text:
With tour having just concluded, there are so many thoughts swirling in my mind about the past three weeks and what this tour represented to the band and to us, the community. It was an amazing feeling to be back on the road with Phish again, and by all accounts, Phish was very happy to be back on the road with us. Throughout the tour, the one constant was the infectious energy that characterized each show. Exploding from both the stage and the audience, the enthusiasm that oozed from the band and community each night was intense. Everyone you saw- whether it was their first show or three hundredth- was giddy over the band's first tour in five years and the limitless potential that lies in the future of Phish.
As expected, this tour was the next step of Phish's "re-evolution" that started in Hampton, and will continue later this summer. The band's improvisation became more and more adventurous as the tour progressed, as this tour was part a much larger process- certainly not a destination. Playing with an urgency and direction that was lacking in their last go-round, Phish used this early-summer run to get their sea legs back, re-acclimating themselves to the road in a whole new, sober, family-oriented atmosphere. This change of scenery was never more evident than with Alpine's "Brother" opener, which brought the family vibe to the forefront of the stage- literally. Overall, the playing throughout this tour was incredibly encouraging, and bodes very well for late-summer and beyond.
The past three three weeks have also hinted at new musical directions that Phish is moving towards in their third incarnation. Rededicated to playing tight compositions, the band's precision was one facet of their game that jumped out at almost every show. Sure, there were some flubs and mistakes- that was inevitable- but for most of the time, the band was very attentive to playing their songs carefully and without flaws. This held true for longer pieces such as "Divided Sky," "Fluffhead,"and "Time Turns Elastic," as well as the composed sections of larger vehicles like "Reba" and "YEM." Throughout the tour, Phish tore through their most complex segments with a welcome accuracy. Akin to years past, many eclectic compositions were in regular rotation.
In comparison to the looser funk era of the late '90s and the exploratory post-hiatus years, Phish's improv was far more direct and to the point. Instead of letting jams settle or vamping over rhythmic patterns, this summer's Phish dove straight into things with a purpose, also driving up the pace of their improvisation, resulting in creating shorter, more densely compact jams. The result of this musical shift- hinted at in March- was more rock-based jams and a virtual absence of whole band funk grooves. Even dance-staples like "Tweezer," "Ghost," and "Wolfman's" saw themselves focused on whole-group builds and sustained peaks rather than laid-back grooves. This served as a reminder that Phish, at their core, is a rock and roll band.
As the tour progressed, we watched them become more and more comfortable taking musical risks, delving further into exploratory improvisation by the time they pulled into their final four nights. Yet, their intent on psychedelic experimentation was clear, while not omnipresent, in the tour's first two shows with Fenway's "Tweezer > Light," and Jones Beach's "Harry Hood." Focused strongly on structured improv for most of the tour, the band crafted many standout type-I jams which helped them lie a foundation for the more exploratory playing that seeped its way into shows slowly but surely. A musical pattern emerged from their improv as well; the cultivation of a new sound. Defined by cohesive, directional jamming Phish often progressed from rock-based textures into dissonant and contrasting ambient improv, forming a dynamic flow to their jams. As we listen and re-listen to these shows, it will be interesting to see what other observations arise about the hybrid of new-school and old-school Phish.
Another piece of the emerging picture of Phish 3.0 is their array of new- and excellent- songs that were debuted over this tour. Some played in full rotation, and some played only once, it is clear that Phish has many new choices in their repertoire to pull from. Combined with their already vast catalog, the new rule for Phish shows is, "Anything goes!" All songs are fair game- from "Destiny Unbound" to "Lengthwise," and from "The Connection" to "Crosseyed"- setlists now contain songs spanning the earliest years of Phish to the unreleased. New pieces, such as "Ocelot," "Stealing Time From the Faulty Plan," "Kill Devil Falls," and "Backwards Down the Number Line," hopped right into rotation and began to grow in improvisation with each subsequent version. Others, like the "Sugar Shack" and "Twenty Years Later" only appeared once, leaving much to be discovered come August. Songs such as "Light," "Let Me Lie," and "Joy" fell in between, appearing a couple of times during the three week tour. Needless to say, Phish's upcoming album could be their best yet, and we have barely scratched the surface of the many musical realms that these new pieces will take us- (see Bonnaroo's "Kill Devil Falls" and "Light"). Never shy with pushing their new material, this could be the strongest new batch of songs we've heard from the band since the summer of '97.
The next chapter of Phish has arrived. The next month-plus will give us time to give a closer look at all of these musical trends, specific jams and more. While certainly a building block for August and beyond, this June run had its fair share of incredible moments and magical Phishy rides. And by the looks of how tour ended- with the two most improvisational shows in the last three- the band is just beginning to hit their stride. With only a little over a month before their long-awaited return to Red Rocks, we finally have plenty of new Phish jams to keep our ears busy until then!
6.19.09 Deer Creek Noblesville, IN < TORRENT LINK
My favorite show of June- by far.
I: Backwards Down the Number Line, AC/DC Bag, Limb By Limb, The Moma Dance, Water In The Sky, Split Open and Melt, Lawn Boy, The Wedge, Stealing Time From The Faulty Plan, The Connection*, Ocelot, Fluffhead
II: A Song I Heard The Ocean Sing > Drowned > Twist, Let Me Lie, Tweezer > 2001 > Suzy Greenberg, Possum
E: Sleeping Monkey > Tweezer Reprise
Source: Schoeps CCM4V'S (din) > Lunatec V2 > Benchmark AD2K >
Sound Devices 722 (24/48) – Recorded by Z-Man
Check out Andy Gadiel's guest blog on Headcount.org summarizing Phish's massive presence on the internet in this new age!


text:
COROT has found the smallest terrestrial planet ever detected outside the Solar System. The amazing planet is less than twice the size of Earth and orbits a Sun-like star. Its temperature is so high that it is possibly covered in lava or water vapour.
About 330 exoplanets have been discovered so far, most of which are gas giants with characteristics similar to Jupiter and Neptune.
The new find, COROT-Exo-7b, is different: its diameter is less than twice that of Earth and it orbits its star once every 20 hours. It is located very close to its parent star, and has a high temperature, between 1000 and 1500*C. Astronomers detected the new planet as it transited its parent star, dimming the light from the star as it passed in front of it.
The density of the planet is still under investigation: it may be rocky like Earth and covered in liquid lava. It may also belong to a class of planets that are thought to be made up of water and rock in almost equal amounts. Given the high temperatures measured, the planet would be a very hot and humid place.
"Finding such a small planet was not a complete surprise", said Daniel Rouan, researcher at the Observatoire de Paris Lesia, who coordinates the project with Alain Leger, from Institut d'Astrophysique Spatiale (Paris, France). "COROT-Exo-7b belongs to a class of objects whose existence had been predicted for some time. COROT was designed precisely in the hope of discovering some of these objects," he added.
Very few exoplanets found so far have a mass comparable to Earth's and the other terrestrial planets: Venus, Mars, and Mercury. This is because terrestrial planets are extremely difficult to detect. Most of the methods used so far are indirect and sensitive to the mass of the planet, while COROT can directly measure the size of its surface, which is an advantage. In addition, its location in space allows for longer periods of uninterrupted observation than from ground.
This discovery is significant because recent measurements have indicated the existence of planets of small masses but their size remained undetermined until now.
The internal structure of COROT-exo-7b particularly puzzles scientists; they are unsure whether it is an 'ocean planet', a kind of planet whose existence has never been proved so far. In theory, such planets would initially be covered partially in ice and they would later drift towards their star, with the ice melting to cover it in liquid.
"This discovery is a very important step on the road to understanding the formation and evolution of our planet," said Malcolm Fridlund, ESA's COROT Project Scientist. "For the first time, we have unambiguously detected a planet that is 'rocky' in the same sense as our own Earth. We now have to understand this object further to put it into context, and continue our search for smaller, more Earth-like objects with COROT," he added.
Notes for editors:
This discovery benefited from complementary observations made thanks to an extensive European telescope network operated by various institutes and countries. The European Southern Observatory at Paranal and La Silla (Chile), the 80-cm telescope at the Canary Islands Astrophysics Institute, and the Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope on Mauna Kea, Hawaii (CNRS, CNRC, and University of Hawaii).
The findings will appear in 'Transiting exoplanets from the CoRoT space mission VII. COROT-Exo-7b: The first super-earth with radius characterized' by A. Leger , D. Rouan , J. Schneider , R. Alonso , B. Samuel , E. Guenther , M. Deleuil , H.J. Deeg , M. Fridlund, et al. to be submitted to Astronomy and Astrophysics.
COROT (planetary convection, rotation and transits) is a mission led by the French Space Agency (CNES), with contributions from ESA, Austria, Belgium, Germany, Spain and Brazil. It is a telescope placed in Earth orbit that was launched in December 2006 carrying a 27 cm-diameter telescope designed to detect tiny changes the brightness of nearby stars. The mission's main objectives are to search for exoplanets and to study stellar interiors.
For more information:
Daniel Rouan, CNRS senior scientist, Observatoire de Paris Lesia:
Email : daniel.rouan @ obspm.fr
Alain Leger, CNRS senior scientist, IAS
Email: email@example.com
Malcolm Fridlund, ESA COROT Project Scientist
Email: Malcolm.Fridlund @ esa.int

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Vielight Commences Pivotal Clinical Trial for Alzheimer's Disease based on Transcranial Photobiomodulation.
