I just sold MTGOTraders my entire collection, as I was looking to get out of the game for good. They gave me an offer for well more than I had expected to get for my cards (mostly one-offs of EDH staples, fetchlands, shocklands, etc.). Was able to finish the deal and have the money in my PayPal account within 72 total hours from start to finish.
If you want to liquidate your collection, I cannot speak highly enough of these folks. Very professional and fair.
I've now read through 6+ pages of the most inane, hair-splitting, mind-numbing "debate" I've ever seen, and I feel all the dumber for it. People debating semantics to the Nth degree, being intentionally obtuse and arguing just for the sake of arguing.
Yoga may have some historical ties to Hinduism, but these kids are just being taught how to stretch into positions with funny names as a way to engage them and keep them interested, not to indoctrinate them in a particular religious belief. Seeing it as anything more than that is making up a controversy based on the thinnest and most tenuous of premises.
As a personal anecdote, both my older daughter (who attends a private Christian school) and my younger daughter (who attends a Christian preschool) have both done yoga as part of their physical education programs this year. Now, if this was such a dangerous "gateway" exercise to practicing Hinduism, don't you think that these organizations that expouse Christian ideals and faith might not want it in their facilities?
Speaking as a Christian, specific conversations about or policies based on a particular faith need to be kept out of the formal education process. As Fluffy Bunny wrote (I just love typing that, as I envision a large, pink rabbit at a keyboard), religion is not fact, it's faith, so discussion of any religion, outside of the "this is what Religion X believes, and here is what Religion Y believes, etc." instruction, is not something the public school system in America should engage in. It has to be all-inclusive, which means that the Christian, Muslim, Catholic, Jewish, atheist, agnostic, and seeking kids have to all feel comfortable there without having a specific set of beliefs thrust upon them.
If someone wants their child educated in a religious environment, there are private schools that are more than happy to have your child attend and you to pay for it. My wife and I did this the past two years (the first out of necessity, as our local public school district did not have full-day kindergarten, and this year because we are not happy with either the leadership of our local district or the educational standards in the district), but we will be moving to another district this spring and our daughters will be attending public school there next fall. That is not to say that we will not continue to discuss and work to develop their faith, but that we will do so within the confines of our home and church.
In this case, it's one whiny group that wants its way and isn't concerned that its actions are hypocritical. This is how America is now, unfortunately, where almost everyone has a personal agenda and doesn't care if they trample on someone else's rights to achieve their goal.
The only thing this would do is restrict freedom from the people. It's the right of the American people to vote for whoever they want as many times as they want.
My good man, the American voting public is, by and large, both profoundly stupid and easily swayed. Give them enough shiny trinkets and make enough promises (no matter how unkeepable), and they will vote you into office into perpetuity. This is less about restricting their freedom and more about saving them from themselves.
Also, we should repeal the term limits for president. It was only a cautionary statement made by Washington - not something intended to ever be made into law. I could only imagine President Wilkie having to deal with Nazi Germany.
The 22nd Amendment was passed in 1947 after Congress realized that, in the aftermath of his death, that FDR had not been physically sound enough to be elected for a fourth term; many in his own party knew this at the time of the 1944 Democratic convention, but, powerless to stop his unchallenged nomination, worked behind the scenes to get a strong VP candidate on the ticket should Roosevelt not survive his term, which he obviously didn't. This is a safeguard against putting someone in office, after serving multiple terms already, who may not be able to handle the duties of the office or serve their entire term.
As I posted in another thread this morning, I fully support term limits for all of our elected officials in the United States. The only way that we are going to make any progress on actually solving our problems is to clear out the career politicians, on both sides of the aisle, who are more worried about their continued survival and constant re-election than they are in working toward solutions that will best benefit the American populace.
As far as actual numbers, I would suggest the following:
Senator: Two 6-year terms.
House Representative: Increase the term from 2 years to 3 years and let them serve 4 3-year terms.
The other rub is that a person cannot serve 12 years in the HoR, then run for Senator and serve another 12 years. You can serve as either a Senator and/or Representative for a combined total of 12 years.
