text:
[Decision Number]
National Treasury Employees Union (Union) and United States Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, Office of Chief Counsel, Washington, D.C. (Agency)
66 FLRA No. 150
NATIONAL TREASURY
EMPLOYEES UNION
(Union)
OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL
(Agency)
0-NG-3130
DECISION AND ORDER
ON NEGOTIABILITY ISSUES
Before the Authority: Carol Waller Pope, Chairman, and
Thomas M. Beck and Ernest DuBester, Members[1]
I. Statement of the Case
This case is before the Authority on a negotiability appeal filed by the Union under § 7105(a)(2)(E) of the Federal Service Labor‑Management Relations Statute (the Statute) and concerns the negotiability of two provisions disapproved by the Agency head under § 7114(c) of the Statute.[2] The Agency filed a statement of position (SOP), the Union filed a response (response), and the Agency filed a reply (reply).[3]
For the reasons that follow, we order the Agency to rescind its disapproval of the first provision, and we dismiss the petition for review (petition) as to the second provision.
II. Preliminary Matters
A. We dismiss the Agency's stay request.
In its SOP and an earlier-filed motion, the Agency requests that the Authority stay these proceedings until the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) issues its decision on the petition for review of the Authority's decision in NTEU, 65 FLRA 509 (2011) (Member Beck dissenting in part) (NTEU). SOP at 2. In its response and an opposition to the motion, the Union opposes granting a stay. Response at 2.
On February 7, 2012, the D.C. Circuit issued its decision dismissing the petition for review of NTEU. See U.S. Dep't of the Treasury v. FLRA, 670 F.3d 1315 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (Treasury v. FLRA).[4] When a party has requested a stay of proceedings that was linked to a pending case and a decision issues in the pending case, the Authority has found that the issuance of the decision mooted the stay request. See NTEU, 63 FLRA 26, 27 (2008). Consistent with this precedent, we dismiss the Agency's request as moot.[5] See id.
B. We deny the Union's request not to allow the Agency to file a reply, and we deny the Union's alternative request for permission to respond to the Agency's reply.
The Union asserts the Authority should not grant the Agency permission to file a reply. See Response at 1. But § 2424.26(a) of the Authority's Regulations expressly authorizes the filing by an agency of a reply to a union's response to address "any facts or arguments made for the first time in the [union's] response." 5 C.F.R. § 2424.26(a). As the Agency's reply addresses only the legal arguments raised by the Union for the first time in its response, § 2424.26(a) authorizes the reply, and filing the reply does not require the permission of the Authority. Thus, we deny the Union's request not to allow the Agency to file a reply.
In addition, the Union requests the Authority's permission to file a response to the Agency's reply. See Response at 1. In negotiability cases, the Authority's Regulations specifically provide for the filing of a union petition for review, an agency statement of position, a union response, and an agency reply. 5 C.F.R. §§ 2424.22, 2424.24, 2424.25, 2424.26. They do not provide for a union response to an agency reply. IFPTE, Local 3, 57 FLRA 699, 699 n.1 (2002) (Local 3). Under § 2424.27 of the Authority's Regulations,[6] the Authority will not consider any submission filed by a party, other than a submission specifically authorized by the Authority's Regulations, without a showing of extraordinary circumstances. 5 C.F.R. § 2424.27; Local 3, 57 FLRA at 699 n.1. Here, the Union asserts no extraordinary circumstances to permit consideration of a supplemental submission. Consistent with the Authority's Regulations and precedent, we deny the Union's request for permission to file a supplemental submission. See Local 3, 57 FLRA at 699 n.1.
C. We find that the Agency head disapproved the disputed provisions in their entirety.
The Union contends that the Agency head disapproved only specified wording of the disputed provisions. Response at 3, 13. The Agency contends that the Agency head disapproved the provisions in their entirety. Record of Post‑Petition Conference (Record) at 2.
The Agency-head-review memorandum states that the agreement "is disapproved" and specifically lists the "provisions on which this disapproval is based" as including the disputed provisions: "Article 10, Section 4.A" and "Article 49, Section B." Petition, Attach. In support of its position, the Union has submitted printed pages of the "Chief Counsel-NTEU 2011-2014 Negotiated Agreement," which "reflects [its] understanding" of what wording the Agency head disapproved. Response at ii, 3 n.1, 13 n.6. But neither those pages nor the Agency-head-review memorandum indicates that the Agency head disapproved only certain wording of the provisions now before the Authority. Consequently, we find that the Agency head disapproved both provisions in their entirety.
III. Article 10, Section 4(A)
A. Wording
When the Office has reasonable grounds to question whether an employee is properly using sick leave including annual leave in lieu of sick leave (for example, when sick leave is used frequently or in unusual patterns or circumstances), the Office may inquire further into the matter and ask the employee to explain. Absent a reasonably acceptable explanation, the Office will counsel the employee that continued frequent use of sick leave, or use in unusual patterns or circumstances, may result in a written requirement to furnish administratively acceptable evidence for each subsequent absence due to illness or incapacitation regardless of duration.
Petition at 3.
B. Meaning
The parties agree that the provision has the following meaning. The provision concerns sick‑leave usage and applies when the Agency has reasonable grounds to question whether an employee is properly using sick leave. Record at 2. In these circumstances, the Agency may inquire into the matter and ask the employee to explain. If the Agency decides that the employee has not provided a reasonable explanation, then the Agency will counsel the employee. Id. According to the Union, the counseling would inform the employee that, if identified usage of sick leave continues, then such usage could result in the Agency requiring the employee to furnish administratively acceptable evidence for each subsequent absence due to illness or incapacitation regardless of duration. Petition at 3.
The Union explains that the wording of the provision does not preclude management from disciplining employees when management determines that they have abused sick leave. Response at 3-4. The Union maintains that the provision only precludes management from requiring an employee to justify all future sick-leave requests without first counseling the employee. Id. at 3. The Agency disagrees and argues that the provision precludes management from disciplining an employee in connection with the circumstances that caused the Agency to first question whether the employee was abusing sick leave. SOP at 5.
In interpreting a disputed provision, the Authority looks to its plain wording and any union statement of intent. E.g., AFGE, Local 1770, 64 FLRA 953, 958 (2010). If the union's explanation is consistent with the plain wording, then the Authority adopts the explanation for the purpose of construing what the provision means and, based on its meaning, whether it is contrary to law. Id. When a provision is silent on a particular matter, a union's statement clarifying the matter will be adopted if it is consistent with the wording of the provision. Id.
Where a provision is silent as to whether management may respond to a first offense of leave abuse with any form of discipline other than the issuance of a written leave restriction, and a union explains that the provision allows management to do so, the Authority adopts the union's explanation for purposes of assessing the negotiability of the provision. See NTEU, 65 FLRA at 515-16. The provision here is silent as to whether the Agency can respond to a first offense of leave abuse with any form of discipline other than the issuance of a leave‑restriction notice, and the Union explains that the provision allows the Agency to do so. Based on the foregoing precedent, we adopt the Union's explanation that the provision permits management to respond to a first offense of sick-leave abuse with any form of discipline other than the issuance of a written restriction of sick leave.[7]
C. Positions of the Parties
The Agency contends that the provision affects management's right to discipline employees under § 7106(a)(2)(A) of the Statute because the provision requires management to counsel an employee before management can restrict sick-leave usage. SOP at 2. The Agency maintains that provisions precluding an agency from imposing sick‑leave restrictions affect management's right to discipline because such restrictions are a precondition to an agency's decision to discipline employees for abuse of sick leave. Id. And the Agency claims that, because a sick-leave restriction is a precondition to discipline, it is not necessary that such a restriction be defined as a disciplinary action under the parties' collective-bargaining agreement (CBA). Reply at 3.
The Agency asserts that the provision is not an appropriate arrangement under § 7106(b)(3) of the Statute because it excessively interferes with management's right to discipline. Id. at 2. The Agency acknowledges that the Authority determined in NTEU that it would no longer apply an excessive‑interference standard in determining whether agreed‑upon, contract provisions are appropriate arrangements. SOP at 3. But the Agency requests, for the reasons set forth in the Department of the Treasury's brief in Treasury v. FLRA, that the Authority return to the excessive-interference standard and find that this provision is not an appropriate arrangement. Id. at 4.
Alternatively, the Agency asserts that the provision abrogates management's right to discipline because the provision: (1) dictates that management must counsel employees before management may impose a sick-leave restriction letter; (2) requires management to substitute counseling for discipline; and (3) precludes management from disciplining an employee in connection with the circumstances that caused the Agency to first question whether the employee was abusing sick leave. Id. at 4-5 (citing NTEU, 53 FLRA 539 (1997) (Commerce); NFFE, Local 858, 42 FLRA 1169 (1991) (Local 858); AFGE, Local 1156, 42 FLRA 1157 (1991) (Local 1156)). The Agency also contends that the provision is not a procedure under § 7106(b)(2) of the Statute. Id. at 5.
2. Union
The Union contends that this provision does not affect management's right to discipline because management can discipline an employee without delay by denying the employee's sick-leave request and by declaring the employee absent without leave. Response at 9. The Union argues that sick-leave restrictions do not equate to discipline because the CBA defines "disciplinary actions" only as admonishments, written reprimands, and suspensions of fourteen days or less. Id. at 3 & n.2.
Alternatively, the Union asserts that the provision is an appropriate arrangement under § 7106(b)(3) of the Statute. Id. at 9. In this regard, the Union argues that the provision is an arrangement because it provides for counseling of employees on their sick-leave abuse before management imposes a written requirement for documentation of sick-leave requests regardless of duration. Id. at 7. Also in this regard, the Union argues that the arrangement is appropriate because it does not: (1) substitute counseling for discipline; (2) prevent management from disciplining employees for sick-leave abuse; or (3) prevent management from disciplining an employee for sick-leave abuse while contemporaneously counseling the employee for the same abuse. Id. at 7-8. The Union also claims that the provision is a procedure under § 7106(b)(2) of the Statute because it is "nearly[, a] pure procedure." Id. at 8-9.
D. Analysis and Conclusions
1. The provision affects management's right to discipline.
The Authority has held that "management's right to discipline includes placing an employee in a restricted leave use category." E.g., NTEU, 65 FLRA at 516 (quoting NFFE, Local 405, 42 FLRA 1112, 1131 (1991)). Thus, the Authority has held that provisions or proposals that preclude management from imposing a leave restriction in response to a first offense of leave abuse affect management's right to discipline employees under § 7106(a)(2)(A). Id. at 516-17 (citing NAGE, Local R5-82, 43 FLRA 25, 28 (1991) (Local R5-82); Local 858, 42 FLRA at 1172; Local 1156, 42 FLRA at 1162).
Here, the provision would preclude the Agency from requiring an employee to furnish administratively acceptable evidence for any absence due to illness or incapacitation until after the Agency has counseled the employee on suspected leave abuse. Thus, management would not be able to require an employee to justify all future sick-leave requests based on the incident that causes management for the first time to question the employee's use of sick leave. The Authority has repeatedly held that similar provisions affect management's right to discipline under § 7106(a)(2)(A). See id. (citing Local R5-82, 43 FLRA at 28; Local 858, 42 FLRA at 1172; Local 1156, 42 FLRA at 1162).
The Union asserts that the provision does not affect management's right to discipline because imposing a requirement that an employee justify all sick-leave requests does not equate to discipline under the CBA. Response at 3 & n.2. But the Authority considered and rejected substantively identical arguments in NTEU, 65 FLRA at 517, and Local 1156, 42 FLRA at 1162, and the Union provides no basis for reaching a different conclusion here.
For the foregoing reasons, we find that the provision affects management's right to discipline employees. See NTEU, 65 FLRA at 517.
2. The provision is an appropriate arrangement.
In NTEU, the Authority modified the standard it uses in negotiability cases for determining whether an agreed-upon, contract provision is an appropriate arrangement under § 7106(b)(3). Id. at 511-15. Under the Authority's revised framework, the Authority assesses: (1) whether the provision constitutes a sufficiently tailored arrangement for employees adversely affected by the exercise of a management right; and (2) if so, then whether the contract provision "abrogates" -- i.e., waives -- the affected management right. Id. at 517. In determining whether a contract provision abrogates a management right, the Authority assesses whether the provision "precludes [the] agency from exercising" the affected management right. Id. at 515 (quoting U.S. DOT, FAA, 65 FLRA 171, 174 (2010)).
Applying that framework here,[8] the Agency does not dispute the Union's assertion that the provision is an arrangement. When an agency does not dispute that a provision is an arrangement, the Authority will find that the agency concedes that the provision is an arrangement. E.g., NATCA, 66 FLRA 213, 216 (2011) (citing 5 C.F.R. § 2424.32(c)(2)[9]). Consistent with this precedent, we find that the provision is an arrangement under § 7106(b)(3).
As to whether the arrangement is appropriate, the provision precludes the Agency from requiring an employee to furnish administratively acceptable evidence for any absence due to illness or incapacitation until after the Agency has counseled the employee on suspected leave abuse. But the provision does not preclude management from disciplining employees, even for a first instance of suspected sick-leave abuse, by means other than leave restriction. Thus, the provision merely limits the circumstances in which management may exercise its right to discipline; it does not preclude the Agency from exercising that right. See NTEU, 65 FLRA at 517.
The Agency's reliance on the Authority's decisions in Local 858 and Local 1156 is misplaced. In both cases, the Authority applied an excessive‑interference standard, rather than an abrogation standard, in concluding that the provisions were not appropriate arrangements. Local 858, 42 FLRA at 1172‑73; Local 1156, 42 FLRA at 1162-64. The Agency also cites Commerce. But in that decision, the Authority found that the cited proposals were appropriate arrangements, and the Agency fails to explain how this precedent supports its position that this provision is not an appropriate arrangement. See Commerce, 53 FLRA at 557‑59.
