yuna628

I look no further than our town's own crumbling post office, in a building that's been around since the 1800s, no air or heat, sometimes no running water, moldy, damp, falling down, and certainly not secure in any way. USPS's incompetence has just ballooned to the extreme since DeJoy and it's my opinion the entire place needs a cleaning out. My old mailman has retired, and even though I had issues with him from time to time, he would deliver the mail daily with only occasional delay. Whatever we've got now cannot read or deliver more than exactly one piece of mail a day, and we're lucky to receive mail after sunset let alone at all. Mortgage went missing this month and an insured package has gone AWOL.

Yeah it's been a subject that's bothered me a long time. Long ago our SPCA branch was so badly funded and mismanaged that the animals were in disturbing condition, and a state investigation found they had no medical care and were actually taking animals and shooting them in a shed. Everyone was fired and a new crew came on, but I *still* have major problems with them. I rescued my old dog from there and he had lifelong issues. My vet rescues animals from local SPCA's and special needs animal charities and has set up her own fostering/adoption fund which pays for critical care/surgeries. That is how I got my current dog who got bounced around various hell hole shelters before being sent up here to safety. The Humane Society has more or less some of the same issues as the ASPCA, with vast amounts of money flowing in and not going to help much at all. HSUS has had some success with lobbying and making changes I've agreed with however - I'd be happier if HSUS was more open about their money mostly only going to rescue situations in disasters and lobbying, instead of tricking people. If you're very concerned about animal welfare in your state though, it's often best to donate to a specific location directly (once you're sure nothing bad is going on), or volunteer time directly. Shelters are in desperate need of help these days.

So this is quite obviously a silly article, which I'm reading on my down time to reclaim some sanity (it's a long story but my dad and hospital are like best friends now). And of course framing it through the lens of gender equality is also quite silly, BUT food for thought here guys. Crash dummies are used on old 70s spec of the frame and bone structure of an average man back then. There may actually be something to consider to put a dummy in a test crash with an updated frame and bone structure of a female, in the same way we should be putting in kid and baby models too. Impacts to the body because of differences may happen differently. Previous tests as the article notes have failed to render what may happen to the body correctly because of this old spec. And I should think that we could do test with all different sizes of bodies too. Overweight persons, taller persons, slim, and shorter persons should all be examined rather than just an average size. That may help cars be better designed in the future. I think it's silly to hype it as some sort of gender equality advancement, but in terms of safety it might be helpful? Anyway back to the hospital. I'm sure someone will crack a joke about female drivers soon. 😉

I don't think that people should be taking these drugs exclusively for weight loss or fad dieting. It is afterall a type 2 diabetes drug in the same way Metformin and others are which have a wide range of effects on the body. Many people that are taking it aren't even at an unhealthy weight or have diabetes to begin with.

It's happening in red cities too, trust me.

Don's statement on Twitter is apparently running counter to what CNN is saying there. They are saying they wanted to discuss the matter with him and he chose to whine online. *shrugs* In Tucker's case, Murdoch apparently made the decision personally today, and he did not take kindly to things he said behind his back. Both individuals apparently had no idea this was coming.

Maybe they should start their own show.

On one hand I agree with you. The problem is in how children that are struggling with identity and sexuality challenges are treated by their peers and adults around them. School can be brutal. If children with these struggles were treated with greater care perhaps they could indeed wait to decide until adulthood for physical transitions if that is what they want. But there is one other thing I can think of: again imagine a child that is born intersex. In the old days those children were forcibly transitioned to be a gender and sexuality that did not appear to come forward at even the earliest of ages. There are countless examples of children born with obscure gender parts or other deformities that had surgeries and hormones - assigned a gender of whatever was easiest, and it turned out that clearly was not in their nature. These examples tell me that we are all more than outward parts and hormones. Their parents and doctors made the choice for them, because they were afraid of the stigma and how the children would be treated. That ended up not being the right thing to do. This ended up leaving kids now stuck in the wrong body essentially, and the path to correcting that in adulthood was a painful challenge. Some of it led to suicide. How do we also feel about parents that give their children breast augmentation or reduction to help them endure the torment at school or body image issues? Boys with gynecomastia? Girls with uterus didelphys? Boys with other deformities? How do parents and doctors help these kids? Is it ever acceptable to have your child be modified in some way until they are an adult? I wish we could say it is OK and a kid would be accepted no matter what in this world, until they reach adulthood and can make a choice, but there are always going to be complex questions that arise.

