You left a few awesome habits behind when you grew up: Wearing dinosaur costumes, attending sleepovers, and maybe most importantly, blowing bubbles. So for this week’s Shooting Challenge, photograph bubbles.
Facebook doesn’t exactly have the greatest track record when it comes to sensitivity, but its newest tool (built in collaboration with National Suicide Prevention Lifeline) is thankfully bucking that trend. Now, if you see a worrisome post from a friend and report it, Facebook will prompt them to get help on their next login—after a third party reviews it.
The open internet finally got the protection it deserves from profit-hungry cable companies. The FCC just approved the strongest set of net neutrality rules in this country’s history, punctuating a years-long battle for this future of the internet. However, the war’s not yet over .
Four-year-olds have amazing insight into the complexities that we adults deal with on a daily basis. Their back-to-basics approach will really simplify concepts that we over-think constantly. Here are some nuggets of wisdom from my 4-year-old:
1. “Sometimes it happens.”
Ah, from the mouths of babes. Specifically, my babe, who let this gem loose when asked why he cannot listen to me when I ask him to go to bed. Sometimes, the most perfectly-laid plans fall apart. People wander away from each other. Communication breaks down. Having the attitude that sometimes, the unexpected happens is a great way to look at things. It suggests an ease about life when everyone else is caught up in the stress of the hamster wheel. Moments where things don’t go as planned aren’t meant to hold us captive; they are meant to shape us into a better version of ourselves.
2. “Accidents happen, it’s OK.”
My 4-year-old told me this as he rubbed a container of liquid glue into my couch this weekend, with paper mashed on top for good measure. Sure, accidents happen; it’s how we react to them that’s key. Our reactions help define the future and set the tone for future interactions. Maintaining an attitude of acceptance will help you bounce back more quickly and come out stronger from future setbacks. The couch cushion can always be washed.
3. “Stop talking.”
I get this a lot. It’s a constant reminder from my 4-year-old that we need to listen more than we need to speak. Everyone wants to be heard. Even 4-year-olds can recognize this. True enlightenment comes from engaging deeply in two-sided conversations with meaning and value. The mindful practice of listening is an art and a skill to hone, stat.
4. “It’s no trouble.”
In my 4-year-old’s mind, everything is “no trouble.” His laid-back, no-nonsense approach to life really is about eliminating all the trouble by dealing with it in a matter-of-fact manner. This attitude also makes us think of others before ourselves. It’s no trouble to reach out and help when you can make a difference in someone’s life — and the benefits can be great for both parties. It can be as simple as offering words of encouragement.
Sometimes things happen in life, but it’s what we do after that really makes the difference.
WASHINGTON — Democrats indicated on Thursday that they won’t give House Speaker John Boehner much room to maneuver on a bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security, including on a possible short-term bill to avert a department shutdown.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said she told Boehner that Democrats want a full-year funding bill, not something that will only keep the department open for a matter of days or weeks.
“We can’t get involved with five days, seven days and all of that nonsense,” she said at a joint press conference with Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). “Let’s just get the job done on time.”
A short-term bill may be needed to avert a DHS shutdown if lawmakers cannot pass a bill by the end of the day Friday, when department funding will run out. House Republicans have remained insistent that they must wait for the Senate to act before they can discuss their own path forward, including whether they will approve the “clean” DHS bill that the Senate is set to pass, or send it back with immigration measures attached.
Reid didn’t explicitly vow to block a short-term funding bill, but did lay out his own red line: Senate Democrats, he said, will not compromise if the House sends the Senate bill back with riders that block President Barack Obama’s deportation relief policies. This is a real possibility, given that many Republican members say they will only agree on a funding bill that includes such riders. Reid said if the House passes a bill with immigration measures, they should get the blame for a DHS shutdown.
“We’ve heard all kinds of rumors that the House is going to take our fully-funded bill and send it back with a number of riders on it,” Reid said. “It is a waste of time. We will not allow a conference to take place. It won’t happen.”
The two minority leaders’ remarks made clear that DHS is still very much at risk of a shutdown, which would begin on Saturday. Under an agreement reached Wednesday, the Senate will vote on a clean DHS funding bill — that is, without immigration measures — and will vote later on separate legislation that would limit Obama’s deportation relief programs. Reid said Democrats will not stand in the way of that later vote, as long as DHS gets funded. It’s still uncertain what the timing will be for the vote on the clean funding bill.