For the foregoing reasons, we find that the provision does not abrogate management's right to discipline employees under § 7106(a)(2)(A) of the Statute, and that the provision is an appropriate arrangement under § 7106(b)(3) of the Statute.[10] Accordingly, we find that the provision is not contrary to § 7106(a)(2)(A) of the Statute, and we direct the Agency to rescind its disapproval of the provision.[11]
IV. Article 49, Section (B)
Once repayments begin, the Office shall annually provide NTEU with an electronic report detailing the Office's previous fiscal year disbursements of student loan monies. This electronic report shall provide the following information, when reported to the Office by the administrator: the employee names, occupation or series, and total dollar amount of the student loan repayment.
The parties agree that the provision concerns a student-loan-repayment program. The parties also agree that the Agency does not currently have such a program, but agree that, under the provision, if the Agency establishes such a program, then the Agency must annually provide the Union with a report detailing the previous year's disbursement of student loans, to include the names of employees who received student-loan repayments, their occupations or series, and the amount of the loan repayment that each employee received.[12] Record at 3; Petition at 7.
The Agency contends that this provision is contrary to the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a. SOP at 9. The Agency argues that disclosure of the specified information with employees' names identified would result in a clearly unwarranted invasion of the employees' personal privacy within the meaning of exemption 6 of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).[13] Id. at 9-10. The Agency maintains that disclosure of the information would reveal that the employees are in debt and the amount of the debt. The Agency alleges that information about an employee's debts is inherently private, personal information, and that disclosure of the information is an invasion of personal privacy. Id. at 10. And the Agency argues that these privacy interests outweigh the limited service to the public interest by disclosure, particularly because the public interest could be served by disclosure of this information without employee names. Id.
In reply to the Union's response, the Agency claims that the Union failed to respond to the Agency's Privacy Act arguments and that, therefore, the arguments are unrebutted. Reply at 5. In reply to a Union assertion that the provision is negotiable as a procedure or appropriate arrangement, the Agency contends that § 7106(b)(2) or (3) does not make negotiable a provision that is contrary to law. Id. at 6-7.
The Union "rejects the [Agency's] assertions." Response at 14. The Union contends that the analysis of information requests in negotiability cases is different from the analysis of information requests under § 7114(b)(4) of the Statute.[14] The Union argues that entitlement to information under § 7114(b)(4) is a statutory floor and not a ceiling. The Union maintains that, during negotiations, the local parties discussed the matter of employee privacy and whether the disclosure of the specified information to the Union would be appropriate. Id. at 15. The Union claims that the local parties' agreement to the provision expanded upon the Union's statutory right to information under § 7114(b)(4). Id. The Union also maintains that the information is necessary to assess the program and that other collective‑bargaining agreements contain similar provisions. Id. Based on the foregoing, the Union claims that the provision was properly negotiated as "a procedure and an appropriate arrangement regarding the provision of information described in [the provision] (including employee names)" to the Union. Id. at 16.
As an initial matter, the Agency claims that the Union failed to respond to the Agency's Privacy Act arguments. See Reply at 5. But the Union specifically stated that it "rejects the [Agency's] assertions," Response at 14, which includes the Agency's assertion that the provision is contrary to the Privacy Act, see id. at 13. Accordingly, we address whether the Agency has demonstrated that the provision is contrary to the Privacy Act.
The Privacy Act prohibits disclosure of information in a system of records that would result in a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy within the meaning of exemption 6 of the FOIA. E.g., U.S. DOT, FAA, N.Y. TRACON, Westbury, N.Y., 50 FLRA 338, 345 (1995) (FAA). FAA sets forth the analytical approach the Authority follows in negotiability cases involving the Privacy Act. E.g., AFGE, Local 1858, 56 FLRA 1115, 1117 (2001) (Local 1858).
Under this approach, the agency is required to demonstrate: (1) that the disputed information is contained in a system of records; (2) that disclosure would implicate privacy interests; and (3) the nature and significance of those privacy interests. FAA, 50 FLRA at 345. If the agency makes these showings, then the burden shifts to the union to: (1) identify a public interest cognizable under the FOIA; and (2) demonstrate how disclosure would serve that public interest. Local 1858, 56 FLRA at 1117. And the only public interests that the Authority considers are the extent to which disclosure would shed light on the agency's performance of its statutory duties or would inform citizens about the activities of the Federal Government. FAA, 50 FLRA at 343.
Once the relevant interests are established, the Authority balances the privacy interests of employees against the public interest in disclosure. Id. at 346. When the privacy interests outweigh the public interest, the Authority finds that disclosure of the requested information would result in a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy under FOIA exemption 6. Id. And unless disclosure is permitted under another exception to the Privacy Act, the Authority concludes that the Privacy Act prohibits disclosure of the information. Id.
Applying this approach here, with regard to a system of records, there is no dispute that, in the event that the Agency establishes a student-loan-repayment program, the information specified in the provision will be contained in a system of records. In this regard, the Agency notes, without dispute, that agencies with such programs must compile information for an annual report to the Office of Personnel Management. SOP at 9 n.5.
As to privacy interests, the Agency argues that disclosure of the specified information with employees' names identified would result in a clearly unwarranted invasion of the employees' personal privacy because disclosure would reveal that the employees are in debt and the amount of the debt. Courts have repeatedly acknowledged that disclosure of financial information linked to a specific individual implicates significant privacy interests. E.g., U.S. Dep't of Housing & Urban Dev., 822 F.2d 182, 186 (1st Cir. 1987). Thus, we find that the provision implicates significant employee privacy interests. See Local 1858, 56 FLRA at 1118.
The Union maintains that the local parties, in agreeing to the provision, discussed the matter of employee privacy and whether the disclosure of the specified information to the Union would be appropriate. But the Union does not: (1) identify a public interest cognizable under the FOIA; or (2) demonstrate how disclosure would serve that public interest. See FAA, 50 FLRA at 345. Consequently, the Union has not rebutted the Agency's prima facie case under FAA. When a union in a negotiability case has not rebutted the agency's prima facie case under FAA, the Authority has concluded that the disputed provision was contrary to the Privacy Act. Local 1858, 56 FLRA at 1118.
We note that the Union maintains that the information specified in the provision is necessary to assess the program. But even if the Authority were to view this as an assertion that the public interest in government accountability would be served by disclosure of the disputed information, there is no basis for finding that the public interest would not be equally served by disclosure of the information without the employees' names. Consequently, the Union does not show how the disclosure of the name‑identified information serves the public interest.
The Union also argues that the provision is a procedure or appropriate arrangement under § 7106(b)(2) or (3) and is contained in other collective-bargaining agreements. But a provision that is contrary to the Privacy Act remains so even if it is a procedure or appropriate arrangement or is contained in other agreements. See AFGE, Local 12, 60 FLRA 533, 536 (2004) (Member Armendariz concurring as to another matter); NTEU, 55 FLRA 1174, 1181 (1999) (Member Wasserman dissenting as to another matter). Thus, we do not address the Union's argument that the provision is a procedure or appropriate arrangement. See NTEU, 55 FLRA at 1181.
Based on the foregoing, we conclude that Article 49, Section (B) is contrary to the Privacy Act.
V. Order
The Agency shall rescind its disapproval of Article 10, Section 4(A), and the petition is dismissed as to Article 49, Section (B).
Member Beck, Dissenting in Part:
I agree with my colleagues that the provision concerning the student loan repayment disbursements is contrary to the Privacy Act.
I continue to disagree, however, with the analytic framework that was adopted by the Majority in NTEU, 65 FLRA 509 (2011) (Member Beck dissenting). It is legally improper to apply an abrogation standard to those situations where an agency head rejects a provision that was provisionally accepted at the bargaining table.
For the reasons that I articulated in my dissent in NTEU, the Majority's approach is inconsistent with the management prerogatives that Congress sought to protect through § 7106(a) and flies in the face of several decades of judicial precedent. See id. at 519 (Dissenting Opinion of Member Beck) (citing AFGE, Local 2782 v. FLRA, 702 F.2d 1183, 1188 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (Local 2782) (proposal affecting management rights should be deemed within the duty to bargain unless it interferes with statutory management rights "to an excessive degree")), 520 (citing AFGE v. FLRA, 778 F.2d 850, 863 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (Congress intended that the head of an agency may reject a contract term – even a settlement imposed by the Federal Service Impasses Panel – if "it is violative of management prerogatives under the Act")). As I noted in NTEU,
when a proposal impermissibly interferes with a management right, it is prohibited by § 7106(a). And a proposal that is prohibited by § 7106(a) can properly be characterized as being both outside the duty to bargain and not "in accordance with the provisions of [the Statute]." Such a proposal is subject to agency head rejection under § 7114(c)(2).
65 FLRA at 521 (Dissenting Opinion of Member Beck).
The Court in U.S. Dep't of the Treasury, Bureau of the Public Debt, Wash., D.C. v. FLRA, 670 F.3d 1315, 1321 (D.C. Cir. 2012), did not address these concerns because the agency failed to seek reconsideration from the Authority before filing its appeal.
Unlike the Majority, I would determine whether the sick leave provision at issue in this case interferes with a management right "to an excessive degree."* Local 2782, 702 F.2d at 1188.
The analysis is not a difficult one.
Article 10, Section 4(A) requires the Agency to counsel an employee before it takes any other steps to restrict the use of sick leave even when the Agency has "reasonable grounds" to question whether an employee is properly using sick leave. Record of Post-Petition Conference at 2.
We have found consistently that any provision that imposes a "precondition" on the Agency's prerogative to impose discipline or to place restrictions on how sick leave is requested by employees for suspected sick leave abuse excessively interferes with management's right to discipline. AFGE, Local 1156, 42 FLRA 1157, 1161 (1991) (requirement that the Agency issue written notice prior to placing employees on sick leave restriction directly interferes with management's right to discipline); NFFE, Local 858, 42 FLRA 1169, 1173 (1991) (precluding disciplinary action for initial incidents of suspected sick leave abuse excessively interferes with management's right to discipline employees); see also NAGE, Local R5-82, 43 FLRA 25, 32 (1991) (citing Dep't of Justice, Bureau of Prisons, Fed. Corr. Inst., Petersburg, Va., 30 FLRA 837, 844 (1987) (proposal limiting agency from telephoning employees who are on sick leave excessively interferes with management's right to discipline)).
I conclude that the sick leave provision excessively interferes with management's right to discipline under § 7106(a)(2)(A).
[1] Member Beck's separate opinion, dissenting in part, is set forth at the end of this decision.
[2] The petition for review originally involved three provisions. In its reply, the Agency withdrew the disapproval of Article 22, Section 2(B)(1)(b), and only two provisions remain at issue. Reply at 1.
[3] In addition, as discussed further below, prior to filing its SOP, the Agency filed a motion requesting that the Authority stay the proceedings, and the Union filed an opposition to the request.
[4] We note that, in Treasury v. FLRA, the court dismissed the petition for review on jurisdictional grounds and did not reach the merits of the case. See 670 F.3d at 1321.
[5] We note that the Agency's SOP and the Union's response provide a sufficient basis for resolving the parties' dispute regarding the stay request. As such, in resolving that dispute, it is unnecessary to rely on the Agency's separate motion or the Union's opposition. We note, in this regard, that the Agency and the Union did not request permission to file these supplemental submissions, as required under § 2429.26 of the Authority's Regulations.
[6] Section 2424.27 provides, in pertinent part: "The Authority will not consider any submission filed by any party other than those authorized under this part, provided however that the Authority may, in its discretion, grant permission to file an additional submission based on a written request showing extraordinary circumstances by any party."
[7] Our interpretation of the meaning of this provision, unless modified by the parties, would apply in other disputes, such as arbitration proceedings, where the construction of the provision is at issue. E.g., ACT, Evergreen & Rainier Chapters, 57 FLRA 475, 477 n.11 (2001) (citation omitted).
[8] As noted, the Agency requests that the Authority return to an excessive-interference standard. In NTEU, 65 FLRA at 511-15, the Authority explained the reasons for adopting an abrogation standard. For the same reasons, we decline to return to an excessive-interference standard here.
[9] Section 2424.32(c)(2) provides: "Failure to respond to an argument or assertion raised by the other party will, where appropriate, be deemed a concession to such argument or assertion."
[10] As such, the Authority need not address whether the provision is a procedure under § 7106(b)(2) of the Statute. See NTEU, 65 FLRA at 517 n.11.
[11] In finding that the provision is not contrary to law, we make no findings as to its merits.
[12] We note that there is no claim that the current non-existence of a student-loan-repayment program precludes the Authority from issuing a negotiability decision in this case. Cf. AFGE, Local 3937, 66 FLRA 393, 393-94 (2011) (Member DuBester dissenting in part on other grounds) (finding that parties "continue[d] to have a legally cognizable interest in the outcome[]" of a case where "proposals' operation could have a prospective impact on employees").
[13] Exemption 6 of the FOIA provides that information contained in "personnel and medical files and similar files" may be withheld if disclosure of the information would result in a "clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy[.]" 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6).
[14] Section 7114(b)(4) requires agencies to provide exclusive representatives with certain information. See 5 U.S.C. § 7114(b)(4).
* The Agency does not dispute the Union's assertion that the provision is an arrangement.