Toronto, ON, May 22, 2019: Vielight Inc. of Toronto, a leader in brain photobiomodulation (PBM) technology, announces that the primary site for its pivotal clinical trial, St. Michael's Hospital, in Toronto, has been activated. The trial will be a randomized, placebo-controlled study involving 228 subjects with moderate to severe cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer's Disease.
This pivotal trial will be conducted across North America. St. Michael's Hospital is the first among the eight sites that will carry out the study. The protocol of the study has been reviewed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Health Canada.
The device in investigation, called the "Vielight Neuro RX Gamma", is based on Vielight's proprietary PBM technology which directs near infrared light, pulsing at the gamma rate of 40 Hz, to selected regions of the brain. The procedure is non-invasive, and the device has been designed to be suitable for home-use. Subject to regulatory clearance, the device will be indicated for Alzheimer patients with moderate to severe impairment, the group that demands the most care and has the largest economic burden.
This clinical trial is timely against the backdrop of many unsuccessful attempts by pharmaceutical and device companies to demonstrate acceptable efficacy and safety to address the disease. Currently, no other modality is in a clinical trial that is expected to demonstrate clinical outcomes within the time anticipated for the Vielight study to be completed.
Recently published studies have shed more light on the potential of the Neuro RX Gamma to modify the pathology of Alzheimer's Disease. These studies presented findings in clinical assessments and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), warranting the move forward with the large pivotal clinical trial.
Recruitment for the study will begin shortly. The trial will be independently managed by the Applied Health Research Centre (AHRC), a methodology center affiliated with St. Michael's Hospital. Further information and contact details for participation enquiries can be found at https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03484143.
Principal Investigator at St. Michael's Hospital, Dr. Corinne Fischer, M.D., said, "In spite of substantial efforts to establish effective treatments for Alzheimer's disease, progress has been, unfortunately, limited and a cure does not yet exist. Although not conventional as an Alzheimer's disease solution, we look forward to investigating the potential of Vielight's technology in the treatment of this difficult disease based on promising early evidence."
Margaret A. Naeser, Ph.D., Research Professor of Neurology, Boston University School of Medicine, said: "My research studies into the use of PBM in aphasia, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), traumatic brain injury, and dementia have shown me that we are seeing just the tip of the iceberg of healing potential for this technology."
Michael Hamblin Ph.D., Retired Principal Investigator at the Wellman Center for Photomedicine at Massachusetts General Hospital, and Associate Professor of Dermatology at Harvard Medical School, said, "For more than 50 years, researchers have been demonstrating the potential of PBM to treat many medical conditions. However, large controlled clinical trials have been elusive. Vielight has been the first to demonstrate successful clinical outcomes for dementia in small early investigations, and we look forward to the findings of this pivotal trial."
Lew Lim, Ph.D., Founder and CEO of Vielight, expressed, "A very complex disease like Alzheimer's poses a big challenge to any researcher, and even more so for a small team like ours. Despite the solid science and strong early evidence, few were ready to ride with us. I am grateful to the courageous parties who have helped us to get to this point of a major clinical trial. I hope that we will all be a part of something special and important in the end."
About Vielight Inc.: Vielight Inc. is a recognized leader in the application of photobiomodulation (PBM) for supporting mental and physical well-being. Much of Vielight's work has been focused on research of the effects of PBM on the brain, and on translation of PBM technology into practical uses. For more info visit company's website: https://www.vielight.com.
On behalf of Vielight Inc.
Gennady Lemud, Communications Director
firstname.lastname@example.com | 1-877- 355-8012


text:
Money is a constant topic of conversation among nonprofit leaders: How much do we need? Where can we find it? Why isn't there more of it? In tough economic times, these types of questions become more frequent and pressing. Unfortunately, the answers are not readily available. That's because nonprofit leaders are much more sophisticated about creating programs than they are about funding their organizations, and philanthropists often struggle to understand the impact (and limitations) of their donations.
There are consequences to this financial fuzziness. When nonprofits and funding sources are not well matched, money doesn't flow to the areas where it will do the greatest good. Too often, the result is that promising programs are cut, curtailed, or never launched. And when dollars become tight, a chaotic fundraising scramble is all the more likely to ensue.[1]
Nonprofit Resources
📄 Get more of our best articles, tools, and templates on running a thriving nonprofit.
Explore NowIn the for-profit world, by contrast, there is a much higher degree of clarity on financial issues. This is particularly true when it comes to understanding how different businesses operate, which can be encapsulated in a set of principles known as business models. Although there is no definitive list of corporate business models,[2] there is enough agreement about what they mean that investors and executives alike can engage in sophisticated conversations about any given company's strategy. When a person says that a company is a "low-cost provider" or a "fast follower," the main outlines of how that company operates are pretty clear. Similarly, stating that a company is using "the razor and the razor blade" model describes a type of ongoing customer relationship that applies far beyond shaving products.
The value of such shorthand is that it allows business leaders to articulate quickly and clearly how they will succeed in the marketplace, and it allows investors to quiz executives more easily about how they intend to make money. This back-and-forth increases the odds that businesses will succeed, investors will make money, and everyone will learn more from their experiences.
The nonprofit world rarely engages in equally clear and succinct conversations about an organization's long- term funding strategy. That is because the different types of funding that fuel nonprofits have never been clearly defined.[3] More than a poverty of language, this represents—and results in—a poverty of understanding and clear thinking.
Through our research, we have identified 10 nonprofit models that are commonly used by the largest nonprofits in the United States. Our intent is not to prescribe a single approach for a given nonprofit to pursue. Instead, we hope to help nonprofit leaders articulate more clearly the models that they believe could support the growth of their organizations, and use that insight to examine the potential and constraints associated with those models.
Beneficiaries are Not Customers
One reason why the nonprofit sector has not developed its own lexicon of funding models is that running a nonprofit is generally more complicated than running a comparable size for-profit business. When a for-profit business finds a way to create value for a customer, it has generally found its source of revenue; the customer pays for the value. With rare exceptions, that is not true in the nonprofit sector. When a nonprofit finds a way to create value for a beneficiary (for example, integrating a prisoner back into society or saving an endangered species), it has not identified its economic engine. That is a separate step.
Duke University business professor J. Gregory Dees, in his work on social entrepreneurship, describes the need to understand both the donor value proposition and the recipient value proposition. Clara Miller, CEO of the Nonprofit Finance Fund, who has also written wonderfully about this dilemma, talks about all nonprofits being in two "businesses"—one related to their program activities and the other related to raising charitable "subsidies."
As a result of this distinction between beneficiary and funder, the critical aspects (and accompanying vocabulary) of nonprofit funding models need to be understood separately from those of the for-profit world. It is also why we use the term funding model rather than business model to describe the framework. A business model incorporates choices about the cost structure and value proposition to the beneficiary. A funding model, however, focuses only on the funding, not on the programs and services offered to the beneficiary.
All nonprofit executives can use our 10 funding models to improve their fundraising and management, but the usefulness of these models becomes particularly important as nonprofits get bigger. There are many ways to raise as much as $1 million a year, some of which can be improvised during the process. Once organizations try to raise $25 million to $50 million or more each year, however, there are fewer possible paths. The number of potential decision makers who can authorize spending such large amounts of money decreases (or you need to get them en masse), and the factors that motivate these decision makers to say "yes" are more established (or cannot be as thoroughly influenced by one charismatic nonprofit leader).
Our research of large nonprofits confirms this. In a recent study, we identified 144 nonprofit organizations—created since 1970—that had grown to $50 million a year or more in size.[4] We found that each of these organizations grew large by pursuing specific sources of funding—often concentrated in one particular source of funds—that were a good match to support their particular types of work. Each had also built up highly professional internal fundraising capabilities targeted at those sources. In other words, each of the largest nonprofits had a well-developed funding model.
The larger the amount of funding needed, the more important it is to follow preexisting funding markets where there are particular decision makers with established motivations. Large groups of individual donors, for example, are already joined by common concerns about various issues, such as breast cancer research. And major government funding pools, to cite another example, already have specific objectives, such as foster care. Although a nonprofit that needs a few million dollars annually may convince a handful of foundations or wealthy individuals to support an issue that they had not previously prioritized, a nonprofit trying to raise tens of millions of dollars per year can rarely do so.
This is not to say that funding markets are static; they aren't. The first Earth Day in 1970 coincided with a major expansion in giving to environmental causes; the Ethiopian famine of 1984-85 led to a dramatic increase in support for international relief; and awareness of the U.S. educational crisis in the late 1980s laid the groundwork for charter school funding. Changes cannot be foreseen, however, and, hence, can not be depended on as a source of funding. In addition, these changes were the product or culmination of complex national and international events, not the result of a single nonprofit's work.
Earl Martin Phalen, cofounder of BELL, an after-school and summer educational organization, captured the benefits of such intentionality well, summing up his experience for a group of nonprofit leaders in 2007. "Our fundraising strategy used to be 'let's raise more money this year than last' and we always were unsure of where we'd be. Then we got serious in thinking about our model and identified an ongoing type of government funding that was a good match for our work. While it required some program changes to work, we now predictably cover 70 percent of our costs in any locality through this approach."
