text:
Harmonious Married Life
Satguru Bodhinatha Veylanswami , 2009-05-03
Positive discipline principles apply between adults as well as between parents and children. Healing differences between adults and in marriage. Adjust where awareness is flowing into actinic energy and have peace and harmony. Harmony an absolute must in spiritual work.
Unedited Transcript:
Good morning everyone.
Today is the Ganesha homa in Mauritius, first Sunday of the month. We got in a report already because the time difference.
"Ganesha Homa started at 9:30. Final Arati was at 11:00. Clear blue sky. Some four thousand devotees of Lord Ganesha attended the Ganesha Homa today. (Not bad. Imagine hosting four thousand people. Oh! How do they do it?). Thousands of the nicest roses and other flowers, garlands, considerable sweets and fruits were offered to Lord Panchamuka Ganapathi by the public. Talk was from Chapter 27 of Living With Siva on "Positive Discipline." The public was invited to get a copy of the booklet on Positive Discipline. The merits and excellence of Hinduism Today were explained. The Mini Mela sold more than 600 booklets of the French version of Parenting with Love. (Six hundred copies in one morning, that's pretty good.) All of the last issues of Hinduism Today were sold out. Mini Mela has an urgent need for more Hinduism Today. plenty of traffic policemen were present which allowed a smooth flow of vehicles."
So that's a nice aspect of Mauritius is the police will come for the Hindu event and control traffic. They won't do that here. We have to hire a security person. Anyway that sounded very positive. When the weather isn't rainy it helps get more people. Because there's not a covered space for everybody.
So, as I mentioned last phase, in Mauritius the message I was stressing was the use of calm, intelligent communication as the essence of positive discipline approach for raising children and that this also applies to parents handling their disagreements as well. Manon who gives the talk asked for some material on adults. Because we have the children is all in the, what we reprinted, but what do we have regarding adults. So I was looking on the, searching on the web and found a 1991 Publisher's Desk from Gurudeva which relates to parents handling disagreements. So, I thought I'd read that.
"Abuse in the home is a difficult issue, but one we must confront openly. Our page one article and other features begin to define the problem. I urge you all to stand up and say it is no longer acceptable for a man to abuse his wife or children. It must stop.
"In order to heal the differences that arise within a marriage from time to time, both partners have to give in. The best place to do this is at the feet of the Gods in their shrine room. There is often no other solution. This is the only way. The method of 'giving in' is to talk it over. A major emphasis is to see the other's point of view - finding points in the disturbance they can agree with. Agreement is the key word. The relationship between the husband and wife who are also a mother and a father, or potential mother and father, has lasting influence beyond their opposing. Some relationships are easy and some are hard. But here is a good practice for resolving disagreements. (All know what it is.)
"Heal your differences before sleep, even if it takes all night. Don't go to sleep holding on to anger, fear, confusion or ill feelings. By doing this repeatedly, a new habit will be created. The inconvenience of this wisdom (Isn't that a beautiful phrase? The inconvenience, meaning you have to stay up all night. ) The inconvenience of this wisdom will cause each one to be careful of his or her words, thoughts and actions. (Cause the instinctive mind likes to sleep, so, it works.)
"Professional people do not argue long before reconciliation in large corporations, nor do they undermine each other, lest they be looking for another place of employment. Divorce in this modern time is like being dismissed, fired, and then the search is on for another partner with whom the same unresolved karmas will finally mature.
"To build solid marriages, some Hindu institutions provide a weekly family home evening for fellowship and discussion. For young couples just starting a marriage, it can be helpful to write down mutual ideals and expectations in a three-part marriage contract written by the couple themselves before the wedding. Part one defines the overall purpose of the marriage and the aspirations and goals that the union intends to fulfill. Parts two and three are a statement of duties and responsibilities by each of the partners. This semi-corporate approach has proven successful in stabilizing many marriages, as each one clearly understands his or her role. Like a ship's chart, this more detailed vow can be referred to if the relationship gets off course.
"Marriage reconciliation occurs annually in December, during the holy time of Pancha Ganapati. The couple takes out their marriage agreement and together they study where they have been lax or derelict. They trace back in their minds to incidents that are still vibrating as negative samskaras, and apologize humbly and seek forgiveness and resolution. They renew their commitment to each other.
"This is a wonderful key for setting the tone for the coming year - of harmony and peace, which leads to abundance and happiness. We call this anahatha yoga, cleansing the heart chakra, bringing up that true love for one another. It is the process of bringing up all those things that were not settled before going to sleep, to retrieve those seeds before they get plowed under again and produce another crop of sorrow in the coming years. (In other words we only remember something for so long and then we forget it. So if we clear everything up every year we haven't forgotten something before we cleared it up. But, if we wait two, three, four years we may have forgotten it. Well, we're putting something in the subconscious without realizing it.) Bring up little things that each one said or did that hurt the other and were not resolved. Bring up anger that occurred, any physical violence, which should never be, but may have been. Make promises and new-year resolutions to set the course of the future on the path of dharma, which is based on ahimsa."
Nothing out of date in that is there? Fifteen years old but still applies.
Gurudeva, on many occasions gave this advice to newly married couples. They would come and ask, you know: "What Gurudeva, would you suggest?" And he'd always go through this point and I do the same thing; and it works out something like this. You have a young couple there, big eyed, recently married, full of hope and expectation and naive as to, you know, what the reality is, what marriage is. And they ask this: "Swami, do you have any advice for us?" There it is, that's the question. And it happens regularly, same words. And so, I always give Gurudeva's response and goes something like this.
It is natural for husband and wife to disagree --it's not realistic to say we should never disagree. You know, just being a man and being a woman we have two different ways of looking at things and there's bound to be disagreement but what we can do is resolve the disagreement. That's where we have choice. And Gurudeva's wisdom is to always resolve disagreements before going to sleep. After I say that we give them the shawl, take the photo. Dozens of TAKA photos with that scenario.
So I was mentioning that in Mauritius at one of the satsangs and it was at Sivakumar and Kavita's house so they started smiling when I said that and chatting back and forth a little bit because they were in the back of the room. And afterwards they explained to me was that the shawl I was sitting on at the moment was the one Gurudeva had given them eighteen years ago and said those very words. So it was really sweet and so was the continuity here.
So, we have another suggestion as to handling disagreements that I found in the Master Course, has to do with actinic and odic force.
"When we are in actinic force and we are aware of it, we have harmony, we have peace in all of our external life. Everything goes right and everyone sees eye to eye and finds points of agreement, one with another. There's no argument, and there's no confusion. However, when we become conscious in and awareness is flowing through the odic force realms, awareness actually thinks it is odic force. Then we have inharmonious conditions to live in. No one sees eye to eye, one with another. There's argument, and there is contention.
Actinic, for anyone who doesn't recall, means the pure spiritual energies or superconscious energies. Odic is the conscious and subconscious energies. So, we can get into actinic energy through religious practice such as attending or performing puja or performing meditation and put us into actinic energy. So likewise, if there is, if we are sensing we're out of harmony with someone and there's a problem, one way to adjust is to simply adjust where our awareness is flowing. Another way of doing it. We just get our awareness out of being externalized, get it internalized through religious practice and then we can find a point of agreement.
So the Publisher's Desk was on advice for married couples. Gurudeva also gives advice for monastics. There's a short statement in the vows, in the vow of obedience. It says: "The monastic must always seek agreement and a merging of minds with his fellow monastics, never supporting or sustaining contention or disagreement, or stubbornly clinging to an opposite point of view."
And there's a longer version for monks in Merging with Siva, it says: "Having stepped out of his ego shell, the sannyasin is a free soul. Nothing binds him. Nothing claims him. Nothing involves him. Without exclusive territory, without limiting relationships, he is free to be himself totally. If he has problems within himself, he keeps them silently within and works them out there. If he speaks, it is only to say what is true, kind, helpful or necessary. He never argues, debates, complains. His words and his life always affirm, never negate. (That's leading up to the next point here.) He finds points of agreement, forsaking contention and difference. No man is his enemy. No man is his friend. All men are his teachers. Some teach him what to do; others teach him what not to do. He has no one to rely upon except God, Gods, guru and the power within his own spine. He is strong, yet gentle. He is aloof, yet present. He is enlightened, yet ordinary. He teaches the basic philosophy of monistic theism, or non dual Reality. He speaks wisely of the Vedic scriptures and ancient shastras and lives them in his own example. Yet, he consciously remains inconspicuous, transparent."
