Calvin Harris - Ole (Official Audio) by Alexa Tietjen 4h ago
About a month ago, photos of Taylor Swift and Tom Hiddleston making out on a rock like a pair of hormone-crazed teenagers leaked. Some were quick to call PR bull on the situation, as Taylor had just broken up with long-term beau Calvin Harris two weeks before. But Taylor and Tom have stayed together despite all of the odds, keeping their relationship very public. Now, sources are claiming things are seriousso serious, a ring is in the near future.
But first, theres drama.
TMZ reported early this morning that Taylor and Calvins relationship came to an end after he disrespected her on the day his collaborative hit with Rihanna, This Is What You Came For, was released. Swift had apparently written the song, recorded a demo and sent it to Harris, who loved it. The two then recorded a demo together, but since theyre both super famous, they agreed it was a bad idea to let the world know they collaborated as a couple. So Swift used a pseudonym on the credits, the song eventually became a hit and RiRi went on to wear a glittery trash bag in the accompanying video.
But on April 29, the day the song was released, things came to a head. Calvin interviewed with Ryan Seacrest, who asked Calvin if he would collaborate with Taylor. His response? You know, we havent even spoken about it. I cant see it happen.
Taylors feelings were hurt, her relationship with Calvin hit a breaking point and then came the retweet heard round the Internet. One high-profile makeout session and an I <3 T.S. t-shirt later, Taylor and Tom were official AF. Theirs is a love so real, a Swift source told Us Weekly that Tom is going to propose to Taylor. And get this: Taylor already has an answer to the question. She would definitely say yes, the source said. Theyre basically already engaged!
All of this is, of course, one huge rumor that Kris Jenner is shaking her head at right now. But the real kicker is that Taylor owns the publishing rights to What You Came For. This means she has the power to ban Calvin from performing the song, something which Calvin did to Rita Ora when they broke up.
What happens next is a mystery, but in the words of professional matchmaker Ellie Goulding, anything could happen.
Ive written some mean things about Indiana Gov. Mike Pence over the years, and now that hes in the national spotlight as a potential Republican vice presidential candidate, the time has come to tell the truth: I owe him an apology.
I spent years slagging Pence as stupid and moronic simply because he was a leading member of Congress participating in a major debate over a public policy issue that he didnt understand at all. At the time, it struck me as genuinely shocking. And I responded in the way that a shocked person responds emotionally, and with some overstatement.
Today, more than a decade removed from the first time I met Pence, I can say that its actually quite common for members of Congress to have no idea what theyre talking about.
Theres a real problem here, but it doesnt relate to Pence personally. And it doesnt particularly even relate to individual members of Congress personally. Its a deep institutional problem that is both a cause and an effect of Americans entrenched cynicism about Congress, politics, and governing elites.
Mike Pence and the Social Security debate of 2005
I came to Washington to work at the American Prospect in the fall of 2003. I was still working there in the winter of 2004-05 when the hot issue in Washington became George W. Bushs proposal to partially privatize Social Security. I hadnt covered congressional debates much before then, and the members Id interacted with had mostly been Democrats with whom I had a lot in common ideologically, which made it easy to take a generous view of what they were saying.
At this time, the Bush administration was coalescing around the idea of allowing workers to divert some payroll tax money out of the Social Security trust fund and into private investment accounts.
Pence was, at the time, the head of the Republican Study Committee, which was an influential right-wing factional group inside the GOP caucus that sometimes rebelled from the right against Bushs gestures at domestic policy moderation. So when I had the chance to hear Pence speak about Social Security privatization at a small think tank event, I was eager to see what he had to say. And what he said surprised me.
Mike Pence didnt understand moral hazard
At the time, one of the big liberal objections to privatization was that private accounts were far riskier than conventional Social Security and retirees could be left in the lurch if their investments went south.
In his talk, Pence had a strange answer to this: He argued that the average rate of return on investments in the stock market would be so much larger than the average Social Security benefit that it would be simple for the government to guarantee nobody would end up with less money in the new private system than they would have been entitled to under the old system. After all, most people would do so much better under the new system that the government would only need to pay up to make the guarantee work for a small number of people.
I raised what I thought was an obvious objection to this: moral hazard. If you promise people theyll get a bailout if their private investments go south, you encourage excessive risk taking and bigger losses in the future.
My expectation was that Pence would have some kind of answer to this: a technical solution or a plan for a regulatory fix or a promise to think about it harder or something. But he had nothing. He seemed to just not understand at all what the problem was. The idea that a government guarantee could change behavior appeared to be totally unfamiliar to him, even though in most cases its a bedrock of conservative economic policy thinking.
Congress is terrible at policy and there are structural reasons for that
In the decade after this encounter, Ive had the opportunity to learn that the policy ignorance on Pences part that shocked me is actually rather typical.
