Tag archive for : sumas aseguradas
Tag archive for : sumas aseguradas

Pin It on Pinterest

Facebook's Purchase of WhatsApp, Expanded Gender Identities Are Like Pop-Tart Sushi (That's a Compliment) I've got a new column up at Time. It's about Facebook's recent expansion of its gender-identity categories and, well, Kellogg's Pop-Tarts. As any consumer of Kellogg’s Pop-Tarts could have told you, Facebook’s new and expansive gender-identification options are a woefully lagging indicator of the wide-ranging and decades-long trend toward increasingly varied options for being in the world. That’s true whether you’re a toaster pastry or a human being. Indeed, until last week, Facebook users could only identify themselves as male or female, or just half the number of flavors available to Pop-Tart fans over 40 years ago.pre bonded hair Introduced in 1967 and named after the pop art craze surrounding Andy Warhol, Roy Lichenstein, and others, Kellogg’s popular breakfast product originally came in four flavors (blueberry, strawberry, brown sugar cinnamon, and the quickly discontinued apple currant). They’re now available in over 100 variations and versions. At a 2010 pop-up store in Times Square, customers could even create hyper-individualized flavors (and sample something called Pop-Tart sushi to boot). The same sort of expansive multiplication of variety has been happening to people. As the anthropologist and business-school professor Grant McCracken put it in his 1997 book Plenitude, we live in a world characterized by a quickening “speciation” of social types. “Teens,” he wrote, “were once understood in terms of those who were cool and those who weren’t.” In a tour of a Toronto mall in the late 1990s, McCracken’s adolescent guide pointed to 15 distinct types of young adults, including “heavy-metal rockers, surfer-skaters, b-girls, goths, and punks.” By now, the same tour would easily yield double or triple the number of types. In a broader context, then, Facebook’s new policy — which allows users to pick from phrases such as androgynous, intersex, transsexual, and dozens more — tells us less about changing social and sexual roles and more about the social-media giant’s desperate attempt to stay relevant in a world that often moves too fast even for its greatest innovators. Facebook’s purchase of WhatsApp, a dominant and fast-growing messaging app for smartphones, for $19 billion is another. I argue that Facebook has been long been too much of a "walled garden," in which users' choices and options are increasingly constrained. And so:

Via the Twitter feed of Reason Foundation's Adrian Moore comes this news story from Detroit's WXYZ. After three people try to break into her house, a mother of two breaks out a gun, starts shooting, and scatters the home invaders. Well worth watchng (hat tip: Independent Review Journal). Watch Reason TV's epic #Anarchy in Detroit series, which highlights how Motown residents are doing for themselves in a city gone bankrupt: remy hair extensions Left-wing moviemaker Oliver Stone talking about his support for Barry Goldwater and Ron Paul. Student for Liberty's Alexander McCobin laying out the basics of "second-wave libertarianism." Pop Art-style portraits of Ayn Rand that the novelist would likely have condemned. Watch above to see what Reason TV saw at 2014's International Students For Liberty Conference. Click below for HD, iPod, and audio versions of this video and subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube channel to receive automatic notification when new material goes live. View this article.