That's a good one.
One last thought. Have you noticed on TAKA the quote changes every time you access it. So you can access it now and come back in two minutes and there's a different quote? Have you ever wondered: Is that quote just for me? Am I the only one who got that quote? But it's random where it goes and gets it. So this is the one I ran into yesterday. It relates to everything we're talking about.
"Harmony is the first and foremost rule of all living in all spheres, but particularly in spiritual work, where it is an absolute must."
Thank you very much.
[End of transcript.]


text:
Subscribe to Cases that cite 384 U. S. 373U.S. Supreme Court
Cheff v. Schnackenberg, 384 U.S. 373 (1966)
Cheff v. Schnackenberg
No. 67
Argued March 3, 1966
Decided June 6, 1966
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) following hearings issued a cease-and-desist order against a company "and its officers, agents, representatives and employees" prohibiting the continuance of practices it found illegal. The company petitioned the Court of Appeals to review and set aside the order. Claiming that the company continued to violate the order, the FTC moved for a pendente lite compliance order, which the court issued. Following opinions by the Court of Appeals upholding the FTC's jurisdiction to enter the order and affirming on the merits, the FTC petitioned that court to enter a show cause order against the company for contempt of the pendente lite order and, later, rules were issued against petitioner, who had long since severed his connections as a company official, and others to show cause why they should not be held in criminal contempt for having aided and abetted the company to violate the pendente lite order. Petitioner's demand for a jury trial was denied. Following a hearing, he was found guilty of committing acts of contempt violating the pendente lite order during the period from its entry to the entry of final judgment, and was given a six months' sentence. This Court granted the petition for certiorari limited to review of the question whether, after denial of a demand for a jury, a six months' imprisonment sentence is permissible under Article III and the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution.
Held: The judgment is affirmed. Pp. 384 U. S. 375-384.
341 F.2d 548, affirmed.
MR. JUSTICE CLARK, joined by THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, and MR. JUSTICE FORTAS, concluded that:
1. The Court of Appeals had the power to punish for criminal contempt the disobedience of its interlocutory order. Pp. 384 U. S. 377-378.
(a) Petitioner's contention that contempt proceedings stemming from administrative law enforcement proceedings are civil, rather than criminal, is irrelevant, since a jury trial is not required in civil contempt proceedings. Shillitani v. United States, ante, p. 384 U. S. 364. P. 384 U. S. 377. chanrobles.com-red
(b) The purpose of the proceedings against petitioner could in no event have been remedial, i.e., civil in nature, in view of his severance long before the contempt proceedings of all connections with the company, which, moreover, no longer engaged in the business functions which the alleged contempt violations involved. P. 384 U. S. 377.
(c) The basis of the contempt charged against petitioner was disobedience of the order of the court, not that of the FTC. P. 384 U. S. 378.
2. Even assuming, contrary to United States v. Barnett, 376 U. S. 681, that criminal contempt proceedings are criminal actions falling within the requirements of Article III and the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution, the right to a jury trial does not extend to petty offenses, such as the offense involved here. Pp. 384 U. S. 378-380.
(a) According to 18 U.S.C. § 1 (1964 ed.), any misdemeanor the penalty for which does not exceed six months' imprisonment is a "petty offense." P. 384 U. S. 379.
(b) Since petitioner received a six months' sentence and the nature of criminal contempt does not necessarily require its being excluded from the category of petty offenses, petitioner's offense can be treated as "petty." P. 384 U. S. 380.
(c) In the exercise of the Court's supervisory power and under the peculiar power of federal courts to revise sentences in contempt cases, it is ruled that criminal contempt sentences exceeding six months may not be imposed absent a jury trial or waiver thereof, though a reviewing court may revise sentences in contempt cases tried with or without juries. P. 384 U. S. 380.
MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, joined by MR. JUSTICE STEWART, concluded that:
1. The prosecution of criminal contempts is not subject to the grand and petit jury requirements of Article III, § 2, of the Constitution and the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. Green v. United States, 356 U. S. 165. Pp. 384 U. S. 381-382.
2. The prevailing opinion's new supervisory power rule may generate difficulty for federal courts seeking to implement locally unpopular decrees and create an administrative problem for the trial judge, who in deciding whether to proffer a jury trial must anticipate the sentence, which in turn depends on the evidence revealed in the trial. P. 384 U. S. 382. chanrobles.com-red
MR. JUSTICE CLARK announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion in which THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN and MR. JUSTICE FORTAS join.
This is a companion case to No. 412, Shillitani v. United States, and No. 442, Pappadio v. United States, 384 U. S. 364. Unlike those cases, this is a criminal contempt proceeding.
Upon petition of the Federal Trade Commission, Cheff was charged, along with Holland Furnace Company and 10 other of its officers, with criminal contempt of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The alleged contemnors were tried before a panel of three judges of the Court of Appeals without a jury. The corporation and three of its officers, including Cheff, were found guilty of violating a previous order of that court. Cheff, a former president and chairman of the board of Holland, was sentenced to six months' imprisonment; the other two officers were fined $500 each; and the corporation was fined $100,000. The remaining eight individuals were acquitted. 341 F.2d 548. Cheff and Holland petitioned for certiorari. We denied Holland's petition, Holland Furnace Co. v. Schnackenberg, 381 U.S. 924, and granted Cheff's, limited to a review of the question whether, after a denial of a demand for a jury, a sentence of imprisonment of six months is constitutionally permissible under Article III and the Sixth Amendment. Cheff v. Schnackenberg, 382 U.S. 917. We hold that Cheff was not entitled to a jury trial, and affirm the judgment. chanrobles.com-red
The case had its inception in proceedings before the Federal Trade Commission where, in 1954, complaints were issued against Holland charging it with unfair methods of competition and deceptive trade practices in connection with the sale of its products. After extensive hearings, the Commission issued a "cease and desist" order against Holland "and its officers, agents, representatives and employees" prohibiting the continuance of practices the Commission found illegal. In the Matter of Holland Furnace Co., 55 FTC 55 (1958).
Holland petitioned the Court of Appeals to review and set aside the order of the Commission. Soon thereafter, the Commission, claiming that Holland was continuing to violate its order, moved the Court of Appeals for a pendente lite order requiring compliance. On August 5, 1959, the court issued an order commanding Holland to
"obey and comply with the order to cease and desist . . . unless and until said order shall be set aside upon review by this Court or by the Supreme Court of the United States. . . ."
This order forms the basis of this criminal contempt proceeding. Meanwhile, Holland's petition for review was decided adversely to the corporation. In separate opinions, the Court of Appeals upheld the jurisdiction of the Commission to enter its "cease and desist" order, Holland Furnace Co. v. FTC, 269 F.2d 203 (1959), and affirmed on the merits, 295 F.2d 302 (1961).
In March, 1962, the Commission petitioned the Court of Appeals to enter a show cause order against Holland for contempt of its pendente lite order. A rule was issued, and attorneys appointed to prosecute on behalf of the court. Thereafter, in April 1963, rules were issued against Cheff and the other officers, as individuals, to show cause why they should not be held in criminal contempt
"by reason of having knowingly, wilfully and
intentionally caused, and aided and abetted in causing, respondent Holland Furnace Company to violate and disobey, and fail and refuse to comply with"
the order of August 5, 1959. Cheff demanded a jury trial, which was denied, and following a full hearing extending over a 10-day period the court found him guilty. As we have stated, a sentence of six months was imposed. In accordance with the limited grant of certiorari, there is no issue here as to the sufficiency of the hearing, excepting the absence of a jury.
Cheff first contends that contempt proceedings in the Court of Appeals which stem from administrative law enforcement proceedings are civil, rather than criminal, in nature. This may be true where the purpose of the proceeding is remedial. Cf. Shillitani v. United States, ante, p. 384 U. S. 364. Within the context of the question before us, however, the contention is irrelevant, for a jury trial is not required in civil contempt proceedings, as we specifically reaffirm in Shillitani, supra. In any event, the contention is without merit. The purpose of the proceedings against Cheff could not have been remedial for he had severed all connections with Holland in 1962, long before the contempt proceedings were instituted against him. He had no control whatever over the corporation, and could no longer require any compliance with the order of the Commission. Moreover, as Cheff himself points out, the corporation "had completely withdrawn from the business of replacement of furnaces, which is the area in which the violation is alleged." There was, therefore, an "absence of any necessity of assuring future compliance" which made the six-month sentence "entirely punitive." Brief for Petitioner, p. 16.
