text:
Q: python input check function not being called properly I'm working on a very simple temperature converter in Python (just for practice), and am struggling with some of the UX components. I'd like to have checks in place to continue prompting for variable input when invalid entries are made. My full code is below:
o_temp = ''

def temp_input(o_temp):
    o_temp = raw_input('Enter a temperature (round to nearest integer): ')
    return o_temp

def temp_input_check(o_temp):
    o_temp = list(o_temp)
    for i in o_temp:
        if i not in '1234567890':
            print 'Invalid entry. Please enter only the numerical temperature measurement in integer format.'
            temp_input(o_temp)
        else:
            break

def converter(o_temp):
    unit = raw_input('Convert to (F)ahrenheit or (C)elsius? ')
    unit  = unit.upper()
    if unit == 'F' or unit == 'f':
        n_temp = (9.0/5.0) * int(o_temp) + 32
        print '%d C = %d F' % (o_temp, n_temp)
        quit()
    elif unit == 'C' or unit == 'c':
        n_temp = (5.0/9.0) * (int(o_temp) - 32)
        print '%d F = %d C' % (o_temp, n_temp)
        quit()
    else: #check for valid entry
        print 'Invalid entry. Please enter F for Fahrenheit or C for Celsius'
        unit_input()

def temp_converter():
#title, call sub-functions
    print ''
    print 'Temperature Converter'
    print ''
    temp_input(o_temp)
    temp_input_check(o_temp)
    converter(o_temp)

temp_converter()

However, when I enter an invalid entry (say, a letter or a combination of letters and numbers) into the o_temp prompt, the code does not seem to recognize that this is invalid and continues with the unit prompt. Am I not correctly returning the variable? What's the issue here? I tried removing the initial o_temp declaration but then I got "NameError: global name 'o_temp' is not defined"

EDIT

I came up with this solution, any further suggestions to refine the code at all?
def converter():
    print 'Temperature Converter'
    while 1:
        temp = raw_input('Starting temperature? ')
        try:
            temp = float(temp)
        except ValueError:
            print 'Invalid entry. Please enter only the numerical temperature measurement.'
        else:
            break
    while 1:
        unit = raw_input('Convert to Fahrenheit or Celsius? ')
        if unit.upper().startswith('F') == True:
            print "%f C = %f F" % (temp, temp*9./5+32)
            return False
        elif unit.upper().startswith('C') == True:
            print "%f F = %f C" % (temp, (temp-32)*5./9)
            return False
        else:
            print 'Invalid entry. Please enter F for Fahrenheit or C for Celsius'

converter()

A: Your for loop isn't implemented correctly.
def temp_input_check(o_temp):
    o_temp = list(o_temp)
    for i in o_temp:
        if i not in '1234567890':
            print 'Invalid entry. Please enter only the numerical temperature measurement in integer format.'
            temp_input(o_temp)
        else:
            break

You check every character for an invalid entry.  If you typed in multiple invalid characters, it'll keep hitting the trigger after you have already determined that the string is invalid!
Also, if your first character is valid, you're telling it to break from the for loop (in your code 1fdsdfdsf would be a valid temperature, because it would skip every character after hitting that else statement and breakout from the loop).
Also, your temp_input doesn't need to accept an argument in the function (you're just gonna return the user's input).  You actually want to assign it after you call the function instead of having it as an argument
Also, you're calling temp_input again to get the user input, but not capturing that anywhere with a return - so it's ultimately not doing anything.  You should have your function return a True or False, and then catch that on the outside of the checker if you want to have the user try and enter a better temperature:
def temp_input_check(o_temp):
    o_temp = list(o_temp)
    for i in o_temp:
        if i not in '1234567890':
            print 'Invalid entry. Please enter only the numerical temperature measurement in integer format.'
            return False
        else:
            pass # nothing is wrong with this character, keep checking
    return True # if we hit this line, there were no problem characters

Then, when you call the stuff:
while(1):
    o_temp = temp_input()
    if temp_input_check(o_temp):
        break # this means our o_temp is allllright.
              # otherwise, go back to the start of the loop and ask for another temp
converter(o_temp)

A: You define some functions, then call temp_coverter(). This function calls temp_input(otemp), sending it an empty string for no reason that I can see, other than the possibility that you're unaware that you can define a function with no parameters. This function then returns a value, which you don't save.
After that, temp_input_check(otemp) is called, which attempts to validate the same empty string. This function's returned value isn't saved, which isn't a big loss, because None isn't a particularly useful value to save.
Then converter(otemp) sends the same old empty string to the actual converter. Mayhem results.
I recommend spending some quality time with the tutorial.
When you're done, the code should look more like this:
def converter():
    print 'Temperature Converter'
    unit = raw_input('Convert to Fahrenheit or Celsius? ')
    while 1:
        temp = raw_input('Starting temperature? ')
        try:
            temp = float(temp)
        except ValueError:
            print 'Not a valid temperature.'
        else:
            break
    if unit.lower().startswith('f'):
        print "%f C = %f F" % (temp, temp*9./5+32)
    else:
        print "%f F = %f C" % (temp, (temp-32)*5./9)

converter()

A: because you mentioned 'o_temp' as the function parameter in the end but mentioned it as a empty string at Start. Don't give same names for global & function variables (just to avoid confusion). the function took the o_temp you mentioned above as parameter and neglects the one inside them.
Also the raw_input won't consider the input as string. Try input instead to avoid the sensibility of not using str to correct the loop.
This will do:
def converter():
    o_temp = float(raw_input('Enter a temperature (round to nearest integer): '))
    for i in str(o_temp):
        if i not in ['1','2','3','4','5','6','7','8','9','0','.']:
            print 'Invalid entry. Please enter only the numerical temperature measurement in integer format.'
    unit = raw_input('Convert to (F)ahrenheit or (C)elsius? ')
    if unit in ['f','F']:
        n_temp = (9.0/5.0) * float(o_temp) + 32
        print '%f C = %f F' % (o_temp, n_temp)
    elif unit in ['c','C']:
        n_temp = (5.0/9.0) * (float(o_temp) - 32)
        print '%f F = %f C' % (o_temp, n_temp)
    else: #check for valid entry
        print 'Invalid entry. Please enter F for Fahrenheit or C for    Celsius'
        unit_input()

def temp_converter():
#title, call sub-functions
    print ''
    print 'Temperature Converter'
    print ''
    converter()

print temp_converter()

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


Mighty Mouse. Underdog. Rocket J. Squirrel. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. And now… Mighty Gecko!
Followers of Silicon Labs will already be familiar with the company's amphibious avenger, the radioactive byproduct of Norway's Energy Micro and Texas-based Silicon Labs. It's not the first acquisition SiLabs has made, nor does it appear to be their last adventure. But my stars, Grandma, that gecko is kicking some detachable tail.
Like most comic book superheroes, this gecko has special powers. In the most recent installment, it was revealed that Mighty Gecko has wireless capability. It can hear through walls! It can communicate telepathically! It can pop popcorn from 30 paces! Okay, maybe it's a bit low-wattage for that, but you never can tell with these superpowers, can you? Better safe than sorry.
To the engineering minded, the new EFR32 Mighty Gecko chips now have 2.4-GHz multiprotocol interfaces. And it's the "multiprotocol" part that's interesting. Gecko has supported 2.4-GHz ZigBee for a while, or Wi-Fi, or Thread, or Bluetooth, or your own made-up proprietary protocol. But all of them at once? That's amazing!
What the new chips have over their predecessors is more memory and more firmware that allows them to switch among all the various 2.4-GHz radio interfaces at will. And while that may seem kind of pointless – wouldn't you just pick an interface and stick with it? – it's actually pretty handy in practice.
Take a smart home gadget, for example. The customer brings it home, tears open the box, plugs it in, and downloads the companion app. Then – without reading the directions, natch – he tries to access his gadget through the new phone app.
Once the gadget is up and running, maybe it uses ZigBee from then on. Or whatever. Maybe it's nothing more than an exotic garage-door opener: the Lift-o-Matic 3000, now with more IoT! Jumping back and forth between two or more wireless interfaces is becoming more useful all the time, and consumer-level users can't be expected to configure those interfaces properly by themselves. You need one MCU that can hop onto the most convenient signal, then hop back off when its work is done.
Within limits, a new EFR32 chip can even be a bridge between two wireless networks, such as ZigBee and Bluetooth. It won't make a good high-speed network switch, by any means, but it's capable enough to camp on both networks (intermittently) while monitoring both for commands, interesting data, or feedback. Got a ZigBee mesh network that's controlled from a Wi-Fi-enabled machine? Mighty Gecko has got you covered. Bam!
Because IoT security isn't yet all it could be, the new Mighty Geckos have on-chip crypto logic to take the load off the processor. In fact, it's got two sets: one for the radio and one just for software. That means an encrypted radio stream doesn't have to steal the crypto hardware away from applications, or vice versa. Your code can encrypt/decrypt data independent of anything that's happening on the radio at the time. Pow!
When we play with our smartphones, we naturally assume they can handle Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, and cellular communications all at once. You don't hang up on a caller to check Facebook, or disconnect from Wi-Fi to connect a headset. They all work at once, enabling and disabling network connectivity as needed. That's essentially what Mighty Gecko is doing, minus the cellular part.
It may not be able to leap tall buildings, but, for the right type of designer, Mighty Gecko might still save the day.