Ten Funding Models
Devising a framework for nonprofit funding presents challenges. To be useful, the models cannot be too general or too specific. For example, a community health clinic serving patients covered by Medicaid and a nonprofit doing development work supported by the U.S. Agency for International Development are both government funded, yet the type of funding they get, and the decision makers controlling the funding, are very different. Lumping the two together in the same model would not be useful. At the same time, designating a separate model for nonprofits that receive Title I SES funds, for example, is too narrow to be useful.
In the end, we settled on three parameters to define our funding models—the source of funds, the types of decision makers, and the motivations of the decision makers. This allowed us to identify 10 distinct funding models at level that is broadly relevant yet defines real choices.
It is interesting to note that there were several funding models we thought we might find, but didn't. One possible model was nonprofits supported by earned-income ventures distinct and separate from their core mission-related activities. Another possible model was nonprofits that operated on a strictly fee-for-service model in either a business-to-business or direct-to-consumer fashion, without important supplementary fundraising (from members or prior beneficiaries) or underlying government support. Although there are some nonprofits supporting themselves with such funding approaches, they were not present among the large nonprofits that we studied. It is our belief that these types of approaches do not lend themselves to large-scale, sustained nonprofit advantage over for-profit entities.
What follows are descriptions of the 10 funding models, along with profiles of representative nonprofits for each model. The models are ordered by the dominant type of funder. The first three models (Heartfelt Connector, Beneficiary Builder, and Member Motivator) are funded largely by many individual donations. The next model (Big Bettor) is funded largely by a single person or by a few individuals or foundations. The next three models (Public Provider, Policy Innovator, and Beneficiary Broker) are funded largely by the government. The next model (Resource Recycler) is supported largely by corporate funding. And the last two models (Market Maker and Local Nationalizer) have a mix of funders.
- Heartfelt Connector
Some nonprofits, such as the Make-a-Wish Foundation, grow large by focusing on causes that resonate with the existing concerns of large numbers of people at all income levels, and by creating a structured way for these people to connect where none had previously existed. Nonprofits that take this approach use a funding model we call the Heartfelt Connector. Some of the more popular causes are in the environmental, international, and medical research areas. They are different from nonprofits that tap individuals with particular religious beliefs, political leanings, or sporting interests, who come together to form organizations in the course of expressing their interests. Heartfelt Connectors often try to build explicit connections between volunteers through special fundraising events. The Susan G. Komen Foundation is an example of a nonprofit that uses the Heartfelt Connector model. Established in 1982, the Komen Foundation works through a network of 125 affiliates to eradicate breast cancer as a life-threatening disease by funding research grants, by supporting education, screening, and treatment projects in communities around the world, and by educating women about the importance of early detection. The foundation's mission has a deep resonance with many women, even though its work may never benefit them directly. Between 1997 and 2007 the Komen Foundation's annual fundraising grew from $47 million to $334 million. The average individual donation is small, about $33, but the foundation's fundraising efforts have been driven by its ability to reach out to an ever-widening base of support. Its major fundraising vehicle is the Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure. The foundation and its affiliates hold about 120 running races each year that draw more than 1 million participants. These events not only allow individuals to give money; they also engage volunteers to put together teams, solicit funds, and participate in the race day experience. Nonprofit leaders considering the Heartfelt Connector funding model should ask themselves the following questions:- Have a large cross section of people already shown that they will fund causes in this domain?
- Can we communicate what is compelling about our nonprofit in a simple and concise way?
- Does a natural avenue exist to attract and involve large numbers of volunteers?
- Do we have, or can we develop, the in-house capabilities to attempt broad outreach in even one geographic area?
- Beneficiary Builder
Some nonprofits, such as the Cleveland Clinic, are reimbursed for services that they provide to specific individuals, but rely on people who have benefited in the past from these services for additional donations. We call the funding model that these organizations use the Beneficiary Builder. Two of the best examples of Beneficiary Builders are hospitals and universities. Generally, the vast majority of these nonprofits' funding comes from fees that beneficiaries pay for the services the nonprofits provide. But the total cost of delivering the benefit is not covered by the fees. As a result, the nonprofit tries to build long-term relationships with people who have benefited from the service to provide supplemental support, hence the name Beneficiary Builder. Although these donations are often small relative to fees (averaging approximately 5 percent at hospitals and 30 percent at private universities), these funds are critical sources of income for major projects such as building, research, and endowment funds. Donors are often motivated to give money because they believe that the benefit they received changed their life. Organizations using a Beneficiary Builder model tend to obtain the majority of their charitable support from major gifts. Princeton University is an example of a nonprofit that uses the Beneficiary Builder model. The university has become very adept at tapping alumni for donations, boasting the highest alumni-giving rate among national universities—59.2 percent. In 2008, more than 33,000 undergraduate alumni donated $43.6 million to their alma mater. As a result of the school's fundraising prowess, more than 50 percent of Princeton's operating budget is paid for by donations and earnings from its endowment. Nonprofit leaders considering the Beneficiary Builder funding model should ask themselves the following questions:- Does our mission create an individual benefit that is also perceived as an important social good?
- Do individuals develop a deep loyalty to the organization in the course of receiving their individual benefit?
- Do we have the infrastructure to reach out to beneficiaries in a scalable fashion?
- Member Motivator
There are some nonprofits, such as Saddleback Church, that rely on individual donations and use a funding model we call Member Motivator. These individuals (who are members of the nonprofit) donate money because the issue is integral to their everyday life and is something from which they draw a collective benefit. Nonprofits using the Member Motivator funding model do not create the rationale for group activity, but instead connect with members (and donors) by offering or supporting the activities that they already seek. These organizations are often involved in religion, the environment, or arts, culture, and humanities. The National Wild Turkey Federation (NWTF), which protects and expands wild turkey habitats and promotes wild turkey hunting, is an example of a Member Motivator. It attracts turkey hunters, who collectively benefit from NWTF's work and therefore become loyal members and fundraisers. Local NWTF members host more than 2,000 fundraising banquets each year, raising about 80 percent of the organization's annual revenues. These banquets provide multiple donation opportunities: entry tickets (which cost about $50 each and include an annual membership); merchandise purchase (averaging more than $100 per attendee); and raffle tickets (generating about $16,000 per banquet). NWTF's national headquarters supplies raffle prizes and merchandise to sell at these banquets. Each banquet clears an average of $10,000 after expenses. A significant portion of the money raised is dedicated to land and turkey conservation in the community from which it was donated. Nonprofit leaders considering the Member Motivator funding model should ask themselves the following questions:- Will our members feel that the actions of the organization are directly benefiting them, even if the benefit is shared collectively?
- Do we have the ability to involve and manage our members in fundraising activities?
- Can we commit to staying in tune with, and faithful to, our core membership, even if it means turning down funding opportunities and not pursuing activities that fail to resonate with our members?
- Big Bettor
There are a few nonprofits, such as the Stanley Medical Research Institute, that rely on major grants from a few individuals or foundations to fund their operations. We call their funding model the Big Bettor. Often, the primary donor is also a founder, who wants to tackle an issue that is deeply personal to him or her. Although Big Bettors often launch with significant financial backing already secured, allowing them to grow large quickly, there are other instances when an existing organization gets the support of a major donor who decides to fund a new and important approach to solving a problem. The nonprofits we identified as Big Bettors are focused either on medical research or on environmental issues. The primary reasons that Big Bettors can attract sizable donations are: the problem being addressed can potentially be solved with a huge influx of money (for example, a vast sum can launch a research institute to cure a specific illness); or the organization is using a unique and compelling approach to solve the problem. Conservation International (CI), whose mission is to conserve the Earth's biodiversity and to demonstrate that humans can live harmoniously with nature, is an example of a nonprofit that uses the Big Bettor funding model. CI's ability to identify locations around the world where protecting an area of land can have a significant effect on preserving global biodiversity helps it attract donors who are willing to contribute large amounts of money so that they can have an important and lasting impact on protecting the Earth. The majority of CI's contributions come from a few large donors. Nonprofit leaders considering the Big Bettor funding model should ask themselves the following questions:- Can we create a tangible and lasting solution to a major problem in a foreseeable time frame?
- Can we clearly articulate how we will use large-scale funding to achieve our goals?
- Are any of the wealthiest individuals or foundations interested in our issue and approach?
- Public Provider
Many nonprofits, such as the Success for All Foundation, work with government agencies to provide essential social services, such as housing, human services, and education, for which the government has previously defined and allocated funding. Nonprofits that provide these services use a funding model we call Public Provider. In some cases, the government outsources the service delivery function but establishes specific requirements for nonprofits to receive funding, such as reimbursement formulae or a request for proposal (RFP) process. As Public Providers grow, they often seek other funding sources to augment their funding base. TMC (formerly the Texas Migrant Council), which supports children and families in migrant and immigrant communities, is an example of an organization that uses the Public Provider funding model. At its inception in 1971, TMC tapped into the federal government's Head Start program to fund its initial work, helping children prepare for school by focusing on the bilingual and bicultural needs of families. As TMC grew, its leaders sought to reduce its dependence on this one funding source and to identify other government funds. TMC now receives funding from a variety of federal, state, and local government sources. TMC has expanded from Texas into seven additional states and is offering new programs, such as literacy, prenatal care, and consumer education. Nonprofit leaders considering the Public Provider funding model should ask themselves the following questions:- Is our organization a natural match with one or more large, preexisting government programs?
