I disagree with Zenni, as they make their product overseas (last I checked, which was more than 2 years ago).
EyeBuyDirect makes their glasses in the US, has a reasonable return policy if you simply dislike what you chose, have a great return policy if the workmanship is defective, have a FANTASTIC accidental breakage replacement policy ($7.95, flat!), and have native-American-English speaking customer service. Yes, EyeBuyDirect is more expensive than Zenni, but their pricing is WELL below retail and their products are well-made.
(I have no financial interest or relation to EyeBuyDirect, I'm simply a very pleased customer. Almost two years ago I paid them ~$130 for specs that I priced at $600+ at multiple retail places. These, of course, I accidentally broke 4 days after receipt. EyeBuyDirect replaced them for $7.95! I'm also a fan of the $6.95 prescription sunglasses I bought from them, too!)
If DHS wanted the TSA to be effective, they'd make it a point to hire highly-paid competent security professionals to revamp the entire TSA approach. If Israel can accomplish what they have in the area of travel security (which, btw, includes courtesy, respect, and almost no time lost to the traveler), then we can, too. It's just a matter of if we can motivate the politicians to make it so.
I'm surprised no one else brought this up sooner than you did. I'm also surprised that yours is the ONLY reference to this concept, throughout the entire comments section, as I write this.
The most common false positive on the TSA's explosives test is GLYCERIN. You know, a prime ingredient in many common soaps and lotions?
Believe it or not, because one of the things the TSA tests for is nitroglycerin, freaking HAND LOTION tests positive for explosives so often that the screeners actually SAY, "It's probably just hand lotion."
But still ..... Test positive, and you've TESTED POSITIVE. Period.
Yes, but what can't be limited is the amount of data others use. Roommate and I are stuck on a low-speed DSL connection in a 40 year old building with a nightmarishly low 2-gig data cap. I also work from home. As it is, I get poor-connection warnings on the corporate laptop whenever the roommate streams Netflix. I just can't take the chance that others will kill my cap or suck what little bandwidth I have. As much as I firmly believe I sharing the connection as well :-/
All right, Mike. I am devoted to This American Life and Radiolab .... Both of which I leaned about from you. I am now going to check out WTF, per your mention. What other podcasts should I be checking out?
Having a too-highly-strung sense of empathy is not a freaking "mental disorder."
While this person might not be well-adjusted to his society (hell, he might need therapy or medication, we don't know), he's taking seriously-inconvenient steps to adjust his environment to protect (and possibly promote) his own mental health. Good for him.
I have to tell you, "Oh, so it's some sort of mental disorder" is SERIOUSLY harsh and more than a little antagonistic. It's also dismissive and passive-agressively confrontational ... The implication is "Your thoughts don't matter because you're broken." You quite effectively invalidated someone you don't even know.
I see later you post another apology that comes across as MUCH more sincere than this one does, and I am glad for that. The second post, the one that seems sincere, is what motivated me to make this post ... Because, if the second apology IS sincere, you might just care that what you said above was truly (and unecessarily) mean.
What bugs me MOST abt this (that hasn't already been said, that is) ...
The use of the phrase "Child-on-child sexual crimes." This phrase connotes 7 year olds sexually assaulting 5 year olds. Of COURSE such a thing was "once unheard of" ... Because such a thing is much more rare than people like Trueman would have us believe.
The (relative) rarity of actual child-on-child sexual abuse is not something I can find a citation on, but think of it this way: We know that sexual abuse (including but not limited to rape) is a power trip expressed through sexual aggression. If a pre-pubescent (i.e. a child) needs/wants to exercise power, isn't that child much more likely to set something on fire, hurt an animal, or beat up another child? The power-tripping pre-pubescent isn't likely to sexually abuse another child unless acting out sexual abuse from personal experience simply because sexual activity isn't in the child's frame of reference yet (unless through experienced abuse).
In other words, until puberty begins, the physical machinations of sex or sexual abuse aren't likely to occur to the person needing to exercise power if the person hasn't already been sexually vicimtized in some way.
So, the word "child" in Trueman's quotes makes me twitch. There's a huge difference between a pre-pubescent child and a pubescent or post-pubescent adolescent, yet people keep using the word child to describe legal juveniles. 7 year olds playing doctor, 13 year olds making out, and an 8 year old sexually abusing a 5 year old are completely.different.universes. of situation.
Child-on-child SEX (which I can only interpret as involving adolescents) is static or down, as is child-on-child (again, I can only interpret this as involving at least one adolescent) sexual ABUSE. This, while we're talking more openly abt sex and sexual abuse, mainstreaming pr0n more each day, and generally thoroughly saturating our culture with adult references and conflicting messages abt the appropriateness of all of it.
