A new campaign sponsored by Girl Scouts, Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg, and dozens of female celebrities seeks to ban the term "bossy." The term apparently is used to demean women and girls are not seeking out leadership positions due to a fear of being disliked or being called bossy.
Bossy: adjective. given to ordering people about; overly authoritative; domineering.
The website for "ban bossy" includes this ominous message:
When a little boy asserts himself, he's called a “leader.” Yet when a little girl does the same, she risks being branded “bossy.” Words like bossy send a message: don't raise your hand or speak up. By middle school, girls are less interested in leading than boys—a trend that continues into adulthood. Together we can encourage girls to lead.
Where to begin?
What everyone seems to have missed is that the term "bossy" is not exclusive to females. Plenty of boys and men have been referred to as "bossy" or worse. This victim mentality isn't going to do anything to empower women.
Instead of banning words like "bossy," perhaps a more effective strategy would be to teach girls ways to exhibit leadership without being, well, bossy. "Leadership" isn't a synonym for bossy--but "dictatorial," "overbearing," and "abrasive" are. There's a huge difference between being a leader and being abrasive.
Also, for what it's worth, demanding that a word be banned is quite bossy in and of itself.
Unions do not always get it right, but when they do, they should be commended.
And at least one 300,000-member union, Unite Here, understands exactly what ObamaCare will do to American workers.
The union has released a report showing how dramatically ObamaCare will impact workers' incomes and/or health care. It concludes that not only does ObamaCare prompt businesses to cut workers' hours, it likewise offers incentives for businesses to dump workers into ObamaCare -- thus leaving them with less-generous (but more expensive) health care plans.
Of course, the report represents a double blow to Democrats. Not only does it undermine their efforts to push "income inequality" as their top issue heading into the 2014 elections -- because hey, if you're serious about income inequality, just repeal ObamaCare! -- it also highlights union discontent with ObamaCare (and by extension, with Democrats). And if you're a Democrat -- grown fat and happy on the mother's milk of union money and grassroots work -- that's bad news, indeed.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is "very concerned" the GOP is going to take over the Senate in 2014. In a letter to some 800,000 perspective Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee donors, he pleaded with them to fight the Koch brothers or face a brutal defeat.
The opening of the letter reads (no emphasis needed, the Senator did an ample job):
Dear fellow Democrat,
I've got two words for you: Koch brothers.
Need I say more?
If Democrats like you and I don't do everything in our power right now, while time is on our side, come November 4, the Koch brothers will have bought total control of the Senate — and total control of Congress for their handpicked Republicans and Tea Party candidates.
You know as well as I do that would be disastrous for our country, women, minorities, seniors, children, students, the environment, and of course, you and your family.
Mere coincidence no doubt, that "you and your family" come after pretty much everyone and everything else in Reid's list.
During the last week of February Reid even had the audacity to call the American people liars. Stating from that Senate floor that all of the Obamacare horror stories are untrue. The tales are nothing more than adds, paid for by the Koch Brothers, Reid continued.
Luke Hilgemann, Chief Operating officer for Americans for Prosperity, sat down with me at CPAC to explain how AFP spent around $30 million dollars over the last several months.
One this is certain, Reid is feeling threatened. There are eight months until the November elections, and he is trying desperately to lay blame on someone for the impending loss of his Democratic majority.
I'd be less than frank if I said that I thought we had nothing to worry about...that America is ready to hold the GOP accountable and send them packing. But honestly, I'm concerned—very concerned because I know full well what they are trying to do.
If you’ve seen HBO’s award-winning miniseries “Band of Brothers,” William “Wild Bill” Guarnere needs no introduction from me. His heroism and intrepidity in battle are self-evident to those who’ve seen it. However, for those unfamiliar with the show, it’s important -- especially for younger generations -- to know who he was.
He was a soldier in “Easy Company,” a legendary outfit in the 101st Airborne Division in the United States Army during the Second World War. In other words, he was a paratrooper. And he parachuted into Normandy on D-Day with his company, serving on the frontlines until his war service was suddenly cut short when he was grievously wounded at the Battle of the Bulge. He was highly decorated.
Fox News has more:
William "Wild Bill" Guarnere, one of the World War II veterans whose exploits were dramatized in the TV miniseries "Band of Brothers," has died. He was 90.
