Anonymous wrote:I'd organize resume by employer. Focus on accomplishments, tenure (overall) with organization, and any increased responsibilities (if any). Ignore B. Who cares?

+1. You were with the same organization the whole time. The A-B-A move was all intramural. Lump it all together in your responsibilities/achievements within that organization.

If you're paying $2K a month in rent but can't save, why are you paying so much in rent? Have you cut unnecessary expenses to the bone, or are you living a comfortable urban life?

In a rental you're not paying for maintenance, and you usually don't have to provide all of your own appliances. You're also not usually paying for all of the utilities or insurance. There are a lot of costs associated with home ownership that add up. It isn't necessarily true that you save money by owning your home - in the short or long run.

You should be talking with a financial advisor about (a) how to manage your current budget, (b) how to get your credit score up, and (c) whether it makes sense to save for a house or if you should be putting that money into other things. You say that you want to OWN and SAVE, but the saving you do is simply electing to put your money into a house rather than investing it other ways.

Anonymous wrote:^^you're a white man keeping people of color down. You own the ability to do the peer reviewed research. It serves your best interest to make sure that sort of research is never done. Secondly, people in ghettos are not doing better by being on welfare. Generations of families remain in the system and away from the competitive sphere that provides true wealth and happiness. You know this, have benefitted from this and love it. Good for you (mad) scientist!

In your paranoid fantasy have all of the non-white scientists/researchers either been co-opted into the conspiracy or somehow suppressed so that they won't do this research, either? Not to mention all of the funding organizations that would sponsor something like that like the NAACP, etc.? That's quite the power conspiracy!

I must've missed the newsletter that came along with my degree that said, "Psst...Your degree is contingent on never doing or supporting research that might undermine the white hegemony."

Anonymous wrote:It's not so much a conservative v. Liberal thing as a white male hegemony v. Minorities and women. It's taken decades for the white man to convince people of color and women that they're only worth the mere scraps that welfare provides. They've fallen for it and consequently stay in the welfare pigeonhole. This keeps them from being competition for the white man. The hegemony stays the same as well as the status quo for minorities and women. The plan has worked so well that you have people demanding welfare for them to invest in their children. Beyond disgusting. I'll never see it, but one day minorities and women are going to rise up and tower above the white man. They'll be saying welfare is not good enough for me and I'm just as talented and hard working as the white man. I deserve what they've always had and I'm going to out work them for it. We shall overcome some day.

You do realize that "welfare" is a bunch of different programs - some run at the Federal level and some at the state level - that have different eligibility criteria and benefits, as well as different goals.

Is there any peer-reviewed research that supports your position that "welfare" (we'll use your generic term for all the different safety net programs) keeps people in the "welfare pigeonhole" and "keeps them from being competition for the white man," or are you just blowing smoke based on what your favorite pundit said?

On the conservative vs. liberal front, the social conservatives advocate removing sex ed from schools, limiting access to birth control (including as part of women's health insurance), cutting access to medical/family planning support like Planned Parenthood, cutting the budget for drug rehabilitation programs and half-way houses, etc., etc. (you know, despite all of that stuff in the Bible about charity, helping the poor, etc.), while fiscal conservatives are fighting to keep the minimum wage low, cut the Food Stamp programs, neuter unions and generally make the world safe for unregulated, unfettered capitalism - all of which makes life more difficult for those who are trying to break out of the poverty cycle.

Perhaps I've missed it, but I don't remember those goals in the Democratic party platforms.

What do you propose as an alternative?

Anonymous wrote:
"Midd like the other NESCAC schools takes athletics seriously and are top d3 in almost every sport, and recruit athletes that could easily play in mid or lower tier d1 programs but prefer the top academics at somewhere like Midd and not having sports completely take over their lives/schedules in college. "

Whoever thinks this has not been watching much football. NESCAC is the bottom of d3 and is miles away from Ivy League, which is near the bottom of D1. No NESCAC team got a single vote in the final 2013 top 25.

http://www.d3football.com/top25/2013/final

There are many good reasons to attend Middlebury and the other NESCAC schools, but upper level athletics isn't one of them.