What now surprises me is when I come across a member of Congress who really does understand a particular issue in detail. And this sometimes does happen. Little pockets of expertise are scattered hither and yon all throughout Capitol Hill especially when members dig in to work on idiosyncratic pieces of legislation that are off the radar of big-time partisan conflict. But on most issues, most of the time, most members of Congress are more or less blindly following talking points that they got from somewhere else and that they dont really understand.
Members form identities as a certain kind of politician a New Democrat or a progressive, a leadership ally or a rock-ribbed true conservative and then they take cues from how a politician like that ought to respond to the controversy of the day, and their staff hastily assembles some stuff to say about it.
And the problem here isnt that the members are dumb, as I used to think. Its that Congress hasnt set itself up for individual members to be well-informed. Staff budgets are generally low, and a decent share of staff effort has to be put into constituent service and answering the mail. Senators, who have larger staffs, are generally competent to discuss a wider range of issues. And committee staffs have more policy expertise, so committee chairs and ranking members are often fairly knowledgeable about the subjects under their jurisdiction.
But typical members have little chance to build in-house knowledge on policy issues, and as matter of economic necessity skilled staffers have to be looking for their next job. Nor do the members themselves exactly have a ton of time to delve into issues and talk to policy experts. Theyre expected to commute back and forth to their home districts, show up routinely at community events, and spend vast amounts of time raising money in small increments.
A consequence of this is that members become dependent on interest groups not just for money but for actual knowledge and information. The typical member of Congress, faced with some arbitrary policy issue, has neither the personal nor the staff capacity to actually research the issue and come up with a fair-minded and independent judgment about the merits of the issue.
This tends to leave Congress members dangerously dependent on lobbyists (or at times pure hucksters) for analysis, which fuels public contempt of Congress, which makes it all the more unthinkable for Congress to try to vote itself the extra money for staff and expertise building that could fix the problem.
The average member of Congress has little incentive to learn about policy
Last but by no means least, individual members face relatively little incentive to really understand policy matters. Presidents (like governors, mayors, and other executive branch officials) are sort of broadly accountable for results and know that if they loudly champion something that turns out to be a disaster, they will face political blowback as a result.
Legislators, by contrast, have a lot of opportunity to engage in cheap talk. You can say youre for all kinds of blue sky ideas a $15-an-hour minimum wage, eliminating the Environmental Protection Agency and the IRS, a moratorium on deportations, deporting everyone, banning fracking, drilling everywhere secure in the knowledge that its not going to happen so it doesnt really matter what the implementation details or specific consequences are. If its the kind of thing that fits the image youre trying to project, thats a good enough reason to come out in favor of it.
Congressional leaders are particularly uninformed
What really got me about Pence was that he wasnt just a random backbencher. He was a significant factional leader someone whom the more conservative House members were supposed to look to as a valued senior colleague.
What I now understand is that all the factors that push individual members of Congress toward ignorance push would-be congressional leaders even further in this direction. To become a congressional leader means, first and foremost, that you need to be really good at raising money. Thats a difficult and time-consuming task, and one for which detailed policy knowledge isnt especially helpful.
The ultimate result is legitimately bad. Congress is the most important policymaking institution in the American constitutional system. But individual members of Congress are not knowledgeable about policy and are not equipped to become knowledgeable, and becoming knowledgeable is not a good way to shift into a leadership position.
Pence may well have been dumber or more ignorant than your average member of Congress, but most fundamentally he was an integral part of a larger institutional framework that cultivates and promotes ignorance. That system, more than anything about Pence himself, is whats really scary.
Tomi Lahren"s STUPID Response To Jesse Williams’ BET Award Speech About Racism
Tomi Lahren is a young white news anchor for Glenn BecksThe Blazewhose work only goes viral and receives coverage when she goes on a racially-tinged tirade. As a result, shes gone on quite a few and, of course, trended pretty often. What she says and allows others to say on her show is often incendiaryand shocking.
Last night, as news was breaking that police officers had been shot in Dallas, Lahren went on a Twitter tear that likened Black Lives Matter to the Ku Klux Klan. As we now know, BLM had nothing to do with the shooting suspect, who claimed he acted alone.
Speaking of individuals having nothing to do with larger organizations, people on the Internet are banding together to request that networks completely disengage with Lahren going forward.
A change.org petition called Removing Tomi Lahren From TheBlaze has already met its goal of 15,000 signers and has now moved the goal to 25,000.
The text that accompanies it is long, but here are some key phrases:
Everyone has a voice and an opinion. However, when the wrong voice is given a platform and is allowed to influence an audience of millions by perpetuating derogatory ideology toward select groups of individuals, this is where the injustice lies. Tomi Lahren (although her words are laden with passion and emotion) lacks the knowledge and experience to effectively communicate and facilitate Should a biased, misinformed, 23-year-old with no background in law, law degree, life experience, or experience in Government be the political voice of a generation that will change this nation?
