Datasets:
Recag
/
C4_5

Dataset card Data Studio Files
xet
Community
text
stringlengths
11
77k
I, like many of you, am deeply concerned about what I saw in the video. The safety of our students is always our first priority. Our school district works with many dedicated officers who protect out students. It is vital that our children have a positive relationship with these law enforcement officials. Those relationships are built on mutual respect.
The State Bureau of Investigation will review the incident.
Former Olympic champion Kylie Palmer is clear to compete at the 2016 Games in Rio de Janeiro after receiving a warning for a doping violation.
World swimming's governing body Fina opted not to impose a ban on the 25-year-old, who tested positive to low levels of a masking agent in 2013.
Palmer chose to miss the World Championships in Russia in July while Fina investigated the offence.
"I sincerely hope that this process is now over," the Australian said.
"My number one goal is to represent Australia at the Rio Olympics in 2016 and I cannot wait to get back on track to achieving that dream."
Palmer, a member of the Australian 4x200m freestyle relay team that won Olympic gold in Beijing in 2008, said in a statement that she did not know how the prohibited substance came to be in her system.
She felt that the 21-month gap between providing the sample in July 2013 and receiving the result hindered the investigation.
"It has been a distressing few months since I was first notified of the positive test back in April 2015," she continued.
"Since that time, I made the decision to accept a provisional suspension and missed the Fina world championships in Kazan.
"I cannot get back that opportunity to represent my country internationally but I am now looking to the future."
According to the district, the car didn't run and the employee towed it away for nothing when he bought it more than a year ago. But resident Matt Paulsen said the car - if it worked - would have been worth between $1,900 and $3,400 and even as scrap, could have brought in several hundred dollars. He claims several irregularities in the sale and has filed a complaint with the town's Ethics Commission. The commission will meet Monday night to determine if there is cause to investigate the allegations. When told of the circumstances of the sale, a car dealership in Danbury and a car parts business in Norwalk said the district made the right move. "It wouldn't have a lot of value," said Norman LeBlanc, who owns the 50-year-old LeBlanc's Auto Parts in Norwalk. "I charge to pick up any car over 10 years old." He added that it costs money to dismantle cars before selling the used parts. Mark Regner of Regner's Auto Sales in Danbury agreed. "They did the right thing," he said of the school district's decision. "It's too much work to find other avenues of value." Schools Superintendent Gary Chesley said the employee who bought the car - supervisor of facilities and operations Robert Geminaro - did the district "a favor." Chesley said it would have cost about $3,000 to get the Jeep running, and another $125 to have it towed and scrapped at a junk yard. The car had a broken sleeve on the steering column, a leaking oil seal on the engine, and a leaking master cylinder for the brakes. The district bought the Jeep in 1998. Gerd Fagerholm, the school business manager at the time, sold it to Geminaro in December 2002 after it had sat unused in the Municipal Center parking lot for six months. "It was becoming an eyesore, a nuisance," said Geminaro. "I restore cars as a hobby." He also has a 1953 Chevy and 1957 Buick at his Bethel home. Paulsen's complaint is against Chesley and Geminaro. He alleges among other things that the Board of Selectmen wasn't informed about the sale and that no one else in town was given the opportunity to buy the Jeep. "It was a conflict of interest," according to Paulsen, who said the sale should be nullified. Chesley, however, pointed to school board regulations which allow the superintendent to discard "material" that is "out of date" or "inaccurate or in an unusable condition." School board chairman Matt Knickerbocker agreed, calling the complaint "personal harassment by Matt Paulsen against the superintendent." "This is more of Matt's (Paulsen) usual nonsense," according to Chesley, who said the complaint is another attempt by Paulsen "to destroy my career." Over the past few years, Paulsen, an activist and head of the taxpayer watchdog group Bethel Action Committee, has filed several complaints against Chesley with state commissions, such as Elections Enforcement and Freedom of Information. Some were dismissed. Some proved to be correct. "If Dr. Chesley chose to abide by the codes, he wouldn't have anything to worry about," said Paulsen, adding the superintendent "has the obligation to set a good moral example." Contact Marietta Homayonpour at mhomayonpour@newstimes.com or at (203) 731-3336.