I'm going to be one of those weird ladies and say I don't understand why a woman would freeze eggs just because they can't find a 'suitable' man. For health reasons yeah, but the rest no. I also do not believe it is our job to 'fix men', and that is often what causes trouble in some relationships. A guy is a guy. No amount of 'fixing' is going to make one not be a 'mommas boy', a cheater, a jerk, insecure or immature about a woman having a better or different career etc. And if those traits are not desirable for so-called 'professional' women, then they haven't been making enough effort to look for a more suitable partner - because they do exist. Women also do not need to have children to be fulfilled or be happy, nor do they need a partner either in some situations. They also need to realize that they are not perfect, nor are men. There are some terrible men out there, and we'd do well to avoid them but nor should we be so stuck as to not look at various options. Society is also not going to 'fix' men or women. It's going to require parents to raise their children to put them on a better path. I have witnessed female friends of mine, broken-hearted with much baggage, go from man to man in an effort to find happiness, fulfillment, and to 'fix' what is broken in their lives. The men end up being terrible choices you can see from a mile away and 'fix' nothing. And hey, I've been there, in a terrible relationship that put me in a low place. I wanted to help that guy with their recognizable problems by offering everything I could and it was nothing but grief and abuse. What I really needed was a good and kind man, with minimal baggage, enough stubbornness and creativity to match me, and acknowledgement that we don't have to fix each other, we just have to love each other. Kids would be a nice thing to have, but it's not critical... and the part that makes me very nearly angry with these women is that there are so many abandoned children out there that could use a loving and safe home.

Appreciate your kind response. I just find the situation rather overblown, because the company has funded and promoted LGBTQ causes for years, and that included branded rainbow flag cans and other materials. Would the reaction have been just as severe with RuPaul (I do not recall outrage when RuPaul and others received sponsorships and ads from makeup sellers) or Laverne Cox? Can no trans person or drag queen ever be associated with a beer? I tend to be very loyal to certain brands Heinz and Coke being two of them, even if they have changed or removed products over the years. I don't support all of their policy swaying and I'm not about to go shooting at jars of pickles and ketchup and cans if they did something objectionable. I don't support some things about Chic Fil A either, but without a doubt I do love their food. Certainly there has been some boycotting and outrage of that company over the years. And I just feel all of that is silly ultimately. People get worked up until the next 'outrage' to be capitalized on. It's sad to see.

A gollywog is a racist caricature of a black person made up by other people to racially denigrate them. A trans person is a trans person. They are not a caricature. To make the leap you are is to say that a trans person is an offensive caricature of themselves made up by other people to racially denigrate them. Cross dressing for drag performances may be said to be a caricature and an art form, and it is one that is very old indeed. I'll make an example here: if I, the CEO of one of the most important brands in the world decided to put a conservative activist or cause on the cover of a product which caused massive backlash and global outrage. It led to people storming the grocer, ripping product off the shelves, setting fire to it, led the nightly outrage-monger news show, caused celebrities to start loading up crates and shooting them, to the point it caused me to change direction within a week, apologize for no reason, and hire whatever gigantic liberal the mob preferred? You would say this is a bad thing. That is precisely more or less what is being done to Bud. Briefly it happened to Pearl Milling and Ben's too. Those brands were willing to stick with whatever tiny shred of principles they had. To me, in this Bud just ends up looking dumb by caving. Regardless of if a pride flag is branded on a product or not, a trans person, a person that is very different from you may end up using the same products you do. Because ultimately we are all human. For the people that have been crying all week about this, they have got bigger problems than a can of beer. You don't know the person, so you don't know what their public and private persona is. All you see is what you see in public. Gay and trans people do not mock me or my femineity. They do not threaten my existence or my happiness as a person. If they do to you and others, that might be something to seek help about.