There can be no doubt that the courts of appeals have the power to punish for contempt. 18 U.S.C. § 401 chanrobles.com-red
(1964 ed.). See e.g., cases cited in United States v. Barnett, 376 U. S. 681, 376 U. S. 694, n. 12 (1964). And it matters not that the contempt arises indirectly from proceedings of an administrative agency. Cheff was found in contempt of the Court of Appeals, not of the Commission. The sole ground for the contempt proceedings is stated in the initial order served on Cheff and the other parties to show cause why they should not be adjudged in criminal contempt of that court, for violations of that court's pendente lite order. Indeed, Cheff's answer itself verified that he had not violated, disobeyed, and failed and refused to comply with "an order of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit entered on August 5, 1959. . . ." (Italics added.) In addition, the Court of Appeals itself was quite specific in limiting the contempt charges to "cover the period from August 5, 1959, to the entry of the final judgment [in October, 1961] by this court." 341 F.2d 550. As the court clearly had the authority to enter its interlocutory order, Federal Trade Commission Act, § 5, 38 Stat. 719, as amended, 15 U.S.C. § 45(c) (1964 ed.), it follows that the court has the power to punish for contempt any disobedience of that order.
Cheff's next and chief contention is that criminal contempt proceedings are criminal actions falling within the requirements of Article III and the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution. 384 U. S. 694, n. 12. Cheff, however, would have us hold that the right to jury trial attaches in all criminal contempts and not merely in those which are outside the category of "petty offenses."
Cheff's argument is unavailing, for we are constrained to view the proceedings here as equivalent to a procedure to prosecute a petty offense, which under our decisions does not require a jury trial. Over 75 years ago, in Callan v. Wilson, 127 U. S. 540, 127 U. S. 557 (1888), this Court stated that "in that class or grade of offences called "petty offences," which, according to the common law, may be proceeded against summarily in any tribunal legally constituted for that purpose," a jury trial is not required. And as late as 1937, the Court reiterated in District of Columbia v. Clawans, 300 U. S. 617, 300 U. S. 624, that:
"It is settled by the decisions of this Court . . . that the right of trial by jury . . . does not extend to every criminal proceeding. At the time of the adoption of the Constitution, there were numerous offenses, commonly described as 'petty,' which were tried summarily without a jury. . . ."
See also Natal v. Louisiana, 139 U. S. 621 (1891); Lawton v. Steele, 152 U. S. 133, 152 U. S. 141-142 (1894); Schick v. United States, 195 U. S. 65, 195 U. S. 68-72 (1904); District of Columbia v. Colts, 282 U. S. 63, 292 U. S. 72-73 (1930). Indeed, Mr. Justice Goldberg, joined by THE CHIEF JUSTICE and
MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, took the position in his dissenting opinion in United States v. Barnett, supra, at 376 U. S. 751, that,
"at the time of the Constitution, all types of 'petty' offenses punishable by trivial penalties were generally triable without a jury. This history justifies the imposition without trial by jury of no more than trivial penalties for criminal contempts."
According to 18 U.S.C. § 1 (1964 ed.), "[a]ny misdemeanor, the penalty for which does not exceed imprisonment for a period of six months" is a "petty offense." chanrobles.com-red
Since Cheff received a sentence of six months' imprisonment (see District of Columbia v. Clawans, supra, at 300 U. S. 627-628), and since the nature of criminal contempt, an offense sui generis, does not, of itself, warrant treatment otherwise (cf. District of Columbia v. Colts, supra), Cheff's offense can be treated only as "petty" in the eyes of the statute and our prior decisions. We conclude therefore that Cheff was properly convicted without a jury. At the same time, we recognize that, by limiting our opinion to those cases where a sentence not exceeding six months is imposed, we leave the federal courts at sea in instances involving greater sentences. Effective administration compels us to express a view on that point. Therefore, in the exercise of the Court's supervisory power and under the peculiar power of the federal courts to revise sentences in contempt cases, we rule further that sentences exceeding six months for criminal contempt may not be imposed by federal courts absent a jury trial or waiver thereof. Nothing we have said, however, restricts the power of a reviewing court, in appropriate circumstances, to revise sentences in contempt cases tried with or without juries.
The judgment in this case is
MR. JUSTICE STEWART, joining Part I of MR. JUSTICE HARLAN's separate opinion, concurs in the result.
MR. JUSTICE WHITE took no part in the decision of this case.
* The relevant portions of these provisions declare:
"The trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury. . . ." Art. III, § 2.
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury. . . ." Sixth Amendment.
MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, concurring in the result in No. 67 and dissenting in Nos. 412 and 442.
By the opinions in these cases, two new limitations on the use of the federal contempt power are inaugurated. In Cheff, it is announced that prison sentences for criminal chanrobles.com-red
contempt in a federal court must be limited to six months unless the defendant is afforded a trial by jury. In Shillitani and Pappadio, an automatic "purge" clause and related indicia are found to convert a criminal sentence into a civil sanction which cannot survive the grand jury's expiration. I believe these limitations are erroneous in reasoning and result alike.
The decision to extend the right to jury trial to criminal contempts ending in sentences greater than six months is the product of the views of four Justices who rest that conclusion on the Court's supervisory power and those of two others who believe that jury trials are constitutionally required in all but "petty" criminal contempts. The four Justices who rely on the supervisory power also find the constitutional question a "difficult" one. Ante at 384 U. S. 356. However, as recently as 1958, this Court, in Green v. United States, 356 U. S. 165, unequivocally declared that the prosecution of criminal contempts was not subject to the grand and petit jury requirements of Art. III, § 2, of the Constitution and the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. This doctrine, which was accepted by federal judges in the early days of the Republic [Footnote 1] and has been steadfastly adhered to in chanrobles.com-red
case after case in this Court, [Footnote 2] should be recognized now as a definitive answer to petitioners' constitutional claims in each of the cases before us.
The prevailing opinion's new supervisory power rule seems to me equally infirm. The few sentences devoted to this dictum give no reason why a six-month limitation is desirable. Nor is there anything about the sentences actually imposed in these instances that warrants reappraisal of the present practice in contempt sentencing. In Cheff itself, the sentence was for six months. Shillitani and Pappadio involved two-year sentences, but each was moderated by a purge clause, and seemingly in neither case were there disputed facts suitable for a jury. Among the prominent shortcomings of the new rule, which are simply disregarded, is the difficulty it may generate for federal courts seeking to implement locally unpopular decrees. Another problem is in administration: to decide whether to proffer a jury trial, the judge must now look ahead to the sentence, which itself depends on the precise facts the trial is to reveal. chanrobles.com-red
In my view, before this Court improvises a rule necessarily based on pure policy that largely shrugs off history, a far more persuasive showing can properly be expected.
No less remarkable is the Court's upsetting of the sentences in Shillitani and Pappadio on the ground that the jailings were really for civil contempt which cannot endure beyond the grand jury's term. [Footnote 3] It can hardly be suggested that the lower courts did not intend to invoke the criminal contempt power to keep the petitioners in jail after the grand jury expired; the contrary is demonstrated by the entire record. [Footnote 4] Instead, the Court attempts to characterize the proceedings by a supposed primary or essential "purpose," and then lops off so much of the sentences as do not conform to that purpose. What the Court fails to do is to give any reason in policy, precedent, statute law, or the Constitution for its unspoken premise that a sentencing judge cannot combine two purposes into a single sentence of the type here imposed.
Without arguing about which purpose was primary, obviously a fixed sentence with a purge clause can be said to embody elements of both criminal and civil contempt. However, so far as the safeguards of criminal contempt proceedings may be superior to civil, the petitioners have not been disadvantaged in this regard, nor do they chanrobles.com-red
claim otherwise. Adding a purge clause to a fixed sentence is a benefit for the petitioners, not a reason for complaint. Similarly, the public interest is served by exerting strong pressure to obtain answers while tailoring the length of imprisonment so that it may punish the defendant only for his period of recalcitrance, and no more. I see no reason why a fixed sentence with an automatic purge clause should be deemed impermissible.