His son, William Guarnere Jr., confirmed Sunday that his father died at Jefferson University Hospital in Philadelphia. Guarnere was rushed to the hospital early Saturday and died of a ruptured aneurysm early Saturday night.
The younger Guarnere told FoxNews.com that like so many of his generation, "Wild Bill" didn't talk about his service, even though he lost his leg in combat.
"All we knew was he lost his leg, and that was it," William Guarnere Jr. said. "People knew more about (his service) than we did."
The New York Times calls this Obamacare provision a "little known" fact. Indeed:
In a little-noticed outcome of President Obama’s Affordable Care Act, jails and prisons around the country are beginning to sign up inmates for health insurance under the law, taking advantage of the expansion of Medicaid that allows states to extend coverage to single and childless adults — a major part of the prison population. State and counties are enrolling inmates for two main reasons. Although Medicaid does not cover standard health care for inmates, it can pay for their hospital stays beyond 24 hours — meaning states can transfer millions of dollars of obligations to the federal government.
But the most important benefit of the program, corrections officials say, is that inmates who are enrolled in Medicaid while in jail or prison can have coverage after they get out. People coming out of jail or prison have disproportionately high rates of chronic diseases, especially mental illness and addictive disorders. Few, however, have insurance, and many would qualify for Medicaid under the income test for the program — 138 percent of the poverty line — in the 25 states that have elected to expand their programs. Health care experts estimate that up to 35 percent of those newly eligible for Medicaid under Mr. Obama’s health care law are people with histories of criminal justice system involvement...
The Times quotes conservative health policy expert Avik Roy discussing the public relations problem this may raise: “There can be little doubt that it would be controversial if it was widely understood that a substantial proportion of the Medicaid expansion that taxpayers are funding would be directed toward convicted criminals,” he said. The piece notes that many critics of the "Affordable" Care Act contend that its massive expansion of Medicaid only taxes an already-overburdened program, and that shifting state-level obligations for prisoner care will negatively impact the federal budget. Medicaid is, in fact, a broken system. It does not reduce uncompensated care at emergency rooms (which is often used as an non-factual selling point of the expansion), and its beneficiaries do not experience better health outcomes than their uninsured counterparts. Defenders of this 'care for convicts' program will no doubt argue that it is a humane endeavor that helps reduce criminal recidivism. Here's one such claim from the story:
“For those newly covered, it will open up treatment doors for them” and potentially save money in the long run by reducing recidivism, said Dr. Fred Osher, director of health systems and services policy for the Council of State Governments Justice Center. He added that a 2009 study in Washington State found that low-income adults who received treatment for addiction had significantly fewer arrests than those who were untreated.
I would like to see additional scholarship on this question. The promise of "potentially" saving money "in the long run" sounds nebulous and aspirational (like many liberal policies), not empirical. Taxpayers already foot the bill for inmates' medical treatment behind bars, but the Medicaid gambit permanently extends many convicts' taxpayer-funded care beyond the duration of their sentences. The Times story describes the city of Chicago's new standing policy to automatically enroll inmates as part of the post-arrest intake process. Roy suspects -- rightly, I think -- that this won't sit well with many Americans. Obamacare will reduce incomes for a large majority of American wage-earners, raise costs for two-thirds of small businesses, and is badly failing to attract the uninsured. It will come as cold comfort to law-abiding taxpayers that their rising healthcare costs are being used to subsidize care for criminals.
In an effort to recruit and inspire Western jihadis to carry out attacks in their own countries, Al Qaeda is planning to launch a new magazine in English called Resurgence.
An announcement with the name of the new magazine was posted on YouTube, but that video has since been removed as it violated YouTube’s policy on violence. Imagine that.
NBC News has more details:
If the magazine is launched, it will mark the first English-language publication from the central branch of the terror group. Al Qaeda’s media wing, as-Sahab, which released the 80 second video on the internet this weekend, has for years released messages from senior leaders of the terror group like Ayman al-Zawahiri.
The brief video appears to combine audio from a 1965 Malcolm X speech justifying violence — including the quote “talk the language that they understand” – with images of U.S. soldiers, Islamic militants, a purported attack on a U.S. base in Afghanistan and the Boston Marathon bombings.
