Really Find the News Depressing

In no particular order:

• The Data Hack - anyone who had applied for a job in the last 10 years or so is probably most at risk, although this breach could extend over several decades of data.  Read here for a short commentary of the problem.


• The therapist who is demonized for suggesting that his patient might spruce up.  Given that the patient was in therapy to try to find a romantic relationship, it wasn't a bad idea (men do tend to focus on the visual).


• The insistence on tinkering with our money - AGAIN. The first suggestion, to boot Andrew Jackson and replace him with Harriet Tubman, was withdrawn when Republicans pointed out that Jackson was a slave-owning Democrat who butchered Native Americans, and Tubman was a gun-owning Republican who didn't wait for government to solve her problems.  South Carolinians might wish that Andy stay, as he was a Native Son, but otherwise, conservatives were fine with the change.  Now, they've decided to boot the non-Democratic Andrew Hamilton - who was raised by an unwed single mother in the Caribbean before immigrating to the USA, who served in the Patriot Army and whose actions entitled him to be classed as a hero, who single-handedly put the USA on solid financial footing, and died because he wouldn't be "dissed".  Maybe they'd prefer this woman?


• George Zimmerman's attacker, who shot at his vehicle, may face life in prison (although, I wouldn't count on it).  The attacker claims self-defense, contrary to pretty much every piece of evidence available.  The shooter does appear to be an unstable Looney-Tune.


• And, just for fun, an article looking at body re-shaping and impossible standards - for men.

Not the most important headlines, just ones that caught my eye.

Last Day of the Workshop

I'm tired - a good kind of tired. I worked hard, learned some new things, and had some GREAT lunches.

But, I'm ready to go home, and get back to organizing/cleaning/paperwork. If possible, by the time I return to school, I will live in an Organized Atmosphere.

Hey, a girl can dream, can't she?

I bought the Franklin Covey Goal Setter. It was relatively inexpensive, and works on my IPad, which is the technology that tends to be a go-to most of the time. It just fits in my bags, is lightweight, and does 90% of what I need to do.

Next week, I'm going to see how much progress I can make. With my certification renewed, I'll have some free time to spend on cleaning/fitness/whatever.

Where to Start?

I read a post in the New York Times today, that made me wonder how the writer could possibly hold his head up in public again.

He was:

• Self-righteous
  
  
  
  • "I could take what I had been led to believe was both the morally and legally reprehensible step of defaulting on my student loans, which was the only way I could survive without wasting my life in a job that had nothing to do with my particular usefulness to society.
  
  
  
  


• Whiny
  
  
  
  • "Or maybe, after going back to school, I should have gone into finance, or some other lucrative career. Self-disgust and lifelong unhappiness, destroying a precious young life — all this is a small price to pay for meeting your student loan obligations."
  
  
  
  


• Clueless about the reality of making a living
  
  
  
  • "I could give up what had become my vocation (in my case, being a writer) and take a job that I didn’t want in order to repay the huge debt I had accumulated in college and graduate school."
  
  
  
  


• Certain he was made for "better things" than a mundane retail job that would have allowed him to pay off his loans
  
  
  
  • Maybe I should have stayed at a store called The Wild Pair, where I once had a nice stable job selling shoes after dropping out of the state college because I thought I deserved better, and naïvely tried to turn myself into a professional reader and writer on my own, without a college degree. I’d probably be district manager by now."
  
  
  
  

Unbelievable.  If you open your dictionary for the word "Entitled", his picture should grace that entry.

Have You Ever Been Confused About This Hegemony Thingy?

The term "hegemony" is a Leftist buzzword - funnily enough, I've NEVER heard a coherent explanation from one of them as to its exact meaning. I suspect that they don't even really understand it, other than to know it's VERY, VERY BAD!

A good starter explanation.

If you understand the bureaucrats and "intellectuals" as the deputies or agents of the ruling class, you will understand just who rules America, and it AIN'T Conservatives!

Yet another explanation.

To hear a Leftist Professor tell it, hegemony is a BAD THING. So, why are they so eager to impose THEIR hegemony on the rest of us?

It's a puzzlement.

Understanding the Beginnings - The Frankfort School

The Frankfort School - how Marxism married Freudianism for a Lethal Prescription for American Culture.

The Authoritarian Personality - what is it?  Scroll down the page about 1/2 way.

The F Scale - which SAYS that it can predict the incipient Fascist. If you'd actually like to take the test, here's a link. Keep in mind, it's HEAVILY biased against Conservatives.

 

De-Mystifying the ISIS Successes

According to this site, it's not rocket science, but known principles of war and politics.  Here's a link to some free pdfs detailing Boyd's thinking.

Want to know more about the Future of War?

SOME of the current state of pre-war is being conducted via hacking cybersystems.

SOME of it is by the usual means of controlling/enabling lazy/reflexively anti-American media.

And, most troubling, some of the pre-war is being won by the same TROLLS that are "winning" the war for SSU (Same Sex Unions) or other Cultural Battles.

For example, I wouldn't be surprised to find that THESE globes will be widely available in the USA.

The Hijab Decision

If I understand the Supreme Court correctly, they did NOT rule on whether the company could hire - or not - based on the applicant's dress.  What they did is decide that the applicant didn't have to inform the company about the need for religious accommodation.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits a prospective employer from refusing to hire an applicant in order to avoid accommodating a religious practice that it could accommodate without undue hardship. The question presented is whether this prohibition applies only where an applicant has informed the employer of his need for an accommodation.

My bolding.

So, the Muslima will still face the question of whether the wearing of her headscarf is a "reasonable accommodation".  It boils down to whether or not Abercrombie will want to continue fighting the EEOC decision.  I'm guessing that they may not, for fear of bad publicity.

What happens now?  The Tenth Circuit will have their decision bounced back to it, and have to decide on other grounds - NOT whether the applicant had informed the potential employer of her need for an accommodation - but, whether the Abercrombie "Look" allows them to reject an applicant who wears a headscarf.

Not hopeful for the outcome.  Just imagine what this means for Hooters.

 



 

 

 

 

 

 

Justice Thomas, as usual, is nuanced:

Unlike the majority, I adhere to what I had thought before today was an undisputed proposition: Mere application of a neutral policy cannot constitute “intentional discrimination.” Because the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) can prevail here only if Abercrombie engaged in intentional discrimination, and because Abercrombie’s application of its neutral Look Policy does not meet that description, I would affirm the judgment of the Tenth Circuit.

More from Thomas:

I would hold that Abercrombie’s conduct did not constitute “intentional discrimination.” Abercrombie refused to create an exception to its neutral Look Policy for Samantha Elauf ’s religious practice of wearing a headscarf. Ante, at 2. In doing so, it did not treat religious practices less favorably than similar secular practices, but instead remained neutral with regard to religious practices. To be sure, the effects of Abercrombie’s neutral Look Policy, absent an accommodation, fall more harshly on those who wear headscarves as an aspect of their faith. But that is a Cite as: 575 U. S. ____ (2015) 3 Opinion of THOMAS, J. classic case of an alleged disparate impact. It is not what we have previously understood to be a case of disparate treatment because Elauf received the same treatment from Abercrombie as any other applicant who appeared unable to comply with the company’s Look Policy. See ibid.; App. 134, 144. Because I cannot classify Abercrombie’s conduct as “intentional discrimination,” I would affirm.

What Thomas did agree with is that the woman's right to sue did not depend on her having asked for an accommodation.  And, that is ALL this decision is affirming - contrary to what the media would have people believe.