The petition is addressed to Fox News and will also be delivered to Viacom, ABC, NBC, and CBS.The Blazeis Becks and does not belong to any major networks, but local stations can become affiliates, so that could explain why the petition is going out to the major networks and not Beck himself.
Lahren and Beck have yet to respond to the petition.
When Denver, Colorado, resident Alton Ward was at Texas A&M University four years ago, he said he weighed 355 pounds despite trying diets such as Jenny Craig, Atkins, juice diets and every other thing,ValdostaToday reported.
"All my life I knew I was big and I always wanted to lose weight," Ward told Business Insider.
Ward had been eating atChick-fil-Asince he was child. He knew it had healthy portions, so it was a good place to start. Texas A&M had one on campus and Ward would have several meals a week there.
Here"s what Ward"s meal plan looked like:
He ate two boiled eggs with oatmeal for breakfast.If he went toChick-fil-Afor lunch, he would have a grilled chicken wrap. If it was colder, he would get soup. He would frequently get salads with a little bit of ranch dressing. There were days he ate at the chicken restaurant twice a day, Business Insider said.
He also added an exercise program.He came up with a strength and cardio plan and he said he lost 140 pounds in 11-and-a-half months.
"I thinkChick-fil-Ais a great brand. It"s literally help me change my life because I was on my way to a heart attack or just having a stroke or diabetes in every way," Ward told Business Insider. "Chick-fil-Ajust helped me to take a step back and understand that I have to make a long-term change and find food that works for me and exercise that works for me and make it fun."
Before there was Julian Edelman and Tom Brady, there was Wes Welker and Tom Brady. On Tuesday, Welker appeared in studio with Toucher and Rich of CBS Sports radio"s WBZ. Among the topics covered: Edelman inserting himself into any and all situations involving the Patriots quarterback.
Remember when Brady met with Kevin Durant to try to convince him to join the Celtics? A day later, Edelman"s on Instagram wearing a Durant Celtics jersey -- even though no one asked him his thoughts on the matter. Then there"s Brady"s brand -- TB12. A short time later, Edelman released JE11.
"So is there a Single White Female situation?" co-host Rich Shertenlieb asked Welker.
Before the former Pats wideout answered, co-host Fred "Toucher" Toettcher added, "Is there something going on where Edelman is looking up to Brady a great deal?"
"Uh, yeah," Welker said. "I mean, it"s a little too obvious. ... I think it"s been noticed."
Welker went on to explain the relationship in terms of name brand and off-brand medication.
"It"s like going and getting Advil, and then there"s like the Walgreen"s prescription next to it," he said.
Or, as Shertenlieb said between laughs, "So you"re saying [Edelman] is the general version; less potent, less powerful."
Welker was asked if he"s ever had to tell Edelman to dial back the Brady love because he was laying it on too thick.
"Yeah, but to his credit, he admits it a lot of time."
"If Tom Brady asked Julian Edelman to commit a crime, do you think he would do it for him?" Shertenlieb asked.
Welker"s response: "Probably so."
Make fun of Edelman all you want, but the man knows where to hitch his wagon; he was an integral part of the Patriots" Super Bowl XLIX win, and when he"s healthy he"s one of the league"s best slot receivers.
But yeah, Edelman really does find new and inventive ways to insert himself into situations that also includes Brady. The latest: Brady and Justin Timberlake were spotted having a grand time at UFC 200. Not to be outdone, Edelman later tweeted a photo of Brady and Timberlake -- and Photoshopped himself into the fun because, well, that"s apparently his thing.
Claim: Chick-fil-A released "Back the Blue" shirts in the wake of July 2016 "Black Lives Matter" protests.
WHAT"S TRUE: In 2015, high school employees at a single Chick-fil-A in Texas created their own "Back the Blue" shirts.
WHAT"S FALSE: Chick-fil-A has not voiced support for either movement in question; "back the blue" is not tantamount to "a bomb on Black Lives Matters"; the shirts were not created or distributed by a franchise (much less the company); the shirts had nothing to do with Black Lives Matter protests in July 2016.
Example: [Collected via e-mail and Twitter, July 2016]
Chick-Fil-A-just-dropped-a-bomb-on-black-lives-matter-police-officers-are-pumped. . . this is circulating on face book with a picture of chick fil a employee wearing a t-shirt. . .is this true?
Origin:Two days after the 7 July 2016 shootings in Dallas that killed at least five police officers, multiple web sites published items reporting thatChick-fil-A had essentially "chosen a side" inboth the tragedy and Black Lives Matter protests against police brutality:
According to that version (and several like it) Chick-fil-A "unveiled" the shirts on or around 9 July 2016, presumably in response to events in Dallas:
Its not too often a large company like Chick-fil-A gets involved in a controversial topic, but they have thrown themselves right smack in the middle of the Black Lives Matter movement with a statement that has millions of people talking across the country.