As for the POTUS, I propose increasing the length of the term from 4 years to either 6 or 8 years (preferably 6), with a limit of 1 term. No need to shut down what they are doing for 16 months to campaign for re-election; they can concentrate on doing the things they said they were going to do in the first campaign and not on making promises they have no intention, reason, or compulsion to keep in their second term.
With the POTUS, I have no issue with them serving in either the House or Senate prior to this, although I would set a rule that prohibited a sitting member of either the House or Senate from running for POTUS. You were elected by the constituents of your state to represent them, not run for President, so you will do the job you were hired to do, and if you want to run for President when you are no longer in office, that's fine with me. The reason I have no problem with the President having previously served is because it is a different branch of the government and their view on things should be different in the President's chair.
But the politician is not there to compete for re-election. They are there to do the will of the people that have elected them to the office.
If these people truly want to create a legacy that is based on their accomplishments rather than the fact they were elected time and time again, they will work hard and do what they can. Don't forget that with term limits, they will have to do something when they are out of office, so by working hard until the last fall of the gavel on their term and actually doing something beneficial for the country, they will be creating something to take to the table when they are done with their "public service."
Except that former Presidents can live easily on retirement and public speaking fees without having contributed much of anything (looking at you, Dubya).
Understood, and I can look at Jimmy Carter and see the same lack of presidential accomplishment, yet somehow he's considered a "statesman".
Partisan bickering aside, while the President may have the ability to do that, Joe Schmo, Representative from North Dakota, will not. He's going to have to go back to his home and either go back to his former career or try to make a new one, and it's easier to sell your name when you're seen as having done something than having coasted for X terms.
If you don't want to go with term limits, then pay these people less and see how many people want to make a career of "public service". Rank and file members of the US House and Senate make $174K per year, while also receiving fully-paid health and retirement benefits, while the average US citizen has a per capita income of about $42K. The fact that our Representatives and Senators make far more than the average American is reprehensible, IMO, so how about we give them the per capita income +10% and make them pay for their health care benefits. What you get then is people who truly want to serve their country rather than people making four times that of an average citizen who are constantly looking to do whatever they can to keep their position and benefits.
I could also see the argument that term limits inspire apathy, since you know the end of the road is ahead and you don't have to compete anymore.
But the politician is not there to compete for re-election. They are there to do the will of the people that have elected them to the office.
If these people truly want to create a legacy that is based on their accomplishments rather than the fact they were elected time and time again, they will work hard and do what they can. Don't forget that with term limits, they will have to do something when they are out of office, so by working hard until the last fall of the gavel on their term and actually doing something beneficial for the country, they will be creating something to take to the table when they are done with their "public service."
I'm against this, on the grounds that I fully support term limits for all politicians. What started out as public service, where the elected individual went to Washington, put in his time in service to his constituents, then returned to his farm or law office or whatever, has turned into a career, where individuals get entrenched and spend the remainder of their days trying to keep their job, even if they need to do so by acting in a manner that is against the best interests of the country. What you get now are people who are in Congress for 30, 40 or more years, because the US re-elects 90+% of incumbents historically, even though the approval rating for Congress is only slightly higher than that for AIDS, bubonic plague and child sex slavery; the American people are more than happy to just put the same folks back into office rather than actually do some research and determine if their representative is actually representing their interests.
That said, I would be up for extending the length of the president's term to 6 or 8 years, but with the trade-off that they can only be elected for one term. This way, they can lay out their plans for their entire term upfront at election time, they can use all of their time and effort in office working their plan, and they don't have to worry about planning a re-election campaign.
That last piece, to me, is the most-damaging part of the US political process. For sake of example (simply because it is the most recent, but with the understanding that each of our first-term Presidents over the past 30 years have done the same), Barack Obama pretty much started his re-election campaign in the fall of 2011. He spent time flying all over the country to fundraisers, going to rally events, etc., leaving his actual job duties secondary to his goal of getting another four years. If we had a system where the President got just one longer term, they could concentrate on creating their legacy without taking a 16-month sabbatical to schmooze their party's various interest groups, beg for money, and make promises that they know they have no intention (or reason) to keep in their second term.