- Can we demonstrate that our organization will do a better job than our competitors?
- Are we willing to take the time to secure contract renewals on a regular basis?
- Policy Innovator
Some nonprofits, such as Youth Villages, rely on government money and use a funding model we call Policy Innovator. These nonprofits have developed novel methods to address social issues that are not clearly compatible with existing government funding programs. They have convinced government funders to support these alternate methods, usually by presenting their solutions as more effective and less expensive than existing programs. (By contrast, Public Providers tap into existing government programs to provide funds for the services they offer.) An example of a Policy Innovator is HELP USA. This nonprofit provides transitional housing for the homeless and develops affordable permanent housing for low-income families. Andrew Cuomo (son of former New York governor Mario Cuomo) founded HELP USA in 1986 as an alternative to New York's approach of paying hotels to house the homeless in so-called "welfare hotels." HELP USA's innovative approach to the housing crisis came about in an era when homelessness was a prominent public issue and government funders were willing to try a novel approach. Cuomo gained the initial support of government decision makers by positioning his solution as both more effective and less costly, which was critical during New York's fiscal crisis. In 2007, HELP USA's revenues were $60 million, almost 80 percent of which came from government sources, half federal and half state and local. The organization was operating in New York City, Philadelphia, Las Vegas, Houston, and Buffalo, N.Y. Nonprofit leaders considering the Policy Innovator funding model should ask themselves the following questions:- Do we provide an innovative approach that surpasses the status quo (in impact and cost) and is compelling enough to attract government funders, which tend to gravitate toward traditional solutions?
- Can we provide government funders with evidence that our program works?
- Are we willing and able to cultivate strong relationships with government decision makers who will advocate change?
- At this time are there sufficient pressures on government to overturn the status quo?
- Beneficiary Broker
Some nonprofits, such as the Iowa Student Loan Liquidity Corporation, compete with one another to provide government-funded or backed services to beneficiaries. Nonprofits that do this use what we call a Beneficiary Brokerfunding model. Among the areas where Beneficiary Brokers compete are housing, employment services, health care, and student loans. What distinguishes these nonprofits from other government-funded programs is that the beneficiaries are free to choose the nonprofit from which they will get the service. The Metropolitan Boston Housing Partnership (MBHP), a regional nonprofit administering state and federal rental assistance voucher programs in 30 Massachusetts communities, is an example of a nonprofit that uses the Beneficiary Broker funding model. Since launching the organization in 1991, MBHP has developed a reputation as a reliable provider of housing vouchers for families in need. MBHP is the largest provider of housing vouchers in the Boston area, connecting more than 7,500 families to housing at any one time. MBHP also provides related services, such as education and homelessness prevention programs. More than 90 percent of MBHP's revenue comes from the small administrative fees the state provides as part of the voucher program. The remaining funds come from corporations and foundations. Nonprofit leaders considering the Beneficiary Broker funding model should ask themselves the following questions:- Can we demonstrate to the government our superior ability to connect benefit or voucher holders with benefits, such as successful placement rates and customer satisfaction feedback?
- Can we develop supplemental services that maximize the value of the benefit?
- Can we master the government regulations and requirements needed to be a provider of these benefits?
- Can we fi nd ways to raise money to supplement the fees we receive from the benefits program?
- Resource Recycler
Some nonprofits, such as AmeriCares Foundation, have grown large by collecting in-kind donations from corporations and individuals, and then distributing these donated goods to needy recipients who could not have purchased them on the market. Nonprofits that operate these types of programs use a funding model we call Resource Recycler. Businesses are willing to donate goods because they would otherwise go to waste (for example, foods with an expiration date), or because the marginal cost of making the goods is low and they will not be distributed in markets that would compete with the producer (for example, medications in developing countries). In kind donations typically account for the majority of revenues, but Resource Recyclers must raise additional funds to support their operating costs. The vast majority of Resource Recyclers are involved in food, agriculture, medical, and nutrition programs and often are internationally focused. The Greater Boston Food Bank (TGBFB), the largest hunger relief organization in New England, is an example of a nonprofit that uses the Resource Recycler funding model. This organization distributes nearly 30 million pounds of food annually to more than 600 local organizations, including food pantries, soup kitchens, day care centers, senior centers, and homeless shelters. TGBFB acquires goods in many ways. The dominant sources of goods are retailers and manufacturers. It also receives surplus food from restaurants and hotels. In 2006, corporate in-kind support accounted for 52 percent of TGBFB's revenues. Federal and state government programs provide TGBFB with in-kind goods and money, accounting for 23 percent of its annual budget, which TGBFB uses to purchase food for distribution. Cash donations from individuals make up the remaining 25 percent of revenues, covering overhead and capital improvements. Nonprofit leaders considering the Resource Recycler funding model should ask themselves the following questions:- Are the products that we distribute likely to be donated on an ongoing basis?
- Can we develop the expertise to stay abreast of trends in the industries that donate products to us so that we can prepare for fluctuations in donations?
- Do we have a strategy for attracting the cash we'll need to fund operations and overhead?
- Market Maker
Some nonprofits, such as the Trust for Public Land, provide a service that straddles an altruistic donor and a pay or motivated by market forces. Even though there is money available to pay for the service, it would be unseemly or unlawful for a for-profit to do so. Nonprofits that provide these services use a funding model we call Market Maker.Organ donation is one example where Market Makers operate. There is a demand for human organs, but it is illegal to sell them. These nonprofits generate the majority of their revenues from fees or donations that are directly linked to their activities. Most Market Makers operate in the area of health and disease, but some also operate in the environmental protection area (for example, land conservation). The American Kidney Fund (AKF) is an example of a nonprofit that uses the Market Maker funding model. AKF was founded in 1971 to help low-income people with kidney failure pay for dialysis. It is now the country's leading source of financial aid to kidney dialysis patients, providing (in 2006) $82 million in annual grants to 63,500 kidney patients (about 19 percent of all dialysis patients). Before 1996, health care providers were allowed to pay Medicare Part B and Medigap premiums (approximately 20 percent of total costs) for needy dialysis patients. In 1996, the federal government made it illegal for providers to do this because it might trap the patient into receiving dialysis from a particular provider. The new law left thousands of kidney patients unable to afford kidney treatment. AKF noticed this gap and established a program to fill it. AKF now pays these premiums, allowing patients to continue their treatment. AKF is funded primarily by health care providers and other corporations. AKF is now applying the same principles used in its kidney dialysis program for pharmaceuticals used to treat bone loss. Nonprofit leaders considering the Market Maker funding model should ask themselves the following questions:- Is there a group of funders with a financial interest in supporting our work?
- Are there legal or ethical reasons why it would be more appropriate for a nonprofit to deliver the services?
- Do we already have a trusted program and brand name?
- Local Nationalizer
There are a number of nonprofits, such as Big Brothers Big Sisters of America, that have grown large by creating a national network of locally based operations. These nonprofits use a funding model we call Local Nationalizers. These organizations focus on issues, such as poor schools or children in need of adult role models, that are important to local communities across the country, where government alone can't solve the problem. Most of the money for programs is raised locally, often from individual or corporate donations and special events. Very little of the money comes from government agencies or fees. Very few local operations exceed $5 million in size, but, in totality they can be quite large. Teach for America (TFA) is an example of a nonprofit that uses a Local Nationalizer funding model. TFA recruits, trains, and places recent college graduates into teaching positions in schools across the country. TFA was founded in 1989, and by 2007 had more than $90 million in annual revenues. The organization relies on its 26 regional TFA offices to raise more than 75 percent of its funding. The reason this works is that TFA's mission—improving the quality of K-12 education—resonates with local funders. TFA developed a culture in which fundraising is considered a critical aspect of the organization at every level, and it recruited local executive directors who would take ownership of attracting regional funding growth. Nonprofit leaders considering the Local Nationalizer funding model should ask themselves the following questions:- Does our cause address an issue that local leaders consider a high priority, and is this issue compelling in communities across the country?
- Does expanding our organization into other communities fulfill our mission?
- Can we replicate our model in other communities?
- Are we committed to identifying and empowering high-performing leaders to run local branches of our organization in other communities?
Implications for Nonprofits
In the current economic climate it is tempting for nonprofit leaders to seek money wherever they can find it, causing some nonprofits to veer off course. That would be a mistake. During tough times it is more important than ever for nonprofit leaders to examine their funding strategy closely and to be disciplined about the way that they raise money. We hope that this article provides a framework for nonprofit leaders to do just that.
The funding paths that nonprofits take will vary, and not all will find models that support large-scale programs. The good news is that all nonprofits can benefit from greater clarity about their most effective funding model, and it is possible for some nonprofits to develop models that raise large amounts of money. As mentioned earlier, almost 150 new nonprofits (not counting universities and hospitals), surpassed $50 million in annual revenues between 1970 and 2003.
On the other side of the equation, philanthropists are becoming more disciplined about their nonprofit investing. A growing number of foundations, such as the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation and New Profit Inc., are investing in their grantees to improve both program and funding models. We hope that this article helps philanthropists become clearer about their funding strategy so that they can support their programs more effectively.
As society looks to the nonprofit sector and philanthropy to solve important problems, a realistic understanding of funding models is increasingly important to realizing those aspirations.
