text:
Q: Get data from a cell with "willSelectRowAtIndexPath" in Swift2 I'm trying since two weeks with the help of many Tutorials to get and segue data from a TableView cell. But it seems it is impossible to do that in XCode. It is only possible to get the selectedRow of a cell, but I cannot read out the Text labels of a selected cell.
If a user selects a Cell I want to segue the value of a label in the selected cell to a new View Controller.
I can only submit the selected row to a new View Controller but not the value of a label in this selected cell.
func tableView(tableView: UITableView, willSelectRowAtIndexPath indexPath: NSIndexPath) -> NSIndexPath? {
   row = indexPath.row // here is the row the user has selcted
    labelStringOfselectedCell = "??????" // how to retrieve data from a label in the cell?
    return indexPath
}

override func prepareForSegue(segue: UIStoryboardSegue, sender: AnyObject?) {
    let DestViewController : ViewControllerDetail = segue.destinationViewController as! ViewControllerDetail
    DestViewController.seguedData = labelStringOfselectedCell
}

A: If you really wanted to do something like that, you can do something like:
func tableView(tableView: UITableView, willSelectRowAtIndexPath indexPath: NSIndexPath) -> NSIndexPath? {
    let cell = tableView.cellForRowAtIndexPath(indexPath)  // do not confuse this with the similarly named `tableView:cellForRowAtIndexPath:` method that you've implemented
    let string = cell?.textLabel?.text
    return indexPath
}

Clearly it depends upon whether you're custom cell subclass and what the label was, but that illustrates the basic idea.
Having said that, you should not do this. Your app should be following Model-View-Controller (MVC) programming paradigm. When determining what data to pass to the next scene, you should go back to the original model you used when originally populating the table, not referring to some control in the table.
For example, let's imagine that you populated the original cell by retrieving data from the objects model:
func tableView(tableView: UITableView, cellForRowAtIndexPath indexPath: NSIndexPath) -> UITableViewCell {
    let cell = tableView.dequeueReusableCellWithIdentifier("Cell", forIndexPath: indexPath)
    let object = objects[indexPath.row]
    cell.textLabel?.text = object.name
    return cell
}

Then you would just implement a prepareForSegue that retrieves the data from objects also (and you don't have to implement willSelectRowAtIndexPath at all):
func prepareForSegue(segue: UIStoryboardSegue, sender: AnyObject?) {
    if let destination = segue.destinationViewController as? ViewControllerDetail {
        let object = objects[tableView.indexPathForSelectedRow!.row]
        destination.seguedData = object.name
    }
}

Clearly, this will change depending upon what your model was and how you originally populated the cell, but hopefully it illustrates the basic idea.


text:
ATPoBtVS/AtS Discussion Board Archives
Joss' idea for what to do when "Buffy" ends. (not really spoilers, b/c no decision's been made yet) -- Rob, 07:36:06 11/01/02 Fri
I think I figured it out (spoilers for AtS 3.22-4.4, future speculation) -- Masq, 09:22:15 11/01/02 Fri
Grammar and the Hellmouth -- tim, 09:51:10 11/01/02 Fri
Demons, Humans and the Souled -- Deb, 12:48:34 11/01/02 Fri
Poor Troll! The moral ambiguity of Olaf -- Charles Phipps, 14:00:46 11/01/02 Fri
Attn: Masq, or anyone who might want to answer a question re: Angel, season 1 -- Rob, 21:46:31 11/01/02 Fri
Buffyworld.com put up the current list of all of the rest of this year's Buffy eps, and air dates -- Rob, 12:11:03 11/02/02 Sat
Slouching towards a family framework in ATS/Cordy and Connor -- alcibiades, 19:58:47 11/02/02 Sat
Soul as a mirror -- Sang, 22:36:40 11/02/02 Sat
Mistakes in Buffy's scripting -- Charlemagne20, 23:14:12 11/02/02 Sat
What is wildfeed? -- Pegleg Pete, 10:05:33 11/03/02 Sun
How's this for irony? -- Rob, 12:43:25 11/03/02 Sun
An Evil Request for d'Horrible, the tentacled one (O/T) -- Sophomorica, picking cat gut out of her teeth, 13:00:50 11/03/02 Sun
Monsters (marginally OT) -- Humanitas, 15:04:26 11/03/02 Sun
OT completely. -- Deb, 15:55:07 11/03/02 Sun
Grr! Argh! I frickin' hate surprise spoilers! -- tim, who's stolen ponygirl's crankypants for awhile, 16:11:32 11/03/02 Sun
What would Buffy think of Cordelia now? (spoilers abound mwahaha) -- Sometime Lurker, 19:55:28 11/03/02 Sun
There's a chat room? ;-) (Spoilers for Angel 4.5 - Supersymmetry) -- Cheryl, 20:21:14 11/03/02 Sun
Tonight, tonight . . . AtS 4.5 Spoilers -- JM, 20:24:11 11/03/02 Sun
Cordy's continuity (AtS 4.4, 4.5, and "Eternity," season 1 spoilers) -- Rob, 21:46:46 11/03/02 Sun
Theoretical physicist's review on 'Supersymmetry' (spoilers of course) -- Sang, 22:21:39 11/03/02 Sun
Oedipus and Angel, Season 7: Similiarities (A disguarded plot?) -- BlueLight, 00:11:17 11/04/02 Mon
WTH was up with Angel's parlor trick? -- oboemaboe, 00:12:43 11/04/02 Mon
Is Connor evil? -- BlueLight, 03:57:16 11/04/02 Mon
Pied Beauty: Season 6 v Season 5 -- Tchaikovsky, 07:03:57 11/04/02 Mon
"Supersymmetry" - is it a woman's job? Spoilers. -- Darby, 07:57:51 11/04/02 Mon
"Supersymmetry" Superhero question for Comicbookfans (spoils for episode) -- neaux, 12:17:19 11/04/02 Mon
the evil of Fred -- skeeve, 15:11:59 11/04/02 Mon
A Quick Review of Supersymmetry (spoilers for ATS 4.5 and Scientific American July 2002) -- cjl (yes, I'm finally back!), 15:21:15 11/04/02 Mon
Question about Fred and the Professor (spoilers) -- webdeb, 19:36:27 11/04/02 Mon
Jane Espenson commentary on IWMTLY- Part 1 of 2 -- Tchaikovsky, 05:05:30 11/05/02 Tue
My buttons are being pushed (trawling the depths with Fred and Charles SUPERSYMMETRY SPOILERS) -- KdS, 06:43:09 11/05/02 Tue
Daredevil #181 -- shout-out or TOO geeky? (Minor spoiler for "Supersymmetry") -- Earl Allison, 09:17:05 11/05/02 Tue
Killing all the lawyers -- Spike Lover, 09:21:37 11/05/02 Tue
Can vampires breathe? (tiny spoiler) -- Lisa, 09:23:14 11/05/02 Tue
When 'Buffy' began to go wrong -- Liam, 09:51:54 11/05/02 Tue
Little Girl Lost: Cordelia and Fred (Spoilers for 4.1-4.5 Ats, very long) -- shadowkat, 10:08:06 11/05/02 Tue
A Very Buffy Birthday :) (Kinda OT) -- Isabel, 11:14:48 11/05/02 Tue
Caution: Don't read UPN's Buffy Newsletter if you don't want to be spoiled! -- Rob, 14:59:01 11/05/02 Tue
Interpretation of Buffy 7.6 ("Him") (Spoilage) -- frisby, 18:30:05 11/05/02 Tue
Woo-hoo! The circle has indeed turned.... (Spoilers for 7.6) -- Steve, 18:32:17 11/05/02 Tue
10 Things I Hate About "Him" (spoilers BtVS 7.6) -- Rob, 18:32:45 11/05/02 Tue
Keeping Spike in the Closet: Transgression of the Constructed American Male -- Rochefort, 22:05:08 11/05/02 Tue
Spike's new living arrangements: how precisely did this happen? (7.6 spoiler) -- HonorH (the mad bard), 23:04:14 11/05/02 Tue
The jacket (Spoilers from "Him") -- Earl Allison, 03:03:20 11/06/02 Wed
Farce, Spoof, Silly or Something else. the "Him" Justification -- neaux, 04:23:48 11/06/02 Wed
The joke is on us -- Cactus Watcher, 04:48:39 11/06/02 Wed
Oh! One more argument for my thesis in thread 10 things. (Spoilage "Him") -- Deb, 04:56:47 11/06/02 Wed
If [XXX] wrote Angel (humour, not spoilers) -- KdS, 06:05:34 11/06/02 Wed
Changing Rooms: Questions on who's living where, and why (spoilers S7) -- yez, 07:22:42 11/06/02 Wed
When did D'Hoffryn turn into Tony Soprano? -- cjl, 08:55:20 11/06/02 Wed
Why I enjoy watching Buffy (spoilage of HIM) -- Deb, 10:05:15 11/06/02 Wed
Hating "Him" -- Spike Lover, 11:15:47 11/06/02 Wed
significant spike observation?..."HIM" spoilers and spec -- Adrianna, 12:02:36 11/06/02 Wed
Odd thing about the title of 7.6 -- Sophist, 12:21:47 11/06/02 Wed
"Him": The Super-Evil Review -- Honorificus (The Truly Irresistable One), 13:04:49 11/06/02 Wed
Why now and not then? (spoilers for "Him") -- Cougar, 14:09:25 11/06/02 Wed
Understanding Willow's Sexuality (Caution: S7 Spoilers, Speculation, and Mature Themes) -- ZachsMind, 15:55:41 11/06/02 Wed
Not as silly, but somewhat serious at times take on "Him" Spoilers -- Deb remembers why stopped posting b4. Why is she posting now, 17:09:18 11/06/02 Wed
A Summer Place (spoilers for BtVS 7.6) -- luna, 17:22:13 11/06/02 Wed
The Episodes of Drew Greenberg (Spoilers through 7.6) -- Finn Mac Cool, 20:06:03 11/06/02 Wed
A "Him" question (spoiler) and a general question. -- Darby, 07:30:43 11/07/02 Thu
Buffyverse Banter with Bob & Susan (Spoilage!) -- GingerBob, 09:02:10 11/07/02 Thu
"I (heart) Spike" bumper-sticker -- Farstrider, 09:40:47 11/07/02 Thu
Marsters interview--maybe old? -- luna, 11:02:49 11/07/02 Thu
A thought about Buffy's hairstyle in "Him" -- LadyStarlight, 12:16:00 11/07/02 Thu
Comparison of Smallville and BtVS-Some spoilers for past seasons of both -- Arethusa, 12:45:20 11/07/02 Thu
Interview with Joss at the WB site (episode title spoilers) -- Masq, 14:55:38 11/07/02 Thu
Anyone here play go? (Possible **speculation**) -- Wisewoman, 16:04:32 11/07/02 Thu
quickie question (spoilers for "Him" and "Invisible Girl") -- Sophie, 16:26:11 11/07/02 Thu