A trans person is not a gollywog and that person's face was not branded on every single can for the end of all time. Trans people do exist and do apparently, as human beings drink and eat. Therefore lots of products they use every day, just like you and me. What gets to the heart of things to me is why are people so offended that someone different from them eats and drinks the same things they do? Now I do not think that because of predicaments like this that arise, ANY company should be in the business of endorsements or branding packaging to support causes if you want a straight across the board no potential to offend anyone risk management sort of thing. I thought from time to time conservatives want to be bold with offending, promoting free speech for all, not canceling anyone, and supporting causes to rock boats so it seems a wee hypocritical. But ultimately someone is going to get offended at something at any given moment. I mean did anyone get upset at Bud Light when they usually make rainbow pride cans? Five of the ten best selling beer brands in the US (and a whole host of other alcoholic brands) have consistently done branding, charity sponsorships, and partnership deals with LGBTQ causes. We seem to be living in an outrage generation, where someone has to get angry about something and influence others to do the same, and that seems a little snowflakey to me - which works both ways. People can indeed vote with their dollars, but the outrage-mongering seems childish at times.

Well can you tell me who exactly is the customer base for 'Aunt Jemima' that would become so upset because a 'mammy' was no longer on the logo? Admittedly there are some people who remembered the actress that portrayed her somewhat fondly, but I just can't think of who a potential customer could be that would become enraged at never having a 'mammy' on the bottle ever again? Are these people actively buying these products for their racial iconography? If that were the case I would say any modern company would not want to attract those sort of customers. I can say that my family would buy Uncle Bens from time to time but not because of it's racial icon, simply because it's a well-known brand compared to the other choices. I tend to not though, I think it isn't the best quality for the price, though it does cook as it should. I tend to use options like Royal, Mahatma, Nishiki, and Rice Select. You can get big bags of that stuff.

So I'm going to say something from my perspective after looking through that article, and you'll likely not agree, but hey maybe food for thought? One thing a lot of people seem to go towards when buying a product is brand loyalty. They may associate an icon with a brand which makes it instantly recognizable. Some may be so loyal they will never try something new. Others may try something new, just because they are an exploring person, or perhaps they are experiencing financial hardship so they look for something cheaper, some may give up a product entirely for the same reason, or of course there is still a supply chain issue/lack of availability. I don't often see pancakes as something that people tend to have every single week. In my house it used to be more of a luxury item, and when we had it for special holidays, we were loyal to a particular brand of mix. Same with syrup. There is one syrup that a lot of people use in this state, because it's a generation thing. It's sorta like Old Bay here, it's just what people use. As a kid I can only recall having pancakes for Easter, Christmas morning, or as a special treat. Now my husband is a pancake and waffles person. He likes fixing them all the time, but we still are loyal to the brands we have. I can tell you that Aunt Jemima isn't one of them. For those that were once loyal to that brand, I'd say the author of the article does not prove his argument because he lacks investigation into other possible causes of sales downturn. Supply chain issues, inflation, lack of funds, lack of product, and lack of new brand recognition could all play a part. He did not seem to look at competing sales, which I suspect suffers from the same problem. I don't really buy that a large percentage of the public felt so grievously injured that they could never dare swallow a rebranded Aunt Jemima ever again. Of course there may be some, but not enough to make an impact. That is why I largely laugh at people chucking cases of beer out or shooting it (hey you bought them to destroy them so the company gets your $s and it saves your life not drinking cheap swill). It happens nearly every year. Book and CD burnings, film protests, offensive ad campaigns, food rebranding and endorsements. A company can choose to put what they want on a product and can choose to change that product at any time. A lot of companies started putting artificial sweeteners in their products and not notifying the public. One example was Seagram's ginger ale - which changed the product to foul tasting. It took a few years, but Seagrams realized it wasn't that great of an idea. The same with a cider company I enjoy which put artificial sweetener in - completely changed the formula. Took about two years for them to change it back. Currently, there have been some interesting dairy shortages I've noticed - especially when it comes to lactose intolerant types, creamers that claimed to be organic or free of flavorings. Inflation, supply chain, and lack of money flow have led to companies consolidating products, or subtle rebrandings. One coffee creamer company that many people were loyal to, have rebranded the packaging and neglected to tell everyone that instead of having a few 'simple' ingredients like milk, sugar, and cream it is now changed to buttermilk, HFCS, soybean oil, a thickening agent.. etc. That change has spurred somewhat of an uproar. A lack of supply means there are less options to switch to, and is causing shortages in other competing brands. In the UK, some of our favorite drinks we take for granted here have had whole formula changes in response to new government regulations and taxes involving sugar. It is now laden with artificial sweetener combinations in 'non diet' drinks. Sweeteners that have been proven to be unhealthy and dangerous. I am not offended when a company wants to rebrand or market to people other than me. I am not offended that gay or trans people want to drink beer. They exist and have to drink something. If we are to be a free country for all people? We are free to make choices. I care if a product is a good product, tastes okay with good ingredients. I have not ever felt that the logos for Uncle Ben and Aunt Jemima were appropriate. Those logos being there or not on the product do not make me want to buy them more or less, because there are other better and cheaper options. If someone isn't buying Aunt Jemima or Pearl Milling because there is no longer a ''mammy'' on the bottle, I'd say I hope they have some other healthier life priorities to fixate on.