As ironworkers assembled the frame of the University’s science and engineering complex in the summer heat, bridge-building of an academic kind proceeded, too, as Harvard’s Business and Engineering and Applied Sciences schools (HBS and SEAS) anticipate their physical proximity, scheduled for 2020, by launching a joint degree program now. The two-year master’s degree in engineering, management, and design skills aims to equip students to drive innovation in new or established technology companies. Nitin Nohria and Francis Doyle III, the schools’ deans, unveiled the program in June; students will enroll in August 2018.
The schools’ faculties have been meeting to explore common research interests (see “Academic Allston, At Last,” July-August 2016, but the new degree accelerates their collaboration. Its parameters suggest the kinds of synergies the deans hope their faculties will realize. Applicants must have an undergraduate degree in engineering, computer science, or a related technical field; at least two years of work experience—preferably in designing or developing technology-intensive products; and the credentials to satisfy both schools’ requirements for admission to degree programs. Students will be immersed in system engineering; complete the HBS first-year M.B.A. required curriculum; participate in classroom exercises in entrepreneurship (from assessing customer needs through design and prototyping, to marketing); take a new integrated-design course; and pursue team projects as a capstone for their degree.
In outlining this course of study, Doyle said, “our faculties have found a perfect balance” of management and technical-engineering training, yielding a program that should prepare “individuals who have the best of both” disciplines. The S.M./M.B.A. program aims to train “the next generation of leaders,” as Nohria put it, “the set of leaders the world looks to” in technology enterprises.
Read an in-depth account of the degree, its underlying pedagogies, and the schools’ developing connections in Allston, in the broader Harvard context, at harvardmag.com/hbsseasdegree-17.
Ronald Reagan was one of the most popular presidents in modern history. As a former Hollywood actor, he had an uncommon degree of charisma.
The conservatives absolutely loved Reagan for his efforts to reduce the size of government, but most liberals hated him with a passion. Reagan is still revered by a lot of Americans. This reverence for Ronald Reagan helps to explain how he was able to fool most of the American people to a degree unparalleled by any other modern president.
With the help of Alan Greenspan, Reagan pulled off one of the greatest frauds ever perpetrated against the American people.
It is so ironic that many people, today, still believe that Ronald Reagan came galloping up on a great white horse to sound the alarm that Social Security was in deep financial trouble. He then allegedly figured out a solution to the problem and rammed his legislative proposal through Congress in a three-month period.
On April 20, 1983, the signing ceremony for the new legislation took place with great fanfare. Below are some of Reagan’s remarks at the signing ceremony.
Instead of being a proud day for America, April 20, 1983, has become a day of shame. The Social Security Amendments of 1983 laid the foundation for 30-years of federal embezzlement of Social Security money in order to use the money to pay for wars, tax cuts and other government programs.
The payroll tax hike of 1983 generated a total of $2.7 trillion in surplus Social Security revenue. This surplus revenue was supposed to be saved and invested in marketable U.S. Treasury bonds that would be held in the trust fund until the baby boomers began to retire in about 2010. But not one dime of that money went to Social Security.
Let’s have a look at the events leading up to this proposal.
Reagan and the government had big financial problems. Supply-side economics was not working like Reagan had promised. Instead of the lower tax rates generating more revenue as the supply-siders claimed would happen, there was a dramatic drop in revenue. Something had to be done, so Ronald Reagan set for himself a new mission. He would have to figure out a way to get the additional revenue he needed from another source.
The mechanism, which allowed the government to transfer $2.7 trillion from the Social Security fund to the general fund over a 30-year period, was the brainchild of President Ronald Reagan and his advisers, especially Alan Greenspan. Greenspan played a key role in convincing Congress and the public to support a hike in the payroll tax. A few years later, Reagan appointed Greenspan to become Chairman of the Federal Reserve System.
Since Greenspan’s new job was one of the most coveted positions in Washington, many observers have wondered whether or not this appointment represented, at least in part, payback for the role Greenspan had played in making vast sums of new revenue available to the government.
President Reagan and his advisors knew, from the very beginning, that the government would soon face a severe cash shortage. Budget Director, David Stockman, had deliberately rigged the computer at the Office of Management and Budget to generate bogus revenue forecasts in an effort to convince Congress to enact Reagan’s unaffordable proposed tax cuts.
When Stockman first fed the data from Reagan’s economic proposals into the computer, he was shocked. The computer forecast that, if Reagan’s proposals were enacted into law, massive budget deficits would loom ahead for as far as the eye could see.