The NESCAC schools tend to attract top athletes who participate in individual/small-team sports rather than the team sports like football. NESCAC schools get good skiers, swimmers, tennis players, fencers, crew, etc. These schools don't have the budget or the size to handle recruiting or supporting a whole football team of players that might be competive at the D1 level.

Anonymous wrote:Wow! Has the entitlement culture gone this far off of its rocker? Now, people want the government to "get parents more involved with the human beings they've given birth to". Parents don't get involved because they have dignity, respect and obligation to their children- it's because the government provides money. How absolutely disgusting. It's shocking that things have gotten this bad that people could suggest this with a straight face. Tell the lady to go suggest this BS in China. She'd likely be hanged for such a ridiculous suggestion. This says two things- we've taken our citizenship so far for granted, that now we want the government to encourage appropriate parenting. And two- the Chinese and other Nations who would laugh at this are totally going to canabalize us. We've made it easy.

The government gives money to encourage/discourage behaviors all the time. The government encourages home ownership, so we have the interest deduction. The government wants to encourage people to have health insurance, so Virginia offers a tax credit. The government wants to discourage "sin" so we have taxes on cigarettes, alcohol, etc. This is nothing new.

The point of the idea cited by the OP is a good one, although it might be late in the life of the child to have a benefit. There are lots of competitors for parental attention, and we want to encourage parents to pay attention to their kids because we believe that parental engagement is better for the kids and leads to a better society. So, we offer a reward for the behavior we want to see. Some parents will do this anyway, whether or not you give them an incentive. But, on the margin, the incentive will cause some parents to engage in the desired behavior.

So the question is whether the societal benefit of the behavior is worth the cost in terms of the money provided. If so, society benefits. If not, then we should scrap the program.

This is something that can be easily tested and analyzed.

What aspects of Chinese and other countries' cultures and policies do you think we should emulate to avoid having them "cannibalize us"?

According to the UK government:

"[Creationism] does not accord with the scientific consensus or the very large body of established scientific evidence; nor does it accurately and consistently employ the scientific method, and as such it should not be presented to pupils at the Academy as a scientific theory," the agreement states.

The funding agreement notes that the discussion of beliefs about the origin of the Earth including creationism are permitted in religious education "as long as it is not presented as a valid alternative to established scientific theory."

So it's ok to teach creationism as religion, which it is, but you can't teach it as science, which it isn't.

Read more: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2014/06/18/Teaching-creationism-as-scientifically-valid-now-banned-in-all-UK-public-schools/5631403128922/#ixzz357aySEAq

Anonymous wrote:You are not supposed to have kids until you're ready, but "welfare moms" obviously don't live by that creed. I would be all for giving them extra money to parent their kids for success, which can be demonstrated by honor role status. Heck, they should get deductions if their kid commits crimes, becomes a parent before age 18, too.

I knew the "slut shaming" would come pretty easy in a thread about welfare mothers. No matter how frequently or thoroughly the "welfare mom" stereotype gets debunked, it amazes me how persistent it is.

I'm also fascinated by the intersection between the political groups who consistently believe the "welfare mom" stereotypes and oppose safety net spending (on the grounds that the recipients don't deserve it in some way or are responsible for their own circumstances) and the political groups who oppose sex ed, family planning and access to birth control (on the grounds that would lead to people having sex) and access to abortion (on the grounds that childrens' lives are precious).

Those political beliefs create a situation where we have young people who are ignorant about sex, don't have access to resources that would educate them, and don't have access to birth control, and so they get pregnant. The getting pregnant is not a solo activity, but these threads always focus on the mother. The fathers don't have the education or access to birth control, either.

So, we handicap them to start with, then we cut the budget for things that are proven to work like Head Start, and we shame them with the label of "welfare mothers" and "welfare dads" and they're in an economy where it's difficult for them to gets jobs. In the case of teens/college-age parents, they also face pressures and complications if they try to stay in school.

Where we need to be spending for children is the early childhood interventions - the things that keep them from starting at an even more significant disadvantage. If we have teen parents, we need to be helping them stay in school, and even to get their Assoc/Bachelors degree, because that helps break the cycle of poverty. We should be rewarding the parents who stay in school and get good grades.