text:
Going Where I Shouldn't. Saying What I Shouldn't.
By Erick Erickson | 10:39 AM on June 23, 2010
In victory one is supposed to be magnanimous — a polysyllabic word for not being a sore winner.The race in Utah, the attacks on Jim DeMint, the other problematic issues behind the scenes, etc. test the limits of magnanimity. I am going to go where I shouldn't go and say what I shouldn't say. Some of you are really, really not going to like it.The race in Utah is the ultimate battle between those who are Republicans first and those who are conservatives first. The potential of a Democrat win is so minuscule that the center-right coalition can have the fight it must have.Establishment oriented groups who got fat and happy with years of Republican dominance in Washington wanted a return to the status quo ante. They did not want to reform. They did not want to cut back. For a number of years people like Bob Bennett and Tim Bridgewater helped blur the lines between the Democrats and Republicans. Pro-life statists, except when they weren't pro-life, they lived off the government teet, misdirected and abused taxpayer dollars, and drove up the size of government to uncontrollable levels.But it was okay, because they have an R next to their name.And with them are Republican consultants who also have R's next to their names and who care about nothing but the acquisition of power and consulting fees. These are the people who can give you trite explanations about what the difference between a Democrat and a Republican is, but at the end of the day, for them, it really boils down to kissing the tax payer after screwing them instead of just leaving.When Bob Bennett knew he was going to lose — and contrary to what you may have heard, Bob Bennett knew before the Utah Convention he was going to lose — his campaign and Bridgewater's campaigns collaborated and set about destroying Mike Lee.They unleashed the crazy that is Cherilyn Eager and drummed up bull stories to vilify people like Jim DeMint. The desperate act of trying to cling to power drove them over the edge. In so doing, they decided to poison the well against Jim DeMint. This morning as the sun rises in Utah, Bridgewater supporters are getting up and cussing Jim DeMint, a man who did absolutely nothing but say nice things about Mike Lee. But don't tell Bridgewater supporters that. Despite no evidence, they believe.So what's the point of all of this? Why am I going here and scratching open wounds? It's simple:The people we fight on our side are not always our friends and are sometimes more our enemies than the left. Why? Because we know where the left stands. We know they oppose us. But these others — they pretend to be on our team and work quietly, sometimes with the left, to undermine conservatives and freedom.The people we fought in Utah — not Bridgewater directly but the interests behind the scenes who helped him, funded him, and attacked people like Jim DeMint — would burn our fields and drive us from our homes in the old days. They would show us no mercy because they think we, perversely, are out to destroy the GOP by denying them the right to get back in charge of the American Treasury.So we must do to them what they would do to us and show no mercy. But we must pick our battles carefully and with wisdom. Sometimes, like it or not, we must fight on the same side with them.But that is why I hope Mike Lee pursues, to the fullest extent, the FEC complaint against Tim Stewart and the anonymous mailer.If we keep giving these people a pass they will keep working to undermine us. The fight for freedom means we must discern who really is with us.You may not like that. But it is the truth.
Tags: MIKE LEE UTAH
Dem Lawmaker Unwittingly Makes Case for 2A With Bill Requiring Armed Guards at Chicago Banks, Retail Stores