Sources Used for This Article
[1] In a November 2008 Bridgespan survey of more than 1001 nonprofits, leaders were asked which of eight different and often conflicting fundraising tactics would play some role or a major role in their approach to addressing the downturn. Nearly half (48 percent) of respondents said that six or more would.
[2] For example, see Thomas Malone, Peter Weill, Richard Lai, et al., "Do Some Business Models Perform Better Than Others?" MIT Sloan Research Paper No. 4615-06, May 2006.
[3] For an early framework looking at "donative" vs. "commercial" nonprofits, see Henry Hansmann, "The Role of Nonprofit Enterprise," Yale Law Journal, 89, 5, April 1980.
[4] William Foster and Gail Fine, "How Nonprofits Get Really Big," Stanford Social Innovation Review.


text:
As the summer season approaches, it brings along side it the scorching heat and humidity, making it difficult to survive without a cooling system. Air coolers have been a well known choice for many households, providing a reasonable and effective option to air conditioning. Among the top air coolers available in the market today could be the Symphony Diet Air Cooler series, known for its powerful cooling capacity, energy efficiency, and sleek design. In this information, we will take a closer go through the Symphony Diet Air Cooler series and explore why it's the greatest solution for beating the summer heat.
Features and Benefits
The symphony diet air cooler series is filled with features which make it stand out of other air coolers in the market. Among its key features is its powerful cooling capacity, which can quickly cool down a space of up to 200 square feet. It runs on the high-efficiency honeycomb pad that ensures maximum cooling while using the minimal energy.
Another advantage of the Symphony Diet Air Cooler series is its energy efficiency. These coolers consume very little energy in comparison to traditional air conditioners, making them a more cost-effective and eco-friendly option. The series also posseses an automatic vertical swing feature that ensures uniform cooling in most directions, providing a cushty and refreshing experience.
The Symphony Diet Air Cooler series is straightforward to work, with a user-friendly digital control panel that allows you to modify the temperature and find the cooling mode. In addition, it comes with a remote control that enables you to control the cooler from the comfort of one's couch.
The series is made with aesthetics in your mind, with a modern and modern design that blends in seamlessly with any home decor. The coolers are available in a variety of colors, including white, black, and silver, giving you the flexibility to find the perfect cooler that matches your style.
Design and Aesthetics
The Symphony Diet Air Cooler series was created to be stylish and practical, with a trim and compact design that allows you to go around. The coolers are built with durable materials that ensure longevity, making them a good investment for your home.
The series also comes with a dust filter that ensures that the air blown out is clean and pure, making it perfect for people with allergies or respiratory issues. The filter is straightforward to eliminate and clean, ensuring that the air cooler operates at maximum efficiency.
Maintenance and Warranty
The Symphony Diet Air Cooler series is straightforward to keep up and requires minimal upkeep. It comes with a removable cooling pad that can be easily cleaned or replaced when required. The series also features a drain plug that allows you to drain the water when not in use.
The Symphony Diet Air Cooler series comes with a one-year warranty that covers any manufacturing defects. The consumer care team is definitely available to assist you in case there is any issues, ensuring that you have a hassle-free experience.
In conclusion, the Symphony Diet Air Cooler series is the greatest solution for beating the summer heat. Having its powerful cooling capacity, energy efficiency, sleek design, and easy maintenance, it's the right choice for anyone looking for a reasonable and effective cooling solution. Whether you're buying a personal cooler or a cooler for a bigger room, the Symphony Diet Air Cooler series has something to offer. So, beat the warmth this summer and purchase the Symphony Diet Air Cooler series, and enjoy a comfortable and refreshing experience.


text:
Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw's Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you're ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Petitioners, peaceful civil rights demonstrators, were arrested and convicted for disorderly conduct when they failed to disperse on orders of the Chicago police, who anticipated civil disorder because of the bystanders' unruly conduct. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed. Held:
Marshall Patner argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs was Paul E. Goldstein.
Raymond F. Simon argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Marvin E. Aspen and Howard C. Goldman.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WARREN delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a simple case. Petitioners, accompanied by Chicago police and an assistant city attorney, marched in a peaceful and orderly procession from city hall to the mayor's residence to press their claims for desegregation of the public schools. Having promised to cease singing at 8:30 p. m., the marchers did so. Although petitioners and the other demonstrators continued to march in a completely lawful fashion, the onlookers became unruly as the number of bystanders increased. [394 U.S. 111, 112] Chicago police, to prevent what they regarded as an impending civil disorder, demanded that the demonstrators, upon pain of arrest, disperse. When this command was not obeyed, petitioners were arrested for disorderly conduct.
Petitioners' march, if peaceful and orderly, falls well within the sphere of conduct protected by the First Amendment. See Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, post, p. 147; Brown v. Louisiana, 383 U.S. 131, 141 -142 (1966) (prevailing opinion of MR. JUSTICE FORTAS); Henry v. City of Rock Hill, 376 U.S. 776 (1964); Fields v. South Carolina, 375 U.S. 44 (1963), reversing 240 S. C. 366, 126 S. E. 2d 6 (1962). There is no evidence in this record that petitioners' conduct was disorderly. Therefore, under the principle first established in Thompson v. City of Louisville, 362 U.S. 199 (1960), convictions so totally devoid of evidentiary support violate due process.
The opinion of the Supreme Court of Illinois suggests that petitioners were convicted not for the manner in which they conducted their march but rather for their refusal to disperse when requested to do so by Chicago police. See 39 Ill. 2d 47, 60, 233 N. E. 2d 422, 429 (1968). However reasonable the police request may have been and however laudable the police motives, petitioners were charged and convicted for holding a demonstration, not for a refusal to obey a police officer. * As we said in Garner v. Louisiana, 368 U.S. 157, 164 (1961): "[I]t is as much a denial of due process to send an accused to prison following conviction for a charge that was never made as it is to convict him upon a charge for which there is no evidence to support that conviction." See also In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257, 273 (1948). [394 U.S. 111, 113]
Finally, since the trial judge's charge permitted the jury to convict for acts clearly entitled to First Amendment protection, Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359 (1931), independently requires reversal of these convictions.
The judgments are
MR. JUSTICE STEWART and MR. JUSTICE WHITE concur in the judgment of the Court and join its opinion insofar as it holds that under the principle established by Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359 , the petitioners' convictions cannot stand.
[ Footnote * ] The trial judge charged solely in terms of the Chicago ordinance. Neither the ordinance nor the charge defined disorderly conduct as the refusal to obey a police order.
MR. JUSTICE BLACK, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS joins, concurring.
This I think is a highly important case which requires more detailed consideration than the Court's opinion gives it. It in a way tests the ability of the United States to keep the promises its Constitution makes to the people of the Nation. Among those promises appearing in the Preamble to the Constitution are the statements that the people of the United States ordained this basic charter "in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity . . . and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity . . . ." Shortly after the original Constitution was adopted, again undoubtedly in an attempt to "secure the Blessings of Liberty," the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution, in which the First Amendment, later made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, provides that: "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people [394 U.S. 111, 114] peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
In 1954 our Court held that laws segregating people on the basis of race or color in the public schools unconstitutionally denied Negroes equal protection of the laws. 1 Negroes, and many others who sympathized with them, cooperatively undertook to speed up desegregation. These groups adopted plans under which they marched on the streets carrying placards, chanting, and singing songs, all designed to publicize their grievances and to petition the various units of government, state and national, for a redress of these grievances. Their activities along these lines quite obviously aroused highly emotional feelings both on their part and on the part of others who opposed the changes in local laws and customs which the "picketers" and "demonstrators" advocated. Agitation between groups brought about sharp conflicts and clashes, threats, fights, riots, and near-riots. This Court, to be sure, has had its difficulties and sharp differences of opinion in deciding the precise boundaries dividing what is constitutionally permissible and impermissible in this field. 2 There have also been sharp disputes over whether the Court can hold laws unconstitutional because the Court deems them to be "unreasonable," "arbitrary," or contrary to fundamental standards of ethics, morals, or conscience. 3 Fortunately, however, these differences need not concern us here. For while we have pointed out in many cases that the States and their subordinate units do have constitutional [394 U.S. 111, 115] power to regulate picketing, demonstrating, and parading by statutes and ordinances narrowly drawn so as not to abridge the rights of speech, press, assembly, or petition, neither Chicago nor Illinois at the time these petitioners were demonstrating had passed any such narrowly drawn laws. 4
The facts upon which these arrests and convictions for disorderly conduct occurred were these.