Wings of an angel (*spoilers for seasom7 & 6.3) -- Cougar, 19:00:02 11/07/02 Thu
This is me...eating crow. (Buffy 7.6 spoilers) -- Rob, 20:07:43 11/07/02 Thu
Joss jumpstarts the arc in tomorrow's Firefly episode "Safe". It's on FOX at 9PM :) -- Angel Firefly, 21:52:27 11/07/02 Thu
Under the Influence in "Him".....spoilers of course -- Rufus, 22:16:03 11/07/02 Thu
Question about vampire "incubation period" -- Quentin Collins, 23:00:35 11/07/02 Thu
Silly Question that may have been asked, but I doubt it(Slight spoiler for Him) -- Artemis, 00:26:55 11/08/02 Fri
A Great Speculation of the Final Showdown (minor spoilers and very wishful thinking) -- neaux who woke up this morning feeling smart, 04:08:58 11/08/02 Fri
A Twisted Mirror: BBB and "Him" (spoilers) -- Jarrod Harmier, 05:41:03 11/08/02 Fri
Interview with Joss TODAY on "Fresh Air"! -- tim, 05:53:25 11/08/02 Fri
So how far did it go? (spoilers for "Him") -- Tyresues, 13:26:50 11/08/02 Fri
My analysis of "Supersymmetry" is up -- Masquerade, 13:46:17 11/08/02 Fri
By any other name? OT -- Jay (formerly JBone), 20:52:31 11/08/02 Fri
Demonic Angelus, Wicked Spike--reply to a just-archived post *Spoilers S2* -- Haecceity, 23:04:53 11/08/02 Fri
Sad news from Wales -- oboemaboe, 00:01:25 11/09/02 Sat
Because this post is too damn good to miss...."Him" Themes -- Rufus reposting vblackheart's work, 05:09:43 11/09/02 Sat
Salon article about the recent conference -- alcibiades, 07:02:06 11/09/02 Sat
Question re: OOS, OOM annotations... -- Rob, 12:08:17 11/09/02 Sat
"The Story of Season Five" - Buffy cast and writers commentary -- Rahael (Please read and justify the effort put in!), 12:15:24 11/09/02 Sat
Eden Studios Press Release -- lonegunman, 13:07:08 11/09/02 Sat
RJ in Him -- M, 18:52:12 11/09/02 Sat
What Do You Think the Problem's With Angelus? -- Darby & Sara, 12:09:57 11/10/02 Sun
Best. Line. EVER! -- Lucifer_Sponge, 19:32:25 11/10/02 Sun
Identity Through the Prism of Adulthood: (Spoilers for Spin The Bottle) -- AngelVSAngelus, 20:30:32 11/10/02 Sun
Liam's political background and conflict with his father, Angel 4x06, 1x15 SPOILER -- Steve, 20:31:56 11/10/02 Sun
Quick Question on Spin the Bottle.... *spoilers* -- trebor, 00:17:43 11/11/02 Mon
Camera Technique in Angel 4x06 (spoilers) -- Williamson, 02:00:10 11/11/02 Mon
The Uncontrollable Penis and Sexual Innuendo (Spin the bottle spoilers!) -- neaux, 04:45:30 11/11/02 Mon
Ten things I loved about "Spin the Bottle" (4.6 spoilers galore) -- Masq, 06:21:46 11/11/02 Mon
No One Expects the Spanish Inquisition - Thoughts on *Him* ... ( ***Spoilers BtVS 7.6 ) -- OnM, 07:42:27 11/11/02 Mon
First thoughts on Spin the Bottle, Spoilers included -- Tess, 08:42:58 11/11/02 Mon
One Question (Spoilers for "Spin the Bottle") -- Purple Tulip, 11:23:23 11/11/02 Mon
The Spin on Spin (Spinthebottle spoilers yeah!) -- neaux, 13:35:49 11/11/02 Mon
What is Stage Lorne's timeframe? (Spoilers for StB) -- PepTech, 15:28:25 11/11/02 Mon
Looking at the pieces... (S7 spoilage & speculation) -- ZachsMind, 16:01:58 11/11/02 Mon
Joss interview from Houston Chronicle -- aliera, 17:22:25 11/11/02 Mon
one minor question about "Spin the Bottle" (mild spoilers, of course) -- Wolfhowl3, 20:10:39 11/11/02 Mon
Jealousy and Tragedy, Gunn as Othello -- Rufus, 22:55:31 11/11/02 Mon
Another Question about Angel and the Visions, spoilers for season 4 so far (very mild) -- Wolfhowl3, 23:29:27 11/11/02 Mon
Therapy with the Undead (Spoilers for 7.7) -- Cecilia, 03:26:29 11/12/02 Tue
OT to Darby: Deception -- Sophist, 09:11:03 11/12/02 Tue
Have we noticed this? (Angel titles) -- Wisewoman, 15:29:09 11/12/02 Tue
Buffy 7.7 Question (spoiler) -- frisby, 18:05:49 11/12/02 Tue
Big Bad? (Spoilers?) -- Lucifer_Sponge, 18:11:36 11/12/02 Tue
When a body meet a body (spoilers for 7.7, you know the one that just aired) -- ponygirl, 19:11:40 11/12/02 Tue
I Wanna Be the First to Say It! -- Finn Mac Cool, 19:20:12 11/12/02 Tue
Whisper in a dead man's ear (spoilers, Conversations...) -- Darby, 19:27:48 11/12/02 Tue
An Interesting Thought (Spoilers for 7.7) -- Finn Mac Cool, 20:17:20 11/12/02 Tue
Poor Masq (spoilers for 7.7) -- Finn Mac Cool, 20:28:19 11/12/02 Tue
How could they do that?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?! *spoilers* -- Charlemagne20, 20:44:26 11/12/02 Tue
Some Season 7 Spec., so, Spoilers of course :) -- Purple Tulip, 20:52:24 11/12/02 Tue
We are gathered here... (7.7, 6.19, 4.17, 3.20, 3.18 and more Spoilers) -- Steve, 21:29:43 11/12/02 Tue
Question (spoilers from conversations and back) -- Jaques Regnier, 23:18:06 11/12/02 Tue
"It eats you starting with your Bottom" -- Rufus, 00:55:08 11/13/02 Wed
occam's razor (spoiler 7.7) -- ejs, 01:11:28 11/13/02 Wed
A Possible Spike Solution (spoiler 7.7) -- Stilskin, 03:39:34 11/13/02 Wed
Who is the Big Bad of this season (spoilers and speculation)? -- Mystery, 04:28:41 11/13/02 Wed
Ghost in the Machine? (7.7 spoilers) -- neaux, 04:48:21 11/13/02 Wed
Spike: is he being controled? and was Joyce a Manifest of the First? -- Majin Gojira, 05:13:16 11/13/02 Wed
Conversations With Him (double-duty spoilers) -- Darby, 06:45:01 11/13/02 Wed
I'm getting real Andrew empathy... (No Spoilers WHATSOEVER) -- KdS, 07:52:00 11/13/02 Wed
High Praise for 'Conversations' -Spoils thru this ep -- Spike Lover, 08:10:09 11/13/02 Wed
Some thought (speculation of end and spoilers for S7.7) -- Sang, 08:44:36 11/13/02 Wed
The role of the interpreter in Convo'swittheDead (7.7spoil) -- neaux, 10:23:12 11/13/02 Wed
From Beneath You, It Devours (Poem I found) -- fearshade, 10:31:57 11/13/02 Wed
What did it mean? (spoiler?) -- Juli, 11:36:37 11/13/02 Wed
Number 7 -- Etrangere, 12:19:23 11/13/02 Wed
The tyranny of high expectations (Spoilers for CWTD) -- Sophist, 12:20:47 11/13/02 Wed
But, seriously. Back to the issue at hand... (spoilers to 7.7) -- Malathustra, 12:50:54 11/13/02 Wed
My Big Bad theory for S7 *SPOILERS* S1-S7 -- Simplicity, 14:47:23 11/13/02 Wed
The question of God's existence... -- kty_fantastico, 15:29:27 11/13/02 Wed
What do Angel and Connor want from each other? (AtS spoilers up to "Spin") -- Masq, 15:53:51 11/13/02 Wed
Conversations with Gay people (spoilers CWDP) -- Tyreseus, 17:09:31 11/13/02 Wed
Bad Buffy!? -- MayaPapaya9, 17:25:54 11/13/02 Wed
More questions -- MayaPapaya9, 17:42:18 11/13/02 Wed
what, exactly, can Spike do? (spoilers all around, belly up to the bar!) -- leslie, 18:13:27 11/13/02 Wed
"Conversations With Dead People": The Super-Evil Review -- Honorificus (The Delightful and Delirious One), 19:22:19 11/13/02 Wed
The devil is handsome and tells the truth..mostly -- Xaverri, 19:54:41 11/13/02 Wed
The Thing That Devours Your Butt... What is it really? (CWDP) Spoilers & Speculation) -- ZachsMind, 20:17:08 11/13/02 Wed
Upon Recovery from Post-Dramatic Stress…Part I (Spoilers S7/S4 AtS) -- Haecceity, 20:28:36 11/13/02 Wed
Chat party for anom's birthday!! Come all!! -- LittleBit, 21:04:48 11/13/02 Wed
Attn: AtS fans! Question from a Newbie! -- Rob, 23:20:37 11/13/02 Wed
Late thoughts on 7.7. Spoilers 6&7 and Speculation (kinda long) -- Deb, 07:18:46 11/14/02 Thu
Question about Morphy (Spoilers for BtVS S7, ep 7.7) -- cjc36, 07:33:45 11/14/02 Thu
Bite the Hand That Be You (Spoilers to date) -- Darby, 07:38:08 11/14/02 Thu
London Meet up -- Rahael, 08:07:36 11/14/02 Thu
more human than human (7.7 spoiler/ponderings) -- neaux, 08:28:17 11/14/02 Thu
Speculation on the Big Bad -- fearshade, 09:03:19 11/14/02 Thu
7.7 SPIKE SPECULATION - SPOIL THIS! -- Angelina, 09:04:30 11/14/02 Thu
The scene at the very end of the episode (spoilers for Conversations with dead people) -- Sophie, 09:07:06 11/14/02 Thu
"Beneath you" and "Slouching" the same? -- Natasha, 09:16:31 11/14/02 Thu
Have we been overlooking the obvious? (Spoiler spec) -- cjl, 09:28:05 11/14/02 Thu
Two insane-troll-logic Theories about this year's Big Bad (Spoilers for Buffy and other stuff, too) -- Thomas the Skeptic, 11:36:38 11/14/02 Thu
Bloody Foreshadowing (Spoilers for CwDP) -- LeeAnn, 13:08:39 11/14/02 Thu
Yo! ATPOBTVS got praise on BuffyRadio! -- Harry Parachute, 13:11:13 11/14/02 Thu
This makes the third time in a row -- Deb, 14:28:22 11/14/02 Thu
Answer to Maladanza's "It's all about power" post that got archived too fast -- Etrangere, 14:36:27 11/14/02 Thu
Do my eyes deceive me? (Spoilers 7.7) -- Valkyrie, 15:09:34 11/14/02 Thu
dub makes me tell a joke + 7.7 spoilers -- BabblingBrook, 15:31:36 11/14/02 Thu
Maybe it's cosmology, Beneath you it devours (OT) -- Sang, 16:16:57 11/14/02 Thu
It's about Power......so, who has it? for the purel, this is spoilery speculation. -- Rufus, 17:22:46 11/14/02 Thu
The pursuers in Istanbul (spoilers for 7.1 through 7.7) -- luna, 18:00:27 11/14/02 Thu
"Mother's Milk is Red" (spoilers) -- 110v3w1110w, 18:18:35 11/14/02 Thu
Psychiatry style of VampHolden (spoilers 7.7) -- Tyreseus, 19:08:30 11/14/02 Thu
Crystallizing some CwDP thoughts: spoilers through 7.7 -- HonorH, 20:00:32 11/14/02 Thu
The Seal -- Shinzon, 22:06:28 11/14/02 Thu
We have a new record! (WARNING: boring, archive related stuff) -- d'Herblay, 23:44:00 11/14/02 Thu