Reagan needed a new source of revenue to replace the revenue lost as a result of his unaffordable income tax cuts. He wasn’t about to rescind any of his income-tax cuts, but he had another idea.
What about raising the payroll tax, and then channeling the new revenue to the general fund, from where it could be spent for other purposes? An increase in Social Security taxes would be easier to enact than a hike in income tax rates, and it would leave his income tax cuts undisturbed.
“The highest priority of my Administration is restoring the integrity of the Social Security System. Those 35 million Americans who depend on Social Security expect and are entitled to prompt bipartisan action to resolve the current financial problem.
Social Security was definitely not “teetering on the edge of bankruptcy” in 1981 as Reagan claimed in his letter to Congressional leaders. The 1983 National Commission on Social Security Reform, headed by Alan Greenspan, issued its “findings and recommendations” in January 1983. The Commission accurately foresaw major problems for Social Security when the baby boomers began to retire in about 2010, but that was nearly two decades down the road.
In addition to the long-term problem of the baby boomers, the Commission found a possible short-term problem for the years 1983-89. But the outlook improved and became favorable for the 1900s and early 2000s. The possible minor problem for the years 1983-1989 was based on very pessimistic economic assumptions. So, at the time Reagan informed Congressional leaders that Social Security was teetering on the edge of bankruptcy, the actual condition of Social Security funding was fairly sound for the next two decades.
Reagan referred to Social Security as a “welfare program” and, during the 1976 Republican Presidential Primary, Reagan proposed making Social Security voluntary, which would have essentially destroyed the program. There is no way that anyone who knew Reagan’s record would accept his claim that Social Security was his highest priority. He had always wanted the program eliminated, or at least privatized.
Reagan’s scare tactics worked. Congress passed the Social Security Amendments of 1983, which included a hefty increase in the payroll tax rate.
The tax increase was designed to generate large Social Security surpluses for the next 30 years. The public was led to believe that the surplus money would be saved and invested in marketable U.S. Treasury Bonds, which could later be resold to raise cash with which to pay benefits to the boomers. But that didn’t happen.
The money was all deposited directly into the general fund and used for non-Social Security purposes. Reagan spent every dime of the surplus Social Security revenue, which came in during his presidency, on general government operations. His successor, George H.W. Bush, used the surplus money as a giant slush fund, and both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush looted and spent all of the Social Security surplus revenue that flowed in during their presidencies.
So we can’t blame the whole problem on Reagan. Reagan was the one who figured out a way to use Social Security money as general revenue, and his successors just followed his example.
This would not be such a serious problem if Social Security was still running annual surpluses. But Social Security ran it last annual surplus in 2009, and began running permanent annual deficits in 2010. The cost of paying full Social Security benefits for 2010 exceeded Social Security’s total tax revenue by $49 billion.
So how did the government pay full Social Security benefits in 2010? They borrowed $49 billion from China, or one of our other creditors. And the amount that will have to be borrowed in future years will become larger and larger. If the trust fund had not been looted, there would be $2.7 trillion of marketable U.S. Treasury bonds in the fund that could be sold in the open market for cash. But the trust fund doesn’t hold a dime’s worth of marketable real assets of any kind.
The grandiose lie that the Social Security Administration, the AARP, and the NCPSSM, repeatedly tells the public is outrageous. They continue to say that Social Security has enough money to pay full benefits for another 20 years without any government action, when Social Security cannot pay full benefits for a single year without borrowing money. The IOUs in the trust fund are not marketable, and they have no monetary value. They are worthless!
We can easily understand why the SSA continues to repeat the big lie. That is what they are told to do by top government officials, who are trying to keep the Social Security theft a secret from the public.
But why do the senior organizations continue to repeat the lie? They are supposed to be representing the best interests of their members, but, in my opinion, they are betraying their members.
So the great Social Security fraud, which began under Ronald Reagan in 1981, is still alive and well 32 years after it began. Republican and Democrat presidents and Republican and Democrat members of Congress, all share in the blame.
There is nothing broken about Social Security. If the government had not stolen $2.7 trillion from Social Security, or, if the government would make arrangements to repay the stolen money, Social Security would be able to pay full benefits for at least 20 more years without any other action. But crooked politicians, who do not want to repay the money, are trying to convince the public that Social Security is a flawed system, which needs to be replaced with private accounts.
Social Security is a sound program that has worked well for more than 75 years. It ain’t broke, so why try to fix it?