Petitioner Gregory and his group had become dissatisfied because Benjamin Willis, Superintendent of Chicago's public school system, was not moving speedily enough to desegregate the public schools. While Mayor Daley did not appear to have legal authority to remove Dr. Willis, 5 the group evidently believed the Mayor could cause him to be removed if he wanted to do so, and their prodding was therefore directed at the Mayor as well as against Willis. The group march began near the Chicago Loop District at 4:30 p. m. and ended five miles away in the neighborhood of Daley's home. A lieutenant of police, four police sergeants, and about forty [394 U.S. 111, 116] policemen met Gregory at the gathering place in Grant Park. There Gregory addressed the marchers, saying:
It is because of this truth, and a desire both to promote order and to safeguard First Amendment freedoms, that this Court has repeatedly warned States and governmental units that they cannot regulate conduct connected with these freedoms through use of sweeping, dragnet [394 U.S. 111, 118] statutes that may, because of vagueness, jeopardize these freedoms. In those cases, however, we have been careful to point out that the Constitution does not bar enactment of laws regulating conduct, even though connected with speech, press, assembly, and petition, if such laws specifically bar only the conduct deemed obnoxious and are carefully and narrowly aimed at that forbidden conduct. 6 The dilemma revealed by this record is a crying example of a need for some such narrowly drawn law. It is not our duty and indeed not within our power to set out and define with precision just what statutes can be lawfully enacted to deal with situations like the one confronted here by police and protestors, both of whom appear to us to have been conscientiously trying to do their duties as they understood them. Plainly, however, no mandate in our Constitution leaves States and governmental units powerless to pass laws to protect the public from the kind of boisterous and threatening conduct that disturbs the tranquility of spots selected by the people either for homes, wherein they can escape the hurly-burly of the outside business and political world, or for public and other buildings that require peace and quiet to carry out their functions, such as courts, libraries, schools, and hospitals.
The disorderly conduct ordinance under which these petitioners were charged and convicted is not, however, a narrowly drawn law, particularly designed to regulate certain kinds of conduct such as marching or picketing or demonstrating along the streets or highways. Nor does it regulate the times or places or manner of carrying on such activities. To the contrary, it might better be described as a meat-ax ordinance, gathering in [394 U.S. 111, 119] one comprehensive definition of an offense a number of words which have a multiplicity of meanings, some of which would cover activity specifically protected by the First Amendment. The average person charged with its violation is necessarily left uncertain as to what conduct and attitudes of mind would be enough to convict under it. Who, for example, could possibly foresee what kind of noise or protected speech would be held to be "improper"? That, of course, would depend on sensibilities, nerves, tensions, and on countless other things. As pointed out in Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 308 (1940), common-law breach of peace is at its best a confusing offense that may imperil First Amendment rights. But how infinitely more doubtful and uncertain are the boundaries of an offense including any "diversion tending to a breach of the peace . . ."! Moreover, the ordinance goes on to state that it shall be a crime for persons to "collect in bodies or crowds for unlawful purposes, or for any purpose, to the annoyance or disturbance of other persons . . . ." Such language could authorize conviction simply because the form of the protest displeased some of the onlookers, and of course a conviction on that ground would encroach on First Amendment rights. See Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88 (1940); Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U.S. 229 (1963); Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536 (1965). And it must be remembered that only the tiniest bit of petitioners' conduct could possibly be thought illegal here - that is, what they did after the policeman's order to leave the area. The right "peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" is specifically protected by the First Amendment. For the entire five-mile march, the walking by petitioners in a group, the language, and the chants and songs were all treated by the city's assistant attorney and its specially detailed policemen as lawful, not lawless, conduct. [394 U.S. 111, 120]
The so-called "diversion tending to a breach of the peace" here was limited entirely and exclusively to the fact that when the policeman in charge of the special police detail concluded that the hecklers observing the march were dangerously close to rioting and that the demonstrators and others were likely to be engulfed in that riot, he ordered Gregory and his demonstrators to leave, and Gregory - standing on what he deemed to be his constitutional rights - refused to do so. The "diversion" complained of on the part of Gregory and the other marchers was not any noise they made or annoyance or disturbance of "other persons" they had inflicted. Their guilt of "disorderly conduct" therefore turns out to be their refusal to obey instanter an individual policeman's command to leave the area of the Mayor's home. Since neither the city council nor the state legislature had enacted a narrowly drawn statute forbidding disruptive picketing or demonstrating in a residential neighborhood, the conduct involved here could become "disorderly" only if the policeman's command was a law which the petitioners were bound to obey at their peril. But under our democratic system of government, lawmaking is not entrusted to the moment-to-moment judgment of the policeman on his beat. Laws, that is valid laws, are to be made by representatives chosen to make laws for the future, not by police officers whose duty is to enforce laws already enacted and to make arrests only for conduct already made criminal. One of our proudest boasts is that no man can be convicted of crime for conduct, innocent when engaged in, that is later made criminal. See, e. g., Chambers v. Florida, 309 U.S. 227, 236 (1940). To let a policeman's command become equivalent to a criminal statute comes dangerously near making our government one of men rather than of laws. See Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 559, 579 (1965) [394 U.S. 111, 121] (separate opinion). There are ample ways to protect the domestic tranquility without subjecting First Amendment freedoms to such a clumsy and unwieldy weapon.
The City of Chicago, recognizing the serious First Amendment problems raised by the disorderly conduct ordinance as it is written, argues that these convictions should nevertheless be affirmed in light of the narrowing construction placed on the ordinance by the Illinois Supreme Court in this case. That court held that the ordinance
It is not necessary for the Court to resolve such issues in the present case, however, because the Chicago ordinance, as applied here, infringed on First Amendment rights for an even more fundamental reason. Whatever the validity of the Illinois Supreme Court's construction, this was simply not the theory on which these petitioners were convicted. In explaining the elements of the offense to the jury, the trial judge merely read the language of the ordinance. The jury was not asked to find whether, as the Illinois Supreme Court's construction apparently requires, there was "an imminent threat of violence," or whether the police had "made all reasonable efforts to protect the demonstrators." Rather, it was sufficient for the jury to decide that petitioners had made an "improper noise" or a "diversion tending to a breach of the peace," or had "collect[ed] in bodies or crowds for unlawful purposes, or for any purpose, to the annoyance or disturbance of other persons."
In fact, far from taking account of the limiting factors stressed by the Illinois Supreme Court, the judge's charge was based on precisely the opposite theory. The jury was instructed, over petitioners' objection, that "the fact that persons other than these Defendants may or may not have violated any laws or may or may not have been arrested should not be considered by you in determining the guilt or innocence of these Defendants." The significance of this instruction in the context of the evidence at trial is of course apparent - the jury was simply told to ignore questions concerning the acts of violence committed [394 U.S. 111, 123] by the crowd of onlookers and attempts made by the police to arrest those directly responsible for them. 7 Under these circumstances, the principle established by Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359 (1931), compels us to set aside these convictions. As we explained in Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U.S. 287, 292 (1942):
In agreeing to the reversal of these convictions, however, I wish once more to say that I think our Federal Constitution does not render the States powerless to regulate the conduct of demonstrators and picketers, conduct which is more than "speech," more than "press," more than "assembly," and more than "petition," as those terms are used in the First Amendment. Narrowly drawn statutes regulating the conduct of demonstrators and picketers are not impossible to draft. And narrowly drawn statutes regulating these activities are not impossible to pass if the people who elect their legislators want them passed. Passage of such laws, however, like the passage of all other laws, constitutes in the final analysis a choice of policies by the elected representatives of the people.
I, of course, do not mean to say or even to intimate that freedom of speech, press, assembly, or petition can be abridged so long as the First Amendment remains unchanged in our Constitution. But to say that the First Amendment grants those broad rights free from any exercise of governmental power to regulate conduct, as distinguished from speech, press, assembly, or petition, would subject all the people of the Nation to the uncontrollable whim and arrogance of speakers, and writers, and protesters, and grievance bearers. As Mr. Justice Goldberg wrote for the Court in Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536, 554 (1965):
For these reasons I concur in the reversal.
[ Footnote 2 ] See, e. g., Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536 (1965); Adderley v. Florida, 385 U.S. 39 (1966).
[ Footnote 3 ] See, e. g., Chambers v. Florida, 309 U.S. 227, 235 -236, n. 8 (1940); Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952); id., at 174 (concurring opinion); Ferguson v. Skrupa, 372 U.S. 726 (1963).
[ Footnote 4 ] The nearest thing to such a law in existence at that time was 36-31 of the Municipal Code of Chicago, which required written permits for parades on "any public way" or for "any open air public meeting . . . in or upon any public way." Petitioners were neither charged with nor convicted for the offense of failing to obtain a written permit. Indeed, the city clearly gave its effective permission to the marchers by sending a city attorney and a detail of specially trained officers to protect them along every foot of their march. Since "[d]eeply embedded traditional ways of carrying out state policy . . . are often tougher and truer law than the dead words of the written text," Nashville, C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Browning, 310 U.S. 362, 369 (1940), this march could not be considered illegal in and of itself.
[ Footnote 5 ] Respondent asserts that under Ill. Rev. Stat., c. 122, 34-13 (1967), the Superintendent of Schools is accountable solely to the Board of Education and not to the Mayor.
[ Footnote 6 ] See, e. g., Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88 (1940); Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940); Giboney v. Empire Storage Co., 336 U.S. 490 (1949); Scull v. Virginia, 359 U.S. 344 (1959).
[ Footnote 7 ] The trial judge explained the need for this instruction to counsel, in chambers, as follows:
[ Footnote 8 ] See Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88 (1940); Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U.S. 229 (1963); Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536 (1965).
[ Footnote 9 ] See also Cole v. Arkansas, 333 U.S. 196 (1948); Cole v. Arkansas, 338 U.S. 345 (1949).
MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, concurring in the result.
Two factors in this case run afoul of well-established constitutional principles, and clearly call for reversal. These are the ambulatory sweep of the Chicago disorderly conduct ordinance, see, e. g., Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940), and Garner v. Louisiana, 368 U.S. 157, 186 (1961) (HARLAN, J., concurring in judgment), and the possibility that as the case went to the jury the convictions may have rested on a constitutionally impermissible ground. See Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359 (1931).