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Simple wordpress blog
=====================

This example project shows how to set up wordpress and a mysql database.

For simplicity, we won't use data volume containers here (we'd need an extra container for wordpress and another one for mysql) but will use simple rocker-backed host volumes instead.

For an example on data volume containers have a look at the `postgres` example.

Container config
----------------

Wordpress stores most of its data in a MySQL database. Therefore, we'll create a container config for MySQL (and save it as `mysql-wp.rocker`):

```json
{
    "image": "mysql",
    "env": {
        "MYSQL_ROOT_PASSWORD": "hackme"
    },
    "volumes": [
        { "src": "mysql/", "tgt": "/var/lib/mysql" }
    ]
}
```

The container uses the official ['mysql' Docker image][1].

We specify the environment variable `MYSQL_ROOT_PASSWORD` to set the database password.

And we declare a host based volume (i.e. a bind mount) for `/var/lib/mysql` (the directory MySQL uses to store its databases).
As `mysql/` is a relative path, rocker will translate it to `/docker/mysql-wp/mysql/`.

Time to look at the wordpress container config (named `blog.rocker`):

```json
{
	"image": "wordpress",
	"links": {
		"mysql": "mysql-wp"
	},
	"ports": [ 80 ],
	"volumes": [
		{"src": "www", "tgt": "/var/www/html"}
	]
}
```

It uses the official ['wordpress' image][2].

It links to the `mysql-wp` container (with the alias `mysql`). The wordpress image uses the variable `WORDPRESS_DB_HOST` to find the database. That variable defaults to `mysql`, so by using the alias `mysql` for our link, we don't have to explicitly set the `WORDPRESS_DB_HOST` variable.

We also tell Docker to forward requests to port 80 to our container.

And we'll define a bind-mount to keep the container's `/var/www/html/` directory persistent (as that's where wordpress will store all the uploaded files, etc.)

Startup
-------

Simply issue

    rocker run blog

This will cause rocker to create and start the `blog` and `mysql-wp` containers.

rocker starts both because `mysql-wp` is a dependency of `blog`.

Once the `blog` container is running, visit http://localhost/ to see your new WordPress blog.

[1]: https://registry.hub.docker.com/_/mysql/
[2]: https://registry.hub.docker.com/_/wordpress/

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
Home Blog Top Stories King Charles III to be crowned May 6 next year, palace says
King Charles III to be crowned May 6 next year, palace says
admin October 11, 2022 October 11, 2022 4 min readWrite a Comment on King Charles III to be crowned May 6 next year, palace says
King Charles III will probably be topped at Westminster Abbey on Might 6 in a ceremony that can embrace the previous however look to the trendy world after the 70-year reign of the late Queen Elizabeth II.
Tuesday's announcement from Buckingham Palace comes amid hypothesis that the coronation will probably be shorter and fewer extravagant than the three-hour ceremony that put in Elizabeth in 1953, consistent with Charles' plans for a slimmed down monarchy. Whereas the palace supplied few particulars, British media reported that the visitor checklist could be pared to 2,000 from 8,000.
Charles will probably be topped in a solemn spiritual ceremony carried out by Justin Welby, the archbishop of Canterbury, the palace stated in a press release. Camilla, the queen consort, will probably be topped alongside her husband.
"The coronation will replicate the monarch's position at the moment and look in direction of the longer term, whereas being rooted in longstanding traditions and pageantry," the palace stated.
Charles will probably be anointed with holy oil earlier than receiving the orb, scepter and coronation ring. Camilla may also be anointed with holy oil and topped, as was Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mom.
The palace is planning the coronation, generally known as Operation Golden Orb, as Charles and his inheritor, Prince William, search to display that the monarchy remains to be related in fashionable, multi-cultural Britain. Whereas there was widespread respect for Elizabeth, as demonstrated by the tens of hundreds of people that waited hours to file previous her coffin, there isn't any assure that reverence will switch to Charles.
Organizers ought to be capturing for a ceremony that's about an hour lengthy, consistent with final month's "immensely transferring" funeral for the queen, stated royal historian Robert Lacey, creator of "Majesty: Elizabeth II and the Home of Windsor."
"One has to recollect, too, whereas all of the reverence and gravity of the Queen's funeral was very a lot centered on tribute to her, a coronation is a tribute to an establishment quite than an individual, with whom numerous considerate individuals on this nation disagree," Lacey advised the BBC.
Whereas most of coronation ceremony, which has modified little previously 1,000 years, is anticipated to stay intact, among the extra fussy trappings of pomp and circumstance could also be trimmed as Britain struggles with hovering inflation and the fallout from the struggle in Ukraine. The optics are essential.
"The thought of this very opulent coronation approaching the again of a winter of austerity, cost-of-living disaster, but additionally, I believe, a way that having hundreds of international dignitaries flying in on airplanes that guzzle oil and petrol or no matter they guzzle to the coronation of the environment-loving monarch — all of these issues may chime very awkwardly," stated Anna Whitelock, a professor of historical past of recent monarchy at Metropolis College London, advised the BBC.
The ceremony historically takes place some months after the monarch's accession to the throne, offering time to mourn his predecessor and arrange the occasion. Charles is anticipated to signal a proclamation formally declaring the date of the ceremony at a gathering of his senior advisers, generally known as the Privy Council, later this 12 months.
Tagged Inengland's new king King Charles III King Charles III crown King Charles III crown date Queen Elizabeth world latest news
Tulsi Gabbard, who has held several offices and ran for president as a Democrat, said she is leaving the party
King Charles III to be crowned May 6 next year, Buckingham palace says
Cristiano Ronaldo terminates contract with Manchester United with immediate effect
November 22, 2022 November 22, 2022 Top Stories
FIFA World Cup: As Australia face Argentina in last 16, Socceroos hope Maradona's prophecy comes true
December 3, 2022 December 3, 2022 Top Stories
Indonesia says 74 children have died from acute kidney injury this year
October 19, 2022 October 19, 2022 Top Stories


text:
Janet Hanks
Lloyd Mathews
PC Library Archive
Missing Paper
Subscriber E-Access
Dublin, Pulaski electing leaders Tuesday
By MELINDA WILLIAMS
melinda@southwesttimes.com
Residents of Dublin and Pulaski will head to the polls Tuesday to decide who leads their communities for the next four years.
For the first time in years, there's a chance half of Dublin's town council could be new because three newcomers and three incumbents are vying for three seats. Pulaski's town council race also is contested. Five candidates, including two incumbents, are running for three seats there.
In both towns, the top three vote getters become the victors.
Dublin Mayor Benny Skeens is not up for re-election this year. In Pulaski, the mayor's term is up for renewal, but Nick Glenn decided not to seek a second term. Councilman David Clark, who is unopposed, will be Pulaski's new mayor come July 1, barring defeat through a write-in campaign.
Polls open at 6 a.m. Tuesday and close at 7 p.m. Anyone in line to vote at 7 will be able to cast a ballot.
Dublin residents vote at Dublin Lions Club, 100 Lions Club Drive. Pulaski residents cast ballots at Central Gym, 143 Third St. NW, Pulaski.
As in November, votes will be cast on paper ballots and then scanned into a system that tallies the votes.
On Dublin's ballot, residents will choose no more than three candidates from a list of six: Peggy H. Hemmings, Dallas L. Cox, Stephen F. Crigger, Debbie M. Lyons, Jared M. Smith and Debbie P. Hager. Hemmings, Cox and Crigger are the incumbents in that race.
After casting a vote for Clark or writing in a candidate for mayor of Pulaski, town residents will choose no more than three of the five candidates seeking seats: Lane R. Penn, Brooks R. Dawson, H.M. Kidd, G. Tyler Clontz and Joel B. Burchett Jr. Penn and Kidd are the incumbents.
Written by: Editor on April 30, 2018.
bugs42 on The Battle of Cloyd's Farm Part IV
Casper on Griffith introduces the Cell Phone Freedom Act
© 2018, ↑ The Southwest Times
Log in-	Posts - Add New -


In the 1990s, comedian—now U.S. Sen.—Al Franken made the line, "I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, people like me!" part of the national lexicon with the creation of the fictional "Daily Affirmation with Stuart Smalley" on Saturday Night Live.
Easy to mock, to be sure, in Stuart's case. But self-affirmation actually can help people cope with the complications and challenges of everyday life.
"There is some evidence that when people self-affirm, they boost their cognitive resources. They have more mental energy to complete tasks after self affirmation," says Arielle Silverman, graduate student in social psychology at the University of Colorado Boulder.
Arielle Silverman, graduate student in social psychology at the University of Colorado Boulder. Photo by Noah Larsen.
But, says Silverman, co-author on "Self-affirmation as a deliberate coping strategy: The moderating role of choice," published recently in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, there are limits to self-affirmation—and when it comes to studying the phenomenon, it's not simply about peering in the mirror and saying nice things about oneself.
That writing can take various forms, but often people write about their personal assets, positive attributes or skills, art, music, their religious or political values or friends and families. In controlled experiments, subjects are given tests, and over nearly two decades researchers have discovered that such self-affirmations can reduce stress.
"It helps people perform better on tests when they are stressed out. It helps them see things at a higher level. They don't worry as much on how well they'll do on the test. They have other things in their life they can fall back on," Silverman says.
But as the new article makes clear, there are limits to the tool. In particular, people don't gain nearly the benefit when they feel they are being ordered to self-affirm. As is often the case with human beings, freedom of choice makes a difference.
"Affirmation's benefits were negated when participants were made aware of its benefits and then required to self-affirm," according to the article.
Silverman believes part of the negation can be explained by defensiveness created in subjects when told what to do.
"If you are told 'You need to do this,' people might be thinking, 'I didn't think I was worried, but maybe I was,'" she says. In other words, when told something is "good" for them, there may be an implicit message that something is wrong.
Silverman and her co-authors, Christine Logel of Canada's University of Waterloo and Geoffrey L. Cohen of Stanford University, liken the situation to a similar effect discovered by researchers with regard to exercise.
"Exercise programs centered on intrinsically motivating activities, such as dancing to popular music, are often more effective in improving physical fitness than traditional physical education or programs explicitly purporting to improve physical fitness," they write.
Silverman says that people benefit from self-affirmation when it is freely chosen. And that, she says, is a tool that people can learn to use themselves.
"If they know they are approaching something stressful, they can spontaneously think of positive things in their lives, and that might buffer them from the stress," she says.