The government—not Social Security—is what is broken and needs to be fixed. It is time for the American people to stand their ground and fire the crooked politicians. President Obama, and every member of Congress know that everything in this article is true. But they have succeeded in fooling the people for three decades and seem to think they can continue to do so. Don’t let them get by with it!
« No Paid Sick or Annual Leave. What About FMLA Leave for Excepted Employees?
Life is a journey. Couples buy the big house when they start their families. But when their kids fly the coop, they’re stuck with a too-big house that no longer meets their needs or fits their lifestyle.
The thought of starting over can be daunting.
• No one loves your stuff as much as you do.
The first three things we tell empty-nesters to do to get their home ready for market is to de-clutter, de-clutter, de-clutter. It’s amazing how many things one can accumulate over a lifetime. As we age, we also tend to hold onto things as they connect us with our past. We know first-hand. We lost our dad almost 20 years ago, and to this day, our mom still refuses to throw out any of his belongings. Unfortunately, things that we think are important to our children may not be, and things that we think are disposable may have tremendous intrinsic value to our loved ones.
• Hire a professional. If you have found excuses for the last 25 years not to purge, it’s unlikely that you can do this alone. Many of our clients work with professional organizers and/or estate sales companies to help them get through this process. A professional organizer can help you sort through decades of paperwork and belongings in an organized and systematic way. A professional estate sales company can help you sort through which items have value and which do not, and then sell them for you.
• De-clutter on the front end. If you get something new, throw something old out. One in, one out. If you have too much stuff, change the ratio. For example, if you buy a new shirt, get rid of two or three old ones.
The good news is that de-cluttering is a cathartic process. While the journey of de-cluttering can be emotionally difficult, our clients routinely feel free and less burdened when they are done. In fact, the vast majority of our clients tell us that they wish they had done it years earlier.
• Move when you can, not when you have to.
Don’t stay too long. It’s easy to do. You’ve raised your family in a home, and have a lifetime of memories there. It’s a growing trend for empty-nesters to modify their homes — by installing elevators and creating wide spaces to accommodate wheelchairs, for instance — to meet their needs as elderly people. Unfortunately, not every house can be adequately modified. And modifications can’t erase all the unneeded space in the family home.
We’ve seen it happen way too often — elderly homeowners start to lose the ability to maintain the house, whether for financial, physical or other age-related reasons. That’s when bad things start to happen.
We’ve had clients refuse to leave their multi-level homes, despite the advice from their doctors and often, their spouse and/or grown children. It usually takes a calamitous event — such as a tumble down a staircase, an illness or injury or financial ruin — to force the issue. By then, it’s far more difficult, painful and almost always financially sub-optimal. If your loved ones are raising these issues with you, take them seriously and be honest with yourself. After a certain point, being stubborn is not just about engaging in an existential conversation with your grown children, it can be downright dangerous.
• Have the tough conversations while everyone is healthy.
No one likes to talk about estate planning. It brings up very tough conversations and intergenerational differences and conflicts. We get it.
However, it is infinitely easier to have these conversations when everyone is healthy and the conversations are more “hypothetical.” Once someone is diagnosed with a terrible illness or has their health deteriorate, the last thing anyone wants to do is to talk about estate planning.
Bottom line: Have meaningful conversations with your loved ones while everyone is healthy, and understand who really wants what. It’s much more fun to gift things while you’re alive and healthy, then after you’re gone.
For more Real Estate news, follow @PostRealEstate and visit our Facebook page.
House Watch | Are those socks blue or black? The lights you buy matter.
A day after a group of about 100 French artists launched the #MaintenantOnAgit (Now We Act) campaign to facilitate access to justice for female victims of violence, a group of 300 artists and executives is backing the “5050 Pour 2020” (50/50 by 2020) movement. Among the founding signatories are Céline Sciamma, Lea Seydoux, Lily Rose Depp, Jacques Audiard, Robin Campillo, Laurent Cantet and Michèle Halberstadt.
Reminiscent of calls elsewhere for parity by 2020, the French group intends to work on issues of equality and diversity within the industry, and to start an Equality Observatory which will publish figures and analyze data in order to promote collective awareness and quantify progress. The 5050 group today published the findings of studies on behind-the-camera gender roles and the historic male/female split at the César Awards, France’s equivalent to the Oscar.