(OT) Leonard Roberts' new movie DRUMLINE!! -- neaux, 04:50:31 11/15/02 Fri
A Sluggy Buffy send up....if anyone is interested -- ahira, 06:06:05 11/15/02 Fri
Buffy gets a New Friend on UPN; Haunted goes bye-bye -- neaux, 08:45:52 11/15/02 Fri
"Back to the Beginning" - S7/S1 parallels (spoilers for all aired S7 eps, and unspoiled future spec) -- KdS, 11:07:51 11/15/02 Fri
what did we see in the seal? (spoilers for latest ep) -- anom, 11:18:21 11/15/02 Fri
Being away on a short vacation, I missed all the "Spin the Bottle" threads... -- Rob, 11:43:33 11/15/02 Fri
Theory about Spike (CwDP spoilers) -- Ferthepoet, 13:40:59 11/15/02 Fri
My analysis of "Spin the Bottle" is up -- Masquerade, 13:46:14 11/15/02 Fri
Anonymous No More (vauge spoilers 7.7) -- Juliet, 14:31:37 11/15/02 Fri
I saw "teen-aged mini-Spike at Wal-Mart today. -- Deb, 19:10:27 11/15/02 Fri
Drew Goddard - Murder For Hire (Spoilers Through Buffy 7.7 and future speculation) -- Finn Mac Cool, 20:54:15 11/15/02 Fri
For Canadians who watch the Space Channel ..DEC 8/02 Angel Special -- Rufus, 00:14:47 11/16/02 Sat
2 specs with 7.7 spoilers and well-known future cast spoiler -- HonorH, 00:41:25 11/16/02 Sat
Speculations (Spoilers through 7.7, mostly Spike-Spec) -- grifter, 08:49:36 11/16/02 Sat
Can Dawn be THAT stupid? -- wiscoboy, 10:42:00 11/16/02 Sat
TV Guide's description for this Tuesday; doing some background research, Part I (spoilers???) -- Sophie, 10:51:48 11/16/02 Sat
Source of Joss quote about giving fans what they need? -- Gwyn, 12:09:54 11/16/02 Sat
The Devil inside -- NickyJean, 12:14:40 11/16/02 Sat
Interesting article on Slayage.com (spoiler for 7.6 and 7.7 ) -- Sang, 12:38:37 11/16/02 Sat
"The Annotated Buffy" Update Announcement/Official "When She Was Bad" Thread -- Rob, 14:50:20 11/16/02 Sat
Insane Theory. Dawn vs...? (CWDP Spoilers) -- Harry Parachute, 16:32:11 11/16/02 Sat
Crossover of BBW -- meritaten, 16:32:40 11/16/02 Sat
Three? -- meritaten, 16:50:39 11/16/02 Sat
(The Microscopic) Classic Movie of the Week - November 16th 2002 -- OnM, 21:00:13 11/16/02 Sat
Is (name censored) smarter than everyone thinks? (Spoilers up to 7.7) -- Finn Mac Cool, 21:46:53 11/16/02 Sat
Another thought on Dawn and Joyce: (7.7 spoilers) -- HonorH, 22:49:31 11/16/02 Sat
Doing some number thinking (* spoilers up to 7.6 and speculation*) -- Alvin, 05:25:05 11/17/02 Sun
random thought 7.7 spoilerish re: the duo -- jojo, 06:56:39 11/17/02 Sun
My Two Dads (yet another Speculation season 7) -- neaux, 07:03:05 11/17/02 Sun
Arizonans, the first basketball disaster of the season... -- Cactus Watcher, 08:33:22 11/17/02 Sun
End of All Things (more season 7 speculation) -- Gachnar, 08:49:18 11/17/02 Sun
My analysis of "Conversations with Dead People" is up -- Masquerade, 10:19:22 11/17/02 Sun
Buffy and Willow in 'Fear Itself' (spoiler for S4.4 and very minor spoilers for S6 and 7.7) -- Sang, 12:04:15 11/17/02 Sun
Voynak Ate My Thread -- Haecceity, 12:12:26 11/17/02 Sun
Changing tack -- Tchaikovsky, 12:24:40 11/17/02 Sun
Reply to Haeccity (sp?) now archived -- alcibiades, 13:02:37 11/17/02 Sun
Link to Tim Minear on Season Three....spoilers for Season three -- Rufus, 13:11:23 11/17/02 Sun
Echoes of the Past (Spoilers C w/ DP) -- Rattletrap, 14:54:50 11/17/02 Sun
Are we going to discuss the latest news on Charisma? -- Wisewoman, 15:39:26 11/17/02 Sun
End of all things (Buffydammerung); speculation and spoilers for Seasons 5, 6, and 7.7 -- Fred the obvious pseudonym, 17:02:30 11/17/02 Sun
Without Hiding - Thoughts on *Conversations w/ Dead People* - ( *Spoilers 7.7* ) -- OnM, 17:38:18 11/17/02 Sun
Is there any significance in this line? (7.7 spoilers) -- Finn Mac Cool, 17:57:57 11/17/02 Sun
"The sparrows are flying again." (Spoilers for Angel 4.7 and Stephen King's "The Dark Half") -- Finn Mac Cool, 19:19:38 11/17/02 Sun
You in? (spoilers for Apocalypse, Nowish - AtS 4.7) -- Jay, 20:12:21 11/17/02 Sun
Noooooo! It's (low guttural voice) "The Beast"! (Spoilers Apocalypse Now-ish) -- cjl, 20:27:02 11/17/02 Sun
Another wild, wicked, & weird end-of-series theory! (7.7 spoilers) -- HonorH (who thinks she must secretly be on crack), 21:36:22 11/17/02 Sun
Insane and very unlikely theory for AtS (spoilers 4.7 and 7.7) -- parakeet, 22:29:06 11/17/02 Sun
Just curious...Schedule-wise, how many new Buffy eps are there till the break? -- Rob, 23:02:32 11/17/02 Sun
I have the answer! *speculation, ATS* -- Corwin of Amber, 00:30:44 11/18/02 Mon
A scene I'd like to see... -- Corwin of Amber, 00:42:02 11/18/02 Mon
Cordelia's dream (spoilers 4.7) -- Masq, 04:12:23 11/18/02 Mon
DEVIL MAY CRY and Angel (Spoils Apoc Nowish) -- neaux, 04:20:59 11/18/02 Mon
Parting of the ways -- Cactus Watcher, 05:31:20 11/18/02 Mon
More Connor and Dawn bonding conversation (spoilers for AtS 4.7 and BtVS 7.7) -- Masq, 07:24:25 11/18/02 Mon
I got three words for Wesley: (spoilers for AtS "Rain of Fire") -- ZachsMind, 07:58:26 11/18/02 Mon
Song for Spike and friend in 7.7 (...just some fun stuff...) -- fearshade, 09:27:13 11/18/02 Mon
ARGGG! Missed all the action! (Spoilers for Apocolypse Nowish or Rain of Fire?) -- sTalking Goat, 09:42:42 11/18/02 Mon
I just created a poll...Please vote! -- Rob, 09:50:35 11/18/02 Mon
I need a bigger arrow (Spoilers for Rain of Fire included) -- Tess, 09:56:45 11/18/02 Mon
How did Connor do that? -- pr10n, 12:21:08 11/18/02 Mon
Something real?? -- Mackenzie, 12:25:43 11/18/02 Mon
Maybe it really IS all connected... -- Liv, 12:47:27 11/18/02 Mon
"Beneath You" and "Deep Down": episode titles, reigning metaphors (spoilers up to AtS 4.7/BtVS 7.7) -- Masq, 12:52:00 11/18/02 Mon
"Y'know the whole good-and-evil, balancing the scales thing."(spoilery speculation) -- fearshade, 14:19:42 11/18/02 Mon
A Theory! (My First!) -- Flare, 14:50:07 11/18/02 Mon
Hurts so good (Spoilers 7.7) -- Rook, 15:38:06 11/18/02 Mon
Angel as Greek Tragedy (Spoilers for Rain of Fire) -- Sara, starting a thread for the very first time!, 17:52:18 11/18/02 Mon
Connected (longish, and spoiler up to Btvs 7.7) -- Random, 18:13:29 11/18/02 Mon
Link to Transcript of Chat with Vladimir Kulick aka The Beast..spoiler about what the Beast is. -- Rufus, 18:44:36 11/18/02 Mon
Regarding Drusilla - Followup to archived thread *Without Hiding* -- OnM, 20:15:59 11/18/02 Mon
"The Annotated Buffy": WSWB Thread #2/Link to Poll -- Rob, 20:26:59 11/18/02 Mon
Regarding the title (Angel 4.7 spoilers -- Tyreseus, 20:41:36 11/18/02 Mon
How evil works -- Eugene, 20:54:18 11/18/02 Mon
Article........Now it's Buffy the Thesis from age.com spoilers to season 6 -- Rufus, 21:08:25 11/18/02 Mon
Connor: Messiah? (spoilers for "Slouching" & "Rain of Fire" & some vague metaphorical speculation) -- Masq, who's metaphor girl now, 22:14:20 11/18/02 Mon
Have you seen the first evil? (season 7) -- luvthistle1, 22:44:01 11/18/02 Mon
Planning the Apocalypse (spoiler AtS 4.7) -- Tyreseus, 22:58:26 11/18/02 Mon
Not sure if mentioned.. RIPPER NEWS -- neaux, 05:22:02 11/19/02 Tue
Link to ChiefSeattle Review (Yeats mentioned) of ATS "Slouching Towards Bethlehem" -- Rufus, 07:11:05 11/19/02 Tue
Masquerade - help please -- Mackenzie, 08:21:04 11/19/02 Tue
hope they don't end another episode that way (spoilers) -- 110v3w1110w, 11:58:05 11/19/02 Tue
Was it really...? (Spoilers for Buffy 7.7) -- monsieurxander, 12:30:42 11/19/02 Tue
Oh man, I can't believe I didn't catch this hint before (spoilers up to Ats 4.7)!!!! -- I_of_lurking, 13:20:08 11/19/02 Tue
Buffy's fear (re:Nightmares1.10; Fear, Itself4.4; CwDP7.7) -- fearshade, 13:30:40 11/19/02 Tue
Jumble of thoughts (spoliers to a minor extent from 4.22, 5.12, 7.1-8) -- Clen, 15:43:24 11/19/02 Tue
Buffy related learning breakthrough (OT) -- NightRepair, 16:14:48 11/19/02 Tue
Song Spike was humming (SPOILER) -- Michael Van Hoek, 17:29:22 11/19/02 Tue
Rules Messages from Evil vs Messages from Good (Spoilers for 7.7/7.8, AtS 4--aww, the new ep) -- Kenny, 19:01:46 11/19/02 Tue
I have a question... (**SPOILER for 7.8**) -- Wisewoman, 19:12:17 11/19/02 Tue
First thoughts, numerous questions and one crazy theory for Sleeper (spoilers 7.8, duh) -- ponygirl, 19:20:19 11/19/02 Tue
First Impressions for 7.8 (SPOILERS) :Spike, Clockwork Orange, Pavolov's dog -- shadowkat, 19:37:02 11/19/02 Tue
That was the most shocking ending to an episode ever, IMO. (7.8 spoilers) -- Rob, 20:24:26 11/19/02 Tue
The properties of blood (spoilers) -- cat, 20:54:28 11/19/02 Tue
Spiked! A Tale Of A One-Bite Stand (spoils & spec for last night's Episode 7.8) -- imp, 21:14:05 11/19/02 Tue
Speculation for AtS and BtVS (spoilers) -- Kay, 23:51:29 11/19/02 Tue
Pavlov's Bell and the Unshed Tear.....spoilers for Sleeper and some tragic speculation -- Rufus, 03:01:08 11/20/02 Wed
Anyone else think...? (SPOILERS up to BtVS 7.08, AtS 4.07) -- grifter, 03:54:11 11/20/02 Wed
Spectacular, Apocalyptic Non-Crossover (spoilers 7.8, 4.7) -- Scroll, 06:02:09 11/20/02 Wed
A Couple of Thoughts (SPOILERS for Sleeper and Conversations with Dead People) -- Robert, 08:50:56 11/20/02 Wed
Full circle--thoughts about trailer for next week's BtVS (so completely speculatively spoilery) -- leslie, 10:19:10 11/20/02 Wed