For the foregoing reasons, I would affirm the judgments in all three cases on the basis of Green, and leave the authority of that case unimpaired. [Footnote 5]
E.g., Ex parte Burr, 4 Fed.Cas. 791, 797 (No. 2,186) (C.C.D.C.1823) (Cranch, C.J.):
"[C]ases of contempt of court have never been considered as crimes within the meaning and intention of the second section of the third article of the Constitution of the United States, nor have attachments for contempt ever been considered as criminal prosecutions within the Sixth Amendment. . . . Many members of the [Constitutional] Convention were members of the first Congress, and it cannot be believed that they would have silently acquiesced in so palpable a violation of the then recent Constitution as would have been contained in the Seventeenth Section of the Judiciary Act of 1789 (1 Stat. 73) -- which authorizes all the courts of the United States 'to punish by fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the said courts, all contempts of authority in any cause or hearing before the same' -- if their construction of the Constitution had been that which has, in this case, been contended for at the bar."
See Ex parte Terry, 128 U. S. 289, 128 U. S. 313 (1888) (Harlan, J.); Savin, Petitioner, 131 U. S. 267, 131 U. S. 278 (1889) (Harlan, J.); Eilenbecker v. Plymouth County, 134 U. S. 31, 134 U. S. 36 (1890) (Miller, J.); Interstate Commerce Comm'n v. Brimson, 154 U. S. 447, 154 U. S. 489 (1894) (Harlan, J.); Bessette v. W. B. Conkey Co., 194 U. S. 324, 194 U. S. 336-337 (1904) (Brewer, J.); Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co., 221 U. S. 418, 221 U. S. 450 (1911) (Lamar, J.); Gompers v. United States, 233 U. S. 604, 233 U. S. 610-611 (1914) (Holmes, J.); Ex parte Hudgings, 249 U. S. 378, 249 U. S. 383 (1919) (White, C.J.); Myers v. United States, 264 U. S. 95, 264 U. S. 104-105 (1924) (McReynolds, J.); Michaelson v. United States, 266 U. S. 42, 266 U. S. 67 (1924) (Sutherland, J.); Ex parte Grossman, 267 U. S. 87, 267 U. S. 117-118 (1925) (Taft, C.J.); Fisher v. Pace, 336 U. S. 155, 336 U. S. 159-160 (1949) (Reed, J.); Offutt v. United States, 348 U. S. 11, 348 U. S. 14 (1954) (Frankfurter, J.).
This question was never raised in Pappadio nor encompassed by the limited grant of certiorari in that case, see 382 U.S. 916; in Shillitani, where the issue is properly before the Court, petitioner, filed a certiorari petition discussing the point but tendered no brief on the merits on any phase of the case.
For example, in each case, the Judgment and Commitment states that "the defendant is guilty of criminal contempt," and orders him committed "for a period of Two (2) Years, or until further order of this Court," should the questions be answered within that period before the grand jury expires.
The two-year sentences imposed on Shillitani and Pappadio do not call for the exercise of this Court's corrective power over contempt sentences, see Green, 356 U.S. at 356 U. S. 187-189; as has been noted, both sentences carried purge clauses
MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, with whom MR. JUSTICE BLACK concurs, dissenting.
I adhere to the view expressed in the dissents in Green v. United States, 356 U. S. 165, 356 U. S. 193, and United States v. Barnett, 376 U. S. 681, 376 U. S. 724, 376 U. S. 728, that criminal contempt is a "crime" within the meaning of Art. III, § 2, of the Constitution and a "criminal prosecution" within the meaning of the Sixth Amendment, both of which guarantee the right to trial by jury in such cases. [Footnote 2/1] Punishment for contempt was largely a minor affair at the time the Constitution was adopted, the lengthy penalties of the sort imposed today being a relatively recent innovation. [Footnote 2/2] chanrobles.com-red
I do not see how we can any longer tolerate an "exception" to the historic guaranty of a trial by jury when men are sent to prison for contempt for periods of as long as four years. [Footnote 2/3] Nor do the consequences of a contempt conviction necessarily end with the completion of serving what may be a substantial sentence. Indeed, the Government in other contexts regards a criminal contempt conviction as the equivalent of a conviction of other serious crimes.
Thus the Attorney General, in an advisory letter dated January 26, 1966, to Deputy Secretary of Defense Cyrus R. Vance, concluded that a conviction for criminal contempt could properly be applied to exclude an Army veteran from burial in Arlington National Cemetery. Exclusion was based on a regulation (30 Fed.Reg. 8996) which denies burial in a national cemetery to a person chanrobles.com-red
"who is convicted in a Federal . . . court of a crime or crimes, the result of which is . . . a sentence to imprisonment for 5 years or more. . . ." (Emphasis added.) The Attorney General stated:
"Criminal contempt is regarded as a 'crime' for most purposes [citing cases], and no reason is apparent why, for purposes of the interment regulation, criminal contempt should be distinguished from any other infraction of law punishable by imprisonment."
There is, in my view, no longer any warrant for regarding punishment for contempt as a minor matter strictly between the court and the accused.
"We take a false and one-sided view of history when we ignore its dynamic aspects. The year books can teach us how a principle or a rule had its beginnings. They cannot teach us that what was the beginning shall also be the end."
Cardozo, The Growth of the Law 104-105 (1924).
The prevailing opinion today suggests that a jury is required where the sentence imposed exceeds six months, but not when it is less than that period. This distinction was first noted in a footnote in the Barnett case, where the Court drew an analogy to prosecutions for "petty offenses," which need not be tried by jury. [Footnote 2/4] The prevailing opinion today seeks to buttress this distinction by reference to 18 U.S.C. § 1, which declares that an offense the penalty for which does not exceed six months is a chanrobles.com-red
petty offense. It studiously avoids embracing the view expressed by MR. JUSTICE HARLAN (ante at 384 U. S. 380), that in no event does the Constitution require a jury trial for contempt. But I do not see any lines of constitutional dimension that separate contempt cases where the punishment is less than six months from those where the punishment exceeds that figure. That is a mechanical distinction -- unsupported by our cases in either the contempt field or in the field of "petty offenses."
The difficulty with that analysis lies in attempting to define a petty offense merely by reference to the sentence actually imposed. This does not square with our decisions regarding the "petty offense" exception to the jury trial requirement. First, the determination of whether an offense is "petty" also requires an analysis of the nature of the offense itself; even though short sentences are fixed for a particular offense a jury trial will be constitutionally required if the offense is of a serious character. Second, to the extent that the penalty is relevant in this process of characterization, it is the maximum potential sentence, not the one actually imposed, which must be considered.
The notion that the trial of a petty offense could be conducted without a jury was first expounded by this Court in Callan v. Wilson, 127 U. S. 540 (1888). [Footnote 2/5] The Court,
"conceding that there is a class of petty or minor offences not usually embraced in public criminal statutes, and not of the class or grade triable at common law by a jury,"
held that the offense charged -- conspiracy -- was not among them. Id. at 127 U. S. 555. In Natal v. Louisiana, chanrobles.com-red
139 U. S. 621, the Court for the first time held a particular offense "petty." This was a local ordinance which forbade the operation of a private market within six squares of a public market. The maximum penalty was a $25 fine (or 30 days' imprisonment in the event the fine was not paid). [Footnote 2/6] And in Schick v. United States, 195 U. S. 65, the Court held that the knowing purchase of unstamped oleomargarine was a petty offense. The maximum penalty was a $50 fine.
None of these cases provides much guidance for those seeking to locate the line of demarcation between petty offenses and those more serious transgressions for which a jury trial is required. In District of Columbia v. Colts, 282 U. S. 63, the Court attempted to set out some general considerations. The offense was reckless driving at an excessive speed; the maximum punishment under the statute (for a first offender) was a $100 fine and 30 days in jail. Although the penalty was light, the Court thought the offense too serious to be regarded as "petty":
"Whether a given offense is to be classed as a crime, so as to require a jury trial, or as a petty offense, triable summarily without a jury, depends primarily upon the nature of the offense. The offense here charged is not merely malum prohibitum, but, in its very nature, is malum in se. It was an indictable offense at common law . . . , when horses, instead of gasoline, constituted the motive power. . . ."
Id. at 282 U. S. 73.