text:
Trump Trump says he's been taking hydroxychloroquine drug he touted for COVID-19
President Donald Trump on Monday told reporters he's been taking hydroxychloroquine, the anti-malaria drug he's touted as a possible "game changer" treatment for COVID-19.
He said he asked the White House doctor if he could take the unproven treatment despite having no symptoms, adding he's been taking a pill a day for about a week and a half.
"I'm still fine," he said, referring to possible dangerous side effects.
The FDA last month specifically warned against taking hydroxychloroquine "outside of a hospital setting or a clinical trial due to risk of heart rhythm problems."
"I asked him, 'What do you think?' He said, 'Well if you'd like it.'" I said. 'Yeah I'd like it. I'd like to take it. 'Yeah I'd like it. I'd like to take it," Trump claimed. "So, I'm taking the zinc and the hydroxy. And all I can tell you is, so far I seem to be okay."
The president said he's received "a lot of positive letters" offering good feedback of hydroxychloroquine and insisted even if it's not effective, he claimed, "You're not going to get sick or die."
Tune into ABC at 1 p.m. ET and ABC News Live at 4 p.m. ET every weekday for special coverage of the novel coronavirus with the full ABC News team, including the latest news, context and analysis.
"And it seems to have an impact — and maybe it does, maybe it doesn't — but if it doesn't, you're not going to get sick or die. This is a, a pill that's been used for a long time for 30, 40 years on the malaria and or lupus to, and even on arthritis I guess from what I understand, so it's been heavily tested …" the president said.
"What do you have to lose?" he added, describing the drug as a "preventative" measure.
When surprised reporters asked if he were taking it because he's exhibited symptoms, the president replied, "Zero symptoms."
Trump told them that he was "just waiting to see your eyes light up when I said this," adding, "and I'm still here. I'm still here to explain to you."
"I take a pill every day. At some point, I'll stop. What I'd like to do is I'd like to have the cure and/or the vaccine. And that will happen, I think, very soon," he added.
While the FDA has warned of serious side effects of the drug currently unapproved to treat COVID-19, Trump has for weeks touted the promise of the drug as a potential "game changer," often at odds with his own public health officials.
"I actually haven't heard a bad story to tell you the truth. I haven't heard a bad story, so it's pretty amazing actually," Trump has said promoting the its use for patients with serious cases of the virus during a meeting with recovered coronavirus patients last month.
A panel of doctors and other experts convened by the National Institutes of Health in April recommended against using hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin together to treat COVID-19, unless they were being used as part of a clinical trial.
The Infectious Diseases Society of America also recommends against giving patients combinations of hydroxycloroquine, the similar drug chloroquine, or azithromycin unless enrolled in a clinical trial.
Trump has repeatedly suggested that people combine the two drugs, both in briefings at the White House and on Twitter.
While the president has persisted in his promotion of the promise of hydroxychloroquine by highlighting anecdotal stories of success when the drug has been used, the nation's top infectious disease expert Dr. Anthony Fauci has said there is no scientific evidence to support an endorsement of the drug.
"The answer is no," Fauci told a reporter bluntly last month, while standing beside the president, when questioned about the drug's potential promise.
"The information that you're referring to specifically is anecdotal," Fauci told the reporter. "It was not done in a controlled clinical trial. So you really can't make any definitive statement about it."
Earlier in April, the president even appeared to block Fauci from further contradicting him when a reporter sought to ask Fauci again whether there is any evidence of the drug's success, in light of the president's continued promotion of the drug.
"Do you know how many times he's answered that question? Maybe 15," Trump interjected before Fauci, who was standing at the podium, could answer the reporter's question.
"If it doesn't work, it's nothing lost by doing it. Nothing," Trump said that day in promoting the application of the drug as low-risk, a point he repeated to reporters Monday.
Asked what evidence he has that it has a preventative effect, the president said: "Here we go. Are you ready? Here's my evidence. I get a lot of positive calls about it."
"I want the people of this nation to feel good. I don't want them being sick. And there is a very good chance that this has an impact, especially early on. But you look at front-line workers. You look at doctors and nurses. A lot of them are taking it as a preventative," the president continued. "What do you have to lose?"
Notably, though the FDA warns against its use outside of a hospital setting, the agency is allowing frontline workers to use hydroxychloroquine as part of controlled, clinical trials.
Dr. William W. O'Neill, leading one of the largest studies of the drug's use as a potential preventative medication, has said safe studies are necessary to determine the medication's potential.
The randomized, double-blinded study he's overseeing is a 3,000-subject look at Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit at whether hydroxychloroquine prevents front-line workers from contracting the COVID-19 virus.
"We are not involved in politics; we are scientists," Dr. O'Neill, a world-renowned interventional cardiologist and researcher, said on May 8.
"This is a drug that has been used safely for more than 70 years to prevent malaria and treat other issues like lupus, with the potential to have active effect on COVID-19," O'Neill said, a sentiment Trump echoed Monday at his surprise announcement. "We owe it to people — particularly front-line workers — to scientifically determine if it works."
O'Neill also said that whether it works, "having those results produced in a scientific manner moves us toward the goal of knowing how to protect our frontline workers."
Other countries including Spain and Brazil have also launched large scale studies for front-line workers testing hydroxychloroquine's effectiveness in preventing the virus.
Currently, there are no FDA-approved preventative medications or vaccines for COVID-19.
ABC News' Anne Flaherty contributed to this report.
This report was featured in the Tuesday, May 19, 2020, episode of "Start Here," ABC News' daily news podcast.
"Start Here" offers a straightforward look at the day's top stories in 20 minutes. Listen for free every weekday on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify, the ABC News app or wherever you get your podcasts.
What to know about the coronavirus:How it started and how to protect yourself: Coronavirus explainedWhat to do if you have symptoms: Coronavirus symptomsTracking the spread in the U.S. and worldwide: Coronavirus map
Trump Federal watchdog to investigate Trump official's role in distribution of coronavirus relief funds to tribes – ABC News
Trump Trump says he's taking hydroxychloroquine, unproven drug he's touted for COVID-19

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Please read these Terms and Conditions carefully before using the https://tabletunderbudget.com/ website operated by Tablet Under Budget team.
Our website may contain links to third-party web sites or services that are not owned or controlled by Tablet Under Budget.
Tablet Under Budget has no control over, and assumes no responsibility for, the content, privacy policies, or practices of any third party web sites or services. You further acknowledge and agree that Tablet Under Budget shall not be responsible or liable, directly or indirectly, for any damage or loss caused or alleged to be caused by or in connection with use of or reliance on any such content, goods or services available on or through any such web sites or services.
The site and its original content, features and functionality are owned by Tablet Under Budget and are protected by international copyright, trademark, patent, trade secret and other intellectual property or proprietary rights laws. All third party copyrights and trademarks are the property of their respective owners under international and/or local intellectual property or proprietary rights laws.


Karachi: KARACHI: Karachi District Coordination Officer (DCO) Javed Hanif Khan has said arrangements for alternate routes for traffic flow should be identified before commencing work on Signal-free Corridor (SFC)-IV to avoid any mishaps on Shahrah-e-Faisal, one of the major arteries of the city.
The DCO reviewed these measures during a meeting he convened on Wednesday, following a detailed visit of Shahrah-e-Faisal for overseeing the pros and cons of SFC-IV before starting construction. All stakeholders and city's administrative agencies assured the DCO for cooperation to facilitate the CDGK for timely and swift construction of SFC-IV.
The DCO urged the CCTP to diligently finalise alternate routes and diversions for the heavy traffic flow at Shahrah-e Faisal to avoid unwanted gridlocks and inconvenience to the citizens. The meeting decided that traffic signals on the Tipu Sultan Road would be closed for this purpose.


text:
Hornschuchia alba är en kirimojaväxtart som först beskrevs av A. St.-hil., och fick sitt nu gällande namn av Robert Elias Fries. Hornschuchia alba ingår i släktet Hornschuchia och familjen kirimojaväxter. Inga underarter finns listade i Catalogue of Life.

Källor

Kirimojaväxter
alba

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
UVF leader met DUP hours before controversial Bloomfield walkway bonfire set alight
Riot police presence at the Bloomfield Walkway bonfire after it was set alight when mediation between loyalists and the DUP failed. Picture by Mal McCann
ALLISON MORRIS
Stephen Matthews, widely believed to be the east Belfast UVF leader, attended the final-hour meetings
SENIOR loyalists, including a man believed to be a UVF leader, attended a meeting with a DUP councillor that ran until the early hours of the morning in a last-ditch effort to resolve a bonfire dispute in east Belfast.
The Irish News has seen details of meetings that took place in the early hours of Wednesday, just hours before a bonfire at Bloomfield walkway was prematurely set on fire.
Lee Reynolds, the DUP group leader on Belfast City Council, was present at the meeting, as were Jamie Bryson and Stephen Matthews – widely believed to be the leader of the east Belfast UVF.
At 11.45pm on Tuesday Mr Reynolds and mediators met senior loyalists. Police were asked to attend but declined.
The meeting took place hours after the High Court ruled that the landowner, the Department for Infrastructure, was responsible for the protection of life and property on its land at the walkway and that the pyre had to be removed or dramatically reduced in size.
The meeting lasted until after 1am with loyalists from the East Belfast Community Initiative, including Bryson and Matthews, going to the walkway to speak with a crowd of around 150 young people who had gathered at the site.
This was done after speaking with mediators to calm tensions. There were fears at that time that the large crowd was preparing to engage in civil disorder and a large number of riot police were deployed to the area.
The bonfire builders were given the option to dismantle the bonfire themselves or told the PSNI and contractors – who were former members of the military – would take the material away, by force if necessary.
Bonfire builders refused to dismantle the pyre, which was five times the fire-service-recommended height for the plot, saying they would sit on the wood to prevent it being moved.
At 5am police moved in to start removing the material. At this stage only around 15 young people remained at the site.
They set fire to the structure before fleeing, leaving fire crews to keep the blaze under control and hose down nearby properties.
Masked contractors moved in and removed the remaining wood under the protection of riot police.
The same contractors, protected by around 200 riot police, later removed a bonfire built in the middle of the road at Cluan Place in east Belfast.
When asked about the talks, the East Belfast Community Initiative said the "late-night meetings took place with the view to trying to de-escalate tensions".
"Who made up our delegation is a matter for ourselves. However, we can confirm that all attendees were present as representatives of EBCI. No-one in the delegation is a member of any proscribed organisation," the spokesperson added.
Mr Reynolds has been approached for comment.
Police presence at the Bloomfield Walkway bonfire after it was set alight prematurely as contractors were about to move in. Picture Mal McCann.
14 July, 2018 01:00 Northern Ireland news


Home / Large Bore / 14.5MM / Ammo / 14.5mm Russian steel case ball ammo with 10% download and bronze projectile. Price per round.
14.5mm Russian steel case ball ammo with 10% download and bronze projectile. Price per round.