The Softer Side of - Well, everybody on Btvs -Spoilers thru 'Sleeper' -- Spike Lover, 10:46:52 11/20/02 Wed
"Sleeper": The Super-Evil Review -- Honorificus (The Revenant), 11:53:16 11/20/02 Wed
Cordy and Connor in "Apocalypse, Nowish" (spoilers) -- Scroll, 12:21:50 11/20/02 Wed
Agents of Balance? (*Spoilers and speculation for season 7*) -- Kenny, 12:30:41 11/20/02 Wed
The plight of Cordelia "Hot Lips" Chase (BtVS & AtS 4.7) -- Malathustra, 13:54:41 11/20/02 Wed
Spike and ..... -- Clen, 16:27:32 11/20/02 Wed
Random Thoughts on Connor and Cordy (Spoilers through AN) -- meritaten, 16:39:39 11/20/02 Wed
Balancing Acts -- fearshade, 16:51:56 11/20/02 Wed
The First (spoiler-free speculation ahoy! as well as other blatherings) -- Malkin, 19:33:28 11/20/02 Wed
Cordy & Connor age difference -- liz, 19:55:57 11/20/02 Wed
What If BtVS eps were named using FRIENDS Titling Conventions? (slightly spoilery) -- ZachsMind, 22:35:22 11/20/02 Wed
Epiphanies -- Tchaikovsky, 05:18:28 11/21/02 Thu
OT - Interesting profile article in this month's *Scientific American* -- OnM, 07:38:20 11/21/02 Thu
humans and monsters and the BB/villain (minor spoilers from S1-7, I suppose) -- Clen, 09:03:04 11/21/02 Thu
Is Xander... (SPOILERS!) -- Thomas the Skeptic, 10:01:13 11/21/02 Thu
Doors/portals/passages--first post! -- Ysabel84, 11:01:01 11/21/02 Thu
Apologies if this has already been discussed... (Selfless, CWTD and Sleeper spoilers--7.5, 7.7, 7.8) -- Rob, 11:31:29 11/21/02 Thu
OT:The Pain of a Buffy-less Fan -- Sue, 13:36:18 11/21/02 Thu
Riley/Buffy in light of CWDP (spoilers from CWDP) -- Shambleau, 18:01:56 11/21/02 Thu
My persepctive on Cordy and Conner (spoilers for Angel 4.7). -- Miss Edith, 18:14:16 11/21/02 Thu
Spike's Connected Too (Spoilers for all aired Buffy episodes) -- Finn Mac Cool, 19:03:09 11/21/02 Thu
The Philosophy of Toe Goblins - Safety Tips for Chat -- Dedalus, 20:23:59 11/21/02 Thu
Buffy and Angel as a couple - Their future? (where does Cordelia, or should I say Buffy fit in?) -- Jules, 21:44:59 11/21/02 Thu
Noticed a couple more things (Sleeper spoilers) -- Tess, 23:42:35 11/21/02 Thu
Suppressing the dark side -- Sophist, timidly testing the metaphorical depths, 10:30:12 11/22/02 Fri
Tracking the Big Bad Whatever (kinda spoilery & very specularific!) -- ZachsMind, 10:34:02 11/22/02 Fri
Is the Cordelia we love gone forever? -- Masq, 14:58:04 11/22/02 Fri
Of Spike and Basements in the Buffyverse -- alcibiades, 16:59:05 11/22/02 Fri
Marsters under the microscope (dissecting his performance of Spike with Shurtleff's Guideposts) -- ZachsMind, 21:15:07 11/22/02 Fri
Marti's comment on the future of S8 from Entertainment Weekly -- Deeva, 21:39:39 11/22/02 Fri
The "Waiting in the Wings"/"Apocalypse, Nowish" parallel (spoilers for both eps) -- Rob, 22:11:18 11/22/02 Fri
Where do we go from here? (Assuming the worst) -- Drew the Lurker, 22:43:12 11/22/02 Fri
What do you think about how Buffy's death was incorporated into Angel? -- Jules, 23:32:28 11/22/02 Fri
Should we kill any of the Spikes in there? -- Rufus, 01:14:16 11/23/02 Sat
Questions about "Morphy" (spoilers from previous eps) -- Quentin Collins, 10:28:21 11/23/02 Sat
Prewriting the Giles Scene (speccy spoilery for Sleeper & Never Leave Me) -- ZachsMind, 11:48:20 11/23/02 Sat
Something We Had Better See (heavy Buffy Spoilers) -- black_eyed_veiny, 13:40:23 11/23/02 Sat
Spike and Existentialism (spoilers for "Sleeper") -- Sophie, 14:33:17 11/23/02 Sat
OT: of Speilberg, Julie Benz and Angel -- yabyumpan, 20:28:21 11/23/02 Sat
The return of Angelus - arranged by whom? -- Darby, 20:40:23 11/23/02 Sat
The Role of GrimWes (spoilers and speculations for AtS 4 and BtVS 7) -- PurpleMarrow, 20:52:02 11/23/02 Sat
About buffy choosing (Spoilers for CWDP) -- Ferthepoet, 21:48:44 11/23/02 Sat
The song MorphySpike was singing in "Sleeper" lies within... (Speccy spoilery) -- ZachsMind, 23:16:41 11/23/02 Sat
Parallels : The key and the first evil -- luvthistle1, 01:29:22 11/24/02 Sun
Charles Taylor in "The New York Times" on Blood, Sweat and Fears -- d'Herblay, 02:06:04 11/24/02 Sun
Spiders, Webs, Superstring Theory, & Connectedness -- Yoda, 09:15:40 11/24/02 Sun
poor choice of words... (the LA Times' description of this week's BtVS) -- leslie, 10:29:35 11/24/02 Sun
London Board meet report! -- Rahael, 14:05:05 11/24/02 Sun
Minority representation on Buffy -- Shambleau, 20:19:10 11/24/02 Sun
Angel and the Wizard of Oz -- Kay, 20:55:09 11/24/02 Sun
The Gods are in the Details - Thoughts on *Sleeper* Pt. I - ( ***Spoilers for 7.8*** & Teaser ) -- OnM, 21:25:10 11/24/02 Sun
Why happiness? (general spoilers of BtVS including S7.7) -- Sang, 21:56:27 11/24/02 Sun
The great Sunnydale death pool! (Two very well known casting spoilers, no actual future events) -- KdS, 04:55:03 11/25/02 Mon
OT: Site I found on different states of consciousness and mental being -- fearshade, 06:29:02 11/25/02 Mon
End of the Underworld (Spoilers through Sleeper) -- Valkyrie, 12:00:55 11/25/02 Mon
minor thoughts: souls and lies (7.7 and 7.8) -- Clen, 12:19:11 11/25/02 Mon
What did Spike really get in Season seven -- Cougar, 13:02:04 11/25/02 Mon
The Real Secret Truth about Buffy Summers (Spoilery through 7.8, heavy spec) -- Just George, 13:08:29 11/25/02 Mon
Link to Wildfeeds on the Trollop Backup Board -- Rufus, 15:46:25 11/25/02 Mon
Reply to Rob's "Neverwhere Parallels"-Unspoiled but Maybe Highly Accurate Speculation For All Season -- Arethusa, 19:12:16 11/25/02 Mon
Drew Goddard is 3 for 3 (7.9 spoilers) -- Finn Mac Cool, 21:35:03 11/26/02 Tue
Curiosity killed the Composer -- Tchaikovsky, 05:08:51 11/26/02 Tue
Alleged Texas Cheerleader-Murdering Mom and Buffy (Current spoilers) -- Darby, 09:06:55 11/26/02 Tue
Drinking with buddies dead versus Swept up by janitor dead (speccy spoilery) -- ZachsMind, 09:43:59 11/26/02 Tue
thoughts on 7.9 -- the die is cast (spoilers) -- Clen, 13:42:21 11/26/02 Tue
Buffy 7.9 (just saw and now got to ask) -- frisby, 18:22:41 11/26/02 Tue
requiem for a .... (spoilers 7.9) -- Rochefort, 18:57:38 11/26/02 Tue
Ununified 7.9 thoughts (spoilers, future spoilers, and specs) -- Kenny, 20:54:50 11/26/02 Tue
I'm leaving in a few minutes (see my Thanksgiving thread) below, but just had to confirm that... -- Rob, 21:11:05 11/26/02 Tue
The Carpenter's Craft and the Hallowed Ground of Sunnydale High -- cjl, 22:22:51 11/26/02 Tue
Many, many thoughts (7.9 spoilers galore) -- HonorH, 23:46:29 11/26/02 Tue
"Invictus" (Yes, Rah, today I'm the one with the poetry post) (Spoilers for 7.9 "Never Leave Me") -- d'Herblay, 03:38:13 11/27/02 Wed
The degradation of evil (random theological meandering - minor spoilers for 7:9 and earlier S7) -- KdS, 06:03:08 11/27/02 Wed
I shall not be Conquered......Invictus and Buffy -- Rufus, 06:54:52 11/27/02 Wed
The return of... the House Metaphor (spoilers up to 7.9) -- ponygirl, 07:00:28 11/27/02 Wed
Never Leave Me - Comments, Quibbles, Spoilers -- Darby, 09:23:50 11/27/02 Wed
Emotional Honesty and The House as Unconscious and Conscious Mind in NLM (7.9) -- alcibiades, 09:25:38 11/27/02 Wed
Poll for Never Leave Me (spoilers for Never leave me and Through the Looking Glass) -- VampRiley, 12:54:30 11/27/02 Wed
Drew Goddard -- Trebor, 21:43:59 11/27/02 Wed
"Never Leave Me": The Super-Evil Review -- Honorificus (The Uber-Femme Fatale), 22:12:18 11/27/02 Wed
Evil Scoobies Spoiler for "Never Leave me" -- Hauptman, 07:19:31 11/28/02 Thu
Just Watched "Amends" (Possible Insight on Season 7 and First Evil) -- frisby, 09:19:57 11/28/02 Thu
Machiavellian Thought -- Celebaelin, 10:53:54 11/28/02 Thu
I've got a theory (Buffy spoilers and speculation) -- Cheryl, 12:40:00 11/28/02 Thu
Trying to figure something out. -- Sci, 19:46:24 11/28/02 Thu
Request for ZACHSMIND -- Finn Mac Cool, 21:38:25 11/28/02 Thu
The Bad Boys of BtVS(recent episode spoilers) -- Malandanza, 07:23:59 11/29/02 Fri
Interesting thoughts on Andrew (spoilers and whatnot) -- Mystery, 09:15:05 11/29/02 Fri
Kaboom Question (BTVS VII/9) -- Hemiola, 10:12:33 11/29/02 Fri
Proverbs 24:6 in context (speccy spoilery up to & incl. "Never Leave Me.") -- ZachsMind, 13:18:42 11/29/02 Fri
this is what you get for watching 14 straight hours of BtVS -- leslie, 13:19:23 11/29/02 Fri
7.8 shooting script now up in Psyche -- Doriander, 15:54:22 11/29/02 Fri
Episode 13 AtS writer (spoilery for writers name only) -- yabyumpan, 16:31:50 11/29/02 Fri
Who else thinks .... (Spoilers for 7x09) -- Wolfhowl3, 05:17:02 11/30/02 Sat
Question about DVD commentaries -- cougar, 18:45:33 11/30/02 Sat
The origin of the symbols on Spike's chest - NLM/Bargaining parallels -- webdeb, 21:07:09 11/30/02 Sat
The long lost Christmas episode... -- ZachsMind, 22:28:04 11/30/02 Sat
December 2002 | Current board

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
For Postal Service Retirements, Slow Going Ahead
Here's some bad news for both the U.S. Postal Service and postal employees who are eyeing retirement: The federal agency that has caused months of delays in processing retirement applications and issuing benefits checks isn't going to clean up its act any time soon.
