hold payments to doctors under Medicare hostage unless Democrats agree to delay Obamacare's individual mandate to buy health insurance, a non-starter with the Democratic Senate and the White House.
If your head's spinning, that's life for House Republicans and the health care reform law. They're all over the place.
It's part of the party's broader struggle to decide exactly what it wants to say about the law that has driven its legislative and political agenda for the last four years.
Meanwhile, more concrete figures about how many Americans are benefitting under Obamacare are continuing to emerge. Gallup estimated Monday that the number of uninsured had dropped by three to four million people since the law's coverage took effect in January.
So Republicans are confronting a new political reality: Any more votes for wholesale repeal can be equated with stripping health coverage from millions of people. After years of pledging to roll back the law, they don't seem sure what to do now -- and that's crystallized in recent days in the House's erratic legislating around Obamacare.
Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) said Thursday that liberals don't understand disadvantaged students would rather have parents who care for them than a free lunch at school.
Speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference, Ryan said Republicans offer their constituents "ideas" while Democrats offer a "full stomach and an empty soul."
He then told an anecdote he said was relayed to him by Eloise Anderson, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker's (R) Department of Children and Families secretary.
"She once met a young boy from a very poor family, and every day at school, he would get a free lunch from a government program," Ryan said.
I keep waiting for Paul Ryan to admit his entire career was a bizarre social experiment and that it was intended to stretch people's commitment to a political party or something crazy like that. This honestly sounds like the Onion.
It's statements like that that really make me wonder why some people think Biden puts his foot in his mouth more than Palin/Ryan/GenericRepublican. Don't these people have aides who can tell them not to say these idiotic things?
There is the possibility that Eloise Anderson may have known about another kid with a brown paper bag story. So I guess we shouldn't rule out that possibility.
Edit 2: Upon actually reading the second link:
This actually seemed a little strange. Could the tale told in congressional testimony really be drawn from a book? It did not make much sense in part because Schroff and Mazyck are partnering with a group called No Kid Hungry to help end childhood hunger in the United States. One key part of the program is connecting hungry kids with federal programs such as school lunches and food stamps. The group also opposed Ryan’s 2013 budget for its proposed reductions in the food stamp program.
So we asked Anderson when she met this boy and heard his story. Joe Scialfa, communications director for the department provided us with this answer:
In the course of giving live testimony, Secretary Anderson misspoke. What she had intended to say was the following:
“Once I heard someone say, ‘what was important to him as a boy was that he didn’t want school lunch, he wanted a brown bag because the brown bag that he brought with his lunch in it meant that his mom cared about him.’”
Secretary Anderson was referring to a television interview which she had seen with Maurice Mazyck.
It’s important to note that there is no discussion in the book about the school lunch program, and we could find no interview with Mazyck in which he said that. He simply repeats the story as told in the book, without any larger political context about federal programs to help hungry children. Moreover, this incident happened more than 25 years ago; Mazyck is no longer a boy but in his late 30s.
Kevin Seifert, a spokesman for Ryan, said: “It’s unfortunate to learn that while testifying before the House Budget Committee, Secretary Anderson misspoke, but we appreciate her taking the time to share her insights.” After our inquiry, Ryan posted a notice on Facebook saying, “I regret failing to verify the original source of the story.”
So yeah, the story was ripped from the book. But whether Ryan gets a pass for using a misquoted story, depends on how you want to interpret it. Washington Post:
But what about Ryan? Should he get a pass because he heard this from a witness before Congress? It really depends on the circumstances. In this case, he referenced the story in a major speech. The burden always falls on the speaker, and we believe politicians need to check the facts in any prepared remarks.
More than 4.2 million people enrolled into private plans via Obamacare's health insurance exchange marketplaces through March 1, the Department of Health and Human Services announced in a report Tuesday.