The most recent case is District of Columbia v. Clawans, 300 U. S. 617, where the offense charged was chanrobles.com-red
that of engaging in a particular business without a license. The maximum penalty was $300 or 90 days in jail. Clawans was given a $300 fine, but only 60 days in jail. The Court held that this was a "petty offense," and thus that no jury was required. The offense, the Court noted, was not a crime at common law; and today it is only an infringement of local police regulations, the offense being "relatively inoffensive." Id. at 300 U. S. 625. But, the Court added, "the severity of the penalty (is) an element to be considered." Ibid. Looking to the maximum penalty which might be imposed -- 90 days in prison -- the Court concluded that this was not so severe as to take the offense out of the category of "petty." Noting that, in England, and even during this country's colonial period, sentences longer than 90 days were imposed without a jury trial, the Court assumed that penalties then thought mild "may come to be regarded as so harsh as to call for the jury trial." Id. at 300 U. S. 627. The Court added:
"[W]e may doubt whether summary trial with punishment of more than six months' imprisonment, prescribed by some pre-Revolutionary statutes, is admissible, without concluding that a penalty of ninety days is too much. Doubts must be resolved, not subjectively by recourse of the judge to his own sympathy and emotions, but by objective standards such as may be observed in the laws and practices of the community taken as a gauge of its social and ethical judgments."
Id. at 300 U. S. 627-628.
Resolution of the question of whether a particular offense is or is not "petty" cannot be had by confining the inquiry to the length of sentence actually imposed. That is only one of many factors. As the analysis of the Court in Clawans demonstrates, the character of the offense itself must be considered. The relevance of the chanrobles.com-red
maximum possible sentence is that it may be "taken as a gauge of [the] social and ethical judgments" of the community. Id. at 300 U. S. 628. Had the potential sentence in the Clawans case been of considerable length, the Court presumably would have concluded that the legislative judgment -- that long sentences were appropriate for violations of the licensing law -- precluded treating the offense as "petty." But the converse is not always true: an offense the penalty for which is relatively light is not necessarily "petty," as District of Columbia v. Colts, supra, demonstrates.
The principal inquiry, then, relates to the character and gravity of the offense itself. Was it an indictable offense at common law? Is it malum in se or malum prohibitum? What stigma attaches to those convicted of committing the offense? [Footnote 2/7] The Barnett dictum, though accepting the relevance of the petty offense cases, errs in assuming that these considerations are irrelevant. [Footnote 2/8]
The dictum in Barnett errs, further, because it looks to the length of sentence actually imposed, rather than the potential sentence. The relevance of the sentence, as we have seen, is that it sheds light on the seriousness with which the community and the legislature regard the chanrobles.com-red
offense. Reference to the sentence actually imposed in a particular case cannot serve this purpose. It is presently impossible to refer to a "maximum" sentence for most contempts, for there is none; Congress has left such matters to the discretion of the federal courts. [Footnote 2/9]
The offense of criminal contempt is, of course, really several diverse offenses all bearing a common name. Some involve conduct that violates courtroom decorum. At times, the offender has insulted the court from a distance. Others are instances where an adamant witness refuses to testify. Still others, like the present case, involve disobedience of a court order directing parties to cease and desist from certain conduct pending an appeal. While some contempts are fairly minor affairs, others are serious indeed, deserving lengthy sentences. So long as all contempts are lumped together, the serious nature of some contempts and the severity of the sentences commonly imposed in such cases control the legal character of all contempts. None can be regarded as petty. Distinctions between contempts which, after the fact, draw a six-month or greater sentence and those which do not are based on constitutionally irrelevant factors and seem irrelevant to the analysis.
The Constitution, as I see it, thus requires a trial by jury for the crime of criminal contempt, as it does for all other crimes. Should Congress wish it, an exception could be made for any designated class of contempts which, all factors considered, could truly be characterized as "petty." [Footnote 2/10] Congress has not attempted to isolate and chanrobles.com-red
define "petty contempts." Do we have power to undertake the task of defining a class of petty contempts and to fix maximum punishments which might be imposed?
It would be a project more than faintly reminiscent of declaring "common law crimes," a power which has been denied the federal judiciary since the beginning of our republic. See 11 U. S. 485. It is, of course, true that, in the Hudson@ case itself, the Court -- while holding the judiciary powerless to exercise a common law criminal jurisdiction -- set contempt apart from this general restriction:
"Certain implied powers must necessarily result to our Courts of justice from the nature of their institution. But jurisdiction of crimes against the state is not among those powers. To fine for contempt -- imprison for contumacy -- enforce the observance of order, &c. are powers which cannot be dispensed with in a Court, because they are necessary to the exercise of all others; and so far our Courts no doubt possess powers not immediately derived from statute; but all exercise of criminal jurisdiction in common law cases, we are of opinion, is not within their implied powers."
Id. at 11 U. S. 34. [Footnote 2/11] chanrobles.com-red
The prevailing opinion today does not take that course. It does not undertake to classify different kinds of contempt in light of the nature and gravity of the offense. It permits the imposition of punishment without the benefit of a trial by jury in all contempt cases where the punishment does not exceed six months. For the reasons stated, I believe that course is wrong -- dangerously wrong. Until the time when petty criminal contempts are properly defined and isolated from other species of contempts, I see no escape from the conclusion that punishment for all manner of criminal contempts can constitutionally be imposed only after a trial by jury.
Although the Sixth Amendment uses somewhat different language than that of Art. III, § 2, there is no reason to believe that the Sixth Amendment was intended to work a change in the scope of the jury trial requirement of Article III. See Frankfurter & Corcoran, Petty Federal Offenses and the Constitutional Guaranty of Trial by Jury, 39 Harv.L.Rev. 917, 968-975 (1926).
Green v. United States, supra, at 356 U. S. 207-208 and n. 21 (dissenting opinion); United States v. Barnett, supra, at 376 U. S. 740-749 (dissenting opinion). Although Justice Goldberg's use of historical materials in Barnett has been subjected to some criticism (see, e.g., Tefft, United States v. Barnett: "Twas a Famous Victory," Supreme Court Review 123, 132-133 (1964); Brief for the United States 27-58 and Appendix, passim, Harris v. United States, 382 U. S. 162), severe penalties in contempt cases in the early days appear, nonetheless, to have been the exception.
See, e.g., Brown v. United States, 359 U. S. 41 (15 months); Piemonte v. United States, 367 U. S. 556 (18 months); Reina v. United States, 364 U. S. 507 (two years); Green v. United States, supra (three years); Collins v. United States, 269 F.2d 745 (three years); United States v. Thompson, 214 F.2d 545 (four years).
In the fiscal year ending June 30, 1962, a total of 21 people convicted by a federal court of contempt were received by the federal prison system. Of these, the average sentence was 6.4 months. Sentences of eight of these prisoners exceeded six months; three prisoners had sentences exceeding one year, and of these two prisoners had sentences of two years or more. The Federal Prison System -- 1964, Hearing before the Subcommittee on National Penitentiaries of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 88th Cong., 2d Sess. (Jan. 22, 1964), p. 10.
The Court put the matter thus:
"However, our cases have indicated that, irrespective of the severity of the offense, the severity of the penalty imposed, a matter not raised in this certification, might entitle a defendant to the benefit of a jury trial. . . . In view of the impending contempt hearing, effective administration of justice requires that this dictum be added: some members of the Court are of the view that, without regard to the seriousness of the offense, punishment by summary trial without a jury would be constitutionally limited to that penalty provided for petty offenses."
Supra at 376 U. S. 695, n. 12.
The petty offense exception is treated in Frankfurter & Corcoran, Petty Federal Offenses and the Constitutional Guaranty of Trial by Jury, 39 Harv.L.Rev. 917 (1926). Their conclusion, long accepted in the decisions of this Court, that jury trials are not required in such cases is challenged in Kaye, Petty Offenders Have No Peers, 26 Chi.L.Rev. 245 (1959).
This was, of course, not a case tried in the federal courts. But the Court did not decide the case on the ground that the Constitution does not require the States to afford jury trials in criminal cases; it took, instead, the narrower ground that this was a petty offense.
"Broadly speaking, acts were dealt with summarily which did not offend too deeply the moral purposes of the community, which were not too close to society's danger, and were stigmatized by punishment relatively light."
Frankfurter & Corcoran, supra, at 980-981.