The Office of Personnel Management's Retirement and Benefits Office "characterized by lengthy delays in processing claims, might not get much better any time soon," writes Tammy Flanagan of the National Institute of Transition Planning, in a recent Government Executive article. The agency has hired additional employees to work on the backload of claims and eventually hopes to modernize its paper-based processing system.
OPM officials acknowledge that the agency "still processes retirement claims in 2010 much the same way it did in 1920," Flanagan writes.
Downsizing the workforce through attrition, mostly retirements, is a major part of the Postal Service's plan to fix its finances. But the cumbersome process of getting accurate benefits estimates and timely payments deters retirement-eligible employees from calling it quits.
Postal Service retirees report that OPM was overwhelmed by USPS's early-retirement programs last year, with some waiting six months or longer to receive their first payments. (If a private business did that to its retirees, someone would probably end up in jail.)
Such waits have been common since at least the 1980s, Flanagan indicates. Her advice: Employees should save up annual leave in the year they retire so that they will get a lump-sum payment upon quitting that will see them through until the retirement checks start coming.
USPS Getting Its Retirement Act Together? Nope
Why Does USPS Make Retiring Difficult When It Has So Many Excess Employees? Tough Question #5
on Sunday, October 31, 2010 9 comments Links to this post
Postal Service Files Rate-Case Appeal
A previous version of this article had errors regarding the dates. I apologize for the confusion and errors.
The U.S. Postal Service's appeal of the Postal Regulatory Commission's decision on proposed exigent" (emergency) rate increases reveals little about USPS's arguments.
The filing in "United States Postal Service v. Postal Regulatory Commission" does not reveal any of the Postal Service's arguments in the case. It merely states, "The United States Postal Service hereby petitions this Court for review of Order Number 547 of the Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC), issued on September 30, 2010, which denied the Postal Service's request for exigent rate adjustments."
Yesterday, the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia set deadlines of Nov. 29 for procedural motions and Dec. 13 for dispositive motions (that is, motions for the court to issue a summary judgment or to dismiss the case).
on Friday, October 29, 2010 0 comments Links to this post
At the ripe age of 55, Postmaster General Jack Potter announced his retirement today from the worst CEO job in America.
Some will no doubt speculate about the reasons -- a coming change in Congress or perhaps the failure so far to notch any major political victories on such issues as rate increases, five-day delivery or retiree-benefits reform. But I have my own theory.
The job stinks.
By any measure, the U.S. Postal Service is among the top five employers in the country. Chiefs of any similar-sized private organization get at least 10 times as much compensation -- and far fewer complaints about how much they're being paid.
I've had my criticisms of Potter's Postal Service, but most of what's wrong seems to predate Potter. And change doesn't come easily to such a massively bureaucratic and complex organization. Laws, regulations, political forces, union contracts, and the inability to hire talented managers from outside the organization all tie the PMG's hands in a way that no private-sector CEO has to deal with.
Most CEOs have a board of directors consisting of fellow or former CEOs, investment bankers, high-powered lawyers, and others who can provide valuable guidance. But the Postal Service's board of governors is made up mostly of political hacks with little relevant knowledge or experience.
And then there's the Postal Service's other governing body, consisting of 535 politicians who drain billions from the USPS in pension and benefits funds to hide the size of the federal deficit, carp about how much money the Postal Service is losing, then scream "not in my district" whenever attempted Postal Service streamlining hits too close to home.
Want to launch a new venture? If you're the PMG, forget about the usual discussions of return on investment or marketing plans. First you have to figure out who might object and whether they have the political clout to block the path.
A money-losing business with an acknowledged need to downsize moves quickly, with many people working round the clock to implement buyout packages and to consolidate operations. But the Postal Service's downsizing efforts creak along, with each facility consolidation the subject of many months of study, public hearings, protests, and Congressional badgering.
And instead of encouraging people to retire to reduce operating expenses, the bureaucracy discourages them instead by offering incomplete, sometimes inaccurate, benefits information and notoriously slow payments.
To no one's surprise, Potter is being replaced by his right-hand man, Pat Donahoe, the deputy PMG and chief operating officer. My condolences, Pat.
on Monday, October 25, 2010 16 comments Links to this post
Rate-Case Appeal Is a No-Lose Venture for USPS
The U.S. Postal Service's decision, announced today, to appeal the Postal Regulatory Commission's exigency-rate ruling could backfire, and yet in a way the Postal Service can't lose.
The appeal could backfire if the appeals court decides that hardship to USPS caused by an economic recession is not grounds for breaching the inflation-based price cap on most postal rates. The PRC said the recent recession did in fact justify emergency rate increases but that postal officials failed to tie their request to the recession.
Regardless of what happens in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, the appeal is likely to be a winner in the court that really matters for the Postal Service – Congress. Win, lose, or draw, there's not enough money at stake in the exigency case ("only" $2.3 billion) to fix the Postal Service's finances.
The only potential solutions big enough to stanch the bleeding seem to be reforming retirement-benefits payments that shift money from USPS to the federal government, reducing days of delivery, or some kind of radical downsizing. Congress is the key, or rather the roadblock, to all of those.
To get Congress to remove any of those roadblocks, postal executives need to show Congress that they have done everything possible within current law to balance the books. They can't afford to be second-guessed regarding why they didn't appeal the PRC's Sept. 30 ruling, even if the court's ruling closes a door (a revised exigency rate request) that the PRC left open.
The Postal Service's announcement did not provide much detail regarding the basis for its appeal, other than that it "disagrees with the PRC's interpretation of the statutory language and believes that the PRC applied an incorrect standard in evaluating the request for anexigent price increase."
It added, "The Postal Service believes we need clarity regarding the exigent price increase rules under current law should the Postal Service find itself in a similar situation in the future."
The appeal will have no impact on USPS's ability to seek an inflation-based increase, which could happen any day.
PRC Decision Only a Partial Win for Mailers
Informal Ruling Makes Postage Increase of 1.7% Likely in January
Mailers Alliance Fights 'Nonsensical' Price-Cap Ruling
How Democrats Helped Finance the Tea Party With Black Liquor
Black Liquor
More than $1 billion in federal money probably flowed to key backers of the Tea Party because the Democratic-controlled Congress failed to shut off black liquor tax credits.
The money was paid last year to paper giant Georgia Pacific, which is part of the Koch Industries conglomerate that has been the center of much political controversy and media coverage of late.
The coverage and often-heated discussions – including an environmental group's anti-Koch spot that debuted on a Times Square superscreen last week -- have overlooked the ironies of GP's black liquor windfall.
Democratic Congressional leaders complained in March 2009 when they learned that pulp manufacturers like GP were exploiting a loophole in a federal biofuel program. But they failed to close the loophole, enabling the companies to rake in billions of dollars in direct subsidies from the IRS for basically doing what they and pulp makers around the world have been doing for decades – burning black liquor, a pulp byproduct, to power their mills.
Environmental groups have attacked Koch's owners and executives for being, in the words of Greenpeace, "a financial kingpin of climate science denial and clean energy opposition." Liberals, including Obama himself, also point to the generous support of Koch's owners and executives for Tea Party organizations and conservative political candidates.
And conservatives are crying foul over the Obama Administration's alleged persecution of Koch. Six Republican senators recently requested an investigation of whether the Internal Revenue Service leaked confidential tax information about the company to an Obama advisor as part of a campaign to harass conservative political donors.
Now for the ironies:
Irony #1, Alternative fuel mixture (AFM) tax credits: This federal program was supposed to subsidize new eco-friendly fuels, but manufacturers of kraft pulp spotted a loophole that enabled them to get the credits for using black liquor as a fuel, which they were doing anyway. A United Steelworkers publication claims GP, the country's #2 maker of kraft pulp, raked in $5 billion in black liquor tax credits. But, based on the company's pulp-making capacity, the number was more likely in the $1 billion to $1.5 billion range.
In any case, a program that was intended to subsidize green alternatives to petroleum-based fuels paid out huge sums to a conglomerate that is mostly an oil and chemicals company and that generously funds attacks on renewable-energy programs and claims of human-caused climate change.
Irony#2, ObamaCare: Why, after fuming about the black liquor loophole in the spring of 2009, did Congress and the Obama Administration not try to close it? The best theory is that they did a deal with Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine and a champion of the pulp and paper industry, so that they would have at least one GOP yes vote in the Senate Finance Committee for the Administration's sweeping healthcare legislation.
Democrats' use of black liquor money to grease the skids for healthcare legislation could backfire: Americans for Prosperity, a Tea Party-affiliated group that was started and largely funded by Koch's owners, has spun off an organization called Hands Off My Healthcare, which is campaigning against pro-ObamaCare Congress members who are seeking re-election.
Irony #3, Internal Revenue Service: The IRS came under suspicion when a senior Administration official told reporters in August, "So in this country we have partnerships, we have S corps, we have LLCs, we have a series of entities that do not pay corporate income tax. Some of which are really giant firms, you know, Koch Industries is a multibillion dollar business."
The Republican senators seeking an investigation of a possible IRS leak responded, "The statement that Koch is a pass-through entity implies direct knowledge of Koch's legal and tax status, which would appear to be a violation." Koch Industries has issued a statement saying that it's a corporation and pays corporate taxes.
The suspicion of the IRS is a strange turn of events considering how helpful, perhaps unwittingly, the agency has been to Koch's Georgia Pacific.
IRS rulings on black liquor have been favorable to all kraft-pulp manufacturers, enabling them to claim alternative fuel-mixture credits even on the portion of black liquor that has no energy value, such as water. The result was about $6.6 billion paid out to publicly traded pulp makers, plus probably at least $2 billion more to privately held companies like GP.