For those who are actually concerned, take a look at the Reset the Net campaign on Boing Boing.

They provide a lot of tips for how you can protect your privacy from prying eyes - corporate or government.

http://boingboing.net/2014/06/05/today-is-the-day-we-reset-the.html

Many times people get scheduled back-to-back, so if a meeting runs over at all they simply have no slack (or time to get lunch, go to the bathroom, etc.)

If someone is apologetic about it, I generally try to let it go.

Anonymous wrote:There used to be a bookstore in DuPont, on 22nd st. That would come to your house and take the ones they wanted. It was great. But that was five years ago...

This was Second Story Books. Their website implies that the Dupont store is still there, but doesn't give an address on the contact page. There's also a Rockville store.

http://www.secondstorybooks.com/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd fire you for that, too. FWIW.

And, you would have committed a violation of federal labor law.

Not in an at-will state. I can fire whoever I want for disparaging her employer on social media. Hell, I can fire her for picking her nose. You can sue, but you'd lose.

Wrong. The NLRA applies in all 50 states. There is no such thing as an "at-will" state.

Yes, you could fire her for picking her nose, but you cannot fire her for complaining about her working conditions along with other co-workers.
You are right that you could fire her for "disparaging her employer" but it is a fine line between disparagement and talking about working conditions with her co-workers.

If I were you, I would consult an attorney before firing any employees. The NLRB has focused a lot of attention on social media cases recently.

OP wasn't engaging in conversation on Facebook. She made a status and a couples coworkers "liked" the post. Didn't even put an "I agree!"

I haven't researched the issue of "likes," but if I represented the OP, I would argue that other co-workers "liking" her posts was enough to be "concerted" activity. I'm sure there are cases that discuss this. And who knows what other facts there may be that the OP has not shared.

You sound like everything people hate about lawyers. Who's going to protect employers from litigious ambulance chaser idiots like you? Common sense says if you go complain about your employer on social media and your employer sees it, your employer is within their rights to fire you. You make it sound like she has a right to a job.

She doesn't have a right to a job per se, but she does have a right to do certain things without being in fear of losing her job.

There is, because of its very nature, a power imbalance between employers and employees, and the law exists to address that power imbalance.

That imbalance is why unions exist and why the NLRA was passed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Most European countries have managed to maintain democracy. I don't think we are more free than they are.

Really? You'd be mistaken.

What's this based on, other than just your gut feeling? I'd lay odds I'd be far more free in the Netherlands, England, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Switzerland, possibly even Germany. What freedoms would you lose there? Just the gun thing, right? Lord knows my reproductive freedom would increase. And a lower chance of being killed and a better education for my kids.

Then why do you choose to live here? My guess is because you have more freedom here thanks to our Constitution than any of these other democracies.

Not the PP, but the decision not to emigrate wouldn't have anything to do with the economic and logistical issues associated with emigrating, the cultural issues associated with emigrating, the distance from friends and family, the need to find a new job, the need to learn a new language, etc., etc.

There are a lot of wonderful things about living in the US, but it's ok to say that there are aspects of living in other places that would be better.

Overall, the US is a great country and a great place to live, but we do have issues in some areas when compared to other developed nations. Health care outcomes, for example, are a place where we pay a lot more and get a lot less than other countries. Education is another place where what we have is good, but not as good as it could be. Social safety net and benefits - better elsewhere.

That doesn't mean that I want to emigrate, but I am capable of looking at our own society and culture without the rose colored glasses of American Exceptionalism.

Anonymous wrote:Bummer, I thought we were going to talk about Spinal Tap and Best in Show.

"This one goes to eleven."

"You can't really dust for vomit."

Anonymous wrote:Each time I read "Dinosaurs love underpants" to my kids (5&7) I remind them that dinosaurs and cavemen didn't exist at the same time. They don't seem to have a problem understanding.

That puts your kids ahead of the curve. There's a whole group of adults at the Creation Museum who haven't figured this out.