France 24 The trial in Egypt of 20 journalists, including nine from Al Jazeera, on charges of allegedly aiding and abetting the Muslim Brotherhood and spreading false information about unrest in the country, was adjourned until March. Eight of the journalists have been detained since at least December, and one, Al Jazeera correspondent Peter Greste, penned a letter on the poor conditions at the prison he and others are being held.  Al Jazeera reports on Greste  and two other detained journalists who are with Al Jazeera English: Since their arrest, journalists have staged protests worldwide demanding their release, and rejecting claims the three have links to the Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt's former ruling party which has since been designated a "terrorist" group.The case is one of many that have led to criticism of Egypt's military-backed government, with rights groups pointing to growing intolerance for dissent in the Arab world's most populous country."Journalists should not have to risk years in an Egyptian prison for doing their job," Joe Stork, deputy Middle East director at Human Rights Watch, said in a statement."The prosecution of these journalists for speaking with Muslim Brotherhood members, coming after the prosecution of protesters and academics, shows how fast the space for dissent perruques cheveux naturels in Egypt is evaporating." Voice of America adds: Many Egyptians and the pro-government media suspect foreign journalists of unfair coverage of the political upheaval in Egypt, but special anger is reserved for Al Jazeera, the Qatar-based satellite channel that is widely seen as backing the Muslim Brotherhood of ousted President Mohamed Morsi.Qatar's rulers support the Muslim Brotherhood and Egypt's ex-president Mohamed Morsi, and Egypt's interim government has criticized Qatari leaders for giving safe haven to Muslim Brotherhood members. Voice of America is essentially a broadcast arm of the U.S. government, and has been accused of working against the government or supporting the opposition in places like Cuba and Ethiopia. In 2001, it won an ethics award for running an interview with Mullah Omar which it was pressured not to by the feds, but that was followed up by a restructuring to create VOA outlets that would be easier to manipulate politically, a move opposed by hundreds of VOA journalists. Journalists at both VOA and Al Jazeera, and at places like the BBC and euronews, as well as at outlets not owned, operated or affiliated with governments, are generally interested in the practice of journalism. The intertwining of the state and the media, however, is detrimental to a free press not just in a place like Egypt, where most media is state owned and the government appears in a total war against a free press, but also when governments, be they the U.S., the U.K. or Qatar, subsidize international media operations. Once the government is involved in media, the involvement will only grow. Even as Voice of America, the BBC, or Al Jazeera remain broadly trusted by their significant viewerships, the governments backing them move to crack down on a free press. The U.S. dropped 13 places in the most recent press freedom rankings, the U.K., like Egypt, is conflating journalism and terrorism, and in Qatar there is little of any free press. It’s ranked 133rd on the Reporter Without Borders index that dropped the U.S. to 45th and placed the U.K. at 33rd. Egypt is at 159 out of 180. § Credit: YanniKouts / Foter / CC BY European Union foreign ministers have agreed to impose sanctions on Ukrainian officials they deem "responsible for violence and excessive force." According to Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt, the sanctions include travel bans as well as asset freezes. The news comes a day after it was reported that the U.S. was imposing visa restrictions on 20 Ukrainian officials. Anti-government protesters say that at least 100 protesters have been killed today, and the Ukrainian Interior Ministry claims that 67 police have been captured by protesters in Kiev. Two members of Ukraine’s Winter Olympics team have decided to pull out of the games in support of protesters. In the U.S., Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), and Ted Cruz (R-Texas) have come out in favor of targeted sanctions. Yesterday, President Obama said that there could be “consequences” to the violence. Russia has denounced the latest European and American responses to the Ukraine crisis, saying that they amounted to a blackmailing of the Ukrainian government. The French, German, and Polish foreign ministers spoke with Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych today. According to AFP, the Polish prime minister has said that Yanukovych is willing to hold early elections. Yesterday, Obama said the following about the U.S.-Russia relationship: Our approach as the United States is not to see these [conflicts] as some Cold War chessboard, in which we’re at competition with Russia. Our goal is to make sure that the people of Ukraine are able to make decisions for themselves about their future, that the people of Syria are able to make decisions without having bombs going off and killing women and children, or chemical weapons, or towns being starved because a despot wants to cling to power. The Obama administration may want to make sure that when it comes to Ukraine, unlike Syria, Obama follows through on his previous statements. After the Assad regime used chemical weapons, thereby crossing the so-called “red line” mentioned by Obama, the retaliation was a deal relating to Syria’s chemical weapons agreed to with Russia. Since then the Syrian government, which is supported by Russia, has continued to wage war. More from Reason.com on the situation in Ukraine here.