I agree with the concurring opinion of my Brother BLACK on both of these scores, and to that extent join in it. [394 U.S. 111, 131]
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Citation: 394 U.S. 111
Docket No: No. 60
Argued: December 10, 1968
Decided: March 10, 1969
Court: United States Supreme Court
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
FindLaw for Legal Professionals
Learn more about FindLaw's newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw's Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you're ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)


text:
Who owns the Subway franchise?
One of the fastest growing franchises in the world is the Subway sandwich franchise, Subway has gone from being a local neighbourhood sandwich shop to a global food giant in just 50 years. Today, the franchise has a staggering 44,000 branches around the world, significantly more than Burger King (13,000), Pizza Hut (11,000), KFC (20,500) and even McDonalds (36,000). These impressive figures show just how meteoric and unstoppable Subway's rise has been and also demonstrates just how much the general public enjoy a great-tasting sandwich.
Although Subway's expansion has been rapid, it's also been relatively low key and many people are surprised to learn the true extent of the company's global reach and market dominance. Its story is far less well known than those of other franchises, with few people able to name its founders or even the location of its birth. To help put that right, we decided to take a closer look at Subway, the sandwich franchise and its founders and how it's used franchising to transform into the global food phenomenon it is today.
What is the history of the Subway sandwich franchise?
Fred DeLuca, founder of Subway, has to be one of the youngest people ever to launch an international food empire. Aged just 17 when he opened his first sandwich shop, DeLuca used a $1,000 loan from close family friend Peter Buck to open his first branch of Pete's Super Submarines in Bridgeport, Connecticut in 1965. The young DeLuca hoped that the venture would earn him enough to pay for his college tuition. Instead of selling standard sandwiches, the entrepreneurs decided to use new 'submarine'-shaped loaves to increase the novelty and appeal of their eatery.
In the first few months after opening sales were less than impressive, and by the end of the summer DeLuca has just $6 dollars left. Despite this minimal capital, Buck decided to press ahead with the opening of a second restaurant in order to create the image of success. This bold approach led the company to become slightly more successful; however, it wasn't until the third branch opened, and the name of the eatery was changed to Subway, that the brand really started to thrive. By the end of their first full year of trading, Peter Buck and Fred DeLuca had managed to make a respectable profit of $7,000.
Franchising growth
Buoyed by their success, DeLuca and Buck planned to open a further 30 eateries within ten years. Although they didn't quite achieve their lofty goal, by 1974 the pair did have 16 restaurants across the state. Running the business originally as a more traditional company, DeLuca and Buck struggled to ensure the same standards and values were met across all of their branches. The duo decided that the best way to expand and to maintain a high level of quality was to franchise. Like many entrepreneurs before them, they realised that franchising offered the perfect way to grow a business rapidly without having to compromise on standards.
The first Subway franchise was opened by Brian Dixon, a friend of DeLuca's, in Wallingford, New Haven. The same year that the New Haven branch opened, DeLuca and Buck were able to launch a further 14 branches using the franchise model. All of these eateries had to follow the core Subway principles of quality, freshness and customer satisfaction. These values helped Subway to attract increasing numbers of customers and up its turnover considerably in the process.
Subway global expansion
In 1978, Subway was able to open its 100th sandwich shop. By this point the founders had insisted that all of the bread used to make Subway sandwiches had to be baked in the restaurant itself, a move that not only helped to cement the business' reputation for freshness, but also led to irresistible baking smells wafting out into towns and cities around the world.
In the 1980s Subway went global, opening an eatery in the small Middle Eastern nation of Bahrain in 1984. Just three years later, in 1987, Subway opened its 1000th branch, and in 1998 the 10,000th Subway was launched. By 2013, Subways were opening at a staggering rate of 50 per week, leaving virtually no major town or city in the western world without its own sandwich eatery.
By 2020, Subway hopes to open a further 500 branches across the UK. While in America the brand has even more ambitious plans to up its current tally of 27,000 branches by a further 8,000. This would make it one of the most prolific franchises in the world and earn it a seemingly insurmountable position at the top of the sandwich pile.
This meteoric growth over the past half century has helped Subway to become a household name in countries around the world. Seen to be a healthier alternative to other well-known fast food brands, it attracts customers looking for fresh, tasty food on the go. The main reason behind this healthy image was a 2000 advertising campaign led by Jared Fogle.
In the campaign, Jared claimed he'd lost 111kg by only eating Subway sandwiches. Originally weighing in at a hefty 193kg Jared said he lost more than half his body weight in just eleven months by eating two subs per day. The campaign was incredibly successful and before long dieters around the world were turning to Subway for their daily sustenance. Even though some of the company's health claims have since been disproven or disputed, Subway still markets its food as fresh and healthy and continues to clearly label the number of calories and fat in all of its sandwiches to this day.
Why are Subway franchises so successful?
There are a number of factors that have contributed to Subway sandwich franchise incredible success and its rise to becoming one of the world's top franchises. For a start, their branches are often found in train stations, shopping centres and other areas where fast, tasty and healthy food is hard to find. Secondly, customers are able to customise the sandwiches they order. Unlike other fast food restaurants, Subway lets hungry consumers choose the items they like and the ones they don't, adding a certain element of personalisation to the Subway experience. Customers appreciate this extra touch and it's something that has helped to boost customer loyalty and product development over the years.
For franchisees, probably the most important factor in the brand's recipe for success is its affordability. Its simple franchise model has helped Subway to become one of the most affordable franchises around, making it easy for entrepreneurs to invest in a business of their own.
Those wanting to open a Subway sandwich franchise will need to have liquid assets of around $30,000 and a net worth of around $80,000– $310,000. This compares very favourably when you look at the start-up costs for a McDonalds franchise, which can be anywhere up to $2.5 million. This affordability has tempted thousands of entrepreneurs to open Subways of their own and helped the brand to expand rapidly in the process.
Enabling success and making it easier for entrepreneurs to achieve their business goals, the franchise model has helped to turn countless start-ups into success stories. If you're interested in investing in a franchise of your own, you'll find lots of information and advice on our site, so take a look around today to find out more.


text:
Hi Labs blog readers! My name is Belle and I'm this summer's Peter A. Krueger intern in the Digital and Emerging Media Department. At the end of my time here I'll be starting my senior year at Wellesley College, where I'm majoring in Media Arts and Sciences, focusing on Human-Computer Interaction and Printmaking. My project for this summer, the "visit statistics page" augments Cooper Hewitt's distinctive post-visit experience.
On my first day at Cooper Hewitt I learned that I had the freedom to determine my own internship-long project. This kind of freedom was daunting. Where should I even start? I scoured Cooper Hewitt's website, GitHub issue logs, Labs blog posts, and talked to friends and museum staff. I determined that my project should focus on experience and data relating to the Pen, specifically the "post-visit experience", since it's so unique to Cooper Hewitt. After visiting the physical museum, a user can go to the website and find everything they collected with their Pen during their visit. Viewing their collected objects is often the first time a user is accessing the website after their visit, so a good user experience is essential to keep the user interested in what else the collections website has to offer.
I looked for areas of expansion within the post-visit experience and zeroed in on the way collected objects are shown to a user when they view their visit—a grid layout with object thumbnails, titles, and the time collected with the Pen. The interconnection of object data throughout the collections site makes it effortless and enjoyable to sort through object fields and click links to explore deep into the collection. The UI for objects and data on the post-visit pages, however, did not yet capitalize upon the opportunity to cross-link visit data and collections data. This is what the post-visit experience was lacking. I wanted to add a dimension of exploration to a user's visit and gently launch them into the depths of the collections website. A key goal for my project was for it to be visually based but still accessible to the blind. A completely graphics-based page would be inaccessible to those using screen readers to browse their collection. At the end of all of my brainstorming, I developed the solution to accomplish my goal of accessibility: a primarily text based statistics page, which had the potential to add non-essential visualizations.
As I developed a design strategy, I browsed through Cooper Hewitt's GitHub and tried to familiarize myself with the codebase. To build the visit stats page I learned PHP and Emacs, Labs' text editor of choice. I slowly navigated foreign PHP files and, bit by bit, built up my page with PHP and Smarty, a PHP templating engine.
The first iteration of my page took about three days to complete and was not interactive. I focused on calculating specific values from PHP and sending them to the template. And while I was very proud of myself for finally figuring out how for loops work in PHP, I knew that the main goal for my page was to encourage exploration of Cooper Hewitt's vast collection, with a user's visit only acting as a starting point. So next I added links to everything that already had a linkable page: countries, people, colors, and tags. While searching the existing Cooper Hewitt codebase, I serendipitously found a PHP file that collected all colors in all of a user's visits, along with the objects associated with each color. With a little massaging, I was able to use that code to make a page that only shows the colors associated with a specific visit. I linked this to the visit statistics page so then the user could see a nice tag-cloud-like page of colors and the number of objects associated with each color.
Next, I deployed the second iteration of the visit stats page—text-based presentation of visit data and links to the collection—to the production website and shared it with my friends and family. And to my surprise, it actually worked! Or so I thought, but I'll explain that later.