If it was a paperbook you'd have had a hard time getting it returned. It is plain and simple exploitation of the Amazon T&C which are put there to cover mispurchased items and the like, perhaps even books oyu bought and found you did not like. None of those apply to you.
You intentionally bought the book, realised you had financial problems, finished reading it then asked for a refund. That's like buying a Big Mac, putting a hair in it, finishing it, then showing them the hair and asking for your money back in my opinion.
If you want to read books and not pay, join a library.
Completely disagree with your analogy.
The OP bought a digital copy of a book. 0's and 1's. There are no spine breakages, torn pages, coffee stains, or greasy finger marks on the "asset" that was purchased that would hinder Amazon from selling it in the future; while it has been "used", we're dealing with an intangible item that is not subject to the same wear and tear as a physical object. They aren't returning something that was damaged by their actions, nor are they purporting that the item they bought was defective after they had enjoyed it.
The OP is utilizing (or taking advantage, although that has a negative connotation) of a loophole in the Amazon return policy to their own benefit due to a specific set of circumstances. It's legal for them to do this, so until Amazon changes the policy, we can only discuss morality (whereas in your Big Mac example, that individual would be perpetrating fraud, which is a legal matter).
My take on it is as long as this is truly a one-time occurrence, and even if the OP does not make good on their insistence they will repurchase the book when their circumstances allow, they have done nothing wrong.
I've gotten out of paper Magic three times, and each time I've made a huge amount of money on eBay for the good stuff, then sold the bulk to local people through various channels.
EBay helps you reach a wider market and the competitive nature of the environment, plus the "win at all costs" mentality of some folks on there, can really help to drive up the price. Consider using "Buy It Now" options, based on the Recently Completed sales prices for lots of the same cards, to get market value without going through the auction function and couple these with high-enough starting bids to keep people from dropping $1 bids to get rid of the BIN option, or set a reserve price for anything that is reasonably valuable to ensure you don't sell at a loss.
Just my opinion, and good luck with whatever you decide to do with your cards.
My wife and I met at 27/26 (she's a cradle-robber, to be sure ;)), got married at 29/28, had our first daughter at 33/32 and our second at 35/34.
If we'd met before then, I can't say I would have been ready to get married. I was wrapped up in myself, my wants and my stuff, and I don't think that I was marriage material at that time. Many people in their early 20's are still discovering who they are and their place in the world, and to bring along another person on that journey, a person who is taking their own journey of discovery, can be difficult.
I also wouldn't suggest putting off having kids much later than the ages when we had them. We both work full-time, so there are many nights where baths, checking homework, making lunches, playing games, reading bedtime stories and that whole routine are just physically draining, and they leave us with precious little time for eachother; we've been blessed that it hasn't taken a toll on our relationship, but I could definitely see where it could. We've talked preliminarily about possibly adopting a child, but I'm not sure either one of us has the energy to deal with a two- or three-year old, let alone an infant, at this point.
Buy the safety equipment, because otherwise your employees will unionize and force you to buy it anyway... you know, just like before the union shops existed.
Is that why Right to Work states have 50% more fatal workplace accidents than non-RTW states?
I had not seen this statistic... can you cite it to me so I can look at it myself?
If unions completely dissolve, then workers lose a bargaining position.
What's the bargaining position they lose? The right to strike?
I'm asking because I've always worked as an "at will" employee and I honestly don't understand the allure of unions. At my current job, I was recruited by a headhunter, came in and had three rounds of interviews, got offered the position, then got down to negotiating my benefits package. I told them exactly what it would take for them to hire me away from my (then) current employer, including what salary I wanted, how much vacation, etc.; I had fall-back positions for each in order to get those things that I most wanted. They gave me pretty much everything I asked for, even throwing in a signing bonus to get me to forgo another position I was interviewing for at the same time; I had told them about it in the interest of full disclosure, and they decided that I was worth pursuing heavily.
If it were a union environment, I would have interviewed and they would have told me that, based on the rules, I was entitled to $X pay and Y vacation and Z benefits. I would have had to take what was mandated by the contract and live with it, but in my case, I had the bargaining power.