One of the group’s first actions was to commission a study of the male/female divide behind-the-camera. It found that since 2006, 23% of 2066 people to have directed a feature film were women. Overall, the number of women directing narrative features has grown by four points since 2006 while female documentary directors are up 7 points but animation remains almost entirely male. The average budgets of female-helmed pictures were found to be 36% lower than those directed by men. The full study (in French) is here.
The moves today come ahead of Friday’s César Awards when France’s Académie des Arts et Techniques du Cinéma reward the industry with local filmdom’s highest honor. As we reported yesterday, attendees will sport white ribbons in support of the #MaintenantOnAgit movement. The 5050 Pour 2020 campaign today released new findings that examine the history of the awards in terms of gender.
In non-gender-specific categories, it was found that 19% of nominees in the past 42 years were women while 20% were winners. Only one woman, Tonie Marshall, has won for Best Director (she is one of the women behind today’s and yesterday’s industry actions). Women have a much better track record in editing where 57% of nominees have been female and 66% have been winners. For the full study, click here.
My client a leading law form are looking for a Head of applications and development to join the company.
The Head of Applications & Development will oversee day-to-day activities and will support the business’s site/software/applications platforms that service the entire business.
The Head of Applications and Development is a demanding role that requires the occupant to be capable of leading cross-functional teams in a hands-on manner, diagnosing complex issues on the various platforms, and playing a key role in software/platform/application architectural, design and support evolution. This will require an organisational review across IT and the IT Operating Model– aligned to Industry practices including DevOps and Agile development/delivery and ITIL Support good practices.
The Head of Applications and Development demonstrates superior trouble shooting skills and has extensive knowledge in application design and construction. They will have a proven track record of using application development to add business value.
* The ability to think strategically; create plans, set goals, implement actions, evaluate processes / results and modify plans as required to be aligned with organisations overriding mission to create long-term value as measured by increasing profits and ROIC.
* Create an environment with stakeholders, colleagues and customers that fosters collaboration and drives future digital driven business growth.
* Proven as a technology leader / expert in digital delivery covering application of cutting edge technology in the web, B2C, B2B, mobile, CRM and related areas.
* Adaptable and dynamic with high levels of personal motivation.
* Experienced in multiple delivery methodologies including demonstrable experience of the shift from traditional methods and supporting legacy/heritage application estate to delivery of SaaS applications using agile methods. Will have implemented a continuous integration and continuous delivery capability.
* Must be aware of core security principles and be able to identify the security features that may need to be built into a service.
* Have a genuine passion for technology across a wide range of business applications and experience of a cutting-edge technology organisation.
* Excellent communication and influencing skills with the ability to build effective relationships and communicate complex, technical issues clearly and succinctly to senior colleagues and stakeholders.
* Excellent leadership skills with the ability to inspire and motivate people at all levels and develop a high performing, professional team.
* Experience of designing lean business processes and insightful data analytics.
* Very strong leadership skills and passion to want grow and mentor a team.
* Excellent oral & written English (Must be confident to communicate clearly at Exec level as needed).
* Experienced in dealing with external partners and ensuring correct focus and value is delivered.
* Knowledgeable in industry best practice and able to adapt appropriately to meet business need and strategy.
Donald Trump refuses to say he'll accept the results of election at final debate: "I will keep you in suspense"
Along with adding Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad to the list of dictators he argues are "stronger" than U.S. President Barack Obama, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump refused to commit to conceding the upcoming election should he lose to rival Hillary Clinton.
When asked by debate moderator Chis Wallace about his recent baseless claims that the election is "rigged," Trump did not say that will accept the results of the election.
“I will look at it at the time. I'm not looking at anything now, I will look at it at the time,” Trump told the Fox News host at the third and final debate.
“What I've seen, what I've seen is so bad. First of all, the media is so dishonest and so corrupt. And the pile-on is so amazing,” Trump rambled on, before adding that the media has "poisoned the minds of voters."
Of course, the first Fox News host ever selected to moderate a presidential debate did not call out Trump when he then perpetrated voter fraud myths to evidence his claim of a "rigged" election.
After refusing to vow to uphold the centuries-old U.S. tradition of peaceful transitions of power if he loses on election day, Trump then turned his target to the Democratic presidential nominee.
"She should not be allowed to run," Trump said.
For her part, Clinton got serious about Trump's unprecedented response.
“It’s funny,” Clinton said, “but it’s also very troubling.” She then called Trump’s refusal to acknowledge the legitimacy of the election results “horrifying."