"Ooh, kale for breakfast!" said pretty much no kid, ever. A green smoothie might sound like a treat to you, but for little ones, it's all about the muffins, mom. Fortunately, you can use kids' love of this handheld breakfast staple to get some plant-based power into their little bodies.
Super sneaky mom and psychologist, Zelana Montminy, bakes up muffin-tin treats with hidden veggies. It can take 12 or more tries before a child learns to appreciate a new flavor—so smuggling healthy ingredients into a familiar favorite is a good way to help develop their palates and boost their daily nutrition in one fell swoop.
We hate to underestimate any kiddo's intelligence, but this trick is genius. Not only because kids get a tasty, nutritious treat without really noticing they're eating kale, spinach, or hempseed, but also, it's easy and low-maintenance for parents.
Check out these three insanely yummy recipes that all use muffin tins to turn wholesome foods into a grab-and-go meal kids will go nuts for.
Who said muffins have to be carb bombs? Experiment with a super savory, protein-rich version. Basically, it's a mini-quiche—but you might want avoid calling it that in front of the kids!
Preheat oven to 350 degrees. Line a muffin tin with parchment or coat well with an all-natural cooking spray.
Store in the freezer and reheat in the oven.
Process applesauce, maple sugar, oil, vanilla, egg, and spinach in food processor.
Combine remaining dry ingredients in separate bowl. Pour spinach purée into large mixing bowl, and slowly mix in dry ingredients until combined.
Fill each muffin cup about ⅔ of the way. Bake 12 minutes.
Preheat oven to 375 degrees. Line 9 cups in a muffin tin with parchment or coat well with an all-natural cooking spray.
Combine oats, nuts, baking powder, and salt in large bowl, and set aside.
In medium bowl, whisk together maple syrup, almond milk, butter or coconut oil, vanilla, and egg. Add chia seeds, hemp seeds, berries, and chocolate chips and stir. Then pour into dry mixture and stir to combine.
Fill each muffin cup about 3/ 4 of the way. Bake for 20 to 25 minutes or until set.
Serve warm or at room temperature. Leftovers can be stored in the refrigerator and warmed in a toaster oven at 350 degrees until heated through.


Watching the election results with New York's resident ANIMAL, Bucky Turco, last night made for an interesting evening. His confidence in an Obama victory was steadfast but I was still wary of the initial undecided outcome of the 2000 election and general uncertainty in a weakened economy. Not long after midnight we were all able to breathe a collective sigh of relief knowing the path this country has chosen and looking to a brighter future for all. Thank goodness we didn't have to watch any of those old goofy commercials.


text:
Q: Keep Application synchronised with cookie on httprequest android I have successfully retrieved and stored a cookie in my sharepreference. Using the post method below:
public static void postData() throws JSONException {
        // Create a new HttpClient and Post Header
        HttpClient httpclient = new DefaultHttpClient();
        HttpPost httppost = new HttpPost(Constant.CONNECTION_URL);
        ResponseHandler<String> resonseHandler = new BasicResponseHandler();

        try {
            // Add your data
            List<NameValuePair> nameValuePairs = new ArrayList<NameValuePair>(2);
            nameValuePairs.add(new BasicNameValuePair("login",""));
            nameValuePairs.add(new BasicNameValuePair("pass",""));
            httppost.setEntity(new UrlEncodedFormEntity(nameValuePairs));

            // Execute HTTP Post Request
            response = httpclient.execute(httppost,resonseHandler);

            JSONObject obj = new JSONObject(response);
            success = obj.get("success").toString();
            fname=obj.get("fname").toString();

            if (success.equalsIgnoreCase("1")){
                //connection successfull
                login_success_status.SavePreferences("login_success_status", success);
                login_success_fname.SavePreferences("login_success_fname",fname);
                List<Cookie> cookies = ((AbstractHttpClient) httpclient).getCookieStore().getCookies();
                CookieSyncManager.getInstance().sync();

                cookie_name.SavePreferences("cookie_name",cookies.toString());

Now i need to do another call to webservice using another url and the cookie stored in the sharepreference. How can i make a call using http with this cookie attached and how can i keep a cookie alive in my application.

A: what happen exactly when you login to server , One session is created between client and server and you get that session id in cookies. This session id is valid for some period of time which is set by the server once you logout from the application this session is expired and no more valid for next call. If you are using net banking you may know when you stay idol for sometime after login. When you click any option after some time it will say your session is expire and redirect to the login page. Same scenario is here once you out from the application previous cookies are not useful once it is expire.So there is no benefit to store cookie persistently in sharedpreferences.
1) Declare List<Cookie> cookies  as public static
public static List<Cookie> cookies ;

2) No need to write cookies in sharedpreferences
HttpClient httpclient = new DefaultHttpClient();
        if (cookies != null) {
            int size = cookies.size();
            for (int i = 0; i < size; i++) {
                httpclient.getCookieStore().addCookie(cookies.get(i));
            }
        }
        HttpPost httppost = new HttpPost(Constant.CONNECTION_URL);
        ResponseHandler<String> resonseHandler = new BasicResponseHandler();

3) update here
if (success.equalsIgnoreCase("1")){
                //connection successfull
                login_success_status.SavePreferences("login_success_status", success);
                login_success_fname.SavePreferences("login_success_fname",fname);
cookies = ((AbstractHttpClient) httpclient).getCookieStore().getCookies();