text:
Source of Calamity CH 030 Unexpected Delight
December 30, 2022 nyxbird 3 Comments
Chen Xiao felt that she probably had stumbled across the worst bad luck in her life. When she came to work in the morning, she found that there was a problem with the data she compiled last night. Yet she had worked overtime until eleven o'clock last night and made sure everything was accurate before she left.
After working in the company for five years, she didn't think she would make such a low-level mistake. After all, she was now a small supervisor, how could she not even do the inspection well?
But the fact was that her data did have a problem, and there was a big deviation from the real data.
Originally, Chen Xiao wanted to take the time to redo it again, but people from the supervisory department came.
Chen Xiao also knew this person——Meng Hui.
He was sort of notorious.
The low level female employees of the company, who were good-looking, have all been harassed by him, but it was only verbal harassment, and the surveillance did not capture it, so even if they wanted to make a complaint there was no evidence. The female employees could only swallow their anger and grievances. And Meng Hui was very generous to the people in the same department and very ingratiating to the leaders above, so although his office life might not be called a fish in the water, it had always been satisfactory.
The company was too big, so it was normal to have a few people like this. Chen Xiao originally planned to treat this man as air.
Unexpectedly, he seemed to have a dog nose. Just as Chen Xiao started to redo the data, he appeared, and directly called up the wrong data and started to check it.
"Even if I am fired I will f**king beat him up!" Chen Xiao was in the women's bathroom, her make-up was all smudged with tears, but her anger was not less for it, and said with a stiff neck, "No big deal, it's just unemployment, I won't make it easy for him! "
A colleague persuaded her: "Just endure it, you finally became a supervisor. If you quit, someone else will just pick up the benefit. How many projects have you been through in the past few years, and you get big year-end bonuses every year? It's normal for him to see you and be unhappy, it's only mediocrity that is not envied by others."
Chen Xiao wiped her eyes with a tissue. Her eyeliner and mascara were not waterproof, and were completely smudged. Chen Xiao also didn't care about her image anymore, and said as if shattering the jar: "No way, he wants me to get lost, so even if I leave I will drag him with me!"
The colleague took out the toilet paper she was clutching, threw it into the wastebasket, and patted Chen Xiao on the shoulder: "Didn't Wang Hong say that he went to contact people? Don't be impulsive."
Chen Xiao understood her boyfriend: "What can he do? He has only been in the company for a year, and he doesn't even recognize everyone. How can he help?"
Colleague: "Since he said it, there must be a way."
"So shameless." Chen Xiao trembled angrily, "Speaking ill of people behind their backs, what kind of man is he? Did I say something wrong in the chat group? He is not only a hag, but even worse than a hag!"
The colleague quickly said: "Keep your voice down, he is very vindictive."
Chen Xiao yelled at the bathroom door: "I'll say it if I want to, dare to do sh*tty things but don't dare to own up to it. He is a piece of sh*t himself, and so he sees others as sh*t. If he had a good-looking face himself, he would definitely be the first to climb the high-level executives' bed. If he can't eat grapes, he will say grapes are sour, bah!"
The colleague was helpless: "Are you sure there was no problem with the data when you left last night?"
The topic was brought back, Chen Xiao said: "You still don't know my memory? Today's wrong data, only the small data are all right, and the wrong ones are all big data. I think someone changed my data. I guess it's too troublesome to change everything and only the big ones were changed."
Colleague: "No one will believe this."
Chen Xiao: "It's that surnamed Meng who came to change my data in the middle of the night."
Colleague: "You don't have a password for your computer?"
Chen Xiao: "Set what password on the company's computer?"
The colleague recalled that she did not set a password either: "Let's set one in the future."
These small employees didn't have any confidential documents in their hands, so they didn't have the habit of setting passwords.
But making a mistake in their position, and it was also such a mentally retarded mistake, even if she was not fired, Chen Xiao would be demoted.
After working for five years, don't know how many times she pulled all-nighters. In the end, all her efforts came to naught, and she had to start from scratch again. Anyone who was in her place would collapse mentally.
The colleague said: "Don't worry, maybe Wang Hong really has a way."
Chen Xiao sniffled, and she asked, "Did you bring eyeliner and mascara? Did you bring concealer?"
Colleague: "…..You are amazing, you still have the mind to put on makeup."
Chen Xiao: "I can't let that b*tch Meng Hui see me like this. Even if I leave, I have to leave cleanly and beautifully."
The colleague took out the eyeliner and mascara from her bag, and also handed the concealer to Chen Xiao: "Do you want me to help?"
Chen Xiao painted eyeliner in front of the mirror, her hands were trembling, she couldn't draw it well, so she said, "Please help me put it on, thank you."
The colleague sighed: "Thank me for what, I didn't thank you when you stayed up late with me to enter data."
When she left the bathroom, Chen Xiao turned into that strong woman again. She was wearing a professional suit and high heels, and she walked like the wind, with an imposing aura.
Meng Hui was talking to the person next to him, when he saw Chen Xiao arrive, and a smile appeared on the corner of his mouth.
Since she dared to say that about him, he would definitely teach her a lesson.
Chen Xiao stood in front of Meng Hui, the two looked at each other, and sparks and gunpowder crackled.
"I didn't make a mistake in the data." Chen Xiao said word by word, "Someone changed my data."
Meng Hui smiled and said, "You can go check the monitoring then. If no one was in the office last night, what would you say then?"
Chen Xiao: "Go ahead, go now, as if I'm afraid of you?"
The two of them were still in the office area, by Chen Xiao's seat.
Meng Hui sneered: "Chen Xiao, you really won't cry unless you see the coffin."
Chen Xiao stared at Meng Hui: "Meng Hui, don't think I'm afraid of you. I've been in the company for five years and I haven't missed a single data error, no matter how small. Even if I'm unlucky this time and get framed, I'm not wrong."
"Instead, it's you who harass the female staff and find fault during the inspection when you see someone you don't like."
Chen Xiao said: "I haven't seen many people like you, but you are the best at it."
Meng Hui shrugged: "Do you have any evidence? If there is no evidence, it is slander. So many people have heard it. I could sue you."
Chen Xiao: "Go, go!"
Chen Xiao felt that she was about to leave the Qin Group. She had feelings for this company. She joined the Qin Group branch office as soon as she graduated, and was promoted to the head office because of her good performance. It took five years to become a supervisor, and the promotion speed could not be called slow.
Although she couldn't say she understood Meng Hui, she knew about him.
His own brother was the department manager of the supervisory department, that was, the department head, and he had worked hard for ten years before he could rise to this position.
Meng Hui's elder brother was very popular in the company, with good people skills, and an upright character, but he doted on his younger brother very much.
Even if his brother knew what Meng Hui had done, he would at most say a few words in private. If Meng Hui didn't listen, he had no choice and could only cover it up for his brother.
Chen Xiao knew that Meng Hui being able to say such things as investigating and checking the monitoring proved that he was not afraid to be investigated, and the monitoring could not find anything at all.
"You don't need to chase me away." Chen Xiao raised her head high, "I'll leave by myself."
Chen Xiao was like a female warrior. She picked up her bag, packed her things neatly, and was ready to go out with her head held high.
But when she reached the door of the office area, she couldn't move.
Why should she leave, why was she leaving?
She wasn't the one who did the wrong thing, so why wasn't Meng Hui the one who left?
Just when she was about to open the door, Wang Hong arrived. Wang Hong came in a hurry. He pushed the door in and grabbed Chen Xiao's wrist: "Where are you going?"
Seeing her boyfriend, Chen Xiao burst into tears uncontrollably.
In the company, Wang Hong couldn't hug his girlfriend in his arms to comfort her, so he acted like a good brother, put his arms around his girlfriend's shoulders, and said seriously: "Don't worry, the savior is here."
Savior?
Not only Chen Xiao, but also the surrounding employees heard these two words.
What kind of person could be called a savior?
Could it be that Wang Hong called the head of the information department?
It couldn't be?
Under everyone's curious eyes, a person suddenly rounded the corner of the corridor outside the door. The person was wearing a black suit, very neat and proper, his hair was combed back, exposing his forehead and fine facial features, and his walking pace was calm and unhurried, like some young master who had walked into the wrong venue.
On the way here, Shen Zhen listened to Wang Hong explain the cause and effect, and asked questions about points that were unclear.
He probably understood what people like Meng Hui were thinking.
This kind of person didn't necessarily like to bully others. To be precise, his ultimate goal of bullying others was not just to gain benefits.
But to establish his "upper" status and tell others his superiority in this way. Over time, people would acquiesce that he was the "management".
His words have a certain authority.
Therefore, when this authority was not widely recognized, he would not allow anyone to violate his authority.
Even if he was anonymous when he was smack-talked by Chen Xiao. Because once this habit was developed, he himself would become arrogant.
Thinking no one could challenge himself.
That was to say, he had successfully brainwashed himself before he had brainwashed others.
"Chen Xiao, right?" Shen Zhen looked at Chen Xiao.
Chen Xiao didn't know Shen Zhen, she didn't know how this man became her savior, but she still nodded honestly.
Shen Zhen: "Wang Hong will accompany you to drink something, go."
Wang Hong walked out with his girlfriend in his arms, and temporarily left her things with her colleague.
"Shen Zhen?" Meng Hui, who was a distance away, recognized Shen Zhen, and he sneered: "You still dare to come?"
Shen Zhen walked over, and his leisurely strolling pace infuriated Meng Hui.
"Why don't I dare to come?" Shen Zhen asked with a smile.
Meng Hui was stunned suddenly, that's right, Shen Zhen went to the top floor to gain an intimate relationship with a high-level executive, and he was still in the company, which meant he had succeeded, otherwise he would have left yesterday, how could he still appear in front of his eyes now.
Meng Hui swallowed.
Shen Zhen: "I'm the secretary to the CEO now."
Meng Hui: "!!!"
"So I have some privileges too." Shen Zhen smiled at him.
Shen Zhen said: "For example, having you and your brother both be suspended, and accept an investigation first."
"If there is no problem with what you two have done, then don't worry about anything, if not….."
Shen Zhen said, "Sexual harassment alone is enough for you to be fired, right?"
Shen Zhen: "How about it, I'm still in front of you, are you delighted, are you surprised?"
Previous PostAfter The Vicious Cannon Fodder Was Reborn CH 263 Möbius LoopNext PostAfter Two Lifetimes I Was Reborn Back Inside A Book CH 030 Huo Bo
3 thoughts on "Source of Calamity CH 030 Unexpected Delight"
Good, beat him hard! But still it's little weird to have so many 'bad' workers in company of such perfectionist (⋒ ⌣̀_⌣́)
Thank You for the new chapter ♡ฅ(ᐤˊ꒳ฅˋᐤ)
tintlll says:
Thanks for the updat!


The Children and the Carers are carefully counted. Hands up those not here!
Snowy the Barn Owl shows her skills to the children.
Sadly the Lions did not want to come out and play.
The Children are counted in and counted out of the Paradise Wildlife Park.
Even a simple swing can bring a moment of true joy.
A chance to renew old friendships appealed to one Rotarian.
The Rotarians are provided with a quick ice lolly by the carers - thanks very much, it was just what the doctor ordered.
A Seat of Rotarians - it is the new collective noun!


