BlogHer - MSNBC - Comments

yoga at lunch

CHarris — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 19:34:24 -0500

taking a lunch break is a must. I wasted so many years working through lunch and when I look back now on my years of cubicle slave-dom I realize it was basically for nothing. I wish I would have known about this website - www.yogatoday.com - they have a new 1 hour yoga class everyday online and the best part is...it's free! so, if you cant get away from your computer, maybe you can turn on this website and at least join in on the breathing exercises.

Laura Thanks for your

Susan_Wilson_Solovic — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 13:14:21 -0500

Laura

Thanks for your comments. I agree with your
assessment. Passion is wonderful. It certainly makes building a
business much easier in terms of working the long and difficult hours you need
to do in order to succeed. However, businesses run on process, consistent
operations and results, profitability, productivity -- all of the things you
note below.

You didn’t mention the end of the story for your business.
I hope you are successful. Please feel free to contact us (me) at anytime
and let us know how we can help.

Susan

Susan Wilson Solovic

CEO, SBTV.com

1790 S. Brentwood

St. Louis, MO 63144

Susan@sbtv.com

http://www.sbtv.com/

Join
our SBTV.com Community

Author: The Girls'
Guide to Building a Million Dollar Business

Passion shmassion

rebellious thinker — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 19:38:56 -0500

I had passion for my business. I had passion for the products I was developing and trying to sell, heck I developed the products m from my passions. But between passion and developing a successful business there needs to be strong business acumen, marketing insight, money backers, a modicum of luck, and a absolute blind faith in yourself and your ability to succeed.

Laura

www.rebelliousthoughtsofawoman.com

MSM? hah, good idea

Denise — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 20:31:53 -0600

We've discussed that quite a bit around here, Floridians that we are, and we hadn't come up with the idea that the news networks foot the bill. Brilliant.

~Denise
BlogHer Community Manager

Flamingo House Happenings

Ugh! Catherine, that would

Dana J. Tuszke — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 12:39:27 -0600

Ugh! Catherine, that would be a nightmare for sure. I'd never tune into a televised conference again. :-p

Something scary...

Catherine Morgan — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 21:49:43 -0600

Did you hear McCain praising Giuliani? Wouldn't it be a nightmare to have a McCain/Giuliani ticket?

Contributing Editor Catherine Morgan
CatherineBlogs, The Political Voices of Women, Care2 Election Blog

LOL, Catherine, no. I don't

Dana J. Tuszke — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 21:43:29 -0600

LOL, Catherine, no. I don't think I could sit through all that again. Man...I'm really considering voting Democrat this November. I can only imagine how that will go over with my Republican family members. Heh.

The economy was the big deal in this debate. All in good reason, too. We're struggling here in America... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22829780/

Does this mean...

Catherine Morgan — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 21:37:55 -0600

Does this mean you won't be watching the re-airing at midnight? :)

Contributing Editor Catherine Morgan
CatherineBlogs, The Political Voices of Women, Care2 Election Blog

I'm getting a headache,

Dana J. Tuszke — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 21:20:53 -0600

I'm getting a headache, watching this debate. I'm so frustrated. I don't care for a single one of these GOP candidates.

Mitt is all for a "head to head" with Hillary. The GOP keeps attaching Hillary to Bill. Do they not think she can run a campaign on her own?

Ron Paul wants to do away with Social Security. If that's so, I want all my Social Security tax back. After all, it is MY money. And who will take care of our elderly? The government can't handle that responsibility. Look at the screwed up medicare/medicaid system?

Mitt says he won't raise taxes to save Social Security like Ronald Reagan did. Why don't I believe him?

Is it possible that Ron Paul

Dana J. Tuszke — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 20:32:20 -0600

Is it possible that Ron Paul could win the GOP nomination? He's making sense tonight, and normally I can't stand him.

McCain says we are succeeding in Iraq and that we can sustain our troops stationed there. If we withdraw, he says, Al Quaeda will have won. He's proud that he's the only candidate to support the abandonment of the "Rumsfeld strategy" for the approach that is currently working.

So far, the opening of this

Dana J. Tuszke — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 20:24:08 -0600

So far, the opening of this debate is focused on our economy. All the candidates claim to be for lower taxes, yet their records do not reflect this. Mike Huckabee wants to build a four-lane highway from Bangor, ME to Miami, FL using American workers, American steel, etc -- to keep jobs and income in the US.

Romney claims that lowering taxes and cutting spending is the first step to rebuilding the economy and creating more jobs in America.

Giuliani keeps talking of NY and the tragedy of 9-11. It seems he can't speak without bringing that up. Why is that? Giuliani says America is a global economy and needs to look into it's investments. Giuliani is "pretty much in favor of free trade and being aggressive in the global economy"

Which party is better at dealing with the economy, the Democrats have an 18 point advantage. Why should the American people keep a Republican in the White House when they have such a terrible track record?

McCain says that the Dems have already stated they will increase taxes. He will veto every big spending bills and impose fiscal discipline. He says the Republicans will clean up their act. I can seem to put any weight into those words.

Huckabee started out saying he wasn't in Washington in 2001 to mess all this up, but he says it's not fair to blame President Bush -- that in fact the White House has been keeping America safe.

If the lessons from the Imus episode are applied to Matthews

Kim Pearson — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 15:09:33 -0600

1. It will probably take years of protests against these kinds of remarks. FAIR's campaign against Imus goes back at least to 2000.
2. He will have to insult someone who is not a public figure.
3. People within the network, as well as people at the companies that advertise with them will have to register their displeasure. Al Roker and Bruce Gordon were two such examples in the Imus episode.
4. Professional organizations in the news industry will have to weigh in.

Kim
BlogHer Contributing Editor|Professor Kim|

His own words are proof enough

Virginia DeBolt — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 10:55:33 -0600

I thought you might mention this website, Sweet Jesus, I Hate Chris Matthews, since there was chatter about it yesterday on the CE list. When I looked at the site, I thought the approach used there was just as offensive as Matthews himself. I don't think acting as insulting as the supposed target of your complaint is quite the approach to use to achieve change.

A factual recitation of the man's own offensive remarks should be quite enough to do him in.

http://www.webteacher.ws/
http://first50.wordpress.com/

It is discrimination, and

LizaWasHere — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 14:54:09 -0500

It is discrimination, and IMO it is wrong.

Whether it is illegal discrimination is a separate question; it is true that 23 year olds and blonds are not protected classes under any US civil rights law. And whether SWA was completely within it's rights is also a complicated question. I expect that it will depend on the fine print in the ticket purchase agreement, but that document probably does involve SWA saying that the customer agrees that the airline can refuse service under fairly broad discretion.

Having said that, it does seem strange that a company as casual as SWA would suddenly decide to unforce a passenger dress code. I would have been much less surprised if Saudi Airlines declined to allow a female passenger in such a short skirt to board a flight.

Liza
Founder & Coordinator, LesbianFamily.org
Personal Blog, LizaWasHere

Actually, you're wrong

eljeffe — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 22:19:25 -0500

Calling this discrimination, at least in any legal sense, is simply wrong. There are very specific "protected classes" which may not be discriminated against; blond 23-year women are not included unless you believe that this was done specifically because of her gender. That, of course, would fly directly in the face of common sense given the tens of thousands of women who fly Southwest every day (none of which I've ever seen wearing anything quite like this). I personally hope they would do the same thing to any 23 year old male that decided to wear a thong on board.

You may disagree with Southwest's policy or handling of the situation, but the fact is that they were completely within their rights.