Yes, thx for this .... Haven't read the link yet (I will) ..... But does anyone know how to find out abt such micro budget films, be they from Paramount, other houses, or indies? I mean, if it's not showing at my local independent theater, I have no idea how I would find out abt them.
I have seen the exact same phenomenon in the exact same situation more times than I can count, and not just among the lower ranks. It's pervasive all the way up the chain.
It's even more nauseating to watch it happen in middle/upper management than it is to watch it in the trenches. It's not ALWAYS present, but it IS present often enough to never be able to forget it's alive and well. The most egregious part is that the required acknowledgement must be from a visible (i.e. alpha) male, not just A male, and not just a higher-ranking male.
The damned if you do or don't on drawing attention to these incidents (and therefore increasing personal and group investment by transmuting the invisible to the anecdotal, read: personal) is that, if the woman or A woman draws attention to specific incidents, she is accused of one, some, or all of the following:
Whining, attention-seeking, credit-stealing, politics-playing, diversity-trumping, drama-creating, playing the victim, crying about outdated stereotypes, man-hating, shameless self-promotion, imagining grievances, making excuses for why she/women aren't moving up, relying on gender for advancement, divisiveness, not being a team player .... I could go on.
This is because, I believe, pointing out specific instances (of disregard requiring male approval prior to consideration) occasioned by unconscious gender bias threatens the egalitarian mindset of most of the individual's in the IT industry. They honestly can't see or acknowledge it happening in front of their eyes because it directly contradicts their view that the ideal is reality. The cognitive dissonance is so complete, and so immediate, that their minds edit it out, simply ignoring the occurrence, leading to ad hominem attack as a defense mechanism when specific occurrences are pointed out and named for what they are.
What is to be done, other than continuing to point out and question specific instances, knowing what the inevitable backlash will be? I don't know. But I do understand why, after the first few attempts, many women stop trying. They perform a cost-benefit analysis and determine that on a personal level, silence is better for them than the repercussions of speaking out.
It's a terrible choice to have to make, cutting your own throat for the greater good, and women in IT make that choice daily. Not all women every day, but some woman every day.
Yes, this is anecdotal and personal reasoning, but it IS supported by the writings and conversations of women in IT, freely available if they are asked or if sought online.
I am guessing that where they [not only these but all the others in this thread saying the same types of thing] are going with this is explained thusly:
My life hasn't been perfect, and neither has that of any white male I've ever known. I/we don't have the individual ability to exercise our whiteness or maleness to our advantage. Therefore, there is no such thing as white- or male-privilege, and I am personally insulted and outraged to be considered a bogeyman. Because of my personal indignation prompted by the internalization of this concept and the resulting guilt said internalization causes, I will violently cling to our legal code, insisting it is an accurate reflection of the daily reality of our society rather than a goal towards which we are still working. Because I am a literal, action-oriented person who must justify my own situation based SOLELY upon my own merits and actions, I will never bring myself to consider that something intangible, invisible, silent, amorphous, and psychological could be at play, providing me with intangible, invisible, and silent advantages. If I did consider such a thing, I would have to question my own merits and actions, and that would be altogether too uncomfortable a thing to do willingly, because there is no benefit to me for doing so.
Imagine each of them writing something like this, right now, after all of the, unprovoked vitriol, personal attacks, resentment, and anger they've displayed. Makes more sense, doesn't it?
I personally think the issue is micro vs. macro -- Discussing "society" is extremely difficult to do without subconsciously noting our individual place within it and therefore internalizing anything said about those segments of which we are a part.
When, by personality, you're a literal person who gives more credence to hands-on, in-your-face prima facie ev than anything else, separating yourself from such a discussion can be difficult if not impossible. Hell, I've fallen victim to it myself. The key is to recognize what you're doing and TRY TO STOP, because, if you can't, you can't be anything close to objective. The conversation quickly devolves, and the time and effort involved are wasted because the parties now are more set in their position due to anger, indignation, and frustration -- The investment now cannot be wasted.
What's the answer? Besides patiently and without the micro-involvement continuing to try to illuminate others, in the methods they demand before they will consider, I don't know. Anecdota is powerful to the human psyche, because it becomes a part of you (i.e. personal) in addition to being literal, hands-on, in-your-face ev. Helping someone move past that is tooth-pulling difficult, especially with sympathy for it being there at all (for me, anyway).
I'm open to suggestion while continuing to try to discuss these issues and brainstorm solutions to them with anyone willing to do so. I hope you continue to do so, too, Claire.