Ever wondered who's pulling the strings at the top of the United States Postal Service? Here's a list of the entire USPS leadership organization, broken down into separate categories. Like the Notorious B.I.G. famously said: If you don't know, now you know.
Executives are in bold, and members of their team are listed below them.
Led by current Postmaster General Megan Brennan, here is a comprehensive list of the entire USPS executive leadership organization, broken into categories.
Shipping is one of the great cornerstones of our nation's economy, and the rise of eCommerce proves America needs the US Postal Service now more than ever.


text:
Ranting and Rating: Why PolitiFact's Numbers Don't Add Up
Crossposted from Bewz, Newz, 'n' Vewz.
"I've given you a decision to make,
Things to lose, things to take,
Just as she's about ready to cut it up, She says:
"Wait a minute, honey, I'm gonna add it up."
-Violent Femmes
One of the more common methods of using PolitiFact's findings is to add up total ratings and form a conclusion based on the data. In its simplest form, this is when someone looks at, for example, 100 PolitiFact ratings, 50 from Republicans and 50 from Democrats, then adds up who received more trues and who had more falses, and concludes from that total who is more credible. The reality is that a collection of PolitiFact's ratings provides far more information about the ideological bias of PolitiFact's editors than it does about the people they check.
One of the reasons this flawed method is so popular is that PolitiFact frequently promotes it as part of its shtick. Whether it's the ubiquitous report cards, or the iPhone app with its absurd Truth Index (described as a "Dow Jones Industrial Average of truth"), PolitiFact implicitly tells readers they can simply click a link to find out the credibility of a particular politician. Like most diet pills and get-rich-quick schemes, it's snake oil science and complete junk.
The most obvious flaw with this method is selection bias. There's simply no way for PolitiFact, or anyone for that matter, to check every statement by every politician. This means PolitiFact needs to have some sort of random selection process in order to ensure their sample reflects the wide variety of political statements being made, as well as the politicians making them. Without a random process, editors and writers might investigate statements that pique their own ideological interests. And how does PolitiFact choose its subjects?
"We choose to check things we are curious about. If we look at something and we think that an elected official or talk show host is wrong, then we will fact-check it."
Ruh-roh.
This "things we're curious about" method may explain why Senate hopeful Christine O'Donnell (Rep-RI) garnered four PolitiFact ratings, while the no less comical Senate hopeful Alvin Greene (Dem-SC) received none.
Officially, PolitiFact only checks claims that are the "most newsworthy and significant." (Unless it's about Obama getting his daughters a puppy. Or baseball). PolitiFact also has a penchant for accepting reader suggestions. Anyone visiting PolitiFact's Facebook page is aware that their fans overwhelmingly reside on the left side of the political spectrum. If PolitiFact asks 50,000 liberals what statements to check, guess what? Statements about Fast and Furious won't be as popular as, say, Sarah Palin.
It's also important to consider the source of the statement being rated. For example, when Barack Obama made the claim that preventative health care is an overall cost saver, and Republican David Brooks wrote a column explaining Obama is wrong; PolitiFact gave a True to Brooks. This spares Obama a demerit in his column* while granting Republicans an easy True. Another example of this source selection is evident in the rating about $16 muffins for a Department of Justice meeting. Despite the claim being made in an official Inspector General report and being repeated by several media outlets, including the New York Times and PolitiFact partners NPR and ABC news, PolitiFact hung a False rating around Bill O'Reilly's neck. PolitiFact refrained from judging the nominally liberal media outlets--and the source of the claim--all while burdening O'Reilly with a negative mark in his file.
One of the most overlooked problems with analyzing a tally of the ratings is the inconsistent application of standards PolitiFact employs in different fact checks. Even if one was to assume PolitiFact used a random selection process and assigned its ratings to the appropriate source, we still have a problem when subjects aren't checked according to the same set of standards. For example, Politifact rated Obama "Half True" when he made a claim about the rates certain taxpayers pay. His claim only earned that rating when PolitiFact considered the amount their employers contributed to the employees' tax burden. Almost simultaneously, they labeled Herman Cain Mostly False in a similar claim specifically because he used the same formula. A cursory analysis of total ratings fails to detect this disparate treatment. When considering such flexible guidelines, the "report cards" don't seem like such a credible evaluation.
Ultimately, the sum of PolitiFact's ratings tells us far more about what interests PolitiFact's editors and readers than it does about the credibility of any individual politician. With so many flaws in their process, and such a minute sample size in a vast ocean of statements, conclusions about a subject's overall honesty should be considered dubious. We recognize that this flawed process will undoubtedly affect liberal politicians as well. However, it's our contention that the personal bias of the editors and writers will harm those on the right side of the aisle more often and more dramatically than those on the left.
Adding up PolitiFact's ratings in an attempt to analyze a person's or party's credibility produces misleading results. Until PolitiFact includes a check for selection bias and establishes and adheres to transparent and objective standards, an analysis based on their cumulative work is ill-founded at best, and grossly inaccurate at worst.
*PolitiFact did eventually give Obama a False after he repeatedly made the claim, but still spared several high profile Democrats for the same statement. Unlike perennial fact check favorites like the jobs created by the stimulus or Obama's birth certificate, PolitiFact seems to think the issue isn't worth revisiting.
Update (4/8/2012)-Shortly after (because?) we published this post PolitiFact did revisit Obama's "Preventative Care Saves Money" claim, and gave him another False. Fair enough. But there's still plenty of other claims that give Obama a pass while simultaneously earning their "We give good grades to the GOP too!" chits that the original point still stands.-Jeff
(2/1/2012): Corrected Alvin Greene's state and name.
Posted by Jeff D. at 9:30 PM 2 comments:
Labels: 2012, Bewz Newz 'n' Vewz, Commentary, Report Cards, Selection Bias
The Weekly Standard: PolitiFact Can't Get Its Story Straight on Romneycare and Abortion
Does the truth have a shelf-life?
Jeffrey H. Anderson, writing at the Weekly Standard, takes the fact-finding DeLorean all the way back to 2007 to highlight PolitiFact's conflicting ratings on RomneyCare's coverage of abortions. Before you read Anderson's article, check out the graphics for the remarkably dissimilar PolitiFact articles:
In 2007, PolitiFact says RomneyCare covers abortions:
Image clipped from PolitiFact.com
In 2012, the issue isn't so clear:
Anderson notes:
[The Gingrich rating] sounds reasonable enough — except that the 2007 PolitiFact verdict directly refutes it.
At first glance the statements have just enough wiggle room between them to possibly have different ratings. But Anderson's article explains there's not enough to justify different ratings..
Also observe how PolitiFact presented Newt's statement. Newt claimed "Romney signed government-mandated health care with taxpayer-funded abortions." Notice PolitiFact's first question: "Did Mitt Romney make taxpayer funded abortion the law of the land?" The difference is that abortion's status as a covered procedure prior to Romney enacting the legislation is independent of Gingrich's claim. The context of Gingrich's ad was that Romney was sympathetic to abortion rights issues. Whether or not abortion was covered by taxpayers under existing Massachusetts law is irrelevant to Gingrich's point. The fact that Romney helped perpetuate the taxpayer funding is enough to make Gingrich's underlying argument accurate.
We'd also like to point out that for a Republican plan, RomneyCare has been the subject of several favorable articles, and even a ridiculous push poll, at PolitiFact. The cynical reader might surmise the kid glove treatment has something to do with RomneyCare's similarity to ObamaCare. Nah, that couldn't be it.
(1/31/2012) Corrected quote of Gingrich's PF statement. No change in context-Jeff
Posted by Jeff D. at 1:00 AM No comments:
Labels: 2012, Conflicting Rulings, Jeffrey H. Anderson, Martha Hamilton, Molly Moorhead, PolitiFact National, Weekly Standard
PFB Smackdown x2: Daily (Kos) double
Unfortunately it remains far easier to locate poor criticism of PolitiFact than it is to locate good criticism.
First up for PFB Smackdown, "Hunter" from the Daily Kos. Hunter thinks that PolitiFact blew its rating of Mitt Romney's claim that he never voted for a Democrat if a Republican was on the ballot.
(P)eople had a wee bit of a problem with this, because the context was Romney's vote for Democrat Paul Tsongas in the 1992 Democratic presidential primary. The Republicans certainly were having a primary that day as well: The incumbent president, George H.W. Bush, was running against Pat Buchanan. Now we can all look back now and have a good laugh at permanent cable news fixture Pat Buchanan taking on the incumbent president, but they both were certainly "on the ballot" in the 1992 primaries. So Mitt's completely making stuff up on this one—his critics have got him dead to rights.
One should not ignore the fact that the Democratic and Republican presidential primaries are two different elections. There was no Republican on the ballot for the Democratic presidential primary. Given the context, it is overpoweringly obvious that Romney was saying that he votes for Republicans whenever Republicans are on the ballot against Democrats, as with a general election. The critics have to ignore one of the primary salient facts to have Romney "dead to rights." We agree on the point that PolitiFact blew the rating, though for different reasons. The context makes his statement true, assuming the Tsongas case is the worst would-be exception.
Next up, "dcg2," also writing for the Daily Kos, noticed a supposed trend with PolitiFact's front page material:
I took a quick look at Politifact's home page, and -- surprise, surprise... found two more quick examples of their front page of taking statements from Democrats that they admit are true, but calling them half-true anyway. Just a quick look at the Politifact's front page shows even more outrages -- all against Democrats ...
The author included no list of stories in his post, so it's hard to verify his claim to some extent, but it seems likely dcg2 was somehow able to ignore PolitiFact's flubs of Obama's milk regulations claim, Romney's voting claim and Mitch Daniels claim about the percentage of those under 30 years of age not going to work for the day ("Because many of them were in school"!).
PolitiFact announced in the summer of 2011 that it would start grading statistical statements in light of arguments regarding cause and effect. Critics like these two Kossacks simply ignore relevant data. And that makes for poor critiques.
Posted by Bryan White at 10:16 PM No comments:
Labels: 2012, Daily Kos, PFB Smackdown, When Liberals Attack
Props to Micah Cohen
Micah Cohen, in a piece appearing at Nate Silver's portion of the New York Times, provides an excellent example for PolitiFact to follow in presenting its candidate report cards.
Cohen's summary of PolitiFact data on the Republican field of candidates very prominently featured the following (from a post Cohen wrote back in September of 2011):
PolitiFact only looks at statements that pique its interest. Here's how Bill Adair, the editor of PolitiFact, described the process: "We select statements that we think readers will be curious about. If someone hears a claim and wonders, 'Is that true?' then it's something that we'll check."
In other words, if Mitt Romney says the sky is blue, PolitiFact doesn't bother grading the statement as true. So there is a sampling bias at play here. Accordingly, the following numbers should be interpreted with caution. They aren't perfect indicators of the honesty of each candidate, and conclusions like "Candidate X lies the most" or "Candidate Y is the most truthful" should probably not be drawn from the data.
PolitiFact, take note.
(1/31/2012) Jeff adds: A commenter to this post brings up an excellent point, and it's one I happen to agree with. Cohen deserves credit for at least recognizing some of the flaws, and including a disclaimer. The fact that it happened in the NYT is also worthy of note. In my view, however, it's unfortunate that Cohen immediately disregards his own reservations about the legitimacy of the report cards and goes on, in detail, to provide an analysis of them anyway. A colored chart with percentages provides an undeserved air of scientific authenticity. I'm not impressed.
The flaws with PolitiFact's report cards go deeper than Cohen implied. We've published a new post that explains these problems in detail. You can read it here.
Posted by Bryan White at 12:59 PM 4 comments:
Labels: 2012, Micah Cohen, New York Times, Report Cards
Liberals late to the party on PolitiFact
As expected, PolitiFact's 2011 "Lie of the Year" selection did a good bit of damage to PolitiFact's reputation on the left. President Obama's 2012 State of the Union speech produced a claim that again has some liberals crying foul. The Daily Kos and the Huffington Post both published entries condemning PolitiFact's "Half True" ruling on Obama's claim that the private sector jobs increased by 3 million in 22 months.
Jared Bernstein:
I ask you, why do they go where they go? Because of this:
In his remarks, Obama described the damage to the economy, including losing millions of jobs "before our policies were in full effect." Then he describe [sic!] the subsequent job increases, essentially taking credit for the job growth. But labor economists tell us that no mayor or governor or president deserves all the claim or all the credit for changes in employment.
Really? That's it? That makes the fact not a fact? I've seen some very useful work by these folks, but between this and this, Politifact just can't be trusted. Full stop.
(what's with the exclamation point after the "sic," Bernstein?)
Was PolitiFact blatantly unfair to Obama?
Not necessarily. PolitiFact pledged in July of 2011 to take credit and blame more into account for statistical claims. PolitiFact, in the segment Bernstein quoted, made a decent case that Obama was giving credit to his policies.
Fortunately for the crybabies of the left, PolitiFact promptly caved on this one, revising the ruling to "Mostly True." The rationale for the change is weaker than the justification for the original ruling:
EDITOR'S NOTE: Our original Half True rating was based on an interpretation that Obama was crediting his policies for the jobs increase. But we've concluded that he was not making that linkage as strongly as we initially believed and have decided to change the ruling to Mostly True.
That editor's note doesn't give readers any concrete information at all justifying the new ruling. It doesn't take Obama's phrasing into account in any new way, doesn't acknowledge any misinterpretation of Obama's words and doesn't reveal new information unavailable for the earlier ruling. In short, it looks like a judgment call all the way, where PolitiFact arbitrarily (if we don't count the criticism from the left) decided to give Obama the benefit of the doubt.
The critics on the left, meanwhile, remain apparently oblivious to the another ruling from the State of the Union speech where Obama received an undeserved "True" rating.
And where were they when Sarah Palin could have used their defense for her true claim about defense spending as a percentage of GDP?
We have a PFB research project planned to address this general issue of technically true claims.
PolitiFact editor Bill Adair has once again come forth to explain PolitiFact's ruling and change of mind:
Lou, deputy editor Martha Hamilton and I had several conversations about the rating. We wrestled with whether it deserved a Half True or a Mostly True and could not reach a conclusion. We decided that it would depend on how directly Obama linked the jobs numbers to his policies.
What criteria were used to determine how directly Obama linked the jobs numbers to his policies?
Adair:
