I work in corporate education. I have trained soft skills (customer service, management, and HR compliance training *shudders*) and I have trained “hard skills” in IT. I LOVE teaching Microsoft Excel certification training. Word is number two. Excel is probably my favorite because when people can use Excel, they almost universally like the application they hated the most and that is soooo gratifying. I have literally trained on a global scale. I have worked for multiple companies with locations in other countries. Both in developing training that isn’t in my time zone and delivering that training. This means I have worked with giving training in person and via a remote tool. I hope that this world will bring useful advances to schools. But there are some pretty bad pitfalls that the corporate world has learned. Which leads to my some advice for schools and teachers. Number 1: DO NOT MIX IT UP Learning can be done remotely. It is more
I was in college when I first learned about John Lewis. I was doing some research regarding Georgia history and the civil rights movement (specifically some cases which started in Georgia). My professor made a comment about “Representative Lewis” and I blinked. It rocked me mentally to realize that someone still alive (and honestly not that old in 2005) had marched with Martin Luther King Jr. Marched as an adult. Not a child holding a parent’s hand. A man grown and finished with his education. Mathematically I knew this was possible. But this was the first time I felt it to my shoes. I didn’t know anything about John Lewis at the time. I didn’t grow up with him as my representative (honestly, I didn’t know who my rep WAS growing up so…. this wasn’t surprising). He was one of the people who inspired me to begin paying more attention to my local politics instead of just presidential. This meant
I wrote about this just the other week and then I had to live it. I listen to The Bulwark Podcast regularly. Not every day, but it is something to listen to while I’m cooking dinner and it makes me think. It also engages me with more conservative thought without being Trump supporters (Sykes might hate Trump more than any liberal I know). The other day he had a guest, Kmele Foster, who talked about anti-racism. This particular podcast was pretty hard for me to listen to. There were several points where I started to argue with my speaker and had to stop myself and listen again. I wrote just the other week how we have to really stop and listen to people. And it might have been twenty minutes before he said something that I think was really valuable. In it he is talking about cops killing white people being under-reported and how that is bad too. Then he
Oh My GOD. This opinion is amazing. If you have trouble reading legal opinions, I have a new source I’m recommending – a real lawyer reading it! So firstly, GORSUCH wrote this opinion. Trump’s first appointee is not as horrible as I had feared. I am stilled pissed Merrick Garland wasn’t voted on – but Gorsuch at least seems to be a decent Supreme Court Judge. The fact this ran 6-3, this wasn’t a “by the lines” case. Roberts and Gorsuch voted along with Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Shocker – Alito, Thomas, and Kavanaugh dissented. An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex. Page 2 https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/17-1618_hfci.pdf Well that was pretty blunt… but it gets better! From the ordinary public meaning of the statute’s language at the time of the law’s adoption, a straightforward rule emerges: An employer violates
I debated all weekend whether I wanted to touch this with a hundred foot poll. I saw posts ranging from “All taxes are theft anyway, so stop paying the police” (I stopped reading here and did NOT click “show more…” to see the entire thread) to “police are all bad apples and it all needs to be rebooted from the ground up” up to “it’s a slogan to start a more nuanced conversation about re-evaluting programs between the police and other social services.” Then one of my friends posted something that really resonated with me. Language matters. This particular hashtag lumps the people who want to have a reasoned argument around re-evaluating program funding with the “police departments shouldn’t exist” (of the corruption and tax-theft crowd). Ouch. Is that right? I GET that this is more complex than a slogan can easily capture. My brother has a phrase about “no good political statement can fit on a bumper sticker” I
UGH. So the Supreme Court put out decisions a while back and I am too exhausted to read them. Reading SCOTUS opinions takes a lot of brain power and I have been trying for weeks to read the ones I care about. And I just can’t. It isn’t something I can stop and start and between a 13-month old, working from home, and the ambient stress of the world right now… I read a few paragraphs and realize I’m zoned out. So I gave in and just read some summaries. I tried to understand Barton v. Barr, but even the “plain text” articles I found made my brain hurt. I mean honestly, when I originally read up on the case I had to Google a LOT of the language and terms and even then I couldn’t say with entire confidence I understood the issues. Allen v. Cooper was better. I think it helps with the court is 9-0 on a
Further fallout of my Mad March of 2020 is my medication regime has taken a significant uptick. I’ve been on birth control again for a minute for exactly what the name implies. Until this month that’s been basically my only medication since I gave birth. Then my body and brain decided they hate me. So between my PCP and my asthma Dr they’ve got me on a new regime. Breo (daily asthmatic dosage) Singular (stave of allergy aggravation) Lexapro (anxiety is making me barely functional) I also realized my rescue inhaler expired. So I needed a new ProAir Respiclick. I generally use CVS as my pharmacy. It’s the closest, it’s convenient, and I like the pharmacist. He’s friendly and has been knowledgeable on every question I have. But there is something that infuriates me. I downloaded the GoodRx app to see if I could get any kind of savings. And the first thing they recommend is…. SHOP AROUND. No. NO.
I’m a Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) nerd. I’m not going to cite myself as any sort of expert. I’m like a ham radio aficionado who likes SETI. I get the theory of what it’s supposed to be about, but I do not have the depth to really grasp everything. With that disclaimer, there are a few cases that the Supreme Court heard last fall (Oct) and I look forward to seeing their decisions on: Barton v. Barr This is an interesting bit of immigration law. If a permanent resident gets called before immigration court for possible deportation, there is an option for them to put in for “cancellation of removal.” The person has to have lived in the US continuously for seven years (and a few other provisions). This is an interesting bit because it is addressing deportation vs. exclusion for admission. In Barton’s case, the wording being addressed deals with: “a lawfully admitted permanent resident’s period
This is at least attempt #3 to write this post over the past 12 months. I keep starting it, writing a few hundred words, and deleting it all again. Because this is a tough topic – how to live a socially conscious life. And I am going to start by saying, we all probably doing it wrong. That is really the conclusion on the manners of it that I’ve come to. It might be possible to live a truly “socially conscious” life, but not everyone can manage it. Because it isn’t easy. Beginning: Defining the Problem Let me begin by defining “socially conscious life.” This entire post was inspired about a year ago when my LBGTQ friends began (again) to boycott Chick-fil-A. Hell, SCOTUS just heard oral arguments to determine whether LBGTQ employment will be protected or not. It’s not like we got marriage equality and suddenly all the issues LBGTQ people face were magically solved. As a straight person,
There is something interesting in all the discussions of “Quid Pro Quo” I haven’t really seen addressed, something which I think has people confused. It isn’t excessively subtle, but it’s a stupid point. So quid pro quo means (Google defines it) as “a favor or advantage granted or expected in return for something.” And yes, Mulvaney was technically not wrong that the United States used quid pro quo “all the time.” It isn’t all the time, but it is really frequent. Here are some examples (both good and bad) that I know of: We will not give aid to Nepal if their doctors talk to women about abortions We will lift sanctions on Iran if they allow nuclear inspectors in Remove a corrupt pro-Russian prosecutor from office and we’ll give you military aid. I didn’t want to make a massive list, we do use quid pro quo regularly in our foreign affairs. Hell, Congress (well, they used to) trade votes.