A photo posted by Melissa Joan Hart (@melissajoanhart) on Mar 9, 2016 at 6:14pm PST
The mother of three said he helps her and her friends stay fit:
“Mark recently started training me and a few of my friends at our house. It’s a lot of fun!” the blond beauty dished. “The best part is that when we work out together, we just want to keep going so sometimes we end up working out for hours at a time.”
Hart also offered some advice for how to stay on track when it comes to being healthy, saying, “One of my slimming secrets is to treat yourself. It can’t be about deprivation. If I want to have a piece of cake or a slice of pizza, I do. And then I get back on track the next day.”
Days after the National Enquirer promoted a story regarding alleged affairs between Senator Ted Cruz and five women, at least two of the women have come forward to deny the allegations: the Trump campaign’s national spokeswoman Katrina Pierson and CNN’s Amanda Carpenter.
In spite of that, Trump social media director Dan Scavino was still promoting a video on Monday that he implied showed evidence of the affair between Carpenter and Cruz. The evidence in question? Carpenter appears to wear a suit jacket while Cruz appears without one.
Wentworth Miller took a break from acting in 2010, but not before appearing in countless films and landing a starring role hit the TV series “Prison Break.”
But Miller says not many people knew the real reason he “semi-retired,” which was in large part due to his ongoing mental health issues.
He explains in a recent Facebook post that he was suicidal and considered himself “damaged goods.” It reads, in part:
“…the voices in my head urged me down the path to self-destruction. Not for the first time.
I’ve struggled with depression since childhood. It’s a battle that’s cost me time, opportunities, relationships, and a thousand sleepless nights.
In 2010, at the lowest point in my adult life, I was looking everywhere for relief/comfort/distraction. And I turned to food. It could have been anything. Drugs. Alcohol. Sex. But eating became the one thing I could look forward to. Count on to get me through. There were stretches when the highlight of my week was a favorite meal and a new episode of TOP CHEF. Sometimes that was enough. Had to be.”
To make matters worse, Miller gained some weight, which he didn’t consider a big deal, but the tabloids sure had a field day with it:
While it’s been six years since those photos came out, they resurfaced Monday when the Lad Bible posted his before and after photos on social media.
Rather than be bitter about his low point in life, Miller says seeing old pictures from 2010 makes him thankful for surviving:
“Now, when I see that image of me in my red t-shirt, a rare smile on my face, I am reminded of my struggle. My endurance and my perseverance in the face of all kinds of demons. Some within. Some without.
Like a dandelion up through the pavement, I persist.”
The “Prison Break” star used the media frenzy as a way to raise awareness on suicide prevention:
“If you or someone you know is struggling, help is available. Reach out. Text. Send an email. Pick up the phone. Someone cares. They’re waiting to hear from you. Much love. – W.M. #koalas #inneractivist #prisonbroken”
According to the National Institute of Mental Health, suicide is the 10th leading cause of overall death in the U.S., claiming more than 41,000 lives each year.
There was on Monday a quintessential example of the horrendously bad thinking of those opposed to all things intellectual property. An op-ed totally disconnected from Reality – and chock full of thought-free, pathetic anti-property platitudes.
It is sad that so many remain steadfastly impervious to facts. But they do, so we will address this latest bit of inanity – so that the many who remain receptive to Reality may be properly informed.
“Lately the media have been going wild mocking Donald Trump’s plans to put 45 percent tariffs on imports from China. They are partly right. It’s not clever to indiscriminately impose large tariffs on major trading partners in violation of existing trade agreements….
“But what is even more striking is the selective concern over tariffs. While Trump wants to put large tariffs on imports from some of our major trading partners, President Obama is actively pushing to have far larger tariffs imposed on a wide range of goods in his trade deals, most importantly the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Measures in the TPP pushed by US negotiators will raise the price of many items by several thousand percent above the free market price.”
Tariffs are, of course, taxes. We conservatives don’t like taxes – so this may be an attempted appeal to our sensibilities. A 10,000% tariff? That would be awful. Except to what Baker refers – isn’t any sort of tax at all.
“If you missed this discussion, it’s because these trade barriers are referred to as ‘intellectual property,’ which takes the form of patent and copyright protection.”
If we missed the discussion – it’s because this guy is misusing the terminology. Intellectual property protection is not a tax. It is a fundamental component of a free market economy. It is specifically afforded protections in our Constitution. President Abraham Lincoln “called the introduction of patent laws one of the three most important developments ‘in the world’s history,’ along with the discovery of America and the perfection of printing.”
Intellectual property protection is government protecting productive people – and their productions. A tax is unproductive government taking money from productive people to do unproductive things. See the difference?
“But markets don’t care what term politicians use to describe a government imposed barrier.”
Actually, markets care a great deal. If you kill tariffs and taxes – markets flourish. If you kill intellectual property protection – there will soon be no markets at all. Because for markets to have things to trade – there must first be the ideas for those things. If those ideas aren’t protected – those things will never come to market.
“If a price increase of 10,000 percent sounds high, you haven’t been paying attention to what the drug industry charges for its new drugs. For example, the list price for the Hepatitis C drug Sovaldi is $84,000 for a three-month course of treatment. A recent analysis found that Indian manufacturers can profitably produce the drug for just $200 per three-month course of treatment, suggesting a tariff equivalent of more than 40,000 percent.”
Spoken like a man who has obviously never actually produced anything. Yes, the second pill costs pennies. But the first one costs billions of dollars.
Because you don’t just magically, instantaneously arrive at an effective medication. You have lots of very smart, very expensive people doing lots and lots of development – and conducting lots and lots of very expensive tests. Much of which results in absolutely nothing – except failed attempts and ineffective products.