Lou, Martha and I had another conversation about the rating and whether it should be Half or Mostly True. At various points, each of us switched between Half and Mostly True. Each of us felt it was right on the line between the two ratings (unfortunately, we do not have a rating for 5/8ths True!).
We brought another editor, deputy government & politics editor Aaron Sharockman, into the conversation and he too was on the fence. Finally, we decided on Half True because we thought Obama was implicitly crediting his own policies for the gains.
How was Obama's statement "right on the line"? What criteria placed it there? What criteria might have moved it one way or the other?
An item like this from Adair is precisely where we should expect a detailed explanation if there is any detailed explanation.
There's essentially nothing.
We get the report of disagreement and vacillation and none of the specific reasons in favor of one rating over the other, except for the implied admission that at least one person making the determination had a change of heart leading to a reversal of the rating.
If that sounds subjective on PolitiFact's part, it probably is.
Posted by Bryan White at 12:33 AM 2 comments:
Labels: 2012, Change in Rating, Huffington Post, Jared Bernstein, Louis Jacobson, Martha Hamilton, Numbers Claim, When Liberals Attack
Sublime Bloviations: "PolitiFlub: Udderly confused by EPA milk regs"
Crossposted from Sublime Bloviations.
just.
doesn't.
to.
reconcile:
(link to story at PolitiFact.com)
That's President Obama from yesterday's State of the Union Address.
(clipped from PolitiFact.com)
The latter rating came from PolitiFact Virginia almost a full year ago.
On the face of it, one can imagine a reconciliation of the two rulings. But it's doubtful if you've looked at the one for Obama after evaluating the one for Griffith.
The best part of it is that PolitiFact may have flubbed both rulings. The EPA was leaning toward an exemption for homogenized milk. But the exemption would not have covered raw milk, which should have left Griffith's claim at least partly true. And if raw milk received no exemption from the EPA then Obama's claim is approximately half true as well. A raw milk spill would still be treated just like an oil spill even after President Obama supposedly eliminated the rule that required a milk spill to be treated like an oil spill.
Welcome to the wonderful world of PolitiFact fact checking.
Update: Looks like the EPA did get around to exempting all milk products from the rule. Griffith was still partially correct at worst, and President Obama did not eliminate an EPA rule. Rather, Obama's EPA exempted milk from a rule that remains in effect. And Obama's statement obscures the administration's vacillating actions on the issue:
"The Obama Administration pulled back the rule in January of 2009, then reissued it in November, and to large degree it was the same rule," Schlegel said.
Jeff adds (1/26/2012): This is more accurately a "Bryan adds" because I simply wanted to highlight something Bryan wrote on PolitiFact's Facebook page regarding this ruling. I think it exemplifies the "gimme" True's that PolitiFact grants to Obama:
"[T]he Bush administration had created an exemption for milk as it was leaving office. That exemption was one of those that Obama pulled back for re-examination when he took office. So the only reason he had the chance to save us from the EPA's application of oil spill rules to milk was by preventing Bush from fixing it first."
Posted by Bryan White at 12:08 AM No comments:
Labels: 2012, Conflicting Rulings, Jacob Greiger, Molly Moorhead, PolitiFact National, sublime bloviations
Bill Adair describes selection bias at PolitiFact
We've noted before, along with Eric Ostermeier, that PolitiFact's self-described methods of choosing stories amount to a recipe for selection bias. The Parker Report recently published an interview with PolitiFact editor Bill Adair that describes more of the same:
How do you decide which reporters take on which claims? How many people check PolitiFact's facts before publishing? In other words, what is the process?
Here's how it works: Every day, our interns look through transcripts, campaign videos, news coverage and interviews for factual claims. The editors review them and choose the claims to fact-check based on whether they are timely, newsworthy and whether people will wonder if the claim is true. That is our biggest criteria for selecting a claim to check — to satisfy people's curiosity.
Most of the time, our reporters choose the claims they want to check. They do the research and write the article, which typically takes a day.
The articles, which include a recommended Truth-O-Meter rating, are then edited by one of our editors and then reviewed by a three-editor panel. The panel makes the final decision on the rating.
Though Adair does not mention it in this interview, PolitiFact also solicits fact check ideas from readers (see image below).
(clipped from http://www.politifact.com/)
If those who send in story suggestions are predominantly liberal or predominantly conservative, this feature will tend to skew story selection toward one political pole or the other.
Likewise, in Adair's description we have two factors that will help introduce partisan bias. First, if the interns' political biases influence their choices of stories to send to the editors, then the system again will tend to skew story selection toward one political pole or the other. Second, if the editors use their own sense of curiosity in choosing which statements to rate we have another case where ideology may influence the selection process left or right.
The three-editor panel that chooses the final "Truth-O-Meter" rating will by its nature tend to preserve a majoritarian ideological bias in PolitiFact's ratings. Suppose the panel has two conservatives and one liberal. In any rating where ideology serves as an influence, the two conservatives could consistently outvote the liberal.
Interviewer Erik Parker did not ask Adair any particularly tough questions (at least it doesn't appear on the record). Maybe next time.
Labels: 2012, Bill Adair, Commentary, Selection Bias
Big thanks to Right Wing News and Ace of Spades for the links this week.
John Hawkins provided a link to us on his site Right Wing News, and Ace Re-Tweeted a mention from one Wayne Austin.
Highlighting the bias and flawed standards at PolitiFact hasn't always been as popular as it is now. When we started PFB we did so in order to offer readers a collection point of disconnected and hard to find criticisms of the supposedly objective fact checkers.
Slowly but steadily the evidence is piling up and PolitiFact is no longer as trusted a source as they once were. We'd like to think we had something to do with encouraging the skepticism, but we wouldn't have been able to do it without our fans promoting our blog.
Thanks to people like Austin, and outlets like Right Wing News, Ace, Legal Insurrection and Big Hollywood, the word is spreading.
Thanks for your support and we look forward to being your source for evidence of and links to evidence of PolitiFact's liberal bias and journalistic failings.
Posted by Jeff D. at 2:25 PM 1 comment:
Labels: 2012, hat tip, Kudos
The PolitiFact response to the Romney story pushback
PolitiFact doesn't just entertain with its incompetent and unfair fact check stories. It also entertains with its response to criticism.
The most popular response of all is the "turtle." Just don't respond and wait for the criticism to die off.
The second method involves acknowledging the criticism, followed by ignoring it as though it makes no difference.
PolitiFact editor Bill Adair uses a variant of the second method in responding to criticism of a recent fact check of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney: Seize on some minor point in the criticism and act like the minor point nullifies the criticism (second method plus the minor point, in other words).
Hilariously, PolitiFact takes its critic, Dylan Byers, out of context for purposes of its response. Note the relevant portion of Byers' critique:
I've reached out to Jacobson to see how many experts PolitiFact spoke with, and to ask for his reaction to Bruscino's post. There's a fair chance that PolitiFact spoke to other experts who saw things differently, but its hard to imagine how Bruscino, with all that detailed analysis, could be relegated to a minority view.
Bruscino was one of the experts PolitiFact cited in the Romney story. He objected to PolitiFact's methods and conclusion in a blog post earlier this week at Big Tent.
Check out the headline over PolitiFact's response:
'There's a fair chance PolitiFact spoke to other experts' -- yes, 13 others
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, our esteemed fact checkers lead off with a fine example of quote mining.
Labels: 2012, Commentary
Commentary: "PolitiFact's Pants on Fire"
Another PolitiFact-cited expert has joined Tom Bruscino in dumping on PolitiFact over a recent fact check on Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney.
This time it's Ted R. Bromund, writing in Commentary magazine. Like Bruscino, Bromund pans PolitiFact for using leading questions and for issuing a ruling with which he cannot agree. But Bromund goes further in noting that PolitiFact performed its fact check based on a straw man version of Romney's point (bold emphasis added):
Jacobson sums up Romney's contention as being: "The U.S. military has been seriously weakened compared to what it was 50 and 100 years ago." Since the Truman Doctrine of 1947 is as good a marker as any of the moment when the U.S. assumed the global security responsibilities that formerly belonged to Britain, the fact that our Air Force is smaller and older than it has been at any point since that date might give immediately give cause for concern.
But the obvious point of Romney's statement was not that the U.S. military of today would lose a war to the U.S. military of 1917 or 1947. It was that the margin of U.S. "military superiority" – i.e., its relative strength versus potential and actual adversaries – is at risk if defense spending declines, as President Obama plans for it to do. The question is not whether the U.S.'s "military posture is in any way similar to that of its predecessors in 1917 or 1947": it is whether the U.S.'s margin of superiority over other actors, taking contextual factors into account, is better or worse than it was in previous eras.
Bromund weakens his case some with his characterization of PolitiFact's argument in the story. It seems the argument was more that the current state of the armed forces as described by Romney remains the world's superior military force, though PolitiFact does use some language easily taken to support his interpretation. But Bromund scores a huge hit in noting that PolitiFact stuffed Romney's argument full of straw. Just have a look at the manipulated quotation PolitiFact used in its deck material:
The U.S. military is at risk of losing its "military superiority" because "our Navy is smaller than it's been since 1917. Our Air Force is smaller and older than any time since 1947."
PolitiFact uses the above to represent Romney's argument. True, the story goes on to quote Romney accurately, including his argument that cuts in defense spending might lead to the U.S. losing military superiority. But the story treats Romney's argument in accordance with the inaccurate hybrid quotation/paraphrase:
(A) wide range of experts told us it's wrong to assume that a decline in the number of ships or aircraft automatically means a weaker military. Quite the contrary: The United States is the world's unquestioned military leader today, not just because of the number of ships and aircraft in its arsenal but also because each is stocked with top-of-the-line technology and highly trained personnel.
Thanks to the development of everything from nuclear weapons to drones, comparing today's military to that of 60 to 100 years ago presents an egregious comparison of apples and oranges.
It's remarkable that PolitiFact's summary omits Romney's mention of cuts in defense spending.
PolitiFact has stepped in it again and has again reacted by publishing a pedantic rebuttal along the lines of the one it used in response to criticism of its 2011 Lie of the Year. The former will receive a review here in due time. (Update 1/22/12 See review here).
Power Line stays on the story, providing additional valuable material by publishing the text of Bromund's reply to PolitiFact writer Louis Jacobson after Jacobson's initial inquiry about the Romney issue.
Politico took note of the story with a piece by Dylan Byers. Byers's story drew most of PolitiFact's ire in the rebuttal mentioned above, so reading it provides excellent background material.
The Huffington Post even gets in on the act with solid article. The story provides the context of Romney's remarks with a partial debate transcript.
Also see the my latest post in the "Piquing PolitiFact" category at Sublime Bloviations, which features the text of an email message I sent to PolitiFact asking for PolitiFact to fact check one of its own claims.
Update (1/22/2012): Added link to Bruscino article, link to PF response review, and minor spelling corrections-Jeff
Posted by Bryan White at 2:12 AM No comments:
Labels: 2012, Commentary, Commentary Magazine, Experts Scorned, Ted R. Bromund
Future of Capitalism: "Two More Obama Switcheroos"
I'm a regular reader of Ira Stoll's Future of Capitalism, though it's not where I typically troll for PolitiFact rebukes. So I was surprised last week to catch a brief mention of our factastic friends in the otherwise non-PolitiFact related piece.
At issue is the announcement that the Obama administration seeks to reduce the number of armed services personnel by 490,000 troops over the next decade. Stoll happens to be keeping his own mini-ObamaMeter and points out that this reduction contradicts an Obama campaign promise that he "supports plans to increase the size of the Army by 65,000 troops and the Marines by 27,000 troops."
It takes Stoll a whopping two sentences to expose PolitiFact's sophistry:
The Politifact Web site absurdly rates this as a "promise kept," explaining, "Obama said nothing about keeping the higher levels indefinitely." How cynical can you get?
Not only is it cynical, it's also an example of PolitiFact's alternating standards. Note how PolitiFact dealt with Rand Paul's claim that the "average federal employee makes $120,000 a year. The average private employee makes $60,000 a year." Paul received a False rating because, as PolitiFact explained:
"Most people hearing that would assume he was talking about salary alone, but he was talking about total compensation, including benefits such as retirement pay and paid holidays."
In Obama's case, PolitiFact gives him a Promise Kept because of the literal (and cynical) interpretation of his words. Paul, on the other hand, is deemed false not because of what he said, but because of what PolitiFact thinks people would assume he meant.
If that's not good enough, check out this recent rating on Mitt Romney's claim that "More Americans have lost their jobs under Barack Obama than any president in modern history..."
Romney's claim is accurate if you count from every president's first day in office to his final day -- by those standards, Obama is indeed the only president since World War II to have presided over a net job loss.
Don't worry. Despite finding the literal claim true, PolitiFact invented arbitrary standards to justify finding Romney's claim Mostly False. No "said nothing about" treatment for poor ol' Mitt.
One more?
You can read Bryan's in-depth take down of this rating on Sarah Palin, but I'll give you a hint on how it ends:
Although she's technically correct, the numbers are wildly skewed by tiny, non-industrialized countries. We find her claim Barely True.
The examples are, if I can avoid being taken literally, endless. PolitiFact's vacillating guidelines on when to literally interpret something can provide solid evidence of bias. And, to be fair, PolitiFact doesn't always take Obama literally:
So overall, the poll numbers support Obama's general point, but they don't fully justify his claim that "the American people for the most part think it's a bad idea." Actually, in most of the polls just a plurality says that. On balance, we rate his statement Mostly True.
In case readers infer that the above conflicting standards have been cherry picked, it's important to note that every one of the examples provided, including the Promise Kept cited by Stoll, was written by PolitiFacter Louis Jacobson. So we can rule out different approaches from different authors.
Until PolitiFact develops objective standards and adheres to them, the political bias of the writers and editors will be exposed with each contradictory rating.
Although Future of Capitalism isn't a usual destination for PolitiFact articles, I encourage readers to read the whole thing and enjoy Stoll's brilliant writing.
Bryan adds:
Bill Adair offered this in mid-2011:
"You're right that we have not always been consistent on our ratings for these types of claims. We've developed a new principle that is reflected in the Axelrod ruling and should be our policy from now on. The principle is that statistical claims that include blame or credit like this one will be treated as compound statements, so our rating will reflect 1) the relative accuracy of the numbers and 2) whether the person is truly responsible for the statistic.)"
That's probably good news for "Bush's fault" in the past and bad news for "Obama's fault" moving forward.
Jeff adds: Bryan is correct that PolitiFact has "updated" their principles. But we've shown, repeatedly, that PolitiFact hasn't changed in practice subsequent to publication of Adair's new and improved standard. And Adair's update still fails to provide a transparent, let alone objective, method to weigh the various components of a compound statement.
Posted by Jeff D. at 12:43 PM No comments:
Labels: 2012, Alternating Standards, Future of Capitalism, Literal Interpretation, Louis Jacobson
Big Tent: "A PolitiFact Example"
Blogger and PolitiFact-cited expert Tom Bruscino supplies a partial insider's look at the PolitiFact process along with a critique of the finished work of which he was a part in his post "A PolitiFact Example."
PolitiFact writer Louis Jacobson asked Bruscino for his assessment of Mitt Romney's claim that the U.S. Navy is at its smallest since 1947.
Bruscino found Jacobson's questions leading:
Jacobson did a remarkable bit of research in a very short period of time. However, I did think his questions to me were leading. Remember, Mr. Jacobson asked "(2) What context does this ignore (changing/more lethal technology, changed geopolitical needs, etc)?," which both assumes and implies to the interviewees that Romney ignored those specific contexts.
And after registering some surprise at Jacobson's use of apparently non-objective descriptors of Romney, Bruscino demurs from PolitiFact's "Pants on Fire" ruling:
My opinion, for what it is worth, is that since Romney's base statement was factually accurate when it came to most numerical metrics, it would seem that he could be given credit for a half-truth, even if the context complicates the matter.
Do read Bruscino's entire post, which is particularly valuable since it provides yet another look at the style of inquiry used by PolitiFact journalists. The commentary thread is also well worth reading.
Hat tip to Power Line blog. Visit Power Line also for a parallel review I'd have been better off copying rather than writing up my own.
Jeff adds: I first saw this rating yesterday, and couldn't help but notice it provided another example of PolitiFact's alternating standards. Check out how PolitiFact presented this article on their Facebook page:
Image from http://www.facebook.com/politifact
Notice that Romney is spreading ridiculous falsehoods because he "ignores quantum leaps in technology and training."
Poor Mitt. If only he had made this statement back in 2009 when PolitiFact's standards were much different:
We agree that the two cars are totally different. But Obama was careful in the way he phrased his statement: "The 1908 Model T earned better gas mileage than a typical SUV sold in 2008." As long as you don't consider any factors other than mileage, he's right. We rate his statement Mostly True.
You see, Obama is rated only for his literal statement, while ignoring quantum leaps in technology that make the Model T "totally different." Romney suffers from additional qualifiers that PolitiFact throws in to the mix.
The similarities between the two ratings don't end there. Here's a bit from the Obama/Model T rating:
So technically Obama is right.
But his implication is that we haven't gotten more fuel efficient in 100 years. And that's a reach.
...Model Ts reached top speeds of only 40 miles an hour. They guzzled motor oil, about a quart a month. The original tops were made of canvas, and they had no heating or cooling systems. They also had none of the safety features of modern cars: no bumpers, no air bags, no seat belts, no antilock breaks [sic].
The cars had large, skinny wheels to more easily clear the obstacles on rocky, rutted roads. Corner them too fast and they could tip over. And if you crashed, the windshield would usually shatter into sharp, jagged pieces that could slice you to ribbons.
"The government would not allow anyone to sell Model Ts today because they're so unsafe," Casey said. "It's a car that no one would use on a regular basis today. It's not a fair comparison."
Here's similar text from the Romney rating:
This is a great example of a politician using more or less accurate statistics to make a meaningless claim. Judging by the numbers alone, Romney was close to accurate.
Thanks to the development of everything from nuclear weapons to drones, comparing today's military to that of 60 to 100 years ago presents an egregious comparison of apples and oranges. Today's military and political leaders face real challenges in determining the right mix of assets to deal with current and future threats, but Romney's glib suggestion that today's military posture is in any way similar to that of its predecessors in 1917 or 1947 is preposterous.
Obama: Technically correct, as long as you don't consider any other factors, but a reach. Mostly True.
Romney: Close to accurate, meaningless, egregious, glib, preposterous. Pants on Fire.
Bruscino is right to point out the terms used to describe Romney's statement are more appropriate for the editorial page as opposed to an objective determination of facts. And once again, we're left to wonder why different guidelines are used for different people.
Update (1/19/2012 1921 pst) Jeff adds: Speaking of glib and preposterous, this part of the rating just caught my eye:
A wide range of experts told us it's wrong to assume that a decline in the number of ships or aircraft automatically means a weaker military. Quite the contrary: The United States is the world's unquestioned military leader today, not just because of the number of ships and aircraft in its arsenal but also because each is stocked with top-of-the-line technology and highly trained personnel.
The first problem is obvious. Romney never claimed that a reduction in the number of ships or aircraft automatically meant a weaker military. Actually, Romney was citing examples in support of his overall claim (that continued cuts in defense spending will eventually lead to a weaker force). Jacobson's second sentence is a howler. "Quite the contrary" to what? The fact that the U.S. is the world's supreme military force is totally irrelevant to whether or not it's on the path to becoming weaker. If Warren Buffet loses a million dollars on a bad deal, the fact that he's still the richest guy in the room does not negate the fact that he's also a million dollars poorer. And just like Romney claimed in his statement, Buffet simply cannot continue to cut bad deals if he is going to remain the richest guy in the room.
Labels: 2012, Alternating Standards, Big Tent, comparison, Editorializing, Experts Scorned, Louis Jacobson, Martha Hamilton, PolitiFact National, Tom Bruscino
Anchor Rising: "Cicilline Gifted Another Mostly True From Politifact -- Seriously?"
Patrick Laverty and the Anchor Rising blog give us yet another quality criticism of PolitiFact.
PolitiFact just makes it way too easy.
Ok sure, the funding level was "close". It was in the 90s and it was more than the previous administration. However, as Politifact themselves often say, that isn't what Cicilline said. He said it was at 100% all but two years. It was there for all but six years. That's a big difference.
So the issue really speaks to Politifact's credibility, if they have much left. They are, at best, inconsistent with their rulings especially when it comes to Congressman Cicilline. This is the same newspaper that int 2010 endorsed Cicilline for Congress, in part due to his fiscal management of Providence.
PolitiFact's justification for the ruling?
Cicilline, in his off-the-cuff statement, mixed up where the years with the lowest contribution fell. But he made it clear a few times that he was citing figures from memory, so we'll give him some leeway and rule Mostly True.
It's good to know that one can obtain some leeway if one is citing figures from memory. At least when PolitiFact decides to grant such leeway (I'm not finding other examples of this kind of treatment). If you're working from memory then the same set of facts can become more true than otherwise. Like magic.
Looks like we can add a new wrinkle to the Principles of PolitiFact.
Labels: 2012, Anchor Rising, C. Eugene Emery Jr., Citing Figures From Memory, PolitiFact Rhode Island, Tim Murphy
Mark Hemingway and Glenn Kessler on NPR
Mark Hemingway, who wrote a key critique of modern fact-checking operations back in December, appeared with the Washington Post's fact checker, Glenn Kessler, for a radio interview on NPR. It's worth either listening to it or reading the transcript, but one particular section deserves special attention:
CONAN: Here's an email from Noreen(ph). I don't understand that the - that since - excuse me. I don't understand the idea that since PolitiFact demonstrates that Republicans lie three times as often as Democrats mean it's biased. Maybe Republicans actually do lie that much more. The idea that you have to have an even number of lies reported for Democrats and Republicans in order to be considered not biased is ridiculous. One side could lie way more than the other. And by trying to make them even, you are distorting fact. Is simple numerical balance an indication of nonpartisanship?
KESSLER: No. I don't look at them that way, and, as I said, I don't really keep track of, you know, how many Democrats or how many Republicans I'm looking at until, you know, at the end of the year, I count it up. My own experience from 30 years covering Washington and international diplomacy and that sort of thing is there's - both Democrats and Republicans will twist the truth as they wish if it somehow will further their aims. I mean, no one is pure as a driven snow here. And I've often joked that if I ever write an autobiography, I'm going to title it "Waiting for People to Lie to Me."
(SOUNDBITE OF LAUGHTER)
CONAN: That's something reporters do a lot. Mark Hemingway?
HEMINGWAY: Why - I think I said when I even brought this up. I mean, you know, I don't think that, you know, that, you know, numerical selection is indicative of, you know, bias per se. I just think that it's highly suspicious. When it's three to one, you know, if it were 60-40, you know, whatever, yeah, sure, you know? But when it's three to one, you start getting things where, you know, you start wondering about, you know, why the selection bias.
Hemingway's December article was quite valuable, but he missed an opportunity to explain an important aspect of Eric Ostermeier's examination of PolitiFact's story selection.
PolitiFact rated about the same number of politicians from each party. Yet one party received significantly worse "Truth-O-Meter" ratings. The key inference behind Ostermeier's study was the expectation that a party-blind editorial selection process should be expected to choose the same types of stories for both parties. The results, then, if Republicans really do lie more, would show approximately the same distribution of ratings but with one party more heavily represented in the total number of stories. The approximately even number of stories for each group throws the monkey wrench in Noreen's reasoning.
It would have been good if Hemingway had explained that during the broadcast.
As a side note, it's interesting that Kessler likewise ends up writing approximately as many stories about Democrats as about Republicans. Run the numbers for Kessler as Ostermeier did for PolitiFact and perhaps the tendencies look alike. The obvious reason for focusing on PolitiFact instead of Kessler is PolitiFact's far greater volume of material.
(1/12/12) Jeff adds: There's a flaw that is often overlooked when discussing the "add 'em up" style of interpreting PolitiFact's ratings, and that's the issue of the quality of the fact checks themselves. Assuming PolitiFact actually adheres to an objective formula for avoiding selection bias, and then rates 50 statements from the left and 50 from the right, it still wouldn't disprove an ideological lean.
Take for example the different standards used when PolitiFact rated similar statements from Herman Cain and Barack Obama. Both included the employer's portion of payroll taxes in their respective calculations, but in Cain's case PolitiFact downgraded him for it, while in Obama's case it pushed him higher up the rating scale. And this still doesn't take into account the dishonest tactic of inventing statements out of thin air.
It may be interesting to review the tallies of who gets what ratings and discuss the merits of the numbers. Ultimately though it's the alternating standards that will offer the best evidence of PolitiFact's liberal bias.
(1/19/2012) Jeff adds: An additional flaw with adding up PolitiFact's ratings is the fact that PolitiFact chooses who to give the rating to.
When Obama claimed that preventative health care "saves money", and David Brooks said he's wrong, PolitiFact gave a True to Brooks. This serves the dual purpose of sparing Obama a False on his "report card" that PolitiFact likes to shill so often, while also providing cover in the "we give Republicans True's too!" sense.
When PolitiFact rated the oft-repeated, and false, claim about $16 muffins at DOJ event, PolitiFact could have given the rating to NPR, the New York Times, or even (gasp!) PolitiFact partner ABC News. Instead, they chose to burden Bill O'Reilly with the falsehood, despite the original claim coming from a government report.
It's these types of shenanigans that will always distort a ratings tally.
Update/clarification (1/14/2012):
Added "for a radio interview on NPR" to the first sentence.
Labels: 2012, Commentary, Glenn Kessler, Mark Hemingway
James Taranto: "Bad-Faith Journalism"
The Wall Street Journal once again weighs in on PolitiFact following its "Lie of the Year" selection.
This cycle, James Taranto hits PolitiFact for its wrongheaded approach to fact checking:
We're not as troubled as Ponnuru is by the effect of PolitiFact, and the "fact checking" genre it exemplifies, on politics. We'd argue instead that it has a baneful effect on journalism.
Taranto's complaint about PolitiFact has much to do with the rationale Michael F. Cannon used to make his decision to withhold from PolitiFact the expert opinions it solicits from time to time.
Though Taranto goes a bit easy on PolitiFact for its past "Lie of the Year" failures, it's worth reading every word.
Labels: 2012, James Taranto, Lie of the Year 2011, Wall Street Journal
PolitiFact 2011: A review
PolitiFact Bias has now spent approximately a full year highlighting criticisms of the PolitiFact fact checking brand.
Our hopes that PolitiFact would improve its performance in light of outside criticism have gone largely unfulfilled. Perhaps the biggest improvement was the reconciliation of two differing definitions of the "Half True" rating, but that modest accomplishment occurred without any announcement or acknowledgment at all from PolitiFact. By contrast, PolitiFact wrote extensively about its momentous change in calling its fourth rating from the top "Mostly False" rather than "Mostly True" even though the definition remained the same.
Here's a rundown of the issues that should keep discerning readers from trusting PolitiFact:
1) PolitiFact persistently ignores the effects of selection bias. It simply isn't plausible that editors who are very probably predominantly liberal will choose stories of interest on a neutral basis without some systematic check on ideological bias. PolitiFact, for example, continues to publish candidate report cards as though selection bias has no effect on the report card data.
2) PolitiFact continues to publish obviously non-objective stories without employing the journalistic custom of using labels like "commentary," "opinion" or even "news analysis." Readers are implicitly led to believe that stories like an editorial "Lie of the Year" selection are objective news stories.
3) PolitiFact continues to routinely apply its principles of analysis unevenly, as with its interpretation of job creation claims (are the claims assumed to refer to gross job creation or net job creation?).
4) PolitiFact has yet to shake its penchant for snark. Snark has no place in objective reporting (see #2 above). Unfortunately, PolitiFact treats it like a selling point instead of a weakness, and PolitiFact's intentional use of it has apparently influenced Annenberg Fact Check to follow suit.
There is a silver lining. PolitiFact's methods produce perhaps the best opportunity yet to objectively measure mainstream media bias. Some of those projects will be published at PolitiFact Bias over the coming year, with the study specifics available through Google Docs.
Posted by Bryan White at 11:10 PM 60 comments:
Ranting and Rating: Why PolitiFact's Numbers Don't...
The Weekly Standard: PolitiFact Can't Get Its Stor...
Sublime Bloviations: "PolitiFlub: Udderly confus...
Anchor Rising: "Cicilline Gifted Another Mostly T...