But the agency's strangest ruling on the tar-like pulp byproduct appears to be of special benefit to GP. The "Son of Black Liquor" ruling made black liquor eligible for another green-energy program, Cellulosic Biofuel Producer Credits (CBPC), despite a law saying that only EPA-approved motor fuels were eligible.
These tax credits are twice as generous as the original black liquor credits, but they can only be used to offset income taxes, making them virtually worthless to the many unprofitable and marginally profitable pulp and paper companies. The country's #1 pulp maker, International Paper, has said it isn't sure whether it will have enough tax liability to justify paying back any of its $2.1 billion in AFMs to get the new tax credits.
Not so with Koch. With an estimated $100 billion in annual revenue, much of it from its presumably profitable oil sector, the big conglomerate should have no problem making immediate use of the approximately $2 to $3 billion in tax credits it would receive if it returned all of its original black liquor subsidies.
Dead Tree Edition has published more than 40 articles on the strange saga of black liquor tax credits. Here are a few that provide more background on these eco-credits that did nothing for the environment (including links to original documents so that you know I'm not making this stuff up):
U.S. Taxpayers' Black Liquor Tab Surpasses $30 Billion: For the next several years, taxpayers will be footing the huge bill for Congressional shenanigans regarding pulp byproducts, with most of the money going to hide increases in the federal deficit rather than to pulp manufacturers.
Congress and Paper Companies Covet 'Son of Black Liquor' Funds: Plans to use, or not use, Son of Black Liquor tax credits vary widely from company to company.
What, Exactly, Is Black Liquor? Just Ask the Tax Man: If you want to understand that once-obscure, now infamous pulp byproduct known as black liquor, you can turn to an unlikely source – the lawyers at the Internal Revenue Service.
And here's more background on Koch Industries, the billionaire brothers who own most of it, and their political activity:
Meet Koch Industries: The green group that produced the Times Square provides chapter and verse on environmentalists' and liberals' complaints about Koch and the Koch brothers.
Shutting Up Business: A lengthy Wall Street Journal opinion piece presents the Obama Administration's attacks on Koch Industries as part of a broader campaign to stifle business support for conservative candidates.
Tea Party movement: Billionaire Koch brothers who helped it grow: An interesting profile of the Koch brothers and how they inherited their libertarian leanings from their John Bircher father.
A Consistent, Principled Effort: Koch Industries describes its commitment to "liberty and free-market principles" as well as its charitable and advocacy giving.
on Tuesday, October 19, 2010 3 comments Links to this post
Congressman Issa: Where Are All Those Postal Supervisors?
The response to an article two weeks ago that quoted Rep. Darrell Issa as saying one in seven U.S. Postal Service employees has stirred up an unprecedented amount of reaction.
So far, 57 comments have been made to USPS Has Too Many Supervisors And Too Many Employees, Congressman Says -- a Dead Tree Edition record -- and the response was even greater on other sites that linked to the article. Postalreporter.com, for example, has 204 comments. The head of the postal supervisors union also objected to the California Republican's "trash talk" and challenged his statistics.
"Without doubt, the supervisory ratio within the Postal Service is far, far higher than 1:7," said Louis M. Atkins, president of the National Association of Postal Supervisors. Many comments, though acknowledging that the Postal Service has too many layers of management, also questioned Issa's numbers.
I agree with these folks. After looking at USPS employment statistics (see chart at right from the last annual report), I can't find that many supervisory or managerial employees.
Of the approximately 712,000 employees at the end of last year, more than 90% are in categories like carrier and mail handler that seem clearly to be non-supervisory. Adding the "Postmasters/Installation Heads", "Supervisors/Managers", and all headquarters and area-office employees (even though some are non-supervisory) yields abou t 65,000 -- only 1 in 11 USPS employees.
Perhaps Issa excluded non-career employees from his count. But, assuming he recognizes that part-timers and temps are an efficient way to handle fluctuating workloads, that wouldn't make sense. And, besides, that would only change the ratio to about 1 in 10.
Some commenters wondered whether Issa was including 204Bs (substitute supervisors), but they can hardly be called true supervisors.
And one commenter had an insightful response to Issa: "In fairness, the '1 of 7' that Representative Issa refers to also includes low-level Postmasters at thousands of small post offices in small communities throughout the nation. Many of these Postmasters are the only employee in their office, or have just a few clerks or rural carriers. Their salary is less than that of a city letter carrier. Incidentally, many of these same small offices are ones that Congress prevents USPS from closing!"
Other highlights from the comments:
"There are far too many managers. I am a manager and I've seen it from both sides. But it is not so much local management as it is people that don't even see the mail, touch the mail or have been inside a post office WORKING for decades and have no clue what is going on. Some district jobs are an all day cake party,"
"I've been in offices where I was the only one supervising 50+ employees."
"If the USPS restricted access to Facebook and personal email accounts, our office could eliminate two supervisors."
"There are 35 routes and 6 clerks in my office yet we have 5 custodians [not techs] to pick up empty trays and trash and mow the lawn. Ridiculous."
"You all can come work at a REC where the ration is 1:200...and you will never see one of your employees if you don't want to."
on Saturday, October 16, 2010 27 comments Links to this post
Readers Cry Foul Over Mailing Mag's Cover
Business-to-business magazines have a notoriously difficult time finding interesting and relevant cover images. Mailing Systems Technology rose to the challenge this month, but don't be surprised if the November cover features a postage meter or some other "safe" subject.
I'll let Amanda Armendariz, MST's editor, tell the story, from an email she sent to subscribers this week:
"We were trying to go for something a bit different than the usual charts and graphs that normally grace the cover of survey issues, something that would grab your attention. We appear to have succeeded, although not always in the best way. We've gotten several comments from people who are concerned that the image is glorifying the abuse and battering of women."
"The woman on our cover is a boxer, not an abused woman. When we selected the photo, we felt that the fact that her hands are wrapped as are any boxer's hands makes it clear that she's engaging in this competitive sport of her own free will."
"Perhaps the same image of a man would have been perceived as a boxer and been more acceptable, but we chose the image because it portrayed a strong woman who demonstrates several things: first, that she can take a punch and keep on fighting (in the ring) just like mail managers have to do in these changing times. Furthermore, we strongly support women who are pioneers in fields that are generally male-dominated, as is the case with women in boxing."
"Our entire staff hopes that everyone is able to take another look at the cover through a different perspective."
The subject is clearly a boxer, not an abused woman, but it might have been less confusing if she were wearing boxing gloves, headgear, or a mouthguard.
In an attempt to hold down next year's increase in postage rates, an alliance of mailers today challenged as "nonsensical" an informal ruling issued by a Postal Regulatory Commission lawyer.
Periods of deflation should not be ignored when calculating the price cap for postal rates, the Affordable Mail Alliance argued in its filing with the PRC.
The alliance's interpretation of the PRC's regulations would set the U.S. Postal Service's rate authority today at 0.873%, versus 1.447% in the method endorsed yesterday by the PRC's general counsel, Stephen L. Sharfman. (See Informal Ruling Makes Postage Increase of 1.7% Likely in January.)
If the Postal Service filed for rate increases after September's Consumer Price Index is released this Friday, the allowed rate increase would be about 1.1% with the alliance's method versus about 1.7% (Oct. 15 update: 1.685%) with the Sharfman method.
"Maintaining the integrity of this [inflation-index price] structure requires that the price cap reflect periods of deflation as well as inflation," wrote the broad-based industry alliance, which was formed this year in response to USPS's unsuccessful request for exigent (emergency) rate increases.
Ignoring years when the Consumer Price Index is lower than in the previous year, as happened in 2009, "would allow the Postal Service to ratchet up its prices over time faster than inflation by refraining from rate adjustments following intervals of deflation," the filing said. "No reviewing court is likely to find this nonsensical outcome consistent with the plain language" of the law or PRC regulations.
"The difference between the two competing interpretations of the Commission's rules amounts to approximately $360 million in postage and fees per year," the mailers alliance wrote. "Moreover, postal price levels inflated by the use of an excessive rate adjustment factor would become the base rates for future price cap adjustments; hence, the original overcharge would recur in perpetuity."
"Recurring periods of deflation are not unlikely in the current economies of the United States and the world. If the economy alternates between periods of inflation and deflation that leave the CPI roughly flat, selective timing of CPI-based price adjustments could result in postal price increases substantially outpacing inflation over time," the alliance response said.
The alliance also objected to Sharfman's "informal advice" because it came only six days after the Postal Service requested guidance on how to interpret the rate-cap regulations. The PRC's rules require interested parties to have seven days to respond in such cases, and Sharfman's letter was issued even though PRC staff knew the alliance was preparing a response to USPS's request, the alliance claimed.
on Wednesday, October 13, 2010 0 comments Links to this post
Please see the follow-up article, Mailers Alliance Fights 'Nonsensical' Price-Cap Ruling, about a challenge to the Sharfman ruling that was filed on Oct. 13.
Postage rates are likely to increase about 1.7% in January as a result of a letter that the Postal Regulatory Commission's chief lawyer issued today.
When the PRC established its rate-making rules, "little attention was given to the possibility that during periods of deflation, the Postal Service might accrue negative rate authority," PRC General Counsel Stephen L. Sharfman acknowledged in a letter to his counterpart at the U.S. Postal Service. That's why the Postal Service sought Sharfman's advice in how to interpret the law and regulations that limit increases in most postal rates to changes in the Consumer Price Index. (See USPS Seeks Guidance On Its Rate Cap.)
Sharfman's "informal advice," which presumably reflects the commissioners' thinking, basically said that the period of declining prices in late 2008 could be ignored in determining the price cap. The cap is to be based on the difference in the average CPI for the most recent 12 months versus the previous 12 months, he wrote.
The CPI has only increased 0.86% since calendar year 2008, which was the basis for the last round of rate increases. But with Sharfman's method, the rate cap would be 1.477% if USPS requested increases before the September CPI is released on Friday. Then, it seems likely to inch up to about 1.7% and to stay at about that level for at least a couple of months. (Oct. 15 update: With the September CPI, the number is 1.685%.)
Postmaster General Jack Potter promised not to increase postage rates during 2010, but postal officials seem eager to bump up rates once the calendar changes over to 2011. The Postal Service only has to give 45 days' notice before announcing price increases that comply with the rate cap. So it seems likely that USPS will announce increases by mid-November, and perhaps as early as Friday, that take effect in early January.
The price cap applies to the "market-dominant" classes, such as First-Class, Standard, and Periodicals. Individual rates can rise far more than the cap as long as the average for the class doesn't violate the cap.
Increasing rates based on the CPI would not prevent the Postal Service from also filing for another "exigent" (emergency) increase to ease the impact of the recession on its finances. But it would take much longer to get PRC approval for such an increase and then to fight off a likely legal challenge from mailers.
PRC Decision Only a Partial Win for Mailers: The PRC ruled against USPS's request for exigent price increases but left the door open for a revised proposal.
Postal Rate Cap Finishes Year in the Red: Back in January, Dead Tree Edition pointed out that the PRC's regulations did not anticipate a decline in the CPI.
I was too quick yesterday to praise the U.S. Postal Service's new eRetire system, which seems to be just a faster and more convenient way for potential retirees to get inaccurate information.
"eRetire isn't better. The only improvement I see is you can download some documents as PDFs rather than waiting for hard copies in the mail," responded Don Cheney, an APWU leader from Auburn, WA and an expert on USPS retirement issues, in reaction to my article Postal Service Steps Up Communications With Potential Retirees.