"Some members of the Court are of the view that, without regard to the seriousness of the offense, punishment by summary trial without a jury would be constitutionally limited to that penalty provided for petty offenses."
376 U.S. at 376 U. S. 695. (Emphasis added.) To the extent that this merely reflects the Clawans principle that no offense which carries a substantial penalty can be "petty," the Court was correct. Yet, quite apart from the question of punishment, a jury trial is constitutionally required where the offense is of a serious character.
18 U.S.C. § 402 (1964 ed.).
Congress might, for example, determine that breaches of court decorum are generally of so minor a nature as to render it advisable to forgo the possibility of any except minor penalties in favor of maintaining procedures for quick punishment (see Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 42(a); Harris v. United States, 382 U. S. 162) which are said to be necessary to achieve "summary vindication of the court's dignity and authority." Cooke v. United States, 267 U. S. 517, 267 U. S. 534. This might be a class of "petty contempts" for which the maximum penalty would be slight, and for which trial by jury would not be required. Quaere, whether imposition of a prison term would ever be consistent with a "petty" offense. Cf. Kaye, Petty Offenders Have No Peers, 26 Chi.L.Rev. 245, 275-277 (1959).
And see 18 U.S.C. § 402, which allows "all other cases of contempt not specifically embraced in this section [to be] punished in conformity to the prevailing usages at law."

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Let\'s Stop Outsider\'s Changing Our laws
For the last few decades more and more foreigners are moving to Australia and finding employment, starting families, or bringing their families from their home countries. There is no problem with this. I am proud to be an Australian, and it makes me even prouder when people from other countries want to come and live in my country. Australia is a BIG place, and there\'s plenty of room. What I don\'t like is foreigners moving here and then trying to change our laws and traditions. It is a travesty that our government allows this, and even promotes it to an extent. For example, a few years back a school teacher was disciplined (I think fired) for using the word "Christmas" too much. This offended the children in the class whose religion doesn\'t allow the celebrating of Christmas. For example, some of our larger shopping malls aren\'t putting up massive Christmas decorations for fear of offending the people who don\'t celebrate Christmas. For example schools that have a strict dress code have to change these codes simply because a few gils have to wear a Burqa or Hijab. Yet one school suspends a girl for wearing a Holy Cross necklace that didn\'t conform to the dress code. Hypocritical or what I could probably go on for ages here, but I think you understand. What we need to do is sign a petition that lets our Government know that we will not stand for this any longer. YES, foreigners of all races, religions, ages etc are welcome to our great nation. But if these people continue to try and change the rules to suit their own belief\'s and customs, then soon we will not be able to call it Australia anymore. So sign, and show your support that we are not racist or anti religious or anti muslim, we just want our country to stay the way it always has been, because that\'s what makes it the best damn country in the world!!!!!!


text:
1. Items can be returned or exchanged within 7days of receipt
2. Items received unused, undamaged and in original package.
3. Customers will only be charged once for shipping costs.
*Side zipper for boots can be stowed away for small items*
Product Details
【Messure Size】
【Production Process】
Built to last with matte leather uppers, rubber outsoles and a flexible elastic goring, this hardwearing boots is every bit as comfortable as you'd expect from a slip-on boot but with the durability of our Rugged & Resilient collection.
Handcrafted for the women who wear their boots hard, every detail was carefully selected so you can go the extra mile with confidence. Guaranteed to look and feel good for years to come, the Gracelook is built to go wherever the day takes you.
Our shoes craftsmen have decades of experience in the design and production of women's garments, and they make the most cost-effective and high-quality products.
【Occasion】The retro elegance of the design will add color to your ensemble. With the side zipper boots, you can match any outfit perfectly for casual, party, work, date, wedding, cocktail party, nightclub, homecoming or any other special occasion.
【Return Policy】Buyers can request to exchange or return the goods within 30 days after receiving the goods in most occasions, you can apply directly, if you can not exchange normally, you can consult us for help
We simply believe that offering customers a great value is the foundation to long-term business success and is the honorable thing to do.
🌈Product Notes🌈
1.Size maybe 2cm/1 inch inaccuracy due to hand measure,If you buy pointed shoes, you can choose half size or one size.
2.How to care for shoes,>>Click Here


text:
Swim England Assistant Swimming Coach – Club Offer – Blended Learning – Mount Kelly Swim Centre
As an aspiring coach, this course will equip you with the knowledge and tools to actively support a swimming coach in the delivery of a planned training session.
Blended Learning is a more flexible approach where you complete the theoretical elements of the course online through interactive activities and checks on learning, prior to the practical workshops. The online learning and completion of assessments should take you are approximately 12-15 hours to complete.
Who is the course designed for?
Anyone who wants to take the first step to become a swimming coach or interested in supporting a coach in a club environment.
Course content
The course is delivered through a mixture of online learning, classroom activities and practical poolside learning. You will participate in at least three training sessions, coaching swimmers at county standard and above, to gain hands on practical experience.
You will learn about:
- The role of the assistant coach
- Importance of positive coaching behaviour
- Physical literacy in swimming
- Competitive swimming skills
- Para swimming
- Types of training used to develop swimmers
- How to deliver pre-planned coaching sessions
- How to carry out reflective practices of your coaching
- How to Enrol:
- Click book on course or use the contact details below.
- Prerequisites:
You must be at least 16 years of age at the start of the course.
Mount Kelly Swim Centre
Parkwood Road


text:
Mid-century modern homes were small out of necessity. Money was in short supply after World War II, so architects and builders had to keep houses compact yet functional to stay within homeowners' budgets. At the same time, lifestyles were changing. Smart architects took on a new approach and designed homes with an open feel, which differed greatly from the boxy designs of the previous era.
Related: Why You Should Embrace Your Midcentury Modern Kitchen
Midcentury Modern 1: Flavin Architects, original photo on Houzz
I've been enamored with midcentury modern homes since my childhood in California, where I was privileged to spend time in the intimate houses designed by Frank Lloyd Wright apprentice Mark Mills. Mills was the on-site architect for Wright's famous Walker House, or Cabin on the Rocks, in Carmel, California, pictured. It was during this time that Mills learned an important lesson from Wright: Reject a larger house in favor of a modest home with flowing spaces and no excess.
The following ideas show how midcentury modern homes beautifully make the most of their space in ways that can easily be incorporated in homes today.
Midcentury Modern 2: Wheeler Kearns Architects, original photo on Houzz
1. Open floor plan.
Above all else, the open floor plan is the defining characteristic of midcentury modern homes. Closed-off rooms gave way to flowing spaces that strung one room to the next to form fluid kitchen, living and dining areas.
In a small home, the key to making the open floor plan work is to understand which rooms need privacy, and when. Of course, bedrooms and bathrooms need separation from the main areas of the home, but it's also good to consider other areas that need privacy: for example, a study where a parent can work without interruption while the kids play nearby.
In this lake house by Wheeler Kearns Architects, the common areas are located in a centralized area, while the more private areas are off to the side or tucked away on another level.
Midcentury Modern 3: Balodemas Architects, original photo on Houzz
2. Expanded sightlines.
The tendency of midcentury modern homes to have open floor plans speaks to the elegant details often seen within these houses. Without trying to be too sparse, midcentury designers included functional details in their homes that were as uncomplicated as they were beautiful. Finding the balance between sophistication and openness was in the hands of the architect.
Take, for example, the stairs in midcentury modern homes. In this remodel of a midcentury home by Balodemas Architects, they preserved much of the original stair and design. The riser, or the vertical part that connects the stair treads, was simply left out for a lighter appearance. The stair was no longer in a hall but fully opened up and integrated into a room. Walls were often dispensed with entirely. Instead, partial-height screens inspired by Japanese shoji were used to subtly separate spaces.
Midcentury Modern 4: Steinbomer, Bramwell & Vrazel Architects, original photo on Houzz
3. An instance to avoid "open."
While photographs of midcentury modern homes often feature great walls of glass, what's often not shown, perhaps because they are not as photogenic, are the equally generous opaque walls.
These walls are key to the home's aesthetic success. They provide a protective backing to the composition, since the opaque side of the home often faces the road, as with this house by Steinbomer, Bramwell & Vrazel Architects. Although the back of the house is open, with lots of glass and a sense of ease between inside and out, the street-facing side would never give that away. An opaque wall creates a boundary to the outside world while extending the perceived size of the home. Walls of glass are expensive, so opaque walls are also an economical design move.