Blue Lives Matter is a movement that counters BLM by encouraging citizens to support police officers that put their lives on the line every single day for citizens across the country. Police officers are here to protect citizens and will do so regardless of color, as long as you cooperate and obey the law.
To show support for law enforcement, Chick-fil-A has unveiled their Back The Blue t-shirts:
Nearly every version of the popular tale was written from a standpoint that presumed thateither people either opposed police officers or Black Lives Matter:
The claim about Chick-fil-A introducing "back the blue" shirts specifically in response to events in July 2016 was easily proven untrue. In November 2015, the pro-law enforcement web sitePoliceOne covered the appearance of the shirts at a single Texas location of the chain in October 2015:
Employees at the College Park Chick-fil-A wore "Back the Blue" shirts to show support to law enforcement, Independent Journal reported.
"Were supporting those everyday heroes that protect us," location manager Eli Advincula told the publication. "There are [police officer] regulars that eat here all the time, and we just want them to know that.
The blue also symbolizes the local high school football team.
That post itself linked to a Facebook photograph of a child wearing a "back the blue" shirt unrelated to Chick-fil-A:
Also linked was an article identifying the location of the shirts as Conroe, Texas; notably, an embedded Facebook post had since been deleted. We contacted Chick-fil-A corporate to ask whether the shirts were created in 2016 or were a chain-wide issue. A representative told us that the shirts were the work of high school employees,and that they were worn at a single location in Texas in October 2015.
Last updated: 12 July 2016
Originally published: 12 July 2016
sources:
Lee, Parker. "Chick-fil-A Employees In Texas Are Sporting T-Shirts That Are Catching Police Officers Attention." Independent Journal. November 2015.
PoliceOne.com. "Photo: Texas Chick-Fil-A Employees Wear "Back The Blue" Shirts." 19 November 2015.
Top 10 Tom Brady Highlights of 2015 | NFL Photo After losing an appeal to a three-judge panel in April, Patriots quarterback Tom Brady asked for the full United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to hear the case. Credit Steven Senne/Associated Press
Tom Brady, the New England Patriots quarterback, is all but guaranteed to start the season on the sideline after a federal appeals court on Wednesday denied his request to review his four-game suspension for his role in a scheme to deflate footballs.
The decision, announced in a one-page notice by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, may also put an end to one of the most widely watched and embarrassing scandals in the history of the N.F.L. The case, which began in January 2015, raised awkward and unseemly questions about the powers of the commissioner and the motivations of one of the most decorated players in league history.
Brady can still ask the Supreme Court to hear his appeal to have his suspension overturned, but given the timetable of the court, and the fact that the season begins in less than two months, the chances of any relief coming before opening day are remote.
As a result, it is all but certain that the Patriots will be led by the little-tested backup quarterback Jimmy Garoppolo when the Patriots open their season on Sept. 11 against the Cardinals in Arizona. Brady, who can attend training camp and play during the preseason, would not be eligible to return until the fifth week of the season, when the Patriots play the Browns in Cleveland.
The case began at the A.F.C. championship game on Jan. 18, 2015, when officials determined that some game b***s used by the Patriots were underinflated, presumably to make it easier for Brady to grip them in the wet weather. An investigation by the league determined that Brady was generally aware of a plot that involved Patriots staff members to deliberately deflate the b***s.
N.F.L. Commissioner Roger Goodell suspended Brady for four games, and he upheld his own decision when Brady appealed the suspension. Brady sued in federal court to have the decision overturned, arguing that the commissioner was a biased arbitrator, that the penalty was never explicit in the N.F.L. rules and that the commissioner used a different standard when deciding to uphold his first ruling.
In a surprise ruling, Brady won that case. The N.F.L., however, was able to persuade a three-judge panel in the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to overturn the ruling. Bradys request to have the case reheard in front of a full panel of judges was denied, despite the support of a number of leading legal minds who wrote briefs on his behalf.
While the N.F.L. will no doubt view Wednesdays decision as a victory and an affirmation of the commissioners broad powers to mete out punishment to players he deems to have hurt the image of the N.F.L., the case continues to divide fans. It was widely viewed as a farce because the league spent millions of dollars fighting a successful franchise and a celebrated star who helped lead his team to four Super Bowl titles.
The N.F.L. Players Association said it was reviewing its options, but did not specify whether it would appeal to the Supreme Court. In a statement, the players union said that the Goodell made clear violations of our collective bargaining agreement.
Despite todays result, the track record of this league office when it comes to matters of player discipline is bad for our business and bad for our game, the union said. We have a broken system that must be fixed.