My next step was to add some visualization. Chart.js makes it easy to create beautiful interactive graphs that are perfect for the data I wanted to display. Building on the implementation of Chart.js on some internal administrative pages on the collections website, I created a graph that shows how a user interacted with objects in the gallery.
Memory Issues
To test this iteration of the statistics page, which included links and a Chart.js graph, I used a larger visit with almost 200 objects. I clicked the link to the statistics page and… it didn't load. I quickly realized that I naively only tested the statistics page on smaller visits (fewer than 60 objects) and the stats page had too much data crunching for visits over 150 objects. After some digging in the logs, Micah and I discovered there was an issue with the amount of memory the page was using. We discovered a useful built-in PHP function called memory_get_usage(), which tells you the number of bytes used in a file. With this, we discovered that for a visit of over 160 objects, the stats page totaled almost 60 MB of memory usage. A typical page (for example, the visit page for a single visit) is around 1-2 MB of memory.
I first thought that the many for loops and multi-dimensional arrays utilized in my code for gathering data were the culprit of this memory issue. After some debugging, I discovered the function which inflates each object in a user's visit (a.k.a. gathers every single bit of metadata available about that object from MySQL) was taking up close to 95% of the page's total memory. This function returns a giant multi-dimensional array, which the page iterates over many many times to pick out the necessary data. This gathering of information from MySQL, along with the many for loops going through it, caused my page to be slowed down by getting and storing a ton of information that it didn't even need.
So, I tried cutting down that array by adding conditionals to the function that inflates each object. I pared down each object's entry in the array to get the minimum amount of information from MySQL. This way, I was able to decrease the amount of memory used by the page by a few MB. But this still didn't resolve the memory issue. While the page itself wasn't using as much memory, the memory used up by helper functions and other functions within functions called on my page were still contributing to the memory used. So Micah and I brainstormed and brainstormed until we thought of two possible options: 1. Create a task for the offline server, which would require a lot of difficult coding and setting up which we both didn't quite know how to do or 2. Use Elasticsearch to get exactly the data needed for the stats page—which I kind of knew how to do after minor exposure to Elasticsearch—but I would need to go through trial and error to fully figure out. I would also need to edit all of the existing code for the stats page to work with the results from Elasticsearch. I chose option two, because from a user experience standpoint it would be disappointing to go to the stats page and just see a message saying "Oops, give us a minute, we are working on getting the information for you".
To work with Elasticsearch I had to figure out how it builds queries and aggregates responses. After a lot of trial and error, I figured out what terms Elasticsearch accepts and what it doesn't. This newly built query returned the minimum amount of information I needed for the statistics page and was way faster than getting a huge multi-dimensional array from MySQL. Then, all I had to do was alter a few lines in my existing code to navigate through the new Elasticsearch response. A few bug fixes later and the statistics page was working better than it was pre-Elasticsearch. After this implementation of Elasticsearch the total memory used (as found by memory_get_usage()) was down to 4 MB! Roughly a 90% decrease in memory usage simply by changing the way I got the necessary data. And, for the moment of truth, when I tested the stats page on the visit that consists of almost 200 objects—it loaded! And it loaded quickly! Now for comparison, before Elasticsearch, a short visit would take 2-3 seconds to load, which isn't terrible but definitely not ideal. A larger visit could take upward of 10 seconds, which is absolutely too slow. At that point, the server timed out and the page would not load at all. Now, on first load, the stats page for a 200 object visit is just over a second, and is under a second when accessed again with a cache.
What's Next?
Although the page is at a good resting point currently, I could see some improvements being made in the future, such as the addition of more links, graphs, data, and fine tuning my code.
One of the biggest things relating to this project that I could see in the future is another page to view the statistics of a user's shoebox, that is, the combination of all of a user's visits. A statistics page that spans all visits would be more powerful for someone who wants to see overall trends in their collections.
A simpler addition would be to make more pages, similar to the separate "Colors Of Your Visit" page, that show a complete list of the countries, people, and tags a user collected.
Another potential feature would be a world map showing one's collected objects. It would be a great visual addition to a text-based page showing all of the countries from which a user collected objects. Something like this could be added to the separate page reserved for listing all of the countries in a visit.
It could be a cool experiment to give a little feedback to a user about their collecting habits, to make museum go-ers more aware of how they interacted with the pen and the items in the galleries. Perhaps a user who collected a lot of stuff at the beginning and then tapered off would get a short message below their graph: "It looks like you stopped collecting items toward the end of your visit!" Maybe someone who collected only five objects in a two hour period would get "You didn't use your pen much during your visit," or someone who collected 300 objects in one hour would see "Wow! You're quite the treasure hunter!" This idea also demonstrates the fine line between responsive and creepy, which I struggled with while deciding on phrasing throughout my page.
Cooper Hewitt's Pen gives us so much information about a user's visit and their journey through the galleries. Combined with the collection's breadth and depth of metadata, it's astounding how much information a user can receive about their visit and their viewing habits. My statistics page is a move toward condensing the vast amount of information available about a visit and makes it more accessible for anyone interested in learning about their interests, taste in design, or museum-going habits.
The visit statistics page is currently on the website and I encourage you to check it out for yourself by going to one of your visits and clicking the link on the right that says "View your visit stats". Here is a link to some of my visits and here are some cool examples using visits from people at Cooper Hewitt Labs:
Also published on Medium.


text:
180 degrees view of the fire
This cool free-standing gas fire catches the eye thanks to its large round glass window. The flame patterns can be regulated by means of the integrated Eco Wave technology. The glowing effect at the bottom of the gas fire and high-stacked logs create a beautiful fire. The gas fire can be operated with a remote control or through your smartphone or tablet.
Our dealers are ready for you with extensive knowledge about the DRU - Passo Light grey Eco Wave


text:
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama promised Thursday to send more military aid to Iraq to help beat back a fast-moving insurgency as the U.S. evacuated a major air base in the nation's north where it had been training Iraqi security forces.Obama did not say what kind of new assistance would be given to Baghdad. But two U.S. officials who are familiar with ongoing negotiations said the White House is considering air strikes and increased surveillance, requested this week by the Iraqi defense minister, as the insurgency nears Baghdad.
The officials were not authorized to discuss the matter by name and spoke only on condition of anonymity.
The Iraqi government has been asking for more than a year for surveillance and armed drones to combat a Sunni insurgency that has gained strength from battlefield successes in neighboring Syria.
"What we've seen over the last couple of days indicates the degree to which Iraq is going to need more help," Obama said. "It's going to need more help from us, and it's going to need more help from the international community."
He added: "We do have a stake in making sure that these jihadists are not getting a permanent foothold in either Iraq, or Syria for that matter."
RELATED: Boehner blasts Obama, says he is 'taking a nap' on Iraq
The president commented to reporters during an Oval Office meeting with Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott.
Obama said he had not ruled out any options. But press secretary Jay Carney said the U.S. was not considering military "boots on the ground," and State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said the administration was not contemplating sending troops back to Iraq after leaving in 2011 at the end of an eight-year war.
Several thousand Americans remain in Iraq, mostly contractors who work at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad on programs to train Iraqi forces on American military equipment like fighter jets and tanks. One of the largest training missions was based at an air base in the city of Balad, about an hour northwest of Baghdad, where three planeloads of Americans were being evacuated on Thursday. They included 12 U.S. government officials and military personnel who have been training Iraqi forces to use fighter jets and surveillance drones.
The evacuation means that the program at Balad has been suspended indefinitely. Other U.S. contractors are at a tank training ground in the city of Taji, just north of the capital, that is still in operation for now.
In addition to the possible military assistance, Psaki said the U.S. is sending about $12 million in humanitarian aid to help nearly a million Iraqis who have been forced from their homes by recent fighting in the nation's north and west.
Iraq has been beset by resurgent violence since the last American troops withdrew after more than eight years of war. The violence escalated this week with an al-Qaida-inspired group capturing two key Sunni-dominated cities and talking of a march on Baghdad.
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and other Iraqi leaders have pleaded with the Obama administration for more than a year for additional help to combat the insurgency, which has been fueled by the unrelenting civil war in neighboring Syria. Northern Iraq has become a way station for insurgents who routinely travel between the two countries and are seeding the Syrian war's violence in Iraq and beyond.
At the Capitol on Thursday, House Speaker John Boehner said Obama's policies in Iraq were jeopardizing the progress the United States made in years of fighting. He noted that terrorists have been capturing territory, including the cities of Mosul and Tikrit, the home of the late dictator Saddam Hussein.
"They're 100 miles from Baghdad," Boehner said. "And what's the president doing? Taking a nap."
The president said he was watching the situation in with concern and his team was working around the clock to identify the most effective assistance. He said that while short-term military solutions were required to tamp down the growing insurgency, Iraq also needed to make longer-term political changes.
If Obama orders US military strikes or involves American forces, he would face opposition in the House. Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon, R-Calif., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, asked, "Where are they going to get the funds?"
"To just go in and burn up more resources on a place that seems bent on destruction," McKeon told reporters. "We had an opportunity there. They had an opportunity there. We blew it. They blew it. I don't think we're ready to go in another one."
JULIE PACE, AP White House Correspondent


text:
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
How come Sony can't sell a bundle without M rated games? My kids arn't allowed to play M rated or even T rated games. That bundle makes the PS3 less tempting to me. How about just $90 off?