All of the other actors in the show are white. And I don't mean Greek or even Middle Eastern. White. Also they are all using British accents. These points should all go towards highlighting it's non-historical accuracy, not just having a black actress in the title role. All of the major performances I can remember, all portray Cleopatra as very very white and not ethnically accurate in any way. This is not much different. Of course the real problem for me here, is if the show is claiming it is historically accurate. They have a bunch of 'Egyptologists' on board that are very problematic persons and it claims to be a documentary. So it seems to me there are going to be whole host of things that will be wrong in this show in terms of accuracy. It's kind of like how The History Channel is supposed to be about history, but Ancient Aliens is a regular feature.

So here's the thing. BBC once made a program about claims of Cleopatra's ethnicity. At the time it was quite silly because, while claims have cropped up a looong time ago, the facts don't seem to support it. BBC got into some trouble for using fairly bogus methods to back up their claim as well. Now this is a Netflix production, and obviously they are allowed to make their show however they want. Netflix has been doing that lately with shows like Bridgerton and spin-off Queen Charlotte. While in many cases not historically accurate, I am fine that they hired good actors for the job (I do not let them off that easily with their poor costuming though). BBC produced a few shows like this too, with Anne Boleyn being portrayed by a black actress, and in Hollow Crown Sophie Okonedo was fierce and fantastic as Shakespeare's Queen Margaret. These shows are not going for an accurate racial portrayal and nothing is lost by filling these spaces with excellent black actresses. Adele James, is a mixed race actress, and I think she looks gorgeous here. Should we equally complain about all the other white actresses that have played Cleopatra over the years? Anyway certainly the Egyptians are right at least about half of her heritage, at the same time there is little known about her mother, and that is where other claims come in. At some point a few even thought her to be Jewish and the Egyptians have indeed complained at Jewish actress Gal Gadot being cast in the role for a upcoming film. I am all for accurate portrayals, but in any art there is also room for artistic choices we may or may not agree with. One day we may get an accurate film, but that has not happened yet. Anyway such debates and complaints have been around for a long time. Try on this one from 1990. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1990/02/26/was-nefertiti-black-bitter-debate-erupts/4e7bdc74-18a6-435e-a5f6-df900cb7f014/

Whatever makes some fragile snowflake lives more comfortable to bear.