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


President Bernie Sanders: What Would it Mean?
President Bernie Sanders! The very thought of such a thing gives many people hope for a better United States. It gives them hope that finally our country will be removed from the ruthless grip of the billionaire class who are making our society more and more brutally unequal. A President Bernie Sanders, many hope, will be a champion of ordinary people able to marshal the executive power of the federal government on the side of "We the People" for a change. What a wonderful thing THAT would be! Like a dream come true.
But is it dream and merely wishful thinking, or is it really possible? I don't mean, Is it merely wishful thinking that Bernie Sanders could be elected president? Maybe he could be. I mean, Is it merely wishful thinking that a President Bernie Sanders would turn our country around from the awful direction it has been going and usher in a new era in which we begin heading towards equality and genuine democracy instead of the virtual dictatorship of the rich we've been suffering under for so long?
Do We Live in a Democracy or an Oligarchy?
To believe that it is not just wishful thinking but a real possibility, one would have to believe that the election system of government in the United States is truly what we are told it is. One would have to believe, in other words, that the election system allows ordinary American citizens, merely by flipping a lever in a ballot booth, to choose people to truly and genuinely represent them (and not Big Money) in the Oval Office and in Congress. One would need to believe that these representatives would then write laws that truly and genuinely represent the values--equality and mutual aid--of the ordinary people who elected them and not the opposite values of Big Money. And one would need to believe that the president in the Oval Office would then execute these good laws as the vast majority of ordinary Americans want them to be executed.
But the reality is that we live in a dictatorship of the rich, in which the election system does not at all allow ordinary people to shape government policy. It's not just I claiming this. This is the conclusion of a widely cited academic paper reporting on a study with an enormous data base, online here and also here (Business Insider: "Major Study Finds the US is an Oligarchy") and here (TPM: "Princeton Study: US No Longer an Actual Democracy") and here (BBC: "Study: US Is an Oligarchy, Not a Democracy"). Additional proof is provided here.
The history of elections in the United States, if one actually studies it, makes it virtually impossible to believe that the election system is what we are told it is. If one examines the promises made by elected presidents versus what they actually did in office (as I do for all U.S. presidents from FDR to Obama in my article here, which I hope you will read before deciding how much faith to put in the election system), then one sees that there is simply no correlation between the promises and the actual behavior of the promissor once in office. The promises are what most voters want. The actual policies pursued, once the candidate is elected, are always very different. This holds equally for Democratic Party and Republican Party presidents. The only president since FDR who in any serious way went against the policies favored by Big Money was JFK, and he was assassinated by (according to very persuasive scholarship) the CIA.
The reason presidential candidates forget their campaign promises after being elected is not necessarily because they never intended to carry out their promises. Maybe they really do intend to do what they promise to do. (I think this is rare, but it can happen.) But whether the newly elected president wishes to honor his or her campaign promises or not, the reality is that he or she cannot do so if it means going against the will of the Billionaire class. The reality is that money is power, and the Billionaire class has the money.
The policies of the federal government are determined by private organizations set up by and controlled by the Billionaire class. These are restricted-membership organizations such as the Council on Foreign Relations (in which foreign policy is worked out in meetings where what is said by anybody is officially never revealed to the public, and from which organization practically all the top executives involved in implementing foreign policy come, no matter who is president) and the Committee for Economic Development (where domestic policy is worked out, for example market-driven health care, as described in this article) whose "members are chairs, CEOs and senior executives of major corporations; university and college presidents; former corporate leaders; and leaders of prominent NGOs.") There are other similar "think tank" organizations, such as the Trilateral Commission and the Brookings Institute, which, like the others, limit who may join them, and exercise enormous influence because they represent the billionaires. The Council on Foreign Relations was set up by the Rockefeller family and David Rockefeller later on founded the Trilateral Commission.
Not only is our government a dictatorship of the rich, but our whole society is also. Most Americans have to work for somebody else, as their "hired hand," and do what the boss orders them to do or else be fired. The boss in many cases is the section of the very wealthy class that owns the corporation one works for. There is not even a pretense of democracy "on the job." In a real democracy, people at work would, as equals, democratically decide on shared goals and ways of achieving them. But in our dictatorship of the rich, the goal of work is decided by the people who own the company and their goal is generally to make themselves richer off the labor of the workers. In this sense, most Americans are "wage slaves." Those who do the hardest work in our society are the poorest, and those who do the easiest work in great luxury (in fancy office buildings and five star hotels) or who do no work at all (like Alice Walton) are the richest. This is how it is when money is power and most people have practically none while a few are billionaires.
In order for a person, once elected to the presidency of the United States, to turn the country around and cause it to go in the direction opposite to the direction favored by the Billionaire class, the power of money would have to be rendered null. But the only thing that can do this is a fundamental social/economic/political revolution, carried out by literally hundreds of millions of people where they live and work, that aims EXPLICITLY to remove the rich from power and to render the power of money null by having no rich and no poor (a moneyless society, as described here.). Such a revolution is NOT a pipe dream; it is NOT just wishful thinking. In the years from 1936 to 1939 such a social revolution took place in half of Spain (it is called the Spanish Civil War in the text books, but it was actually an egalitarian revolution led mainly by anarchist, not Marxist, ideas.) An egalitarian revolution is indeed possible in the United States, because it is in fact what the vast majority of Americans would LOVE. The proof that most Americans would love such a revolution can be seen from the fact that when one actually asks random people on the street what they think about the idea of removing the rich from power to have real not fake democracy with no rich and no poor, they say it is a great idea. (To see videos of people on the street saying this, watch this video, and see other similar ones here).
To make an egalitarian revolution requires building an egalitarian revolutionary movement, as discussed here. In order for people to build such a movement they need to know two important things: #1) that most Americans today already would love an egalitarian revolution to take place; and #2) that simply voting in an election cannot make an egalitarian revolution.
The ruling class (the Billionaire class) works very hard to make sure that people do not know the #1 and #2 facts cited above. Regarding the #1 fact, the rulers use their control of the mass media and the alternative media (such as Democracy Now!) to make sure that Americans never see or hear their fellow Americans saying they would love to remove the rich from power to have real not fake democracy with no rich and no poor. Even though most Americans feel this way, their egalitarian revolutionary aspirations are rendered invisible to their fellow Americans by the mass and alernative media literally censoring them. As a result, most Americans feel that, in having revolutionary egalitarian aspirations, they are a hopelessly weak and small minority, and therefore it is pointless to even think about egalitarian revolution, never mind talk about it (and risk scorn) or act upon it. Given this hopelessness, people reluctantly "hold their nose" and vote for the "lesser evil."
Regarding the #2 fact, the rulers use politicians making wonderful promises to keep people thinking that they can make the government do good things just by voting for this or that candidate for president. As long as people have faith in the fairy tale Big Lie that elections allow us to control the government, then they will be far less willing to do what it takes to build a mass revolutionary egalitarian movement. The angrier people are at the policies of the Billionaire class, the more radical and even revolutionary the promises of a politician must be in order to maintain people's faith in the election system.
The question, therefore, is not whether one will vote for Bernie Sanders or not. The question is whether one will work to build an egalitarian revolutionary movement or not. But, let's be realististic. To the extent that one places one's hope in Bernie Sanders and the election system, and to the extent that one tells other people to place their hope in Bernie Sanders and the election system (i.e., campaign for him), then to that extent one is helping the ruling class prevent the growth of an egalitarian revolutionary movement--the only thing that can remove the Billionaire class from power.
What about Bernie Sanders's Platform and Views?
Up to now, I have not assumed anything negative about Bernie Sanders's personal integrity, because that is not the main issue in deciding whether or not to vote and campaign for him. But, even though it is not the main issue, it is an issue. So let's look at Bernie Sanders, the man and his platform and views.
The most striking fact about Bernie Sanders is that he supports the Israeli government's policy of refusing to allow the Palestinian refugees (from the 78% of Palestine now known as Israel) to return to live in that part of Palestine from which they (or, now, their parents and grandparents) were violenty driven out in 1948 and again in 1967 (and are continuing to be driven out.) The Israeli government uses the violent removal of non-Jews from Israel to ensure that Jews will be a robust majority of the population inside Israel, on the specious grounds that Jews cannot live safely among non-Jews.
What the Israeli government refers to as "the existence of Israel" and (the need to do whatever is necessary to protect) "the security of Israel" is code for the ethnic cleansing of non-Jews from 78% of Palestine. To see that this is so, it is only necessary to consider that if Israel ended the ethnic cleansing (by allowing the Palestinian refugees to return), made non-Jews and Jews equal under the law, and fairly compensated Palestinians for property stolen from them by the Israeli government (which would indeed mean the end of Israel as a "Jewish state"; so what?), then the Palestinians would no longer have a grievance against Israel and the conflict would end and ordinary Jews inside Israel would be FAR safer than they are today. Even if some individual Palestinians continued to advocate violence against Jews, they would now be considered criminals by the vast majority of ordinary Palestinians, whose anger at Israel is anger against ethnic cleansing, not anti-Semitism. (Before the Zionist movment linked Judaism with ethnic cleansing, Jews and non-Jews in Palestine lived peaceably together, contrary to the Big Lie that Jews and Muslims in Palestine have been fighting for thousands of years.) But a just resolution of the conflict is the very last thing that Israeli and American rulers want.
A just resolution of the conflict does not happen because both the Israeli and American ruling classes have a social-control strategic reason (Israel's ethnic cleansing creates the bogeyman enemy that their Orwellian Wars of social control need in order to work) for supporting Israel's brutally violent and decades-long ethnic cleansing, which reason I discuss in my articles titled "The Israel Lobby's Power Comes from the American Ruling Class" and "Israeli Leaders and Hamas Need Each Other." Every serious American politician, Jewish or not, supports Israel because they know that this is presently a condition for gaining the status of "serious politician" in the mass media controlled by the ruling class. Expressing support for Israel is the way a politician indicates to the ruling class that he or she is not REALLY trying to remove the ruling plutocracy (oligarchy) from power, no matter what else they may say on the campaign trail.
When pressed at a town hall meeting to condemn Israel's ethnic cleansing (not just its "disproportionate" use of force in carrying it out) forthrightly, Sanders got angry, as reported here.
"Israel-Palestine The Senate last week passed a resolution without a formal roll call vote by unanimous consent supporting Israel's right to defend itself against rocket attacks from Hamas. Writing for Salon, David Palumbo-Liu noted that Sen. Sanders "voted" for the resolution which actually passed without a vote. LINK"
"For many outside the U.S. Senate, the discovery that even progressive stalwarts such as Bernie Sanders, I-Vermont, Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Al Franken, D-Minn., voted for the resolution is more than disappointing. It does more than confirm U.S. Senate support for Israel. It pushes that statement beyond any rational or ethical or moral framework imaginable.
"The resolution not only gave the green light to the invasion—it gave the IDF a high-five and armaments as they crossed the intersection. All this after more than 400 civilians already had been killed by Israeli forces, the vast majority of them children. It was as if that bloodshed were not of a sufficient quantity."
On domestic issues, Bernie Sanders, despite whatever he means by calling himself a democratic socialist, absolutely does not say that the rich should be removed from power. On the contrary, he says that they should ease up on how terribly they treat regular people. One can examine Sanders's own websites and never find even a hint that the rich should be deprived of the power that they have as a result of personally owning (illigitimately!) billions of dollars of wealth. Nothing that Bernie Sanders advocates would change the fact that Americans would remain wage slaves, working for a wealthy class as their "hired hands" with no say over the goals of their work (for example, to make "guns or butter").
Yes, Sanders advocates "Getting Big Money Out of Politics." But this is eyewash. Campaign finance legislation--no matter how "stiff"--will never remove the rich from power because such legislation does not remove the rich from their money. Here's why removing the rich from their money (i.e., having a society not based on money) is so important.
The power of the billionaire class comes from their billions of dollars and the fact that in our society money is power. Money is the power to buy and control newspapers and radio stations, and determine whether or not they report that Joe Shmoe is a serious and responsible politician or a lunatic dangerous kook. Money is the power to offer a senator (or senator's spouse or child or friend) a cushy job or not, depending on how loyal a friend the senator is. Money is the power to tell a community that if it doesn't provide a sweetheart tax break to a corporation then the corporation will leave town and the community will lose jobs. Money is the power that enables billionaires like Bill and Melinda Gates to determine how our children will be treated in our public schools, specifically how the poorest and most working class children will be abused and told (with high stakes standardized tests that give the poorest and most working class children the low scores) that they are not deserving of a good-paying job. And the list goes on and on. Writing a law that limits how much money somebody can donate to a campaign may help to disguise the dictatorship of the rich, but it does not diminish its power.
Why Is the "Democratic Socialist" Sanders Portrayed So Respectfully in the Capitalist Media?
Bernie Sanders is calling for some things that Americans want very much, such as medicare for all. Why does the ruling class let him do this and still treat him respectfully in their capitalist-owned mass media? American history suggests why.
The fact that at one point a majority of Americans supported the Occupy Wall Street movement, and other similar facts, have made something very clear to the American ruling class. The rulers now realize that in order to prevent the growing numbers of dissaffected Americans from starting to think that it is necessary to make an egalitarian revolution, there need to be at least some politicians who, in their rhetoric and promises, address the concerns of these Americans. That is why almost all politicians today, as never before, talk about the problem of inequality. They need to do this in order to maintain "street cred." They need to do this in order to keep people from deciding that elections are just a hoax and revolution is necessary.
The more disillusioned with the system and angry at the Billionaire class Americans get, the more radical and revolutionary the politicians' rhetoric and promises need to be. At the same time, these politicians (if they wish to maintain their good standing in the mass media) need to be only as radical as necessary, but no more so. This perhaps explains why Bernie Sanders advocates things like medicare for all, and in general says the rich should ease up on people, but does not call for building an egalitarian revolutionary movement to remove the rich from power and have no rich and no poor. At this time, his "radical-lite" rhetoric is judged sufficient to keep people believing in the election system.
If there ever is a President Bernie Sanders, all of the evidence indicates that within a few years the people who voted for him will be as angry at him and regretful of being decieved by him as people who voted for Barack Obama are today angry at him and regretful of being deceived by him. Because the fundamental role of the federal government will continue to be to serve the Billionaire class, its policies will continue to anger most people, despite the presence of a Bernie Sanders in the Oval Office. The choice for Americans will remain what it has always been: either suffer to live as wage slaves*** in a dictatorship of the rich that gives a bit more one day only to take it back the next****, or make an egalitarian revolution to live as free and equal citizens in a genuine democracy.
* This video shows Bernie Sanders answering a question about Israel. Sanders makes it clear that he has the same view about Israel that Barack Obama has and, for that matter, that George W. Bush and George H. W. Bush had, which is that Israel should stop expanding its settlements in the West Bank in order to make possible a "two-state solution." The "two-state solution" means flat-out denial of the Right of Return of the Palestinian refugees to the 78% of Palestine known today as Israel. The denial of this right is far and away the #1 grievance of the Palestinians. Refusing to grant the Right of Return means perpetuating the conflict at its root by continuing the ethnic cleansing of non-Jews from 78% of Palestine.
*** "How the Unions Killed the Working Class Movement" discusses how a real "political revolution" (Bernie Sander's new rhetorical phrase) is about ending wage slavery, not getting a higher minimum wage.
**** Whenever the Billionaire class has made concessions to popular demands by people "in the streets" in order to stave off the growth of a more revolutionary movement, it has always used its power to take back what it gave, in one way or another. For example, the rulers yielded to the 1960s Civil Rights Movement and abolished Jim Crow (overtly racist) laws, only to institute the "New Jim Crow" of racist incarceration, as discussed here. The rulers yielded to the earlier huge labor strikes (like the great Flint Sit-Down Strike) in the 1930s demanding the right to have labor unions, only to turn the unions into agents of the employers to control the workers, as discussed here. The rulers yielded to the 19th century battles of workers for the 8 Hour Day, only to lower wages and force many Americans to work (often in two jobs) more than 8 hours and also to force both parents to work in the waged labor force when previously only one could support the family by doing wage labor. This is why we need to remove the Billionaire class from power, not just win this or that reform.


