They want me to get dedicated hosting for provocateuse! I don't know what to do...
Spike ,'Sleeper'
Natter 41: Why Do I Click on ita's Links?!
Off-topic discussion. Wanna talk about corsets, duct tape, or physics? This is the place. Detailed discussion of any current-season TV must be whitefonted.
Future employees have free will-- if the MTA is not competitive, they will have trouble hiring people.
Isn't that the argument they always make for abolishing the minimum wage?
It's a variant of every regulatory/government intervention/collective bargaining vs. free market argument. I'm not going to say that one should always choose the same side in that argument-- it should be dependent on a balancing of harms. In this case, there appears to me to be a fairly free market for future MTA employees. It's not like they have to make an investment in education, or have some special skill. In other words, people don't *have* to work for the MTA. Whereas in the minimum wage context, one could argue that everyone has to work for someone with or without a minimum wage obligation.
Future hires may have a serious problem with pension obligations meaning that the MTA can't hire them in the first place, let alone what happens to them after 25 years there.
That's not a small problem, though.
I don't understand this. The new hire will know when the pension kicks in, and he might go somewhere with a better pension plan or maybe find the MTA's position (lesser pension obligation might mean better job security) sweeter. On the other hand, overly increasing the pension obligation means that more people have to work somewhere else. They might not find a job with a pension at all.
Also, the MTA is being (no shock) weasely. They need to go to the state labor board to change the retirement parameters, doing it with the contract is back-handed.
What would you say if they went to Albany first, instead of contracting with the workers? They're going to Albany anyway. I suspect you'd find legislative approval of the new age limit before union agreement more weaselly.
But the teachers just went three years without a contract, I can't blame the TWU for thinking the city won't negotiate in good faith without being leaned on.
The city is not in this negotiation. The MTA is a state org.
That's not a small problem, though.
I don't understand this.
I was actually agreeing with you there.
I am getting several gift cards for Christmas, and I know where they are from because they came in the mail in those unmistakeable envelopes. So I am browsing the relevant web sites trying to pick things I want.
I find gift cards a little depressing, actually. I mean, if you get a present you may get bizarrely wrong things, but I don't like trying to pick out my own present. I always feel the need to buy things on sale, or practical things I actually need, and I always have to chip in some of my own cash to cover the ridiculous shipping.
Am I alone in this?
I was actually agreeing with you there.
Oh, ok.
You're not alone, flea. I'm actually fine with getting a check, and don't mind picking for myself if I have some real choice, but I get weirdly anxious and cranky about the feeling of "I have to get something from *this* store" (even if it's not a store I especially like).
Am I alone in this?
Nope. Unless it's for books, which I love to shop for. And even then, I try to make the gift certificate go as far as possible, but it's kind of fun for me -- how many books can I get with X dollars?
I don't like gift cards so much. To me, it seems like, the thought is, "get your own damn gift!" If someone doesn't know what to get me and doesn't care enough about the process to find out, I'd rather they not get me anything (being gifted makes me uncomfortable anyway) or give cash.
I did get a gift card for my dad, once, for Borders, because he loooves hanging out in bookstores and doesn't really have the cash to spend on books. Also, if it's a gift card for something like Starbucks or Dunkin Donuts or someplace that someone knows I go to a lot, those are OK. So I am kind of a hypocrite.
QUESTION: Why did you skip the basic safeguards of asking courts for permission for the intercepts?
BUSH: First of all, right after September the 11th, I knew we were fighting a different kind of war. And so I asked people in my administration to analyze how best for me and our government to do the job people expect us to do, which is to detect and prevent a possible attack. That's what the American people want.
We looked at the possible scenarios. And the people responsible for helping us protect and defend came forth with the current program, because it enables us to move faster and quicker, and that's important. We've got to be fast on our feet, quick to detect and prevent.
We use FISA still. You're referring to the FISA accord in your question. Of course we use FISAs.
But FISAs is for long-term monitoring. What is needed in order to protect the American people is the ability to move quickly to detect.
And having suggested this idea, I then, obviously, went to the question, is it legal to do so? I swore to uphold the laws. Do I have the legal authority to do this? And the answer is, absolutely.
As I mentioned in my remarks, the legal authority is derived from the Constitution, as well as the authorization of force by the United States Congress.
The Constitution grants the president authority to wiretap citizens without court approval?
I like gift cards. And if they're from new/different/strange stores, it's like an adventure.
I'm currently carrying balances on Bed Bath & Beyond, TGIF, and Banana Republic. TGIF irritates because it's out of my way, but other than that, free restaurant food! And it keeps me out of Applebee's.