wrilbo67

"I swear babe ... I was just searching for Computer-Based Training ... for work."

Ugh, I just found out a family friend passed away from COVID in the past week or so. Dude was in his early-to-mid 50s with two daughters (both college aged). I've only had limited contact with the family over the past decade so I don't know if there were other risk factors, but wtf. He was heavily into martial arts and hitting the weights when he was in his 20s, so I have to think he always maintained some level of activity. Super gregarious awesome guy. If I had to say one bad thing about him, it was that he was an NBD Cowboys fan (j/k). I can't imagine what that family was going through right now. Wear a f'ing mask people.

Oddly enough, in colonial times, the war on Christmas was fought from the religious right. They were offended that anybody would try to commercialize the birth of their savior, and enjoying the Christmas season was seen as disrespectful to its religious origins, which is exactly why they left England. Christmas was basically banned in many parts of New England. This continued well past the founding of our nation, into the 19th century. https://newengland.com/today/living/new-england-history/how-the-puritans-banned-christmas/

I'm not a lawyer, but when it comes to executive orders, Trump has consistently issued them with large fanfare but with minimal instruction on what happens next for the people who enforce policy or are affected by the orders. For instance, when he issued the first travel ban in 2017, there were law-abiding US greencard and visa holders literally sitting in airplanes on their way back to the US from some of those countries. When they landed, the border control checkpoints didn't know how to process them. Do they get sent back because of the travel ban? Do they get let in because they were coming back in good faith ahead of the travel ban? Having a greencard in the US means you've basically set forth a plan to make this country your home permanently, and despite whatever certain media sources tell you, its an incredibly long and bureaucratic path. Sending those individuals back to their home countries meant that they couldn't show up for work on Monday fresh from their vacation, their kids (who in many cases were American citizens) couldn't go to school, etc. This is a major wrench for someone who, presumably, is trying to become a citizen the first opportunity he/she gets. Likewise with DACA, the people affected are here illegally, but the next steps in cancelling it would be questionable. Do we immediately start arresting them and sending them back to a country they don't know? Yes they are here illegally, but they are literally the smallest threat in our undocumented population. In short, yes, Trump is free to issue any executive order he wants, but what happens next has to be clear from the perspective of the people who enforce the order and are affected by it, otherwise its just empty words. That's been the courts' rationale. It's not that different from his executive order to ban insurance companies from barring pre-existing conditions (this is literally impossible without the individual mandate). or his pardon of Michael Flynn (it's a blanket statement).

Technically there was no year 0, so the first decade was from 1 AD to 10 AD, first century from 1 AD to 100 AD, etc. Honestly, its a completely academic discussion though, and a terrible Final Jeopardy question. It doesn't really matter as long as your centuries are consistent in length. Plus, our Jewish and Muslim friends would disagree with what year it is.

Meanwhile in Dallas... https://twitter.com/clarencehilljr/status/1320850737375621122?s=20

Lol these are people who eat horse manure to celebrate. COVID is the least of their health concerns.

Eagles fans in mid-season form... https://twitter.com/barstoolsports/status/1317962339350700035?s=20

The H1-B is a raw deal for American workers and the foreign workers who get them. It basically amounts to indentured servitude for visa-holders and cheap competition for Americans. It only works for the companies that employ the H1B holders. Oddly enough, the most sensible thing to do is give the H1B holders MORE rights in the system. That means ensuring they're paid a market-rate US salary for the skills they bring. It also means giving those workers the right to change jobs like any American (i.e. don't tie the visa to the employer). That way, companies will be reluctant to use the program unless they REALLY need the talent, and they have to give those employees a fair workload or they'll leave. This is actually a step in the right direction IMO.