Love all the pictures you did. The outfit of Hanneli with the blue jacket I like it so much, the earrings too.
literally amazing... i can't imagine the energy going on on the streets right now!
I love seeing what everyone wears to FW! These girls look great. I've been seeing a lot of street photos of girls just in sweaters, like the blonde in stripes here, and they look great.
Love your photographs as always.
Miroslava Duma really is perfection, her and Hanelli (spelling?) are so gorgeous.
A lot of cool ideas!
Oh, nice, I see some favourite people here :) And picture #12 is perfect!
These photos are very inspiring and snow in the first couple of photos makes everything look unreal, in a good way.
Check out my blog, including backstage photos of Chanel shot by me!!
These pictures are lovely. Does anyone know who makes the chevron striped dress on the woman in the 4th picture from the top?
amazing pictures! especially the last one in the neon blue background!
what great photography! this is my new favorite street style blog. now following!
would love for you to come check out my style blog!
Lovely photo. I love it.
ur photos are amazing! definitely one of the best street style blogs i've seen..
Nice posted pics love it so much. Good work keep it up!
Great pics, I love the simplicity of Arizona's look.
Such unique & bold styles! LOVE!!
İkinci el network alımı ve satımı ile ilgili bilgilerin yer aldığı sayfadır. Her türlü 2. el network ürününüz en uygun fiyata alınır.
All are excellent and nice to see this. I love the blue one.
Look good . I like the first outfit.