The first open enrollment period on the exchanges, which are intended for individuals and families who don't get health benefits at work and aren't covered by government health care programs, ends March 31 for private coverage that will be in effect this year. At the current pace, sign-ups are below the original target of 5.6 million by the end of February, based on the Congressional Budget Office projection of 7 million by the end of March. Last month, the budget office downgraded those projections to 6 million total for the full six-month enrollment period, so a big surge would be needed in the final weeks to meet that benchmark.
One-quarter of the enrollments up to March 1 were for individuals between the ages of 18 and 34. This demographic is considered critical to the long-term viability of the state-based health insurance exchanges because they are presumed to be healthier and thus less likely to incur costly medical bills than the older people in the market. The White House originally aimed for about 40 percent of the enrollees to be younger than 35 years old.
Looks like something on sanctions against Russia gonna pass with huge margins. Finally something we can get bipartisan agreement on. At least they can get something as simple as that done.
Goodbye, labor That misconception makes a lot of sense when you consider that business in many ways has never been better in part because so many people have been laid off. Indeed, wages are the single-largest corporate cost, so when companies need to pare expenses, the first thing they do is fire employees. InvestorPlace: How Washington & Wall Street affect your wallet That's why a stock rallies when a company says it's canning people. Lower costs mean fatter margins, and fatter margins mean bigger profits -- even if revenue is stagnant (more on this in a minute.)
The result is that stocks are at all-time highs partly because corporate profits are at record highs, closing in on nearly $1.9 trillion.
At the same time, nearly 9 million jobs were lost in the recession and its aftermath, according to the Bureau of Labor statistics. More than 10 million people are still unemployed today. First-time claims for unemployment insurance routinely top 300,000 a week, and layoffs are still happening at a pace of 1,600 per quarter.
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama is fulfilling a State of the Union pledge to preserve more federal lands by adding more California coastline to a national monument.
Obama on Tuesday signed a proclamation permanently protecting some 1,665 acres in Northern California's Mendocino County, just north of Point Arena. He says he wants to make sure the land is cherished and preserved for future generations.
The action expands the California Coastal National Monument that President Bill Clinton created in 2000. The protected area includes coastal bluffs and shelves, tide pools, onshore sand dunes, coastal prairies, riverbanks and the mouth and estuary of the Garcia River. Obama noted that it provides an economic boost to the region through tourism.
wait wait wait. Wait. This is real? Please someone tell me this didn't actually happen. What a joke.
Yeah it did happen, and it's actually quite hilarious. The idea was to advertise ACA to young people.
I'm not even sure what I'm supposed to think... I don't think this fits the office of the presidency, but what do I know? I'm amazed anyone takes him seriously anymore.
And how dumb do they think young people are? "Obama seems like a cool guy, I guess I should sign up for Obamacare!" It's insulting.
Edit: I admit, I smiled at some parts. But that's it.
wait wait wait. Wait. This is real? Please someone tell me this didn't actually happen. What a joke.
Yeah it did happen, and it's actually quite hilarious. The idea was to advertise ACA to young people.
I'm not even sure what I'm supposed to think... I don't think this fits the office of the presidency, but what do I know? I'm amazed anyone takes him seriously anymore.
And how dumb do they think young people are? "Obama seems like a cool guy, I guess I should sign up for Obamacare!" It's insulting.
Edit: I admit, I smiled at some parts. But that's it.
"how does it feel to be the last black president" produced a nefarious smile and slow nodding.
On March 12 2014 10:08 IgnE wrote: Why do you think a president should be a humorless prick?
He should just be a serious person, or be funny in a strong way. He has to garner some sort of respect. This just makes him look like a fool. He has better things to do be doing. It's one thing to joke around, but this type of thing is just too low for my taste.
On second though, I'm all for Obama doing commercials instead of playing politics. He should go on a really long comedy tour. Until, say, January 2017.
On March 12 2014 10:08 IgnE wrote: Why do you think a president should be a humorless prick?
True presidents right horses naked and shoot tigers, don't you know that?
nah, Reagan told jokes and still appeared presidential. If Obama wants to joke at a press conference or something like that, fine. But faux interviews like this just seem low. Just IMO.
EPT![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BiaSwoZIcAA7jBL.jpg)