I had big plans for my 40th birthday until COVID hit. Instead I spent the last week enjoying breweries, fall colors and amazing hiking in northern Michigan. I hiked Pictured Rocks in the Upper Peninsula on Monday, which was easily the highlight of my trip. I'm took lazy to transfer and post my pics here, but Lake Superior is INCREDIBLE. It blows my mind that such a place exists in 'flyover country' https://picturedrocks.com/our-stories/why-fall-is-the-perfect-time-to-see-pictured-rocks/

His son did. They never made it clear where he lived. I just assumed he was homeless because he was always outside with that trash can full of salt.

How would Home Alone even happen in 2020? First off, at least one person in their group of ~15 would've set a device alarm and woken everyone else up when they realized the lights were out. Second, amongst all the devices that people had, at least one person would've been able to contact Kevin (or vice versa). Finally, even if they got to Paris without him, there would be a major social media blitz to either get him to Paris or get his mom home immediately. Finally the movie would've ended with Kevin getting a lecture on how wrong he was to judge a homeless person when he had no idea what that man's been through, even though he was the one that ultimately inspired that man to reconcile with his son. Also, sorry if I ruined Home Alone for anyone.

Although its still hilarious sometimes...

what a dumpster fire

fair, but I could definitely see wanting to give yourself that optionality in the ninth. You’ll send him to face the 3 most critical hitters in a late game situation, over the last 3 hitters, which has been the logic up to now.

Random observation- I think the new 3-batter rule for relievers will change the way teams use closers. They’ll likely bring them in with 1-2 outs in the 8th. That way, if they get in trouble in the 9th, they can get pulled almost immediately. This Givens situation just made me think about that. obviously being up by 5 runs makes that less imperative today,

The Democrats have a lot of issues when it comes to race, and part of why they lost in 2016 was that they took the black vote for granted the past 15-20 years while delivering very for African Americans- there's no question about that. That said-- who do you think the Charlottesville Nazis and Proud Boys are voting for this year?

Just based on some basic math: 220 people work for the team based on the article. 30% of NFL FO employees are women, so 66 people. (https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2618710-the-past-present-and-future-of-women-and-the-nfls-boys-club ) Assuming all these incidents happened over the past 10 years, and the average tenure of an NFL team employee is 3.5 years, that's ~200 women who've worked for the team over the past 10 years. You can make your own assumptions here about the above, but I'd be willing to bet money the number is somewhere between 150 and 300. That's a small number. The Post has 15 of them willing to go on the record about what they endured (14 anonymously), AND THOSE ARE ONLY THE ONES WILLING TO TALK. That's 5-10% of the women who've worked there over that time, and Snyder is going to claim he had no idea what was going on, but he totally promises to change. At a minimum, we need to demand the team drop the NDA for the remaining 14 women, so we can hear their stories if they choose to share them.

The NDA thing is really weird. If the article was about the legitimacy of the Season Ticket Waiting List, I could see the team aggressively enforcing the NDAs because it's internal team-related business or could be considered a competitive secret. But this was an article about rampant sexual harassment and nightmarish work conditions. How can I assume anything other than the worst here? WaPo: "Were you ever sexually harassed while you worked for the team?" Interviewee: "Well, uhh, actually..." Team Lawyer (interrupting) : "Careful what you say. You signed an NDA and we'll sue you to oblivion."

I think its more difficult than that. You could write that article about any college or pro sports team and it would probably be 2/3 as bad. It's more a question of, "Can I watch any sport ever again?"

There's two things that don't sit well with me. One is the minority owner situation and the fact that they're so eager/aggressive to divest. The second is that the Post could only get 1 of the 15 women on the record. I believe all the accounts, but I also know quite a few women who've worked in industries that attract sociopaths and they're pretty open about the open sexual harassment, partners asking them to dress sexier, clients getting inappropriate, etc. I like to think I haven't gone full Q-anon, but I feel like we're missing part of the story that the Post can't report. (i.e. why can't they get the other 14 women on the record?)

I wouldn't be shocked if it was the Redskins FO putting the craziest stuff possible out there so we'd be pretty disinterested when the real article came out.