Finally, the magic concoction of effort, trial, error and perseverance – marinated by LOTS of money – eventually delivers a successful concoction. A success – on which the producers must recoup the billions they spent failing.
Lost on Baker is the Genesis of all of this effort and expenditure – the intellectual property protection that makes it all possible. If at the end these people can’t protect what they’ve produced – they will never begin.
Why go to all the time, trouble and inordinate expense – if you don’t get to keep what you create?
Mr. Baker goes on, and ON (and ON…) – but you by now get the idea that he has no idea of what he is speaking.
Taxes…are taxes. And are impediments to markets optimally functioning.
Intellectual property protection (patents, copyrights, trademarks)…is NOT taxes. And is crucial to markets even existing – let alone optimally functioning.
I’m sure you see the difference. Here’s hoping Mr. Baker now does.
The two men in this video may not be as eloquent as your typical journalist or reporter. Their direct and blunt way of speaking comes off as simple-minded to those who scoff at Southern drawls or plain language.
But a sincere attempt to engage with their arguments would show that there’s nothing about these men’s intelligence or politics that deserves mockery.
Here are some examples:
After one of the supporters is asked about Trump being racist, he replies:
“I’m not racist or anything. I love black people. I love white people. I love all of America.”
Then, when the guy in the hat is asked about the people protesting Trump, he says:
“I feel like a lot of protesters are doing this for attention, because they’re just following the crowd. I feel like it’s a trend. I don’t even know if some of them will go voting.”
Next, the same supporter explains how he doesn’t like that Trump is vague when it comes to his policy positions:
“I know he doesn’t get into details about a lot of his positions. And that’s one thing I don’t agree with a lot.”
He goes further to distance himself from being part of a conspiracy theory that believes Obama was born in Kenya:
“Obama says he was born in Hawaii I think. If he has proof, he was born in America.”
In addition, the same supporter in the hat says he doesn’t agree with everything Trump is saying or wanting to do.
Check out the video to see more of the conversation, and you be the judge if the men on camera are just ‘incoherent supporters.’
A Texas Muslim who owns a fast-food franchise has been engaging in a public fight against those of another religion with whom he appears to have a deep dislike. So who are those the Muslim in Kemah is calling “racists” with signs all over his Dairy Queen? Surprisingly, the attack is aimed at Hindus. Among […]
Source: Pratt on Texas
The latest thing that Trump supporters have fixated on is the idea that if Trump has the most delegates going into the convention and someone else walks out as the GOP nominee, then all of Trump’s voters will have been “disenfranchised.” Both Trump and Carson have sounded on this theme, and then of course there’s this… whatever it is:
After GOP disenfranchises its own voters at convention, watching them claim they’re not doing same to black voters in general will be fun.
I think we all understand that this is stupid on stilts. Just because you’ve cast a vote for your candidate and he doesn’t end up winning (according to the rules of the election he is participating in) does not mean that you’ve been “disenfranchised.” It just means you’ve voted for a loser. It happens to almost half of the voting population every election.
Listen, this is very simple; the RNC’s rules very clearly state – as they have from the beginning – that you have to have a majority of delegates in order to win the nomination. If no candidate gets that majority on the first ballot, then there’s a process for selecting a nominee that leaves the ballot results behind. There’s no rule that says that the top delegate-getter in the first ballot has to be the choice; if there were such a rule, then whoever got a plurality of the delegates would just automatically win per the rules.
It’s exactly equivalent to the electoral college in that way. Imagine if Trump gets the nomination, runs against Hillary, and Rick Perry or someone runs third party. Imagine that Hillary gets 230 electoral votes, Trump gets 170, and Perry gets 140. The election would then go to the House of Representatives. If they chose Trump, then Hillary’s voters haven’t been “disenfranchised.” There just weren’t enough of them for her to win the election per the clearly stated rules.
But a simple comparison shows how stupid and ridiculous this complaint is, especially coming from Trump supporters. This chart shows that, at every step of the way (including the portion of the race after the field narrowed to 4 and then 3 GOP candidates), Bernie Sanders has gotten a higher share of the Democrat vote than Trump has gotten of the Republican vote. Credit to our own Dan McLaughlin for these numbers:
Now, when Bernie Sanders is routed by Hillary Clinton at the Dem convention, no one is going to say that his voters were “disenfranchised.” The fact that this is even a discussion among Trump supporters shows how the rules have, in fact, benefitted Trump to a pretty insane degree. The GOP’s delegate allocation rules were specifically designed to give a narrow frontrunner an easier path (anticipating a conservative insurgency).
The only reason that Trump is even close to being on pace to get 1,237 delegates is because of the RNC’s rules. If not for them, he would be close to being mathematically eliminated right now just like Cruz. It’s those same rules he’s benefitted from that have made it clear all along that you have to get a majority to be entitled to win without a contested convention – and they made it remarkably easy for a front runner to do so.
If Trump fails to cross the 1,237 threshold, it will be because he has so alienated GOP voters overall that over 60% of them remained stubbornly opposed to him throughout the course of the primary season. And those voters deserve to have their vote count just as much as the 37% of Republicans (and Democrats and Independents) who have voted for Trump. The fact that Trump could not close the deal in spite of a jury-rigged system in his favor means that, at the very least, serious consideration needs to be given to the best non-Trump option.
And doing so isn’t “disenfranchisement.” If enough Trump voters existed – or even potentially existed – to push Trump over the top, then we wouldn’t even be having this conversation.