NM11046

Though I'm sure he considers it "totally cool, and totally legal" this should be investigated. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/02/07/trump-records-mar-a-lago/

But if you like what's being said, and it matches your opinion it's not a lie is it? I mean in today's environment that's the case - people flock to listen to folks who reinforce their own narratives and opinions - truth be damned.

Re: Maher's comment on Zucker - we only know he resigned due to what he explained was a consensual relationship, but what we don't know is what else was found in his emails and the investigation that was being done for the Cuomo case(s). Yes, they were required to report their relationship to HR, but I think it's very likely that there were far worse things that he was involved with that were found during the investigation. He resigned for what they uncovered, he acknowledged the relationship as the cause publicly, but my guess is whatever they found would have brought CNN down. Allowing him to leave under the guise of an undisclosed relationship was a gift to him and to the network. I mean this is the network that allowed Jeffrey Toobin to come back ... just think how bad something had to be for someone at Zucker's level to be fired?

Seems like a good spot for this today - if you've never taken bias training or been tested, here's a quick one from Project Implicit - took me maybe 10 mins tonight. Here's what it's about: Project Implicit was founded in 1998 by three scientists – Dr. Tony Greenwald (University of Washington), Dr. Mahzarin Banaji (Harvard University), and Dr. Brian Nosek (University of Virginia). launched in 2011 and is led by Dr. Bethany Teachman (University of Virginia) and Dr. Matt Nock (Harvard University). The mission of Project Implicit is to educate the public about bias and to provide a “virtual laboratory” for collecting data on the internet. Project Implicit scientists produce high-impact research that forms the basis of our scientific knowledge about bias and disparities. https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/takeatest.html

HIGHLY recommend Rick Steve's Fascism in Europe on PBS currently. You should be able to set up the DVR to capture it - it should be required viewing for all Americans. He presents a very complicated topic covering numerous countries and years in a succinct simple way in an hour and a half.

No, just like every single person who has aspirations to do something more or different than they can in their current role one has to make changes and sacrifices. Blaming it on the race of the person they hire instead of you is a pretty sad, defense mechanism and probably explains why you weren't the top candidate.

Well said. Diversifying to better match the people they serve is far from "pandering". And just because one sets out to do that doesn't mean those on the short list for the spot are anything other than talented and capable.

Yeah cuz college coaches don't move around a lot for opportunity (by their own choice or because they're forced to look elsewhere).

Yeah - I think I may have to step aside on this one. It's not going to be a discussion where people are able to listen and think. Goodspeed Suh & Lorewarn, & Ulty.

Seems he could simply change colleges - the diversity initiatives that were signed onto by universities are similar to the NFL Goal of increasing diversity at a head coaching level. In an "industry" where many of the actual employees are people of color the leadership should be more reflective of that. But it also needs to start further up, with the leadership of the college, who I'd wager are white men. https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/30662206/college-sports-diversify-racial-gender-hiring-practices

Well done GM.

So if there are gaps in topics one would need to approach the district and inquire? Or are there nation wide criteria that are "MUST TEACH"? to ensure that all states, districts etc have the same topics - is it possible that a Nebraska kid might learn about the Tulsa Race Massacre and a kid in Idaho in the same grade may not? (apologies if I'm not totally understanding and you already explained it)

I think it's a great option ... depending on what sort of medication you take and what for. It would only be an option for patients whose medicine has a generic equivalent. The FDA only requires that a generic drug show bioequivalence to the brand, there is no data required showing efficacy, safety etc. And I believe it only has to be like 89-99% bioequivalence typically based on blood level measures. If you have allergies and the drug you take is 89% as efficatious as the branded drug you'd probably be ok, and if you weren't it would simply be some break through allergy symptoms. Similarly with something like Viagra - you'd probably deal ok with a generic option that was pretty close to perfect. But for those who take cardiovascular medication, or lung meds, seizure medication, oncology etc any amount of variability in efficacy or increase in side effects could mean a life or death situation. So great option for the right patients imo. The info above is why I also have issue with insurance companies requiring generic use if there's an option in a particular drug class. Not everything is equal, and not every drug works for everyone even if they have the same mechanism of action and some folks can't and shouldn't have to risk that.

At some point in this thread we discussed the potential of hospitals turning non vaccinated away, and also we talked a bit about criteria for organ transplants etc. Found this article from today interesting, and it answers a lot of questions we talked about. I will add, I spend a lot of time at BW and am familiar with their transplant program, and its one of the top tier programs in the US. They turn a TON of fairly good potential patients away as they're very focused on outcomes data. Someone who gets transplanted at Cleveland Clinic or Emory often is not viable at BW, so this decision aligns to their philosophy. Will be interesting to see if any other institutions have similar policies. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jan/25/heart-transplant-patient-refusing-covid-19-vaccine Also yesterday there was an article about a covid patient who was brain dead and on a vent, and the hospital wanted to remove it (in MN I think) and the family was fighting it, trying to transfer the patient to another institution - patient died yesterday, but it was a similarly interesting medical ethics situation. Should that machinery be allocated to someone who had chosen to not get vaccinated, who is showing no signs of brain activity (and has little to no chance of survival ) and was taking a machine away from another needy patient.

^ that headline should make every American angry. Something totally within our control and too many were too stupid and too selfish to do their part. We as a country are in trouble.

@teachercd do teachers get to pick and choose what historical topics they cover in classes? I think Lorewarn's point was that in his education there were a lot of very important historical events skipped over. I know there was in mine as well - shouldn't' there be some curriculum standard about what is taught? And shouldn't all those examples be taught?

Change in early voting hours in some counties - a bunch of new rules for absentee voting - taking away ballot drop boxes. I believe (don't have time to go verify) that these changes impact specific communities than others. Mostly areas with more diversity in their population.

I think, as a general rule, someone that accuses others of "throwing out the race card" and that all other people's discussions "come down to race" probably should be a little more introspective.

Sorry - thought I acknowledged that. I'd argue that too is racism.

When they split so dramatically between racial groups what else would you call it? (and I didn't know the Asian fact - thanks for that, quick google shows that is even more nuanced ... some Asian groups earn more than another, so initially racism vs. whites (yes) but then classism?

Explain what you mean by this BB - can't tell if there is sarcasm in it or not. If there isn't, help me understand.

So single parents don't take interest or care about their kids? That's a bold, broad, ignorant stroke you've painted with A.

I disagree with nothing you've said here. And you're a good man that probably says them with a mind to what you describe above. But sad as it is, some innoculous terms have been hijacked and are used as (you say) buzzwords. I would call them something more sinister as there are powerful people who have chosen them with a goal in mind, and they chose them so that they can easily claim that they were "misinterpreted" if they get called to the carpet on their messaging.

I guess they're having armed guards at the school on Monday because of her threats. Over masks. How can you defend this? Our children will now walk by armed guards to go to kindergarten because one of their moms threatened to come shoot up the school. Over masks.