Sure, they can let me go at any time, but I do my job and I do it well (I was recently promoted to department supervisor), so I don't worry about losing my job in the sense that it is not constantly on my mind. The risk I incur by being "at will" is mitigated, IMO, by the reward I get by being able to cut the best deal for me based on my skills, abilities and experience.
But beyond that unions provided legal services in the invent they were needed. If less money exists those services may not be as strong as they were, or may simply be unavailable if the union runs out of money.
Are these the legal services used to keep employees who show up drunk or high from being fired by companies, or the ones that fight school districts when they want to get rid of teachers who have sex with students, or that pay for the defense of police officers who are accused of brutality from being dismissed even if they are found guilty?
Or are these the funds that are allocated to ensuring that poor performers, in whatever type of business or public service, are kept on even though they do nothing to contribute to the success of the organization? You know, the ones that keep the grandkid of the union boss employed even though he is useless and unskilled, but because grandpa and dad work there and got him a job, he's going to work there until he dies because there is no way to chuck him out the door?
RTW is just another step in a race to the bottom. Once the unions drop below 51% enrollment in the workforce a company can dissolve it, causing those workers to then lose their protections. Its not a good thing.
What are these "protections" that the workers will lose, in your estimation?
Currently living in an 1800 sq. ft. house with my wife, two daughters and two cats. It's been a good starter house (we moved in May 2005, before we had any kids), but the storage space is limited (which is complicated by my other hobby, which is collecting comic books) and the room was built with some oddly-shaped rooms (long and thin rectangles, as opposed to more square shapes) that really limits what you can do with the space.
Come end of January, will be moving into a 2700 sq. ft. house, with the ability to finish the basement to add an additional 600 sq. ft. The space is a nice upgrade, but the real driver is to be able to send our girls to a really good public school (the district we're moving to is ranked 11th in the state by its standardized test scores, while our current district is around 170 out of 550, so we've been using a small private Christian school near us, but when we would have a second child going there, the cost was going to be a little prohibitive). Another driver is that my wife and I, who are both 40-ish, have been talking about adopting a child, and in our current house, we would be pushed on space to allow that to happen without everyone being on top of one another.
If you want to liquidate your collection, I cannot speak highly enough of these folks. Very professional and fair.
Yoga may have some historical ties to Hinduism, but these kids are just being taught how to stretch into positions with funny names as a way to engage them and keep them interested, not to indoctrinate them in a particular religious belief. Seeing it as anything more than that is making up a controversy based on the thinnest and most tenuous of premises.
As a personal anecdote, both my older daughter (who attends a private Christian school) and my younger daughter (who attends a Christian preschool) have both done yoga as part of their physical education programs this year. Now, if this was such a dangerous "gateway" exercise to practicing Hinduism, don't you think that these organizations that expouse Christian ideals and faith might not want it in their facilities?
If someone wants their child educated in a religious environment, there are private schools that are more than happy to have your child attend and you to pay for it. My wife and I did this the past two years (the first out of necessity, as our local public school district did not have full-day kindergarten, and this year because we are not happy with either the leadership of our local district or the educational standards in the district), but we will be moving to another district this spring and our daughters will be attending public school there next fall. That is not to say that we will not continue to discuss and work to develop their faith, but that we will do so within the confines of our home and church.
In this case, it's one whiny group that wants its way and isn't concerned that its actions are hypocritical. This is how America is now, unfortunately, where almost everyone has a personal agenda and doesn't care if they trample on someone else's rights to achieve their goal.
My good man, the American voting public is, by and large, both profoundly stupid and easily swayed. Give them enough shiny trinkets and make enough promises (no matter how unkeepable), and they will vote you into office into perpetuity. This is less about restricting their freedom and more about saving them from themselves.