Béatrice-Marie Victoire de Villemorin is a young candidate in the municipal elections. Very unpleasant, she reigns as a tyrant over her team. While the election campaign is going full swing, BMVV is victim of a hostage taking. Hostage taking which she organized in association with Bruno, a stupid man motivated by money.


text:
Call 301-354-4910 | More Info
Browse by Service Category
Browse by Target Population
Children with Intensive Needs
Emergency and Community Assistance
Finding Help and Information
Homelessness Support
Immigrants and Community Newcomers
Living with Serious Health Conditions
Social Justice for Youth
Substance Abuse Prevention in Youth
Search for Services in Montgomery County, Maryland
Try Our Guided Search Back to Search Results
Result Count: 2
Children in Need of Supervision (View Details)
The CINS Program offers case management services throughout Montgomery County to youth and families who would benefit from additional support. Services are provided for up to 90 days. The Program promotes the integration of support and interventions across service systems to include academic advocacy/support, anger management, community service opp...
Organization: Department of Juvenile Services
At Risk Youth, Juvenile Offenders, Status Offenders
Transitional Case/Care Management
Locations: View Location(s)
Information Number
Voice 2 Empower (View Details)
The program is a 12 week psycho educational group along with services providing case management, home visits, and advocacy.
Organization: EveryMind.
High School Aged Youth, Status Offenders
Juvenile Delinquency Prevention
14501 Avery Road
Would you like more specific results? Try an Advanced Search or Browse the Service Categories or Target Populations below:
Services (Browse All)
Criminal Justice and Legal Services
Individual and Family Life
Individual and Family Support Services
Case/Care Management
Target Population (Browse All)
Families and Individuals Needing Support
At Risk Populations
Juvenile Delinquents
Juvenile Offenders
Status Offenders
select zipcode e 08625-0500 20001 20005 20006 20009 20010 20015 20016 20036 20613 20675 20705 20706 20718 20724 20742 20744 20755 20769 20770 20782 20783 20785 20810 20814 20815 20816 20817 20818 20824 20827 20830 20832 20833 20837 20841 20847 20849 20850 20851 20852 20853 20854 20855 20860 20866 20868 20871 20872 20874 20875 20876 20877 20878 20879 20882 20883 20886 20889 20895 20896 20899 20901 20902 20903 20904 20905 20906 20907 20910 20912 20916 20918 21012 21030 21032 21043 21044 21045 21201 21202 21223 21224 21229 21239 21286 21401 21613 21702 21727 22030 60657
infoMONTGOMERY Resource Guides
Specialized directories guide your searches to address specific needs and situations.
Children with
Intensive Needs
Early Care
Finding Help & Information
Immigrants &
Community Newcomers
Mental Health &
Persons with
Target Populations
Ten Montgomery County Public Libraries Offer Free Outdoor Public Wi-Fi
Montgomery County Food Access Center for Food Assistance Resources
Covid -19 Vaccine information for Montgomery County
La Iniciativa Deportiva Juvenil COVID-19 del Condado de Montgomery
Announcing Open Solicitation #2021-71 Identifying Vendors for Montgomery County Youth Sports Initiative
Early Care & Education
Emergency & Community Assistance
Immigrants & Community Newcomers
Copyright © 2018 www.infomontgomery.org
Built by skyClutch, LLC


text:
Steve Zurier
Connect Directly
7 Holiday Security Tips for Retailers
It's the most wonderful time of the year - and hackers are ready to pounce. Here's how to prevent them from wreaking holiday havoc.
Black Friday and Cyber Monday are at hand, which means retailers have been working extra hard behind the scenes to ensure their websites and security-savvy customers are well-protected from the cyber Grinches.
Indeed, 50% of 2,011 US consumers recently surveyed by Sophos said they are very concerned about getting hacked and would not buy from a retailer that has been in the news for not protecting personal information either online or in-store. Another 32% said they are somewhat concerned and would consider an alternative company to buy from instead.
"First and foremost, retailers have to help their customers not become victims," says Chet Wisnieswki, principal research scientist at Sophos. "They have to understand that there are criminals out there trying to impersonate their company."
What can retailers do to keep their customers and themselves safe this holiday season? For the answers, we turned to Wisniewski, along with Russell Schrader, executive director of the National Cyber Security Alliance, and Adam Isles, a principal at The Chertoff Group.
Steve Zurier has more than 30 years of journalism and publishing experience, most of the last 24 of which were spent covering networking and security technology. Steve is based in Columbia, Md. View Full Bio
Copyright © 2019 UBM Electronics, A UBM company, All rights reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Service


Kenji Inoue's fantastical paintings swirl with cryptic imagery. Teeming with otherworldly landscapes, anthropomorphized animals, and confounding abstractions, the Japan-based artist creates open works—objects molded and changed via the interpretation of the viewer. The work is authored by Inoue, but only completed upon individual explanation. As such, Inoue invites his audience to invent narratives and draw conclusions based on subjectivity, insisting that his paintings should be primarily felt or experienced rather than seen.
In Usagizake, a small oil painting on canvas, Inoue imagines a quaint scene in which two white rabbits appear to drink tea. One with a cup, the other with a pitcher, the pair is stripped of detail, but the animals sit expressively, leaning and gesturing as if in conversation. The painterly background, a colorful whirl of ochre, teal, and eggplant, is not suggestive of time or place. Instead the viewer is left with an enigmatic tableau, the scenario around which is flexible, adaptable, and entirely invented by the preconceived notions of the viewer. Through the hazy and hypnotic scene, the artist invites his audience to reflect on their subconscious and experience the painting in a new and completely personal way.


It is the goal of the Payroll Department to pay all faculty, staff, and hourly employees in an accurate and timely manner. We work as a team to reconcile all payroll and benefit deductions. We strive to provide excellent customer service campus wide.
All employees are paid on a real time semi-monthly schedule with pay dates on the 15th and last working day of the month. The payroll process begins five to six days prior to the actual payday. Any changes to pay, ad hoc salary changes, promotions or deductions must be forwarded to Human Resources no later than the published date listed on the payroll calendar.
Faculty are paid according to their contract as 9-month (18 pay periods) or 12-month (24 pay periods) employees.
Hourly employees are paid in arrears. Time turned in for the first through the fifteenth is paid on the last working day of the month. Time turned in for the sixteenth through the last day of the month is paid on the fifteenth of the month. Time is entered using Employee Self Service. Time sheets must be submitted and approved by the day after the time period closes.
Arkansas State University is an Affirmative Action / Equal Opportunity Employer with a strong institutional commitment to the achievement of excellence and diversity among its faculty and staff.


Serious Audio Video is an award winning smart home and business technology integration firm. Their smart home and smart business systems are located throughout the New York / New Jersey greater metropolitan area. With consulting services available domestically and internationally, Serious Audio Video has consulted on designing some of the biggest sports bars & most desirable residential communities in the world.


via FlickrIt's called Shoveling the Driveway.
It is December, and we do live in Wisconsin, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised. This happens to us every year. We should have expected it. You know how we had such horrid traffic coming home from Kentucky on Sunday? That wasn't all. As we got closer to home, we ran into snow. I'd like to think that if the traffic hadn't held us up, we could have missed the snow, but I guess we'll never know.
Monday the kids didn't have to go to school because of the snow, and that's when I realized it was December 1st, and it was at least the 3rd year in a row we got a major snow storm on December 1st. We really should have known better than to plan on traveling home the night before. Of course there would be snow.
The kids and I shoveled the driveway Monday after the snow stopped. Beth complained and threatened to quit saying it wasn't her driveway. I pointed out that she drives on it, and that makes it her driveway, and if we all work together, we'll get done sooner. She stuck with it, and it didn't hurt her one bit. Today it snowed again, and I shoveled the driveway before Jeffrey came home. By myself. I should have made Cory help me, but he told me it wasn't very deep when he came home from school, so I wasn't expecting much. By the time I got out there and realized there was quite a bit, it seemed more trouble than it was worth to come back in and get Cory, so I shoveled it all myself.
And now I'm sore. But it's a good sore.
Send some snow this way, we rarely get any in recent years and when we do it's maybe half inch and melts in a couple of hours!