11. Go ahead, Beta, troll ME for the following, I dare you:
A lack of logic/math ability (straw man and stereotype) when speaking from my own experience in unsupported (your opinion) assertion (not done).
Arguing from stereotype (not done), which of course is cool when you do it but not when she did it (and I disagree that she even did). Conspicuously disregarding your point (refuted) of wanting ev (supplied in spades), or speaking in stale cliche (cliche is MADE of truth, cliche is OVERWHELMINGLY COMMON truth).
While crying for the ev *I* quickly gathered via Google, you're engaging in the same tactics you're accusing her of: straw men, stereotyping, unsubstantiated assertions, laziness, and speaking in stale cliche. What she DIDN'T do was revert to ad homonim attack, while you did.
To my eyes, it is "You [who] give[s] the painful impression of someone equipped with a collection of old talking points and no ability (or willingness) to endanger them by considering the facts or entertaining a new idea."
12. I dare you now to stand by your words. I've addressed your points, substantiated hers, and now it's time to discuss the topic with ALL of us if you can leave the arrogance, privilege-blindness, childishness, and willful ignorance at the door. Those qualities don't make for productive debate.
I believe I have shown you you're wrong. If I have not, discuss as you've requested, with the ground rules YOU laid. Otherwise, WE'RE "not going to bother with you any further."
(Many thanks, Mike, for this topic and for your concern about it!)
(1) CLAIRE:I I love how the argument is always the same; gender/race doesn't matter! It should only be about merit and achievement!
(2) And it's so easy for you, the white guys, to say that, when your race or gender is not systematically taken as a mark against you nor a reason for your merits and achievements to be devalued. It's so easy for you to demand that everyone be judged equally when anyone who isn't a white man starts with a handicap just by being born in a world run by and for white men.
(3) Don't stick your head in the sand and pretend that bias doesn't happen any more. It absolutely does. The discussion of whether it's happening in any one particular case is important, and it'd be good for white guys to approach this discussion with at least some awareness of the advantages they get just for being white and male.
(4) I have a lot of respect for Mike for wanting to talk about this. (Also, congrats on making the list.)
(5) BETA:Your message is dated 2012, so you'll have to do better than making assertions like "it absolutely does". A white male could assert that these days he is the one who is being systematically (and legally) discriminated against by race- and gender-biased hiring and university admission practices. His claim would have more weight than yours, unless you can put up some evidence (from this century).
(6) Approach this discussion with at least some awareness of the advantages you get just for being female (and non-white?), and your argument will seem a lot more compelling.
(7) CLAIRE:Oh noes! Laws designed to combat sexism and racism mean white guys DON'T automatically get jobs or university places over non-white non-males of equal or better skill and experience? Say it ain't so!
(8) Guess the white guys will just have to settle for majority control over the world's money, governments, mass media, etc etc etc.
(9) Seriously. White guys are not systematically denied jobs because the employer is worried they'll want to start a family or take time off to take care of their kids. White guys are not systematically paid less or passed over for promotion just because they're male and white. White guys are not systematically targeted by police just because they're white.
(10) Denial ain't just a river in Egypt, mate.
(11) BETA:Could you please not contribute to the stereotype that women are no good at math and logic? Your first paragraph is a straw man argument, your second is an irrelevant (and unsupported) assertion, your third is argument by stereotype that conspicuously fails to address my point, and your fourth is a stale cliche. You give the painful impression of someone equipped with a collection of old talking points and no ability (or willingness) to endanger them by considering the facts or entertaining a new idea.
(12) Address my point and I'll discuss this topic (and your points) with you. Show me I'm wrong, and I'll concede. Otherwise I'm not going to bother with you any further.
Starting from the top, by paragraph, which I have numbered for quick cross-reference.......
2. Researcher finds "stereotypes of men as decisive and aggressive and of women as indecisive and gentle are alive and well and influencing personnel decisions [and that] the power of stereotypes shapes hiring to a statistically significant degree." These results "are believed to represent the first time that this conclusion — that employers discriminate according to gender stereotypes — has been substantiated by real-world data, rather than by laboratory experiments." 2005. http://www.virginia.edu/insideuva/2005/17/gorman.html
5. Research finds that "black and Latino applicants with clean backgrounds [and equivalent resumes to the white applicants] fared no better than white applicants just released from prison" when trying to get a job. 2005. http://asr.sagepub.com/content/74/5/777.abstract
(You bad mouthed Claire for not providing ev when she was obviously speaking from personal experience, but you do the same. Poor form. Even though you gave no ev for your point, your overall attitude compels me to supply counter-ev for your opinion.)