Please upgrade your browser to make full use of twiends.   chrome   firefox   ie   safari  
Grow your twitter followers. Join free!
Twiends is a vibrant community of twitter users waiting to follow you! Sign in for free!
Want More Twitter Followers?
Welcome to Twiends. We help you to grow your audience on twitter. We are a vibrant community of twitter users, and we are waiting to follow you..!
Sign in for free! Not right now
Abigail Arrington
Of course, the sugar crash that comes later will ensure the best way to spend the afternoon is with a nap. Sounds like a perfect Sunday. :)
Seems a shame that restaurants don't offer birthday cake for breakfast. It's a great way to start the day.
Don't get me wrong, I've enjoyed many of Grisham's past books, but lately he's not up to par. Seems he's forcing stories he doesn't feel.
Perhaps there are a few guys who can create great female characters, but too often it takes an imagination and understanding most lack.
I also think dude shouldn't write about things he's never experienced, such as big law firms, women lawyers, or really the law in general.
In other news, was looking for a weekend read & considered John Grisham's latest til I scanned it and the reviews. Dude can't write women.
Which is exactly why I got a good laugh when pundits jumped on the Pope's words, as if they had no understanding of what he represents.
To that end, free speech has never been a thing when it comes to religion. The Bible & other texts are full of stuff God "said" we can't do.
I don't think it should come as a surprise that the Catholic church would take the position folks should care how they impact others.
It's one thing to express an opinion or belief, but another to express it in a way that is injurious. In short, the idea is to do no harm.
And, I believe his odd example was just an illustration of this. The point being, it's wrong to say things just to anger others.
What he was trying to explain was that people as a general rule know what types of speech will upset those around them.
He said, as I understand it, that if someone insulted his mother, he would punch them in the nose. I don't think he meant that literally.
The Pope commented recently re: free speech and stated that it was wrong to provoke others to violence. The example he used was unusual.
Now, I'm gonna do something no one might expect, including me...I'm going to defend/explain something for the Pope. I know, imagine that?
Mind you, I'm for limitations on speech when it incites hate/violence, but application of the law has to be equal and with adequate process.
Another issue, arbitrary application. Prosecutor says don't have the right to attack people or incite hate? Charlie Hebdo did that often.
One troubling aspect of new French law limiting speech is fact that trials are accelerated to go from accusation to trial in three days.
If guessing, I'd say OPEC's move is directed toward the Keystone Pipeline now that Congress might move on it. But could be larger issue. :-/
OPEC/Oil Prices - more ways than one to limit freedoms: Big Oil Companies Cut Costs/Jobs on Worst Slump Since 1986 bloom.bg/1y2BQqw
As I feared, a tilted freedom: French Rein In Speech following Terror nyti.ms/1zkRIGF
Presumably, that could be from an internal oversight or omission, as well as an aberrant employee. Not sure if the former argument was made.
So, in the prior court ruling (now on appeal) judge said had to be someone from Sony publishing the stolen data for there to be coverage.
Wait, did I say that out loud... :-/
Good thing whoever hacked Sony this time did it by the book...
More detailed article: N.Y. Court: Zurich Not Obligated to Defend Sony Units in Data Breach Litigation insurancejournal.com/news/east/2014… via @ijournal
In early 2014, judge denied Sony claim for coverage for prior PlayStation hack: law360.com/articles/51306…
Interesting article on CISPA legislation that has re-emerged in 2015: zdnet.com/article/white-…
Read the part about how well Sony was insured... Here’s how insurance will respond to the Sony cyber hack ibamag.com/news/heres-how…
So, if R'pubs are hiring pundits to denounce family friendly notions, they may want to hire folks over 21 who've actually held jobs before.
Or, if the prior employer doesn't give a hoot about stuff like, oh, I dunno, HIPAA and medical privacy laws and likes to share med records.
So, as far as I can tell, the only way an employer would have a clue if someone has taken prior sick leave is if they ask illegal questions.
I've been on employer side of the law for most of my practice, and have trained HR folks on the hiring process. So, I've done this before...
Apparently, there's a magical way employers know who will & will not get sick and only those pundits know. They should share such insight.
All that argument does is prove the proponent has never actually been through the business side of hiring process and doesn't know the law.
I get a good laugh at pundits. Some are saying Healthy Fam Act won't work b/c if passed employers will only hire people who don't get sick.
Women now undertake the roles of provider & creator of life in this country. It's time businesses honored rather than punished for it.
ACT LIKE IT. Put your money where your mouth is, and fund things that promote families, and that support pregnant women and children.
So for once, R'pub boys and the few girls you play with, consider this: If you believe in family values, and you believe all life matters ->
The party constantly touts family values, but when it comes to putting any financial support behind their huffs and puffs, they cork up.
Most businesses and their leaders are in the conservative camp. That is not a bad thing, but often actions are inconsistent with goals.
But, from my perspective, the integrity of the issue comes down to one thing - The "money where your mouth is" argument.
First, business can't function without it's people. And, people are more productive in an environment that adapts to life's challenges.
There are numerous reasons business should get behind paid sick leave and other measures that support families. Main reason: Integrity.
But, with an R'pub controlled Congress, not sure how far the Healthy Families Act will get this time, unless businesses step up support.
Not the first go 'round, but good for another try: Obama to propose seven days paid sick leave for workers wapo.st/1x26zQB
Thing is N.C. is pretty backwards when it comes to employment protections, but even under fed law, that employer is probably in trouble.
North Carolina woman Jamie Cole fights pregnancy discrimination cbsnews.com/news/north-car… via @CBSNews
This kinda thing makes me growl: Battling for the right to work while pregnant in NC avlne.ws/1BNCutn
All the new "Free Speech" proponents need to read that last article carefully. Hard to see how Charlie Hebdo would be exempt from same laws.