text:
layout: candidato

title: Diputado Jorge Burgos

categories:
- presidencial
- soon

featured-image: ../../images/comision-lobby/burgos-bn.png

gender: m

c_twitter:
public-email: jburgos@congreso.cl
facebook:
telefono: +56322505267

extra_info_url:

---

Aún sin información.


One selects skill in manipulation as his specialty. G. The swelling was about the size of a pea. Past failures should stimulate to renewed attempt. Could not see to sew or read even with her glasses. Johnson carisoprodol e orfenadrina of Chicago, was then introduced. BoCKius does not agree with the last speaker. Never extracts canines unless compelled.
P Deep pink per lb.. Yours carisoprodol e orfenadrina etc., Chas.
The first of these occurs in infancy. Allex moved that the clinic be held at 8, A. II kept mt when In nie, they wUl cut foater and last longer.
The result cannot be different with our profession. W., 5.1 and 5.4; Sibley, 0.5; Justi, 1.4. Spring-tempered, less likely to break. 3-~Fi"r'iiM in hot weather j retiuire* a hlshw heat tOMltenthan No. The advantages of the day are great. Jacobi Indiana C.H.Wilson ". Richardson, of Terre Haute, Ind., and Dfs. Proposition 1st was adopted without change. This is in accordance with human nature. Richardson's plan With almost universal success. Does length of service confer upon graduates of the R. Peebles said, I cannot say what the cause is.
Measurement blanks carisoprodol 350 mg pictures style sheets and samples free on request.


text:
Higher Degree Theses
Once an Other, always an Other: Contemporary discursive representations of the Asian Other in Aotearoa/New Zealand
Cormack, Donna Moana
Cormack, D. M. (2007). Once an Other, always an Other: Contemporary discursive representations of the Asian Other in Aotearoa/New Zealand (Thesis, Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)). The University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand. Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/10289/2644
Developments in the theorising of representation and the constitutive nature of language have encouraged an increased scholarly interest in the discursive construction of social identities, relations, and realities. This includes a growing body of literature internationally that focuses on the construction of social groups positioned as Others. However, critical research in this area is more limited in the domestic setting. In Aotearoa/New Zealand, the contemporary construction of social identities is embedded within a specific socio-political and historical context, including a particular colonial context. This context is fundamental to the ways in which social relations between the white settler Self and various Other groups have been, and continue to be, constituted.
In this thesis, I have explored the discursive representation of Asian identity in dominant institutional discourses in Aotearoa/New Zealand, with a particular focus on the construction of the Asian as Other. Using critical discourse analysis, contemporary newspaper and parliamentary texts were examined to identify content areas, discursive strategies, and lexical choices involved in the representation of the Asian Other by elite institutions in Aotearoa/New Zealand. Through this process, several recurring manifestations of Asian Otherness were recognised, namely those of Asians as threat, Asian as impermanent, Asian as commodity, and Asian as victim. These representations of the Asian Other embody continuities and contradictions. They function to contribute to contemporary understandings and positionings of Asian individuals and collectives, to the ongoing construction of the Self in Aotearoa/New Zealand, and to the broader national narrative.
Higher Degree Theses [1349]


text:
ServiceChannel Acquires Big Sky Technologies to Accelerate Innovation in Service Automation for Facilities and Operations
February 5, 2016 by ServiceChannel
Expands Solution Portfolio for Retail, Restaurant and other Distributed Enterprises
NEW YORK and SAN DIEGO, Feb. 3, 2016 – ServiceChannel, the leading SaaS service automation platform for facilities managers and contractors, today announced it has acquired Big Sky Technologies, Inc., a San Diego-based, privately held company with a facilities maintenance and operations SaaS solution specializing in serving multi-location retail, restaurant and other geographically distributed organizations.
The combined resources and talent of ServiceChannel and Big Sky will provide broader choices for facilities departments in retail, restaurant and other distributed enterprises, while the joint development efforts will accelerate technology and new product enhancements. This will help ServiceChannel better serve its customers across 63 countries who are conducting millions of facilities management transactions and managing billions of dollars in invoices on the ServiceChannel platform each year.
ServiceChannel intends to operate Big Sky as a separate division including maintaining the Big Sky product line and customer support models. ServiceChannel also plans to offer the Big Sky solution as part of an expanded product portfolio, giving customers a range of options based on their specific requirements and functionality desired.
"The Big Sky team has done an amazing job in creating a compelling, feature-rich, and easy-to-use solution," said Tom Buiocchi, CEO of ServiceChannel. "Our two companies share a common goal to transform the commercial facilities management industry into a modern online marketplace that provides unprecedented transparency, efficiency, automation, and insight – and this exciting combination will accelerate our ability to provide those values to the market."
Big Sky was founded in 1993 and has developed into a leading provider of facilities maintenance software renowned by its customers for flexible and intuitive technology and dedicated customer support.
"We are very excited to join ServiceChannel in the quest to revolutionize the facilities maintenance and operations markets through new and advanced technology solutions," said Thomas Krier, President and CEO of Big Sky. "We share a common vision for innovative and useful technology, breakthrough products and exceptional customer service, and this will allow us to raise the bar in all of those areas."
This acquisition, which has already closed, is reflective of the company's commitment to continual innovation and growth. The financial terms of the acquisition were not disclosed. For more information, please read this FAQ.
Follow ServiceChannel @ServiceChannel and Big Sky @bigskytech on Twitter
Join ServiceChannel and Big Sky on Facebook
Connect with ServiceChannel and Big Sky on LinkedIn
Read the ServiceChannel blog and the Big Sky blog
Download the e-book "7 Trends Impacting Facilities Management"
About Big Sky Technologies
Big Sky Technologies helps retail and restaurant organizations reinforce their brand and maximize the customer experience from the inside out. Through flexible, integrated solutions that meet the needs of the store teams for maintenance, repair, fixture support, visual merchandising, supplies, and marketing, Big Sky enables organizations to continually look their best through seamless and efficient processes. These processes, combined with the cost controls, transparency, and visibility inherent in the technology, lead to inspired performance across your organization and vendor base.
About ServiceChannel
ServiceChannel provides facilities managers with a single platform to source, procure, manage and pay for repair and maintenance services from commercial contractors across their enterprise. By providing a real time, mobile and web-based view of service data across all trades, locations and contractors, facilities managers drive significant brand equity and ROI for their organizations without outsourcing or investing in new infrastructure. The world's leading global brands across 63 countries use ServiceChannel to conduct millions of facilities management transactions and manage billions of dollars in invoices each year.
Media Contact for ServiceChannel
Name: John Noh
Email: jnoh@servicechannel.com


text:
Kentucky Democrats pick ex-fighter pilot McGrath to challenge U.S. Senate leader McConnell
Susan Cornwell | Posted: June 30, 2020, 10:26 a.m. | Updated: June 30, 2020, 9:21 p.m. | 2 Min Read
By Susan Cornwell
(Reuters) - Former fighter pilot Amy McGrath said on Tuesday she was ready to take on Senate Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell after edging out a Black progressive to clinch the Democratic nomination for the seat.
McGrath, 45, held off fellow Democrat Charles Booker, a state legislator, who had surged late in the campaign as protests spread across the United States over police violence against Black people.
With all Kentucky's counties reporting, McGrath won 45.4% of the vote to 42.6% for Booker, Kentucky officials said. The primary took place on June 23, but mailed ballots were accepted through Saturday, delaying the final results.
Booker conceded the race, but said he was concerned some Kentuckians could not check the status of their mailed ballots online.
"Let's dedicate to the work of beating Mitch, so that we can get him out of the way," Booker said in a statement.
McConnell, 78, the most powerful Republican in Congress and a staunch supporter of President Donald Trump, is seeking a seventh six-year term.
"Last November, Kentuckians didn't hesitate to replace an incompetent and unpopular incumbent. This November, we're going to do it again," McGrath wrote on Twitter, referring to Democratic Governor Andy Beshear's 2019 defeat of Republican Matt Bevin.
McGrath won establishment Democrats' backing early in her campaign, and raised a massive $41 million.
Emphasizing her military experience, she often stressed that she was the "only candidate who can win" against McConnell, who has represented Kentucky in the Senate for over three decades.
McGrath follows in the mold of a handful of freshmen Democratic women with national security experience who helped flip Republican House of Representatives seats in 2018. She spent 20 years in the Marines, flying 89 combat missions.
She faces an uphill battle against McConnell, said Nathan Gonzales, editor of Inside Elections, which provides nonpartisan analysis of campaigns.
"McGrath was a long shot before the competitive primary and is a long shot now that it's over," Gonzalez said, noting that Beshear's victory came in a three-way race in which a Libertarian Party candidate, John Hicks, also won votes.
Kentucky is a conservative state that voted for Trump by 30 percentage points in 2016.
Republicans' majority of 53 to 47 seats in the U.S. Senate is looking increasingly vulnerable in the Nov. 3 election, according to political analysts.
McConnell campaign spokeswoman Kate Cooksey said in a statement that "Extreme Amy McGrath is lucky to have gotten out of the primary with a victory," and called McGrath "just another tool of the Washington Democratic establishment who has no idea what matters most to Kentuckians."
(Reporting by Susan Cornwell and Richard Cowan; Editing by Scott Malone, Sonya Hepinstall, Bernadette Baum, Jonathan Oatis and David Gregorio)
Dartmouth man gets nine months in jail for possessing child porn