Meanwhile, it remains unclear what the House will do. Boehner refused repeatedly at a press conference on Thursday to answer questions about how his caucus will move forward, saying he would first have to see what the Senate passes — even after one reporter pointed out that the upper chamber’s leaders have already reached a deal.
Boehner responded simply by blowing kisses at the reporter, “The Takeaway” host Todd Zwillich.
“When we make decisions, I’ll let you know,” the speaker added.
Obama announced plans in November to broaden policies that allow certain undocumented immigrants with long-standing ties to the U.S. to temporarily stay in the country and work. One such policy, the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents program, or DAPA, would apply to parents of U.S. citizens and of legal permanent residents. Another one of the president’s executive actions would expand the existing Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA, for undocumented immigrants who came to the U.S. as children.
Last month, the House passed a DHS funding bill with language to halt Obama’s actions, but also to end DACA entirely and prevent the president from carrying out some of his other immigration priorities.
A judge temporarily halted DAPA and the expanded DACA last week — a decision the Obama administration is seeking to reverse. Some Republicans have said it is now less important to block the policies as part of the DHS funding legislation.
However, it’s not clear that there are enough Republicans in the House who agree with that assessment. Boehner said Thursday that despite the ruling, there’s still “a role for Congress to play” and that the House intends to be involved.
It would be possible, but politically risky, for Boehner to pass a clean funding bill with support from Democrats against the will of most of his conference. Asked whether he feels his speakership is being challenged, though, Boehner said, “No, heavens’ sakes no. Not at all.”
Obama reiterated on Wednesday that he would veto any bill that blocked his immigration programs.
On the night of February 26, 2012 — three years ago today — police responded to several 911 calls from The Retreat at Twin Lakes, a gated community in Sanford, Florida. They arrived on the scene two minutes after George Zimmerman fatally shot teenager Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman told the officers he acted in self-defense, and police later said they had no reason to doubt him. Zimmerman was not arrested.
We beer lovers are lucky to be living through a juncture of historic proportions in the U.S. beer scene. The tastes of individual beer appreciators are evolving. Small and independent craft brewers are rising to dominate the local level. And among large global brewers, we’re seeing both diversification as well as acquisitions and buy-outs. The recent Super Bowl ad by Anheuser-Busch InBev shed light on one large brewer’s take on these changing times when the brand decided to embrace being “macro”–aka large.
The “Brewed The Hard Way” ad has generated more fodder for the mass media machine than any other beer ad I’ve seen since becoming craft beer program director at the Brewers Association (publishers of CraftBeer.com) in 2007. The ad has caused quite a stir among beer lovers and craft brewers, too. As of February 24, it had 11 million views on YouTube–with 8,845 dislikes compared to 1,340 likes. A few bars were so upset, they removed the iconic Budweiser brand from draught lists.
This is definitely something to muse about! Here are some lines from the ad that have provoked the strongest reactions:
Craft brewers don’t have Super Bowl ads, but they do have skin in the game and they too have a very wide variety of light lager brands. Plus they have the Internet. Ninkasi Brewery, out of Oregon, made a parody video called “Brewed the Easy Way?”, which has gotten almost 170,000 views to date. Abita Brewery in Louisiana made a counter-video titled “This Is Our Craft”, claiming: “We don’t make one-size-fits-all beer.” These two videos give you just a small taste of what’s brewing. Even MillerCoors, maker of several of the top-selling lagers in the U.S., quickly retorted in a tweet: “We believe each and every style of beer is worth fussing over.”
Oy vey. Now that the dust has settled, I think a fair question to ask is: What does light lager stand for, anyway?
A Shift in the Way Americans Enjoy Beer
Fewer and fewer people are proving to be loyal fans of some of the biggest brands behind the style. The Wall Street Journal documented the shift in a November 2014 headline: “Budweiser Crowded Out by Craft Beer Craze”. What was once a 50-million-barrel brand of beer in 1988 is now 16 million barrel brand in 2013, with the group of small and independent craft brewers now collectively producing more beer. Things are definitely changing.
For example, India pale ale (IPA) remains the most-favored craft beer style, and it has been the most-entered category at the Great American Beer Festival® every year since 2002.
And the people who drink craft beer are a very diverse and discerning group. According to Nielsen research, 32 percent of craft beer fans are women. 22 percent of beer appreciators make less than $50,000 a year (based on household income), and another 40 percent make less than $75,000. 38 percent are 21-34 years old. Recognize yourselves in that mix?