The new website "provides only two annuity estimates: optional and disability retirement," he said. "There are no annuity estimates available online for Voluntary Early Retirements. They still don't include the FERS annuity supplement in annuity estimates for eligible employees in FERS."
Software bug
He has also learned of at least one bug in eRetire: "When a city carrier downloaded his disability retirement packet yesterday, it had the job description for an Information Systems Specialist, EAS-21, rather than a city carrier."
Cheney has been trying for seven years to educate postal employees about all of their retirement benefits and to get USPS to issue accurate and complete retirement estimates to employees. He recently wrote an article that asked, "Does the Postal Service Really Want Early Retirements?" And he has two grievances pending on the Postal Service's failure to obey the Office of Personnel Management's rules regarding annuity estimates.
Sign a blank check?
"USPS refuses to provide retirement counseling in a VER until AFTER the employee has signed an 'Acknowledgement of Irrevocability.' This form is not required for other types of retirements. Would you sign a blank check that is irrevocable?"
"The demise of Personnel Services in the districts has meant union reps like me have had to step in to assist employees with their retirement applications," Cheney said
"Lack of retirement counseling is especially bad for veterans, who make up about half of the workforce. Their paperwork takes about four to six months to process. Veterans are forced to sign an 'Acknowledgement of Irrevocability' without knowing how much money they will owe for their military service or how much annuity they will get. I've seen the USPS demand as much as $10,000 from a veteran at the last minute. This is a major reason for complaints and long delays in a non-pay status."
Think about any of the recent scandals involving the Postal Service: Bernstock. Payment of health premiums for top executives. Using retired executives as consultants.
I contend that the amount of money wasted in those incidents is a drop in the bucket compared with what the Postal Service is paying excess employees who would retire if they only knew what their retirement benefits would be.
Not at all business-like
I keep hearing USPS executives talk about how they're running the Postal Service in a more business-like manner. But I know of no business – even ones that aren't trying to downsize -- that puts its employees through such a runaround to get retirement projections.
Postal officials keep pointing out how much cost they have taken out of the system the past few years. But it's hard for me (or, more importantly, Congress) to get excited about those efforts when I see how much money could be saved simply by providing employees accurate information.
I still haven't heard an answer to the question I asked two months ago as the Postal Service was trying unsuccessfully to impose emergency price increases: "Why Does USPS Make Retiring Difficult When It Has So Many Excess Employees?
Postal Service Steps Up Communications With Potential Retirees
I have repeatedly criticized the U.S. Postal Service for providing slow and inaccurate estimates of retiree benefits (see below), so it's only fair that I point out the "eRetire" program it announced today.
"eRetire is the new employee self-service application that allows employees to plan for and initiate retirement activities online via LiteBlue [the Postal Service intranet]," says the announcement in today's edition of the USPS Postal Bulletin. Employees can access the service by logging into LiteBlue, going to Employee Apps, and choosing "eRetire".
See the follow-up article, USPS Getting Its Retirement Act Together? Nope, which shows that eRetire is not all it's cracked up to be.
Employees (except part-timers and postal inspectors) who are eligible to retire or within six months of eligibility can use the new online service to get an annuity estimate, order a Retirement Application Package, or schedule a Retirement Counseling Session. Those within five years of retirement eligibility can get estimates of what their retirement annuity will be.
This certainly sounds like a step in the right direction for an organization that needs to downsize (and that seems to have so many employees ready to retire if given relatively minimal incentives).
Now we'll have to see how accurate the estimates are and how quickly the annuities are paid out once employees retire.
Some Dead Tree Edition critiques of the Postal Service's communications to potential retirees include:
How Does the Postal Service Discourage Early Retirement? Let Me Count the Ways
What the Postal Service Left Out of the Early-Retirement Deal
The Postal Service's Early-Retirement Snafu
on Thursday, October 07, 2010 5 comments Links to this post
USPS Seeks Guidance On Its Rate Cap
The U.S. Postal Service is asking for a ruling on something that was supposed to be clear -- how much it can increase rates without getting special permission.
A Postal Service lawyer asked the Postal Regulatory Commission today for guidance regarding how to interpret the price cap on most mail products (including First-Class, Standard, and Periodicals), which is based on changes in the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U).
When the PRC announced its decision last week in the exigent rate case, "some uncertainty was expressed regarding the exact amount of authority that is currently available to the Postal Service to adjust rates under the CPI-U price cap," wrote R. Andrew German, managing counsel for USPS Pricing & Product Development in a letter to the PRC.
The PRC's Web site has a chart suggesting that the current price cap is 1.477%, which is based on the average CPI for the most recent 12 months versus the previous 12 months (that is, September 2009 to August 2010 versus September 2008 to August 2009).
But German noted that "it has been more than 12 months since the Postal Service adjusted rates pursuant to the price cap," which seems to mean that a different calculation method should be used.
German referred to a section of the PRC's regulations regarding rate increases that are more than 12 months apart. My interpretation of that section is that the current rate cap would be based on comparing the average CPI for the most recent 12 months to the average CPI for calendar year 2008, yielding a cap of only 0.864%. But I'm no lawyer, and the wording is far from clear in this case.
"For purposes of developing its own financial plans, the Postal Service needs an interpretation of that rule (or any other applicable rules) upon which the Postal Service can rely if it were to begin preparation of the requisite documentation for CPI-U rate adjustment," German wrote.
The postal-reform law and the PRCs regulations interpreting that law are clear when things go as envisioned, with the USPS seeking rate increases once a year based on increases in the CPI-U. But no one seemed to anticipate the Consumer Price Index decreasing, which is what it did in 2009 primarily as a result of rapidly declining fuel prices. There was no provision in the law requiring the Postal Service to decrease rates as a result of that deflation and no guidance regarding the baseline period for future rate-cap calculations.
An Environmentalist's Defense of Clearcut Logging
Steven E. Kallick
An environmentalist who helped broker the Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement recently said that clearcut logging is "an appropriate silvaculture method" in the boreal forest.
"Frankly, in the boreal forest, selective harvest is impractical because of the nature of the trees. You don't have the big kind of coastal old growth forest," Steven E. Kallick, director of the International Boreal Conservation Campaign for the Pew Charitable Trusts, told Yale Environment 360.
"What you have is extensive forest of smaller trees. And in order to be profitable, you need to be able to go in there and take out a significant part of the volume. And ecologically it's not like clearcutting in a coastal forest. It doesn't have the same impact because the boreal forest is a vast, fire-dominated ecosystem where large-scale disturbance is not uncommon."
The logging companies that signed the agreement have agreed to "meet or beat the Forest Stewardship Council standards," which Kallick calls "the green seal of approval for logging."
"The reason the Forest Stewardship Council does not prohibit clearcutting in the boreal forest is because it's not ecologically required."
"This is industrial forestry, with improved practices. If it was by itself the only standard being applied, we would not be satisfied. But, combined with the removal of very large tracts of forest from timber harvest and ultimately, we hope, permanent protection of those areas, then we feel comfortable with the Forest Stewardship Council standard being applied in those other areas."
Canada's boreal (subarctic) forest – along with undisturbed portions of the Amazon and Russia's Taiga – is "one of the three great tracts of forest on the globe," Kallick says. Pew decided to focus on the Canadian boreal, he told The Seattle Times, because, of the three, "it's the only one in a country with a tradition of conservation, so the most likely to be protected on a scale to preserve the ecosystem and yet allow people to benefit from the natural resources."
Kallick told The Times he got interested in environmental work when a newspaper for which he wrote refused to publish his story about a hazardous waste dump.
"I thought, 'I'm in the wrong business. I'm going to law school and figure out how to bust people like this.'"
Environmental Groups Make Surprising Concessions in Canadian Forest Deal
The Boreal Forest Deal and the Sustainable Forestry Initiative
USPS Has Too Many Supervisors And Too Many Employees, Congressman Says
The U.S. Postal Service could cut its workforce by one-third and its supervisory ranks even more, a leading Republican Congressman indicated this week.
"The Post Office has 200,000 people who should be retiring," Rep. Darrell Issa said in a speech Wednesday to The Heritage Foundation. USPS had 568,301 employees at the end of August. "When I say retiring I mean we don't need them. But let's bear in mind it's just not the guy at the post office; it's the thousands of people who are doing maintenance at post offices that we don't need to have so many of."
"And more importantly there's a 1 to 7 ratio," the California Republican said. "For every person that delivers your mail, or packs your mail, or touches your mail -- for every 7 of them -- there's one of them that is just, quote, a 'supervisor'. That's a ratio that's so unacceptable in the private sector."
As ranking Republican on the House Oversight & Government Reform Committee, the California Republican would probably chair the key Congressional panel overseeing the USPS if the GOP wins a majority in the November elections. His comments about the Postal Service start just after the 29-minute mark in this video of the speech.
"I'm going to take on postal reform if I'm lucky enough to be the chairman next year," Issa said.
Efforts to shrink the Postal Service's workforce through attrition and early-retirement incentives "simply have not resulted in the kind of change and transformation USPS needs to cover its costs," Issa wrote recently in an editorial for The Washington Times. He would like the USPS to be able to lay off unionized employees if they could be retrained for and fill other jobs in the federal government.
Related article: How Does the Postal Service Discourage Early Retirement? Let Me Count the Ways
How Democrats Helped Finance the Tea Party With Bl...
Congressman Issa: Where Are All Those Postal Super...
Mailers Alliance Fights 'Nonsensical' Price-Cap Ru...
Informal Ruling Makes Postage Increase of 1.7% Lik...
Postal Service Steps Up Communications With Potent...
USPS Has Too Many Supervisors And Too Many Employe...


text:
Brain, Child
Evette Dionne
For Harriet
mater mea
Momsrising
National Black Child Development Institute
The Feminist Wire
Alexandra Elizabeth
jessica Care moore
Mahoganie: Musings East of the Anacostia River
Staceyann Chin
Teen Mom NYC
The Evolution of Vik VarWoo
Programs for Children of Color
En Garde Detroit
Girls for Gender Equality
Girls Write Now
Hip Hop Chess Federation
I Am My Brother's Teacher
Single-Parent Resources
Ask Moxie
Beyond Baby Mamas on Facebook
Black Breastfeeding 360
Co-Parenting 101
Dads on Duty
Love Isn't Enough
Single Parent Magazine
Support Single Mothers
Beyond Baby Mamas on Tumblr
Beyond Baby Mamas on Twitter
Beyond Baby Mamas on YouTube
BBM Revisits: Black Adoptive Mother Nefertiti Austin
Love Quadrangles: Ciara, Future, Russell, and Co-Parenting While Dating.
BBM Revisits: Yasmine McMorrin
What to Do When You See Unaccompanied Black Children in Public Spaces.
Single-Mom Squad Goals.
#LoveforLondyn Letter-Writing Campaign
2013 Beyond Baby Mamas School Supply Drive
Affirming Black and Brown Fatherhood
Back to School Series
BBM Asks
BBM Feed-A-Family Holiday Campaign
BBM Holiday Gift Campaign
BBM in the Press
BBM Revisits
Book of the Day
Class and Money Matters
Coed Conversation
Community-Building
Conversations with Single Mothers of Color
Faith and Single Motherhood
father involvement
Founder Fridays
Fun Friday Feature
National and Local News
racialized reporting of single motherhood
Single Mothers of Color and Representation
social ostracism
The Crystal Stair Video Series
Weekly Web Cast
Tag: mid-pregnancy-breakups
Beating Shame, Staying Trill.