Midcentury Modern 5: Flavin Architects, original photo on Houzz
4. Everything in its place.
Thoughtful storage is a another key aspect of what makes a small mid-century home completely livable. Most mid-century modern homes, particularly those on the West Coast, had no basements or attics, so storage closets needed to be located among the main living spaces. In part, the answer was to do more with less by having well-designed storage throughout and daily items close at hand, as in this kitchen. This has to be married to an ethic of keeping only what you need and having periodic yard sales.
Midcentury Modern 6: Koch Architects, Inc. Joanee Koch, original photo on Houzz
5. Display with a purpose.
In a small home with innovative but limited storage, it's important to have display areas for the pieces that don't need to be tucked away in drawers or closets. This was done beautifully in mid-century modern homes by integrating display areas as a means of aiding with the potential conundrum of scarce storage.
This restoration by Koch Architects shows this exact notion at work. Every other step in the stair has an integrated bookshelf. This would make a perfect rotating library with a range of titles easily seen while ascending the stair.


text:
Knowing which club to use for which shot
The sheer variety of golf clubs you need can be overwhelming. After you have all the clubs you need and you're on the golf course, how do you know which club to use for each shot? The following table gives you a quick guide to the kinds of clubs in your bag and the shots you take with them.
Club | What It's For |
Driver | Teeing off — and very occasionally hitting from a good lie in the fairway |
Hybrid club | Getting shots of 150+ yards airborne |
2- to 9-irons | Hitting toward the green, usually from 120–190 yards away — use low-numbered irons for longer shots, high-numbered irons for shorter shots |
Wedges | Hitting short, high shots from near the green or from sand bunkers |
Putter | Rolling the ball into the hole after it's on the green (or occasionally from just off the green) |
Essential items you need in your golf bag
Golf bags aren't just for holding clubs. Like any sport, golf requires other essential equipment and helpful items that make your game a little easier. Here are the essentials for stocking your golf bag:
At least six balls
A few wooden tees
A couple of gloves
A rain suit
A pitch-mark repair tool
A few small coins to mark your ball on the green
Two or three pencils
A small pouch for your wallet, money clip, loose change, car keys, rings, and cell phone (which is turned off)
A spare towel
Understanding golf scoring language
Golf has its own language, and its scoring lingo can be especially puzzling to understand. If understanding golf scores seems like a foreign language, the following table of golf scoring terms can help you feel right at home on the course.
Scoring Term | What It Means |
Ace | Hole in one |
Albatross/double eagle | Three strokes under par on a hole |
Eagle | Two strokes under par on a hole |
Birdie | One stroke under par on a hole |
Par | Score a good player would expect to make on a hole or round |
Bogey | One stroke over par on a hole |
Double bogey | Two strokes over par on a hole |
How to score gold penalty shots
Penalty shots (and their effects on the score) are an unfortunate part of golf for most golfers. Scoring golf penalty shots can be confusing, so the following table helps you adjust your score and shoot on.
Penalty | How to Score and Continue Play |
Out-of-bounds | Two-stroke penalty (the stroke you hit plus one penalty stroke). Drop a ball where you last shot from and continue play. |
Whiff | Count each time you swing in an effort to hit the ball. |
Unplayable lies | One-stroke penalty. Drop the ball (no nearer the hole) within two club lengths of the original spot; drop the ball as far back as you want, keeping the original spot between you and the hole; or return to the point from which you hit the previous shot. |
Water hazard (yellow stakes) | One-stroke penalty. Play a ball from its original position. Play from as close as possible to the spot from which you played the previous shot. Or drop a ball behind the water hazard, keeping the point at which the original ball last crossed the margin of the hazard between the hole and the spot where you drop the ball, with no limit to how far behind the water hazard you drop it. Alternately, play the ball as it lies without grounding the club for no penalty. |
Lateral water hazard (red stakes) | One-stroke penalty. Play a ball from its original position. Drop a ball outside the hazard within two club lengths of where the ball last crossed the margin of the lateral water hazard (but no nearer the hole), or within two club lengths from a point on the opposite edge of the water hazard equidistant from the hole. Alternately, play the ball as it lies without grounding the club for no penalty. |
Making typical golf bets
Betting is a part of most golfers' typical outings. The extra competitive spirit can make golf that much more fun. Here are some bets you typically see on the course.
Remember: Never bet more than you can afford to lose.
A Nassau is a three-part bet with the same stake wagered on the first nine holes, the second nine, and the total for the round. If you're playing a $5 Nassau and you win all three parts, you're up $15.
Skins is the format in which each hole is worth a certain amount — but if two players tie, all tie, and the money goes into the pot for the next hole (and sometimes the next and the next).
To play wolf, one player takes on everyone else in the group. For a set price, the lone wolf can choose one of the others as his or her partner.
Snake is a side bet: The first player to three-putt a hole gets stuck with a "snake" that costs a predetermined sum each hole until someone else three-putts.
In Bingo Bango Bongo, the first player on the green earns a point (bingo), as does the one closest to the hole when everybody's safely on (bango) and the first to hole a putt (bongo).


text:
Loaner Cars • Text For Service Updates and Questions • Drop Off Any Time Of Day
Metric Motors technicians are certified by the National Institute for Automotive Service Excellence (ASE). ASE certification means that a mechanic has passed tough, industry developed testing. 'The Blue Seal of Excellence' is a recognition program for establishments striving to be the best and to stand out from the crowd. Receiving this accreditation from ASE reflects our commitment to customer service and quality automotive repair.
We're a locally owned automotive service and repair center, located at the corner of S Lincoln Ave and Old Fairground Dr in the heart of Loveland. Our job is providing our customers with the highest quality auto repair service and a passion for loving your car as much as we love ours. Our highly skilled team of mechanics is all about keeping your car running at peak performance and doing it at a price that's just right. Because of our desire to provide friendly and quality auto repair service, along with unbeatable value, our first-time customers become long-time customers. Learn more about our auto repair services and premium transmission repair services now!
From brakes to clutches, oil changes to timing belts, we can take care of all your car's mechanical needs! Having an expert mechanic perform factory scheduled services will keep your new car warranty in effect, and we are always committed to doing the job right the first time. Count on Metric Motors for all of your auto repair and maintenance needs.
We've long tried to be smart about our sustainability. Metric Motors had our first energy audit performed back in 2011, after which we began to adopt greener, more eco-friendly practices. For example, we converted to energy-saving T-8 fluorescent lighting. What's more, every month we recycle as much as we can, including 200 gallons of used oil and 500 pounds of paper and cardboard. Our business uses an environmentally safe cleaning solvent, and we've taken other steps you can read about by clicking "Learn More" below. We strive not only to repair your car, but to do so while reducing our environmental impact.


text:
The post-war European idea and the first European movements (1945–1949)
The Second World War had devastating consequences for Europe. The human losses were extremely severe, and people were shocked to discover the atrocities perpetrated by the Nazi regime. The economies of several European countries were left in tatters: industrial and agricultural infrastructures had been destroyed, towns and cities had been razed to the ground by bombing raids, means of communication had been damaged and there were shortages of foodstuffs.
Germany at the end of the Second World War: the destruction in Dresden (1946)
Cartoon by Szewczuk on the shortage of supplies in Germany (1946)
Soon relegated to second fiddle on the international stage by the emergence of the United States and the Soviet Union as two new superpowers, Western Europe realised that its recovery would come through unity, through the pooling of its economic resources — where necessary with US financial, technical and military support — and through the creation of jointly run, efficient institutions.
Given the rise in influence of the United States and the Soviet Union and their increasing rivalry, the countries of Europe, exhausted by the global conflict, were faced with three fundamental questions. The first was economic: how could material damage be repaired and economic activity revived on the old continent? The second was political: how could they prevent the return of a conflict that had laid the continent and the world to waste? The third was cultural: how could the survival and renaissance of European civilisation be ensured in the face of the increasing threats represented by the ideological schism and confrontation between the victorious American and Soviet blocs? Western Europe hoped to reclaim its place on the international stage by uniting the peoples of Europe.