In today’s evolving marketplace, many discerning and locally-minded beer lovers are demanding more from every beer that touches the tips of their thirsty tongues. Based on Internet comments, it’s clear that many craft beer lovers demand brewers who know how to keep it real, be transparent, stay true to their fans, be inclusive, avoid gender-specific marketing, and make each brand a beacon for good in the local community. Plus the beers must be flavorful and unique to be worthy of support.
It should be interesting to see where the “macro” and “micro” brands of America’s iconic beer scene go in the future. Light lager will have to coexist alongside the hundreds of U.S. beer styles, and beer fans will continue to thirst for brands that resonate with their own values. Loyalty and sales will be earned by those brewers that best mirror the ideals of American beer lovers.
Julia Herz, Publisher of CraftBeer.com and Craft Beer Program Director for the Brewers Association, is a homebrewer, BJCP beer judge and Certified Cicerone®. Despite her extensive experience, she will always consider herself a beer beginner on an unending journey to learn more about craft beer. Follow her on Twitter @herzmuses.
This piece was co-authored by Julie Gorte, Senior Vice President, Sustainable Investing at Pax World, and Heather Smith, Lead Sustainability Research Analyst at Pax World.
The New York Times this week printed a DealBook column with the lightning-rod title, “Do Activist Investors Target Women C.E.O.s?” It’s a provocative question, but it’s a stretch to imagine that it would merit serious consideration. Activist investors have to have some legitimate financial reasons to go after companies, and if it all came down to “hey, there’s a woman in charge” they would very quickly lose their power to make news, much less change companies. Right or not, investor activism on companies like Hewlett-Packard, General Motors, Pepsico and Yahoo is largely motivated by financial and management issues as opposed to a campaign to oust or undermine women.
The piece does raise some interesting issues though. An article last August in the Guardian pointed to the fact that 38 percent of women CEOs have been forced out of large companies, compared with 27 percent of men, in the previous ten years. It also noted that academic research by Ali Cook and Christy Glass of Utah State University had advanced the idea that companies in trouble were more likely to appoint minorities or women as CEOs, possibly because women and minorities are more likely to accept such positions as they may perceive them to be their only chance to get into the corner office.
Perhaps women are more likely to take up the reins at companies that are in trouble because they are still denied opportunities for more prestigious, or at least less risky, CEO and C-suite positions. There is certainly evidence that the playing field between men and women is not yet level. At the current rate of change, it is estimated it will be decades before women achieve parity in corporate boardrooms in the US, and it could be even longer before that happens among the ranks of CEOs, as the number of female CEOs within the Fortune 500 has hovered from 2.4 percent in 2007, 2008 and 2011 to a high of 4.8 percent in 2014. Throughout the world’s major economies, there remains a persistent and troubling pay gap between men and women.
Yet there is no reason to think that talent is distributed this unevenly between the genders. If it were, we wouldn’t continue to see evidence that putting women in positions of power is associated with better financial performance. Credit Suisse found that companies with more female managers had higher price/book value ratios than companies with none. A recent study by McKinsey found that companies in the top quartile of gender diversity were likely to achieve superior financial returns compared with the median in their industry and domicile. As long as women are viewed as having to be superstars in order to achieve what men can, companies will be unable to achieve the value creation they are capable of, and that will continue to trouble investors.
There’s good evidence to support that the fact that adding women to executive teams is good for investors. Credit Suisse, in its landmark report last year on women in senior management, found that companies headed by women do exhibit somewhat higher risk when measured by certain debt ratios, but that these levels were “by no means troubling.” In fact, in response to the DealBook column, Bespoke Investment Group was quick to point out that the S&P 500 companies with women CEOs actually outperformed those led by men over the past year. Bespoke also notes that companies run by women have lower valuations than their male-led counterparts, which could explain, in-part, the interest from activist investors.
The real story here is one we’ve heard before, but it’s still just as pertinent as ever: women have much to contribute to the creation of financial and economic value. We just need to get past our biases and longstanding discriminatory habits to make that happen.
As spring progresses, the real estate market continues to be competitive. Buyers are doing all sorts of things to get houses beyond writing a “pick me” letter. In some cases, the risks they are taking are tough to justify. As an agent, I have to protect my clients as best I can. I give them the information they need but ultimately they make the final decision.