The author with her two gorgeous children
The last time I thought I had it all figured out was one year ago today, February 21, 2013. That was the day the man I loved told me he didn't want to be in a relationship with me anymore. I was eight months pregnant with our son.
It's not been my intention to keep the anniversary in my head, but there are noteworthy dates in close proximity that built up to it. It was thirteen days after I'd written him a letter detailing my fears and concerns and my needs and wants. Eight days after a hurtful text argument sprung from said email that culminated with me telling him we were done and he was free. Seven days after Valentine's Day, when I asked if he wanted to see me to talk about it in person and he declined. Five days after he barely spoke to me at my pre-birthday dinner. Two days after the loneliest birthday I've ever had. That week between the break up and the actual in-person talk was agonizing, really. There were indeed incidents in the relationship that had taken a major toll on me and I knew he felt the same way. Still, I was certain we could get past it. After all, I was about to have a baby. I'd canceled a move to Pittsburgh to build with him. We were going to get an apartment in Brooklyn together–me, him, my seven-year-old daughter, and the upcoming babycake. He'd called me the game changer and said that he was excited about our future. We were in love and made a commitment to each other. He assured me that he wasn't going anywhere. We'd even talked about the timing of the next baby after this one. Expecting a baby is a lot of pressure, though, particularly when it's unexpected, so bumps in the road are par for the course, right? When I told my Mom we broke up she actually laughed. "Break up? You're about to have a baby. Work it out."
He had another perspective, however. On 2/21 he said that he wasn't interested in working it out. He listed a lot of reasons but the one that hit me the hardest was that he didn't believe God wanted us together. It knocked the wind out of me. I cried a lot. It felt abrupt and ridiculous and sickening. I'd be walking (kind of waddling at that point, actually) down the street and wondering what that sound was…that whimpering. "Oh, that's me." That's when the first beads of shame started their trickling. Being miserable while pregnant? Uh uh, honey. Pregnant women are supposed to be glowy and adorable. Our backs and feet are expected to ache, sure, but we're supposed to smile through that because worthy sacrifice. Not cry on the 3 train on the way home from work. That's when the panic started, too. "Oh my God. I'm pregnant and…single."
It was unfamiliar territory for me; I had a happy pregnancy with my daughter. Her father and I were very much in love and he was supportive and affectionate. We lived together and had combined our finances, so a few hurdles were already out of the way. That was my association with pregnancy–joy and security. So I was devastated that this time around was so different. I kept telling myself that this wasn't supposed to happen to ME. I was embarrassed and afraid that if people found out they'd look at me negatively. They'd think I was so unbearable that he couldn't even stay until the baby came. That I hadn't done my womanly duties to "keep" him. Not special or worthy enough to be anything more than a babymama. And then I'd beat myself up incessantly for beating myself up in such a manner. I'd never been one to believe that a woman's worth is tied to her relationship status, or that it's up to the woman to keep the man from leaving. I would certainly never let any of my girlfriends talk that way. I knew that the concerns I had raised in that letter were legit and I wasn't wrong for broaching them. Nevertheless, I became obsessed with chastising myself. His critiques of me echoed inside my head and became louder than my self-affirmations. Much of my pregnancy had been about him. He wasn't as far along as I was in his career, education, mental health journey, emotional maturity or parenting, so I knew there would be some major growing pains. But his adjustments, his process, his state of readiness became more paramount than my feeling safe or being tender with myself. And it seemed that expressing my wants = getting dumped. That was the equation. So jumping to shame wasn't much of a stretch.
Continue reading "Beating Shame, Staying Trill."
Posted in Community Bloggers. Tagged black motherhood, black single motherhood, co-parenting, depression, healing, healing co-parenting relationships, mid-pregnancy-breakups, self-care, shame. 48 Comments
Blog at WordPress.com. beyond baby mamas


text:
HERE wins top spot for mapping and traffic in Ovum Location Platform Index
Berlin, Germany - Market-leading research and consulting firm Ovum awarded HERE the top spot in mapping and traffic data in its most recent semi-annual Location Platform Index.
Ovum gave HERE an overall score of 8.02 and the clear number one spot in its 'completeness' index, which rates the overall capabilities of providers in the location-based services market.
The score reflected HERE's leadership position in mapping data, traffic and signage information, the feature set of its location platform, the ability for customers to access data across different devices, as well as its applicability across different industries.
"HERE's customer footprint spans the automotive, enterprise and consumer domains, giving it tremendous reach. That and its high score for completeness places HERE firmly in the Leaders category of Ovum's Location Platform Index," said Neha Dharia, Senior Analyst at Ovum.
HERE maps draw on 30 years of cartography experience and over 80,000 sources of data. HERE has maps in 196 countries, turn-by-turn navigation for 118 countries and transit maps and routing for public transit in over 970 cities worldwide.
Many of the world's leading automotive, enterprise and Internet companies trust HERE map data and platform services to run their businesses. For example, HERE is one of the few mapping companies that collects dedicated truck-specific road attributes for trucking companies.
In addition, HERE has made its HERE app available to consumers around the world. HERE launched the app in the Google Play store in December and in the Apple App Store in March, with more than 8 million downloads to date.
Email: press@here.com
http://company.here.com/en/newsroom/contacts/
HERE, a Nokia company, is a leader in navigation, mapping and location experiences. We build high-definition (HD) maps and combine them with cloud technology to enable rich, real-time location experiences in a broad range of connected devices - from smartphones and tablets to wearables and vehicles. To learn more about us, including our work in the areas of connected and automated driving, visit http://360.here.com.


text:
PCs narrowly ahead in three-way Ontario race
Earlier this week, Abacus Data released the first major poll of Ontario voting intentions following the selection of Kathleen Wynne as the new leader of the Ontario Liberal Party. The result was a close race - about as close as it can get between three parties. The electoral outcome of such a distribution of votes would be just as tight.
Abacus was last in the field provincially in Ontario on Dec. 7-8, and since then the Progressive Conservatives slipped two points to 33%, while the Liberals gained two points to reach 30% support. The New Democrats were unchanged at 31%, as were the Greens at 5%.
These shifts in support for the Tories and Liberals are within the margin of error (or would be if this was a standard probability sample). In fact, the lead the Tories hold over the NDP as well as the Liberals is also within the margin of error. Though the PCs would have the greatest chances of emerging ahead of the others if a vote was held on Feb. 5-6 (when this poll was in the field), the NDP and Liberals could have also won without this poll being "wrong". It is that close.
Among men, the PCs are doing quite well with 39% support to 29% for the NDP and 27% for the OLP. But among women, the Liberals are ahead 34% to 32% for the NDP and 27% for the Tories. While that is not an unusual gender gap compared to the federal scene or in other provinces, it is nevertheless striking.
Unfortunately, Abacus's last poll did not have detailed regional breakdowns (only GTA and the rest of Ontario), so a look at regional trends since December is not possible.
But in this poll, the Progressive Conservatives had the advantage in eastern Ontario with 41% to 30% for the Liberals and 25% for the NDP, in the GTA with 38% to 30% for the Liberals and 27% for the NDP, and in southwestern Ontario with 37% to 31% for the NDP and 23% for the OLP.
The New Democrats were ahead in northern Ontario with 42% to the Tories' 29% and the Liberals' 20%, while they were also in front in the Hamilton-Niagara region with 39% to 26% for the PCs and 25% for the Liberals.
The Liberals held the lead in Toronto, with 45% to 30% for the NDP and 21% for the Tories. All of these regional results are rather conventional.
The seat projection model for Ontario has been updated to be capable of incorporating regional polling data. After comparing the regional definitions of each of the pollsters active in Ontario, I have adopted a regional breakdown that will be the easiest to use despite every firm's definitions being slightly different.
With this poll's regional data, the model returns 41 seats to the Progressive Conservatives and 33 apiece to the NDP and Liberals.
The PCs win 30 of their seats in eastern, southwestern, and northern Ontario, while being shutout of Toronto. The NDP wins seats in each region of the province, but primarily in the north, in southwestern Ontario, in Toronto, and in the Hamilton-Niagara region. For the Liberals, 27 of their 33 seats come in and around Toronto.
Note that for northern Ontario, Barrie and the two Simcoes are included. This may not seem intuitive, as northern Ontario is generally considered to start at Parry Sound-Muskoka. But this region of Ontario is one of the more confusing ones to map out, as different pollsters put the ridings here in different regions. Barrie, Simcoe-Grey, and Simcoe North are in central Ontario for Ipsos-Reid, eastern and central Ontario for Environics, southwestern Ontario for Angus-Reid, and northern Ontario for Abacus and Forum. As I expect Abacus and Forum to be two of the more active firms on the provincial scene, and since they are the only two who seem to agree on where to place these ridings, they were located in northern Ontario in my model. Tweaks will need to be made to the regional data of other firms to get them to fit right.
This seat breakdown makes for an interesting hypothetical. Would Tim Hudak be able to form a government with 41 seats? He could turn to the Liberals or the NDP for support. Or, the Liberals and New Democrats could work together to form a government with a majority of seats. But who would be the Premier? Kathleen Wynne, who already holds the title, or Andrea Horwath, who narrowly had more of the popular vote?
Ontarians would seem to prefer Horwath, though Wynne is by no means disliked by the population. Abacus found that Horwath has the best favourability ratings of the three leaders, with 34% expressing a positive impression of her. Another 32% said they had a neutral impression, while only 21% had a negative impression. But that is not much different from Wynne's results: 30% positive, 31% neutral, and 21% negative.
Hudak's numbers are much worse, as 44% have a negative impression of him while only 23% have a positive impression (another 23% have a neutral impression). More problematic is that, while Horwath had only 10% with a very negative impression of her and Wynne just 12%, fully 28% of Ontarians said they had a very negative impression of Hudak, including 41% of people in Toronto. Among PC voters in 2011, 17% have a negative impression of Hudak, compared to 5% for Wynne among Liberal voters and 4% for Horwath among New Democrats. That is a problem in our increasingly personality-driven politics.
On who is the best person to be premier, 23% selected Horwath, another 23% selected Wynne, and 20% selected Hudak. Again, a very close result but this would seem to suggest that Hudak is polling worse than his own party (otherwise, he would be the choice for best premier by a whisker).
It is an interesting situation. The Progressive Conservatives have the strongest and seemingly most immovable base, and a good regional distribution of votes that wins them a lot of seats. But Hudak is not on the verge of breaking through among the population, limiting his party's potential gains. The Liberals have the larger base of people who have supported them in the past, and Wynne has good numbers so far, but they have been in government for a very long time and they are struggling to move the dial outside of Toronto and its environs. And the New Democrats have perhaps the most fragile assembly of supporters (as many of them are moving towards the NDP from other parties), though Horwath gives them a lot of upside and the party is doing relatively well in every region of the province. It wouldn't take much to give any one of these leaders the advantage in an election campaign.
Labels: Abacus, Ontario
NDP comfortably ahead in Quebec
Ontario polls point to volatile electorate
B.C. NDP gains outside of Vancouver
Conservatives drop in latest EKOS poll
Time running out for the B.C. Liberals
January 2013 federal polling averages
Liberal volatility continues in four federal polls
B.C. NDP gains in Vancouver
Alberta Tories maintain lead
Three-way race in Newfoundland and Labrador?
Sunday special: a provincially elected Senate?
Three-way race in Ontario