The 22nd Amendment was passed in 1947 after Congress realized that, in the aftermath of his death, that FDR had not been physically sound enough to be elected for a fourth term; many in his own party knew this at the time of the 1944 Democratic convention, but, powerless to stop his unchallenged nomination, worked behind the scenes to get a strong VP candidate on the ticket should Roosevelt not survive his term, which he obviously didn't. This is a safeguard against putting someone in office, after serving multiple terms already, who may not be able to handle the duties of the office or serve their entire term.
As far as actual numbers, I would suggest the following:
Senator: Two 6-year terms.
House Representative: Increase the term from 2 years to 3 years and let them serve 4 3-year terms.
The other rub is that a person cannot serve 12 years in the HoR, then run for Senator and serve another 12 years. You can serve as either a Senator and/or Representative for a combined total of 12 years.
As for the POTUS, I propose increasing the length of the term from 4 years to either 6 or 8 years (preferably 6), with a limit of 1 term. No need to shut down what they are doing for 16 months to campaign for re-election; they can concentrate on doing the things they said they were going to do in the first campaign and not on making promises they have no intention, reason, or compulsion to keep in their second term.
With the POTUS, I have no issue with them serving in either the House or Senate prior to this, although I would set a rule that prohibited a sitting member of either the House or Senate from running for POTUS. You were elected by the constituents of your state to represent them, not run for President, so you will do the job you were hired to do, and if you want to run for President when you are no longer in office, that's fine with me. The reason I have no problem with the President having previously served is because it is a different branch of the government and their view on things should be different in the President's chair.
Understood, and I can look at Jimmy Carter and see the same lack of presidential accomplishment, yet somehow he's considered a "statesman".
Partisan bickering aside, while the President may have the ability to do that, Joe Schmo, Representative from North Dakota, will not. He's going to have to go back to his home and either go back to his former career or try to make a new one, and it's easier to sell your name when you're seen as having done something than having coasted for X terms.
If you don't want to go with term limits, then pay these people less and see how many people want to make a career of "public service". Rank and file members of the US House and Senate make $174K per year, while also receiving fully-paid health and retirement benefits, while the average US citizen has a per capita income of about $42K. The fact that our Representatives and Senators make far more than the average American is reprehensible, IMO, so how about we give them the per capita income +10% and make them pay for their health care benefits. What you get then is people who truly want to serve their country rather than people making four times that of an average citizen who are constantly looking to do whatever they can to keep their position and benefits.
But the politician is not there to compete for re-election. They are there to do the will of the people that have elected them to the office.
If these people truly want to create a legacy that is based on their accomplishments rather than the fact they were elected time and time again, they will work hard and do what they can. Don't forget that with term limits, they will have to do something when they are out of office, so by working hard until the last fall of the gavel on their term and actually doing something beneficial for the country, they will be creating something to take to the table when they are done with their "public service."
That said, I would be up for extending the length of the president's term to 6 or 8 years, but with the trade-off that they can only be elected for one term. This way, they can lay out their plans for their entire term upfront at election time, they can use all of their time and effort in office working their plan, and they don't have to worry about planning a re-election campaign.
That last piece, to me, is the most-damaging part of the US political process. For sake of example (simply because it is the most recent, but with the understanding that each of our first-term Presidents over the past 30 years have done the same), Barack Obama pretty much started his re-election campaign in the fall of 2011. He spent time flying all over the country to fundraisers, going to rally events, etc., leaving his actual job duties secondary to his goal of getting another four years. If we had a system where the President got just one longer term, they could concentrate on creating their legacy without taking a 16-month sabbatical to schmooze their party's various interest groups, beg for money, and make promises that they know they have no intention (or reason) to keep in their second term.
Completely disagree with your analogy.
The OP bought a digital copy of a book. 0's and 1's. There are no spine breakages, torn pages, coffee stains, or greasy finger marks on the "asset" that was purchased that would hinder Amazon from selling it in the future; while it has been "used", we're dealing with an intangible item that is not subject to the same wear and tear as a physical object. They aren't returning something that was damaged by their actions, nor are they purporting that the item they bought was defective after they had enjoyed it.
The OP is utilizing (or taking advantage, although that has a negative connotation) of a loophole in the Amazon return policy to their own benefit due to a specific set of circumstances. It's legal for them to do this, so until Amazon changes the policy, we can only discuss morality (whereas in your Big Mac example, that individual would be perpetrating fraud, which is a legal matter).