Christopher J. Conover One of the few certainties of the Affordable Care Act is the tax load with which it's laden. The medical device tax, income tax surcharge on high-earners, tax on investment income, and others have all fueled complaints and, possibly, even killed some jobs. But these are all supposedly taxes on businesses and relatively prosperous families and individuals—the sort of people who make for unsympathetic victims when politicians are playing to the crowd. But, according to Christopher J. Conover of the Center for Health Policy & Inequalities Research at Duke University, low-income Americans shouldn't get too comfortable, because they're in for a soaking, too, as taxes on medical goods and services get passed along to them. At Forbes, Conover writes: Even the lowest income families (earning less than about $19,000 in 2012) will be on the hook for nearly $7,000 in Obamacare taxes over the decade that started last year. Let’s be clear. Obamacare also absolutely and positively is socking it to the “rich” (approximately the top 2%). I calculate that families in that income range will end up paying $177,000 over the same decade. But the much more surprising figure is that such families will end up bearing only 34% of the Obamacare tax burden. It’s true that the top 20% of families will bear about 56% of the overall burden, but such families also account for 50% of after-tax income (at least according to the Consumer Expenditure Survey data I used to make my calculations). In contrast, families in the lowest income 20% receive 3.1% of after tax income, yet will bear 7.3% of Obamacare’s tax burden. To be sure, many of these same families will be recipients of massive subsidies through Medicaid and the Exchanges. But it’s important for such families to understand that quite a bit of what’s being given by the right hand of government is being taken right back by the left hand of government in the form of all sorts of taxes on health services, health insurance and other goods and services that will be passed right back to them in the form of higher prices. Lower-income individuals who work for large firms, points out Conover, will get relatively few benefits from Obamacare, but will still be on the hook for the taxes. They'll effectively be subsidizing their friends and neighbors at small firms. Nothing comes for free, but sometimes the cost is distributed a little bit farther than politicians like to pretend. perruques cheveux For the last 10 days, FCC-watchers have been abuzz about the commission's upcoming attempt to "identify and understand the critical information needs of the American public." Anxieties about the study have been afoot for a while, but the recent furor began on February 10, when Ajit Pai, a Republican commissioner at the agency, published an op-ed attacking the idea in The Wall Street Journal. Warning that the effort was the "first step down" the "dangerous path" of "newsroom policing," Pai made his case against the study: With its "Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs," or CIN, the agency plans to send researchers to grill reporters, editors and station owners about how they decide which stories to run. A field test in Columbia, S.C., is scheduled to begin this spring.The purpose of the CIN, according to the FCC, is to ferret out information from television and radio broadcasters about "the process by which stories are selected" and how often stations cover "critical information needs," along with "perceived station bias" and "perceived responsiveness to underserved populations."How does the FCC plan to dig up all that information? First, the agency selected eight categories of "critical information" such as the "environment" and "economic opportunities," that it believes local newscasters should cover. It plans to ask station managers, news directors, journalists, television anchors and on-air reporters to tell the government about their "news philosophy" and how the station ensures that the community gets critical information.The FCC also wants to wade into office politics. One question for reporters is: "Have you ever suggested coverage of what you consider a story with critical information for your customers that was rejected by management?" Follow-up questions ask for specifics about how editorial discretion is exercised, as well as the reasoning behind the decisions. Pai's piece doesn't mention it, but the commission also plans to look at newspaper and Internet content, areas that are outside the FCC's regulatory dominion. The agency quickly started dropping hints that it would be changing course. On February 12, Adweek reported that the CIN "may now be on hold," adding: "At the very least, the controversial sections of the study will be revisited under new chairman Tom Wheeler and incorporated into a new draft." This evidently was too vague to be reassuring, as worries about the plan have only intensified since then. The most bizarre thing about all this may be the disconnect between the study's content and the reason the FCC says it's doing it. The commission is supposed to report to Congress on "regulations prescribed to eliminate market entry barriers for entrepreneurs and other small businesses" and "proposals to eliminate statutory barriers to market entry by those entities." Somehow that requirement led to the CIN. Now, if the study shows that existing stations are ignoring important news, I suppose I can see how that would help make the case for allowing more stations on the air. But it's hard to see how a probe of the media's story selection practices is going to identify any actual barriers to creating those new stations. If you read the commission's research plan—I've embedded a copy at the end of this post—you'll find some pro forma references to finding "potential barriers to entry" but not much in the way of explaining how the questions Pai cited are going to do that. The good news is that I don't see overt signs of a different regulatory agenda in the plan's pages. The thing is written in the tone of someone who wants to understand what stories are being covered and where people turn for news, not someone with a preset remedy for the problems she might uncover. If this were a proposal at a department of sociology instead of a federal agency, it would be unobjectionable, even welcome. But because it's a federal agency—worse yet, an agency that decides whether the stations it's studying will have their broadcast licenses renewed—we have a case here of regulators probing people's speech and then being in a position to use its findings against them. What's most worrisome about this research plan may be the way its authors never pause to consider whether it's appropriate for the FCC to be asking about such things in the first place. (The closest it comes is when it notes that some of its questions might be seen as "sensitive." But it treats that as a barrier to getting sources to open up, not a reason to reconsider the project.) Nor is there any awareness of the idea that the government shouldn't be in the role of deciding what news is important. (Presumably we all agree that we need to know about, say, upcoming weather emergencies. But when you start asking reporters about the stories their editors spiked, you're bound to enter dicier territory.) Evidently, the Federal Communications Commission is so accustomed to seeing itself in the information management business that it takes these things for granted. But then, why shouldn't it? It's been regulating speech for decades now. Start worrying about this stuff, and you might start asking whether the First Amendment, properly understood, actually allows the FCC to issue licenses based on what people say or don't say on the air. And that isn't a conversation the commission will ever be eager to have. The research plan is embedded below.

Scott Shackford | Feb. 20, 2014 4:30 pm Credit: Dank Depot / Foter / CC BY The National Education Association, the large, powerful teacher’s union, has turned against Common Core standards for public schools. The president says some standards need to be rewritten with teacher input. The governor of Colorado expects the state to bring in more in tax revenue from marijuana sales than initially expected, which means they just can’t wait to spend it on government programs. Ahmed al-Darbi, a Guantanamo Bay prisoner from Saudi Arabia, has pleaded guilty to helping plan a suicide bombing off the cost of Yemen in 2002 that struck a French tanker, killing one. Oregon’s attorney general has joined Virginia’s by refusing to defend the state’s ban on gay marriage recognition. New York’s top court ruled that police lied too much to draw out confessions in two separate interrogations, and the statements were tossed out. Pussy Riot has released the video they shot yesterday at the Sochi Olympics, which includes them being attacked by Russians. Follow us on Facebook and Twitter , and don’t forget to sign up for Reason’s daily updates for more content.lace front wigs Photo Credit: Dank Depot / Foter / CC BY Scott Shackford is an associate editor at Reason.com Media Contact Reprint Requests

As the U.S. was fighting World War II, a group of social scientists thought they could create a different sort of propaganda, one that didn't treat Americans like an obedient mass. Instead they just came up with a subtler sort of manipulation. The Democratic Surround, a fascinating new history by the Stanford historian Fred Turner, traces that group's influence over the next two decades. In the process, Jesse Walker writes, Turner finds unexpected links between undertakings as different as the U.S.cosplay wigs Information Agency's Cold War campaigns and the Human Be-In, one of the most famous hippie festivals of the '60s. View this article.