Can't believe I'm at part 20 already. Okay then, sit back because there are a LOT of articles today.
First off, this author of this piece is a total tool. I saw nothing in here about improved public transit or any effort to increase it in light of $5 gas. As long as you've got oil lobbyists controlling government and getting tax breaks, there's nothing good about gas prices squeezing out poor people from mainstream society and turning the middle class into indentured servants.
Oh, and no one will have any money to shop locally when they can not get employment since all the jobs are located in areas where you have to drive & pay for $5 a gallon gasoline. These so-called "benefits" do us no good when the average person can't survive without becoming a beggar on the street.
Not to mention that it wouldn't change the existence of pedophiles, PC hysteria, helicopter parents, crime, etc. In fact, most people will still have to drive fuel inefficient cars because they will be less likely to have the money to upgrade to a car with higher gas mileage even if they want to.
So until you get the oil companies & interests out of government, invest in new technologies and put funding into public transit akin to that in Europe and Japan (which make NYC's subway system & Amtrak look prehistoric by comparison), stop being a pro-oil company profiteering cheerleader. It's unflattering, elitist and could get you lynched in some neighborhoods.
The lack of guaranteed efficient public transit improvement to all the boroughs (not just Manhattan) is also why I did not support the congestion pricing plan in NYC.
Seeing this makes me feel a little optimistic but the fact remains that entrepreneurs and small businesses are not being helped by this current government's regime. So many things need to be done to fix things, it's not funny but I'm sure people more knowledgeable than me can come up with the bulk of it.
One suggestion is not subjecting college students & grad students to non-discharegable loan debt that's as large as most home mortgages. There needs to be serious reform instead of making people debt slaves for the next 20+ years. If any of these politicians really valued education, they'd be pushing for that change & telling the banks to suck it. Maybe they'd think twice about who they gave student loan money to if this happened. Again, lobbyists & interests ruining everything.
But at least there is one instance of a government doing something right. Yeah, yeah, employers getting around it...blah blah blah. Thanks for saying something, though. Maybe it will make others follow suit, though I think the fines ought to be a lot higher (say $10,000 then $50,000 for subsequent offenses). That would get a point across. I don't notice small businesses doing this nearly as much as large, multi-million dollar corporations.
We also have an EEOC, employers. Read it, embrace it, love it. Because otherwise, it's just a matter of time before you get in trouble for violating it & I'd likely have zero sympathy.
Oh, but the BS! It continues!
Not sure if I've ranted about this particular interview question but employers, just give it up already. The "biggest weakness" question is nothing more than an attempt to learn how manipulative the applicant is & how good they are at reciting societal bullshit.
Seriously, if you're asking this question & expecting honesty, you're naive at best. You know you're not getting an honest answer to this one. If you get pissed by the "I work too hard" or "I'm a perfectionist" response, then you're an even bigger douchebag than you were when you asked the question.
If you want a lesson on shortcomings & how one improved, why not just ask about that? Hmmm...that would be HONEST.
That would get the answer you're looking for.
That would save everyone the time of this little pretense & mind game.
Why the hell would you ask an interview applicant that one?!? Shouldn't you be asking their references or past employers about it? I think they'd be a tad more objective & have records in front of them to support the answer, don't you?
And what about people with delusions of grandeur or who are sociopaths? You're just discriminating against them by asking them about their weaknesses since they don't believe they have any.
They should form a class action & file a lawsuit against any employer asking this one. Being a sociopath is a mental condition, you know & people do seek treatment for that stuff. I'd like to see this one as an ADA discrimination claim; that would put this asinine question in the grave once & for all. Hey, if we can have some of the bullshit that has become lawsuits, there's nothing to stop this one from being a viable legal claim if you have the right plaintiffs!
I also saw this career article on what not to wear to an interview. Here's the simple answer, at least as I see it: anything reflecting that you have a personality. No, no don't show a personality. Be a robot!
Thank God I take steps to vet potential employers & avoid interviews for any job where I'm expected to be a robot. I simply ask what I should wear to the interview so I'm not overly dressy or intimidating since female lawyers have enough problems without me playing to stereotypes of being frumpy and fashion clueless.
Oh, and this is one more thing that irks me about the education system. I'm pretty sure the high school children have heard far worse at home or speak even more graphically in the hallways. For all you know, some of these children are already sexually active & you're going to fine this teacher for "using curse words in front of kids?"
Gee, I'd swear this happened in Mississippi or even NC instead of Manhattan. In some circles in the South, cursing is tantamount to treason. Using the "f-word" is as bad as murdering someone. I'm surprised no one's been incarcerated down there for saying it on the public streets; they probably would be if we didn't have 1st Amendment lawsuits on it.
More asinine censorship:
* A man in the UK was arrested for singing the song "Kung Fu Fighting" because some Chinese man & his mother were offended. If you'd have been "offended" in America (particularly NYC or more vocal places in the South), you'd have been told off by the audience & if the singer saw you, you'd be told to get over yourself (actually, it might be "Fuck you" in NYC or Jersey). Now if this singer were telling the crowd to murder Chinese people, that's a different story.