So what really happens when a buyer, wanting to make their offer more competitive, waives one contingency — or all of them? Well, they put themselves at risk of losing their earnest money deposit, but let’s look at each one in depth.
Home Inspection: In this market buyers are afforded the ability to inspect a home in one of two manners — a general inspection in which they forfeit their right to negotiate with the seller for any repairs, or a home inspection where they can go back to the seller and ask for compensation or repairs. Sellers hate both of these inspections, but if given a choice, the general inspection is definitely less risky to the seller. There will be no more negotiation but, it still leaves an open window of time where the buyer can walk away for any reason.
A regular inspection is the seller’s nemesis. Many buyers think it’s because the seller is hiding something. I’m not saying this hasn’t happened but it usually isn’t the real reason. Sellers don’t want buyers to get regular inspections because they don’t want to fix anything, they don’t want to give an additional credit for broken items, and they don’t want to see a copy of the inspection report. Once they see the report and are made aware of every deficiency with their house, they are obligated to tell a future buyer about it should the current buyer decide to walk away.
We never advise clients to waive inspections. Sometimes they choose to on their own, but it’s not a good practice.
Another contingency to protect the buyer is the appraisal. If the property appraises below the contract value, the lender will only underwrite the loan for the financing percentage the buyer specified. If the buyer was putting 20 percent down, the lender will only finance 80 percent of the appraised amount, not 80 percent of the contract price. If the buyer wants the property and has the money to bridge the gap, it’s not an issue. But, a low appraisal brings all parties back to the negotiating table to reach a mutually accepted solution. The choices include the buyer kicking in the extra money, the seller reducing the price to the appraised value or a combination of both. If not, they can walk away.
If a buyer has additional cash in reserve and isn’t unwilling to use it, waiving the appraisal is not as risky.
The final contingency is financing. This is risky to waive only from the aspect that the financing approval is ultimately up to the lender. Online lenders, credit unions and other banks where you’re just a number are usually not a good bet to use if you plan to waive financing. Local lenders who know the market and get documentation from the buyer typically have no issues approving their loans unless the buyer does something unforeseen, like spends their down payment. But if the buyer does everything they’re supposed to, was honest about salary and assets, doesn’t lose their job, and interest rates don’t go through the roof overnight, then lender approval isn’t a difficult hurdle. There is a way around the entire hurdle though. Many lenders can pre-underwrite buyers which is an excellent advantage to have. Only then can a buyer then waive the financing without risk.
Contingencies exist to protect buyers, and seeing them waived in the name of getting a house is unfortunate and dangerous. There are plenty of stories of buyers who were encouraged to waive inspection completely and they paid dearly for it. The risk-taking buyers don’t believe it though until they see rain outside their window… and rain coming through their ceiling into the middle of their living room.
Melissa has been in the Real Estate Industry for 14 years and is a Realtor with City Chic Real Estate in Washington, D.C.
Submit photos of your dog, cat or guinea pig to Cuddle Clones, and they’ll send back a plushy replica of your pet. It’s cute, we think?
Perhaps it’s less odd if you imagine giving such a “clone” of a beloved pet to a family member who’s joining the military or heading off to college. Or maybe to a niece who can’t have her own dog. But according to Cuddle Clones, many customers order replicas of their deceased pets — or of their living pets for when that time inevitably comes.
Cuddle Clones charges $199 for large animals — including dogs, cats and horses — and $129 for smaller pets like rabbits, birds and guinea pigs. The usual processing time is a eight (yes, eight) months, although rush orders can be delivered in six or even four weeks for an extra $50 or $100, respectively.
According to the website, each stuffed animal is made to order by a team of 13 workers at a workshop in China’s Guangdong province. Distinguishing marks are added by airbrush, and the Kentucky-based company gives customers a number of customization options. Pets can be made standing up, sitting or lying down, with their ears perked up or flopped over, tongue out or in.
Cuddle Clones co-founder Jennifer Graham says on the website that the idea came to her in 2005, but it wasn’t until her Great Dane passed away a few years later that she really got to work.
There are other kinds of pet preservation services out there. But they either involve actual cloning, for a cool $100,000, or they lean toward cringe-worthy concepts like taxidermy, freeze-drying and cryogenics, which make a stuffed toy seem pretty nice.
As for the pets themselves, they’re not really sure what to make of it.
This is site is run by Sascha Endlicher, M.A., during ungodly late night hours. Wanna know more about him? Connect via Social Media by jumping to about.me/sascha.endlicher.