My take on it is as long as this is truly a one-time occurrence, and even if the OP does not make good on their insistence they will repurchase the book when their circumstances allow, they have done nothing wrong.
EBay helps you reach a wider market and the competitive nature of the environment, plus the "win at all costs" mentality of some folks on there, can really help to drive up the price. Consider using "Buy It Now" options, based on the Recently Completed sales prices for lots of the same cards, to get market value without going through the auction function and couple these with high-enough starting bids to keep people from dropping $1 bids to get rid of the BIN option, or set a reserve price for anything that is reasonably valuable to ensure you don't sell at a loss.
Just my opinion, and good luck with whatever you decide to do with your cards.
If we'd met before then, I can't say I would have been ready to get married. I was wrapped up in myself, my wants and my stuff, and I don't think that I was marriage material at that time. Many people in their early 20's are still discovering who they are and their place in the world, and to bring along another person on that journey, a person who is taking their own journey of discovery, can be difficult.
I also wouldn't suggest putting off having kids much later than the ages when we had them. We both work full-time, so there are many nights where baths, checking homework, making lunches, playing games, reading bedtime stories and that whole routine are just physically draining, and they leave us with precious little time for eachother; we've been blessed that it hasn't taken a toll on our relationship, but I could definitely see where it could. We've talked preliminarily about possibly adopting a child, but I'm not sure either one of us has the energy to deal with a two- or three-year old, let alone an infant, at this point.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/cfoi.pdf
Check Table 5 on page 11.
I'm at work and cannot do the math on it right now, so maybe someone else who has the free time can pull the numbers together to verify.
What's the bargaining position they lose? The right to strike?
I'm asking because I've always worked as an "at will" employee and I honestly don't understand the allure of unions. At my current job, I was recruited by a headhunter, came in and had three rounds of interviews, got offered the position, then got down to negotiating my benefits package. I told them exactly what it would take for them to hire me away from my (then) current employer, including what salary I wanted, how much vacation, etc.; I had fall-back positions for each in order to get those things that I most wanted. They gave me pretty much everything I asked for, even throwing in a signing bonus to get me to forgo another position I was interviewing for at the same time; I had told them about it in the interest of full disclosure, and they decided that I was worth pursuing heavily.
If it were a union environment, I would have interviewed and they would have told me that, based on the rules, I was entitled to $X pay and Y vacation and Z benefits. I would have had to take what was mandated by the contract and live with it, but in my case, I had the bargaining power.
Sure, they can let me go at any time, but I do my job and I do it well (I was recently promoted to department supervisor), so I don't worry about losing my job in the sense that it is not constantly on my mind. The risk I incur by being "at will" is mitigated, IMO, by the reward I get by being able to cut the best deal for me based on my skills, abilities and experience.
Are these the legal services used to keep employees who show up drunk or high from being fired by companies, or the ones that fight school districts when they want to get rid of teachers who have sex with students, or that pay for the defense of police officers who are accused of brutality from being dismissed even if they are found guilty?
Or are these the funds that are allocated to ensuring that poor performers, in whatever type of business or public service, are kept on even though they do nothing to contribute to the success of the organization? You know, the ones that keep the grandkid of the union boss employed even though he is useless and unskilled, but because grandpa and dad work there and got him a job, he's going to work there until he dies because there is no way to chuck him out the door?
What are these "protections" that the workers will lose, in your estimation?
Come end of January, will be moving into a 2700 sq. ft. house, with the ability to finish the basement to add an additional 600 sq. ft. The space is a nice upgrade, but the real driver is to be able to send our girls to a really good public school (the district we're moving to is ranked 11th in the state by its standardized test scores, while our current district is around 170 out of 550, so we've been using a small private Christian school near us, but when we would have a second child going there, the cost was going to be a little prohibitive). Another driver is that my wife and I, who are both 40-ish, have been talking about adopting a child, and in our current house, we would be pushed on space to allow that to happen without everyone being on top of one another.