The announcement comes as al Qaeda central has been devastated by drone strikes in western Pakistan over the past several years and the U.S. commando raid that killed the group’s founder and leader, Osama bin Laden, and suggests that the main branch of the organization is trying to reestablish its waning influence over Islamic militants.
Evan Kohlmann, a terrorism analyst for NBC, said the video appeared to be modelled after Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula’s online publication, Inspire.
“The announcement appears to be a tacit acknowledgement of the success of Inspire,” Kohlmann said in the NBC report.
“Clearly, al Qaeda's central leadership is seeking to try and recruit Americans from within U.S. borders, including indirectly if necessary — the homegrown terrorism model,” he added.
“Its simplicity appeals in many ways,” Magnus Ranstorp, a terrorism expert at Swedish National Defence College, told The Telegraph. “It focuses on the raw emotions of victimhood in the Muslim world which reinforces the al-Qaeda narrative that the West is aggressively at war with Islam.”
It has now been almost 1 year and 3 months since the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary. Now the shooter’s father is finally speaking out about his son. In an interview with The New Yorker, Peter Lanza, the father of Adam Lanza, is giving Americans a different look into the killers’ life.
Now speaking out, Peter said that he now wishes his son was never born,
“That didn’t come right away. That’s not a natural thing, when you’re thinking about your kid. But, God, there’s no question.”
Mr. Lanza has met with two victims’ families, one of which told him they forgave Adam. Peter couldn’t believe their kindness. And when asked if they had a funeral for Adam, Peter said that is something that no one knows and no one ever will.
Apparently Adam’s plan was to enlist in the military when he turned 18, but that didn’t happen. His father told The New Yorker, that Adam was “just a normal little weird kid.” The father of the murderer told the media outlet that he believes that Adam would have killed him too, had he been given the opportunity. Mr. Lanza even went as far to say that Adam shot his mother four times, giving one bullet to each member of the family.
Clearly this is a sad story that will continue to haunt us. With more information now coming out about the shooter, perhaps proper legislation can be passed in order to prevent this type of thing from happening again.
CBS News' Investigative Correspondent Sharyl Attkisson, known during the Obama administration for her work on Solyndra, Benghazi and Operation Fast and Furious, has resigned from her position at the network.
I have resigned from CBS.— Sharyl Attkisson (@SharylAttkisson) March 10, 2014
According to POLITICO, the resignation comes as a result of frustration over perceived liberal bias at CBS News.
CBS News investigative correspondent Sharyl Attkisson has reached an agreement to resign from CBS News ahead of contract, bringing an end to months of hard-fought negotiations, sources familiar with her departure told POLITICO on Monday.
Attkisson, who has been with CBS News for two decades, had grown frustrated with what she saw as the network's liberal bias, an outsized influence by the network's corporate partners and a lack of dedication to investigative reporting, several sources said. She increasingly felt like her work was no longer supported and that it was a struggle to get her reporting on air.
At the same time, Attkisson's own reporting on the Obama administration, which some staffers characterized as agenda-driven, had led network executives to doubt the impartiality of her reporting. She is currently at work on a book -- tentatively titled "Stonewalled: One Reporter's Fight for Truth in Obama's Washington" -- which addresses the challenges of reporting critically on the Obama administration.
As noted above, Attkisson has been at CBS for two decades. During her time at the network, she has heavily scrutinized both Democrat and Republican administrations. Back in 2008, Attkisson debunked Hillary Clinton's infamous claim that she dodged sniper fire in Bosnia. During the Bush administration, Attkisson won an Emmy for her reporting on shady Republican fundraising. In 2012, she won an Edward R. Murrow award and an Emmy for her reporting on Operation Fast and Furious. She has been equally critical of both political parties in Washington D.C.
This is an incredible loss for CBS and no doubt another network's gain. Hopefully she'll land at a place where her important work will be aired and promoted.
This post has been updated.
Some Democrats, like Kevin Drum of Mother Jones, are so in the tank for President Obama that they will excuse any use of executive power no matter how badly it shreds the Constitution.
For example, last week after Obama again delayed Obamacare regulations on health insurance plans, Drum wrote, "As regular readers know, I don't have much patience with right-wing paranoia about how President Obama is ripping apart our democracy by relentlessly issuing executive orders and reinterpreting agency rules."
But other liberals, who have actually studied law, are beginning to develop their own "paranoia" about where Obama's "I will act on my own" strategy is headed.