Oh I didn't say anyone here was.. but it was a general narrative that had emerged and was popular online.

An update on this case. It was not a homeless person. It was, a rival tech executive? https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/bob-lee-san-francisco-arrest-17895071.php

My husband has a terrible habit of leaving things in his pockets. All sorts of stuff has gone through the wash - pens, wrappers, receipts, money, electronics, keys, candy, ketchup packets, remotes... you name it. This extends to also just leaving things in there he's totally forgotten about. The TSA agent got really huffy when he discovered shredded old gum wrappers and pocket fluff. He really thought he had something there. There was also the melted chocolate bar incident - TSA agent mortified with dirty fingers which then got smeared into his trousers. Oh and the half opened ketchup packet. It's also amazing the stuff he's accidently brought over that they somehow missed on the carry on baggage scanner! He had no idea his dad had previously stored some tools in a piece of luggage and had forgotten to take them out. It's my experience the TSA agents don't really want to be all up in your business in the first place, as they are miserable people. They will do *anything* to avoid it. Practically begging you to just get in the scanner. Then they will make you wait a long time, and at our airport make a spectacle calling someone until they find some agent from somewhere across the airport willing to do it. They will be grumpy by the time they arrive for what special purpose they've been called to the scene. But mostly they will be mortified to do it, and in the end they might get something to laugh about.

I've also had a pat down, and well, got to say if their hands are doing something that could somehow cause a biological male to feel excruciating pain well... the agent doing their job wrong. Embarrassment sure, pain uh nope. Everyone has a right to privacy, even someone that is transgender. They don't have to announce their status to a TSA agent, and they are supposed to be trained to do pat downs on all different types of persons and that should include transgender or even intersex persons. This person simply made a ridiculous claim and people fell for it.

Passengers are allowed to legally refuse entering a scanner and may opt for a pat down instead. Early scanners were quite different than the current ones with various privacy concerns and risks. He's a lot more libertarian-minded than me sometimes, and if he's willing to do it that's fine. He's had some funny stories because of it.

I agree, because my husband has requested a pat down multiple times from the very sad and annoyed agents that are then forced to touch him. I knew as soon as I heard this story it was a bunch of nonsense. Another big clue is that the person deleted their claim pretty soon after it came out. This seems to me to be following a recent trend of ''outrage-seekers'' or people that make intentional false statements, claims, or video clips for clicks, likes, and attention. They are in the same class of people that make outrageous food videos of making spaghetti with their feet in a sink. It would be nice if the media would not pass it on, because eventually it makes it down to people who are completely clueless what goes on the internet, and thinks it's absolutely true that our ''poor TSA agents" (ha!) have to heavily fondle genitalia on the regular.

That may depend on the brand, as we did have a box of bad ones once...but I've had LEDs still going strong for several years when regular bulbs would have been dead a couple times by now. Also: LEDs that are placed in an enclosed fixture may burn out faster in some situations.

Can I ask why you consider incandescents not bad for you? That may be the wrong question to ask - why do you prefer using incandescents compared to LED bulbs? What is the basis? There are many pros to LEDs vs cons to other bulbs. To me I see an upgraded and technologically better product which will be more useful, cost and energy efficient for the consumer, and can be customized in a variety of color and light needs. There is also less of a fire risk. Think of our transition to records, 8 tracks, cassettes, CDs, and digital audio. Records are making quite a comeback these days (just as very old fashioned looking bulbs are), but you'd be hard-pressed to find a cassette enthusiast that demands they are better for them compared to a variety of technological advanced options. I'd have a hard time making an argument that LED is bad for you. Perhaps you may point to a random study here or there, which are largely inconclusive and do offer solutions for issues raised, but compared to other bulbs, it would seem LEDs are far better than our stupid foray into CFLs and older technology bulbs. I can imagine before the lightbulb being invented, there were many that cried oil and gas lamps and candles were the best ever.