It is estimated that the functionally significant body of knowledge for a given medical specialty changes radically every 8 years. New specialties and "sub-specialization" are occurring at approximately an equal rate. Historically, established journals have not been able either to absorb this increase in publishable material or to extend their readership to the new specialists. International and national meetings, symposia and seminars, workshops, and newsletters suc cessfully bring to the attention of physicians within developing spe cialties what is occurring, but generally only in demonstration form without providing historical perspective, pathoanatomical corre lates, or extensive discussion. Page and time limitations oblige the authors to present only the essence of their material. Pediatric neurosurgery is an example of a specialty that has de veloped during the past 15 years. Over this period neurosurgeons have obtained special training in pediatric neurosurgery and then dedicated themselves primarily to its practice. Centers, Chairs, and educational programs have been established as groups of neuro surgeons in different countries throughout the world organized themselves respectively into national and international societies for pediatric neurosurgery. These events were both preceded and fol lowed by specialized courses, national and international journals, and ever-increasing clinical and investigative studies into all aspects of surgically treatable diseases of the child's nervous system.


text:
iPhone 5 Spotted, Matches Alleged iPhone 5 Cases! [Photo]
by Haras Jul 29, 2011 Jul 29, 2011
Hours ago we posted that the long-awaited cheaper iPhone may have been leaked into the wild. Just now, 9To5Mac has posted an image of an Apple employee using an alleged iPhone 5. Even more surprising is the fact that it seems to match with the supposed iPhone 5 cases leaked days ago.
From the image, it does look like a phone Apple would manufacture, opposed to the iPhone "Lite", which many people still question. Their source who claims to have seen the device, says that the device looked "almost Evo-like". He also said that the device is thinner than the iPhone and wider, which could explain most reports that claim the iPhone 5 to have a larger display.
The source goes on to say, that the employee looked as if he was hiding something. After seeing all of this he came home only to see an alleged iPhone 5 case that would fit the phone he saw moments ago.
Apple is expected to reveal the iPhone 5 in August, and release it early September. Along with it, they are expected to unveil a cheaper iPhone and maybe an iPad 3. As we get closer to that date, the rumors and leaks are getting more and more juicy. We can't wait to see these three new devices, to find out more stay tuned!
Subscribe to our RSS Feed and keep following us on Twitter, Facebook and YouTube for all the latest news, updates and more.
Tagged: Apple iOS iPhone iPhone 4s iPhone 5	Share
Previous Story How To: Hide Apps & Folders From LaunchPad In Mac OS X Lion
Next Story Wacom Bamboo Capacitive Stylus for iPad [Review]


text:
Published on Sabzian (www.sabzian.be)
Utamaro o meguru gonin no onna
Five Women Around Utamaro
"Utamaro and His Five Woman opens to a languid tracking shot of a formal procession of men and women performing a near static, ceremonial dance. The setting is the Tokugawa Era of late eighteenth century Japan, and the impassive courtship is a reflection of the rigid class structure and behavioral code instilled during their feudal rule. A young apprentice artist from the official Kano Art School named Seinosuke (Kotaro Bando) decides to amuse his mentor by purchasing some inexpensive wood block print artwork of Edo's famous courtesans at a nearby market square, and is insulted to find the artist, Utamaro's (Minosuke Bando) scathing indictment of the prestigious art school, commenting that the school's pervasive trait of using unnatural colors depict their women as freaks. Seinosuke sets off to find Utamaro against the wishes of his fiancée, Kano's daughter, Yukie (Eiko Ohara). A robust, former courtesan named Oshin (Kiniko Shiratao) decides to warn Utamaro, comically rationalizing that he has not yet had the time to paint one of his flattering portraits of her. However, upon hearing that a courtesan renowned for her flawless skin, Takasode (Toshiko Iizuka), is about to be tattooed by a local artist, Utamaro leaves home in order to study her form, and Seinosuke encounters him at the pleasure quarters. Agreeing on a painting challenge instead, Seinosuke quickly finds himself outmatched by the talented Utamaro when the master decides to improve on the novice's work. Later in the evening, Utamaro comes to the aid of the tattoo artist when he is unable to create a portrait worthy of Takasode's beauty. After witnessing Utamaro's great skill, a humbled Seinosuke decides to abandon his privileged life and Yukie in order to study under Utamaro. But soon, Utamaro's house is thrown into crisis when his model, Okita (Kinuyo Tanaka) learns that her lover has eloped with Takasode, and the embittered Okita decides to retaliate by seducing the impressionable Seinosuke. Left without inspiration and constantly quarreling with the tenacious Okita, his friends take him to watch a feudal lord's bizarre daily ritual of sending a chorus of young women to swim in the ocean to retrieve an object. Utamaro becomes captivated by the winner, Oran (Hiroko Kawasaki), and asks her to become his new model."1
1. Acquarello, "Utamaro o meguru gonin no onna, 1946", Strictly Film School, 2001
Utamaro o meguru gonin no onna Five Women Around Utamaro Kenji Mizoguchi
Source URL: https://www.sabzian.be/film/utamaro-o-meguru-gonin-no-onna


text:
Jimmy Burrow Talks Joe's Ground-Breaking Performance
Jimmy Burrow makes his weekly stop on Off the Bench to talk about his experience at the Alabama game and more.
"It was unbelievable to be there, as a dad, as a fan, as a former coach," Burrow said.
His emotions were running high before the game, Burrow said.
"You start getting a little nervous energy," Burrow said. "Once the kickoff happens, you kind of get back to normal. Leading up to the game is… the worst part for me."
The team's arrival to the airport was special, and he enjoys the video of Joe running down and giving high-fives through the airport fence, Burrow said.
"That's a special time," Burrow said. "That's the good thing about social media, we'll have that video for the rest of our lives."
LSU's defensive performance was key to the team's Bryant-Denny-record 46 visitor points, Burrow said.
"They made a lot of plays that really allowed the offense to get back on the field, allowed the offense to get more opportunities," Burrow said. "They did a good job. They made enough big plays to really be a factor."
His son's Heisman Trophy odds are a topic he doesn't like to focus on, Burrow said.
"I don't like to think about that," Burrow said. "To be in that position is a little overwhelming to our family. It's a credit to that whole team and the offense and the coaches. There's a lot of people that have gone into (getting) Joe into that position."
Regarding his son's potential to play in the NFL with an Ohio team, Burrow said he would rather not focus on it,
"I see it all, and you hear it back in Ohio," Burrow said. "I really never talk to Joe about that, and I think, truly, it's one of the last things on his mind. You just have to keep playing, if you're Joe, and let the chips fall where they may."
Listen to more episodes of Off the Bench on our On Demand page!
@JordyCulotta
@TBob53
@RivsHughey
@IncredibleMrNat
https://media.blubrry.com/culotta_the_prince/p/media.blubrry.com/gm_wnxx/p/content.blubrry.com/gm_wnxx/Jimmy_Burrow_OTB_11-12-19.mp3


As all performance marketers know, understanding the incremental contribution of the clicks and views on your ad campaign is critical — particularly when you're running mobile or cross-device campaigns. Last-click attribution is an inaccurate reflection of what's driving results, because the average customer switches between multiple devices, platforms, and sites before making a purchase.
To help our advertisers consistently gauge the impact of ad exposure across devices, we're introducing conversion lift reports — a custom data-driven report designed to help you better understand the impact your Twitter Ads campaigns are driving toward your bottom line.
When measuring a campaign for conversion lift, we automatically and randomly segment your eligible target audience into two groups: one that sees your ads (the test group) and another that doesn't (the control group). At the end of the campaign, we calculate the incremental conversion lift of your campaign by comparing conversions across both the test and control groups, and then share this data with you in a custom report. The report offers valuable insights such as actionable targeting recommendations based on study results, conversion efficiency, transaction value lift gained through Twitter Ads, and more.
Over the last several months, we've seen positive results from advertisers who have tested the conversion lift reports in beta. People who are merely exposed to an advertiser's Promoted Tweets are 1.4x as likely to convert on the advertiser's website vs. the control group — demonstrating that simply seeing an ad on Twitter yields powerful results. The outcome proves even better for people who engage with an advertiser's Promoted Tweets, as they are 3.2x as likely to convert on the advertiser's website, compared with the control. All advertisers participating in the conversion lift study were mid to large performance advertisers in the retail, financial services, media, education and telecom industries (source: Twitter internal data).
Conversion lift reports can now be requested by all eligible clients, worldwide. To get started with conversion lift reports, you'll need one or more campaigns set to start at a future date, as well as conversion tracking installed if you're planning on measuring lift for websites or mobile app conversions. To learn more about conversion lift reports and inquire about your eligibility, please contact your account team.