But singing a song you don't like? I just wonder when some whiny PC obsessed jerkwad is going to try that in America.
If we started going down that route, we'd have no classic cinema, music or anything else because racism has been alive and well since those long before those mediums were born. Oh, and everyone's offended by something. Live your life trying to find something to be offended by & you'll certainly find it. I'm offended by people who do nothing but bitch about everything & make zero effort to do something about it. I'm also offended by these busybodies daring to tell me what I can or can't hear, watch, read, listen to, whatever by filing lawsuits to suppress what THEY don't like.
If you want to live in a bubble away from mainstream society, I suggest you form your own religious community like the Amish or particular Mormon sects (or move to an island where you'll be the only one there, whatever).
Otherwise, get the hell over yourself and shut up unless someone attacks you or your loved ones personally (and I mean a real attack not "pulling the race card" bullshit). Get some earplugs, change the channel & go on your merry way.
* Fox is apparently not showing this hurricane themed animation block tonight because of the recent storms in the South. Thankfully, none of that hit my family members.
You know something, though? Maybe some of the people in the South who lost things might have appreciated some humor in their lives. It might have made them laugh and feel a little better. Did you ever think of that? I think this is just yet another instance of asinine censorship garbage that's catering far too much to the PC crowd.
Have the people who made this call ever watched these shows? PC they aren't. Why worry about offending anyone now considering some of the jokes on Family Guy? Can't speak for The Cleveland Show or American Dad so much since I don't really watch them anymore (stopped after 1 season) but yeah, this is just stupid.
If you'd be offended by that or think "oh, it's in poor taste" then you have never watched Family Guy in the first place & likely wouldn't start watching it anyway.
* But here is much worse overly PC garbage. Apparently, you shouldn't call your dog or cat a "pet." Seriously, read this.
Yeah, my cat has never complained about being called a "pet." If anything, I think this encourages people to assign human qualities to their animals which is just as bad. A classic example of why this is bad is the show Fatal Attractions on Animal Planet. Stupid humans want to go around assigning human qualities and motivations to their dogs, cats, snakes, bears, chimps, tigers, etc. while ignoring the fact that you are dealing with a dog, cat, snake, bear, chimp, tiger, etc. They have instincts, drives and other characters that make up their species & will never be humans.
They don't want to go vegan, need to be entertained every 5 seconds, want to wear clothes, socialize with other animals (my cat, at least), or go to school to learn the alphabet. Treat the animal like its species: I love my cat dearly & let's face it, cats own you but I know he's a cat. I don't have to cook his meat or put him on a vegan diet. Cats are carnivores: vegan diets would hurt them. I'm not going to dress him up or walk him on a leash. You can bond with animals and mourn their loss as companions but stop trying to make them into furry humans! They don't want or appreciate it. My cat would be offended if I treated him like a human; he expects better than that.
My cat wouldn't give a damn if I called him my pet, critter, fuzzy beast, etc. As long as I feed him, let him snuggle on me, scratch his head & tell him what a good cat he is, he could care less what I refer to him as if I'm not directly talking to him. Yes, I've talked to every cat I've ever had & if you don't like it, piss off you animal hating jerkoff!
And he IS a fuzzy beast since he does kill things (which is one reason we love him). He's usually "Mr. Cat" or given deferential titles. I just think this article goes too far & encourages some other bad human behavior. Just makes you wish for a flaming stick to beat the offenders with.
Finally, I saw this article on supervised teen drinking. Personally, I think the drinking age should be lowered to 18 and we should have a more European attitude about the whole thing. This coming from the child of an alcoholic. I realize not everyone who drinks is an alcoholic & not all people who drink become fight picking jerks who put their fists into walls or throw things at people (yes, my father did do this stuff).
The reason I think that should happen is the high rate of binge drinking and the idea that if you ban something so hard, you make it that much more of a curiosity and alluring to the person who can't get it. How many stories are there about pastor's kids who are total hellions either as teens or once they get out from under their parents' roofs? I certainly rebelled some when I left home. It's probably why I dated in college and why I have different attitudes about sex than most of my family. If there isn't some balance in the home and some room to deal with kids rebelling, you're just going to have an out of control hellion on your hands sooner or later. So many people I knew who went to the religious private school I went to had their rebellious moments & many ended up in major life situations. If my mother had continued being as strict when I was a teenager, I'd have probably gotten a police record, become a teen mom, skipped school or God knows what else.
If that's not proof moderation is better than outright authoritarianism, I don't know what else you need. I think the drinking age should be 18 since if you can be drafted, go to college, etc. you can get alcohol from older friends anyway. Plus, tons of kids over 18 have opportunities to drink and it's foolish to think that they don't, especially if they're in college and living far away from home.
Otherwise, let's move the age of adulthood to 21.