George Washington University Law School professor and frequent Rachel Maddow Show guest Jonathan Turley, for example, wrote in this Sunday's Los Angeles Times:
The United States is at a constitutional tipping point: The rise of an uber presidency unchecked by the other two branches. This massive shift of authority threatens the stability and functionality of our tripartite system of checks and balances.
I happen to agree with many of the president's policies. However, in our system, it is often more important how we do something than what we do. Priorities and policies and presidents change. Democrats will rue the day of their acquiescence to this shift of power when a future president negates an environmental law, or an anti-discrimination law, or tax laws.
To be clear, President Obama is not a dictator, but there is a danger in his aggregation of executive power.
Turley goes on to list a number of policy areas that Obama has exceeded his constitutional role, including immigration, education, energy, and drug policy. You can read a very similar list here.
And Turley is not alone.
University of Michigan Law School professor Nicholas Bagley, who writes at the liberal Incidental Economist blog, admitted last week:
The lack of a persuasive legal justification matters most not for the current political battles, but for the future. Because the Constitution doesn’t crisply detail what the “take Care” clause means, the phrase accrues meaning through practice. The Obama administration’s repeated delays of the ACA now stand as precedent for future administrations that would also like to postpone statutes. The more the administration delays the ACA, the firmer that precedent becomes.
There’s a risk, then, that the delays will transfer to the executive branch considerable power to refashion statutes. That could spell trouble for health-care reform down the line. What if a future president were to postpone portions of the law that were essential to the law’s ongoing success? Or provisions that protected consumers from sharp insurance practices? The recent delays might give him legal cover to do so.
The worry isn’t confined to health care. The ACA delays stand as potential support for postponing the effective date of any law, whether it’s a tax-reform statute, a new immigration law, or climate-change legislation. But that freewheeling authority to delay substantive law would mark a dramatic shift in the allocation of lawmaking power in our constitutional structure.
Even the author of Living Originalism, Yale Law School professor Jack Balkin, has voiced concerns, warning in the Boston University Law Review, that "[n]ew exertions of executive power crafted to deal with a dysfunctional Congress may serve as justifications for future Presidents to act unilaterally later on."
Democrats better hope they win the White House forever. Because the next Republican president, whomever he or she is, is taking notes on Obama's executive power grabs now. And Democrats will not like how that president will uses them.
Good news for the pro-life community via the Herald-Dispatch: The West Virginia state senate -- comprised of 24 Democrats and 10 Republicans -- passed legislation (HB4588) on Saturday to ban abortions after 20 weeks gestation. The Washington Post also notes that West Virginia is the first state in the nation (controlled by Democrats) to do so, citing fetal pain as a reason:
A West Virginia House Bill that would ban abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy cleared the Senate Saturday, 25-9.
The House still had to give the bill final approval as of press time.
The bill would make West Virginia one of 10 states that asserts a fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks.
“We were an outlier state in that we didn’t have any regulations,” said Sen. Evan Jenkins, R-Cabell. “Now we’re part of this growing movement."
Legal challenges, however, are expected -- even though it’s up in the air if the state’s Democratic governor, Earl Ray Tomblin, will sign the bill:
On Wednesday, The Associated Press asked Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin if he would sign the abortion bill. He said he would take a look at it if it passed the Senate floor. The House passed the bill in February.
We’ll see if he does. But the legislation does pose problems for national Democrats in general, and the DNC in particular. Will they endorse this life-giving measure passed by both chambers -- or will they decide to go on-the-record, criticizing their own party in the process for taking steps to ensure that viable, unborn babies are protected in the womb? There’s no easy choice here for a party that emphatically and unequivocally supports abortion rights.
Remember, the bill could not have passed without supportive Democrats, as they control the state legislature. And while West Virginia is turning into a red state, watching Democrats pass this initiative is significant in and of itself, no?
Anyway, here's an excerpt from the statement West Virginians for Life (WVFL) blasted out over the weekend:
The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act will protect West Virginia’s unborn babies, who can feel pain, and asserts a compelling state interest in protecting the unborn child from pain. Scientific research demonstrates that unborn babies can feel pain beginning by at least 20 weeks after conception. “It is important that West Virginia has asserted its legitimate concern for the well-being of these innocent babies by protecting them from pain,” said Wanda Franz, President of WVFL.