Pro-European movements, some of which originated in the Resistance, moved into action and vigorously promoted the idea of European unification. The ideal of a united Europe, which had already been popularised by certain elite circles during the interwar period, rapidly gained ground in the wake of the Second World War. Thousands of young people dreamed of a united Europe, sometimes even of a unified and peaceful world. While reconstruction was an immediate priority in the post-war period, many people advocated the creation of an autonomous European entity. In order to avoid the world being divided into two antagonistic blocs and to prevent the inevitably ensuing war, it seemed essential to establish a third European pole. In this context, there were calls for Western countries to adopt a neutral stance in the face of American materialism and Soviet totalitarianism. However, non-alignment, which became increasingly difficult to implement as the Cold War intensified, was soon defended only by the pacifist and internationalist movements.
With regard to the form that European unification might take and the procedures that might be involved, ideas often diverged according to political and ideological affiliation. While some favoured a federation led by a federal authority — or even a European government — others preferred a simple association of sovereign states.
In 1946, various supporters of European federal unity, aware of the need to promote the European ideal in political circles and among the general public, founded the Union of European Federalists (UEF), bringing together some 50 federalist movements. Within national parliaments, particularly those of the Netherlands, Belgium, France and Italy, the number of supporters of federalism was progressively increasing.
In 1947, Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi, founder of the Paneuropean Union in the early 1920s, decided to unite these members of parliament in the European Parliamentary Union (EPU). Being organised more efficiently, they could now bring pressure to bear on national governments.
Several international congresses (Montreux, Gstaad, The Hague, etc.) were also held to push for European unity. In the light of the successful outcome of the Hague Congress in May 1948, the International Committee of the Movements for European Unity, which had organised the congress, decided to take things further, and in October 1948 it changed its name to the European Movement (EM). The support of the general public in building a united Europe took on a fundamental importance.


text:
Home | > | List of families | > | Species | > | Map of QDS records |
The map shows the QDS records, for Mozambique only, in our database. The aim is to show the natural distribution of the species, so records where the plants are known, or are suspected, to have been planted are excluded.
IMPORTANT NOTE: the number of records in the system is generally not yet sufficient to show the full distribution of each species.
Number of unique points displayed: 1
Home | > | List of families | > | Species | > | Map of species records |


text:
Talk about any games that don't fit in the other forums (or fora, if joined EoFF between 1999 to 2001) or gaming culture in general.
Use this control to limit the display of threads to those newer than the specified time frame.
Allows you to choose the data by which the thread list will be sorted.
Order threads in...
Note: when sorting by date, 'descending order' will show the newest results first.
Forum Rules


text:
April 3, 2014
Core Facilities News, BioOptics
OMX User Meeting
July 9th/10th 2014; Vienna
We, the BioOptics Facility of the IMP/IMBA/GMI together with the CSF Advances Microscopy Facility would like to invite everybody to an OMX user meeting taking place on the 9th and 10th of July 2014 in Vienna.
The meeting will start on Wednesday July 9th at 11a.m. with a talk of Lothar Schermelleh entitled "New insights into X chromosome inactivation by 3D superresolution microscopy".
After lunch we would like to invite the participants to discuss application of the OMX in different research projects, system maintenance as well as image acquisition and reconstruction optimization topics.
We would also like to address the cooperation possibilities (knowledge exchange) among participant/users, as well as join forces to foster the cooperation/communication/exchange with GE.
Everybody is strongly invited to join the informal round table discussion, as well as to give short presentation on specific topics they would like to address. During the one and a half days until Thursday the 10th evening there will not only be time for informal interaction, but also the OMX BLAZE V4 will be available for onsite demonstrations or knowledge-exchange if needed.
We will try to plan the agenda to meet everybody's interest and travel plans as good as possible. Please let us know as soon as possible if you can join and if you want to see a specific topic being addressed as well as point out if you are interested in presenting something by sending an Email to omx(at)imp.ac.at.


text:
It sounds great. Give birth at home, surrounded by only those you know and trust, and avoid unnecessary interventions in the birth process. If you've seen The Business of Being Born, talk show host Ricki Lake's paean to home birth, you may be tempted. Now that Lake is issuing four follow-up educational DVDs called More Business of Being Born, complete with testimonials from Cindy Crawford, Alanis Morrisette and Gisele Bundchen and packaged with organic cotton "Born Free" onesies, it's time to set the record straight and point out some important facts about home birth that Lake has left out, including the increased risk of neonatal death.
(MORE: The Myths of Natural Childbirth)
1. First, there are two different kinds of midwives in the United States. Home births are typically attended by certified professional midwives (CPMs), not by certified nurse midwives (CNMs) who are respected health care professionals. Home birth midwives are a second, less educated, less trained class of midwives. They are not eligible for licensure in the Netherlands, the U.K., Canada, Australia or any industrialized country because they don't meet the basic requirements. Midwives in all other industrialized countries have university degrees and extensive in-hospital training. American home birth midwives have only a post high school certificate and no in-hospital training.
2. All the existing scientific studies, and state and national data, show that American planned home birth has triple the risk of neonatal death as hospital birth for comparable risk women. Studies that claim to show that American home birth is safe are poorly done and compare home birth to out of date papers or high risk populations. CDC statistics show planned home birth with a home birth midwife has a neonatal mortality rate of approximately 12/10,000. The rate for hospital birth of comparable risk women? Only 4/10,000. In 2009 in the state of Colorado, for example, licensed midwives provided care for 799 women. Nine babies died: that's a home birth death rate nearly double that of the entire state, including high risk women. There were three intrapartum (during labor) deaths for an intrapartum death rate of 3.8/1000, ten times higher than the intrapartum death rate commonly experienced in hospitals.
3. Home birth advocates often point to the Netherlands to support the safety of home birth. A 2009 study published in the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology showed that home birth with a Dutch midwife has the same neonatal death rate as hospital birth with a Dutch midwife, but that's not as reassuring as it sounds. A 2010 study in the British Medical Journal showed that any low risk birth with a Dutch midwife (home or hospital) has a higher death rate than high risk hospital birth with a Dutch obstetrician. Indeed, the Netherlands, the country with the highest home birth rate in the industrialized world has one of the highest perinatal mortality rates in Western Europe.
4. The Midwives Alliance of North America (MANA), the organization that represents home birth midwives, won't release their own death rates. While collecting data on 23,000 midwife-attended, planned home births, MANA informed their members that the data would be used to prove the safety of American home birth. Once the data was analyzed, however they declined to release it. They have publicly offered the data to those who can prove they will use it for the "advancement of midwifery," and sign an agreement promising not to release the death rates to the American public. This is a glaring red flag.
(MORE: American Women: Birthing Babies at Home)
The absolute risk of death at home birth is still relatively low, so even when you learn the risks, you may still want to have a home birth. But don't be fooled by a movie that leaves out the information that you need to make an informed decision.


text:
Arlington County's Maximum Parking Rates:
Parking is a key piece of the transportation puzzle. As a limited resource that's often in high demand, we manage more than 5,700 on-street parking spaces to:
The majority of the off-street spaces within garages and surface lots, totaling more than 100,000 spaces, are owned, maintained and managed by the private sector. We encourage the use of off-street parking through signage and promotional materials.
Right-of-Way-Permits (moving van, trailer, block party, etc.)
Report a Malfunctioning Parking Meter
Contact On-Street Parking Enforcement


text:
Zurich selects TomTom to help corporate fleets mitigate risk and control premiums
Amsterdam, October 8 2012
Zurich Germany has chosen TomTom fleet management to provide the telematics capability behind the company's newly launched product Zurich Fleet Intelligence (ZFI).
Launched in Germany, the integrated service is aimed at corporate fleets and combines vehicle telematics, reporting, driver development tools and risk engineering support.
TomTom technology will be integral to the proposition, helping businesses to actively improve driver safety, reduce operational costs and minimise environmental impact.
Christoph Willi, CEO Zurich Global Corporate Germany commented: At Zurich we are convinced new technologies like telematics will revolutionise the future of motor insurance and risk management in particular. TomTom was therefore the obvious partner of choice for us because of the company's proven track record for leadership in Europe and its international reach. We are especially impressed by the Active Driver Feedback component which empowers the driver to adopt a more responsible driving style
ZFI customers will have on-line access to the Zurich proprietary risk management web portal where both drivers and fleet managers can track and analyze performance based on detailed fleet management data.
This is further recognition for the contribution that TomTom fleet management makes to driver safety and risk reduction, helping businesses to run greener, safer and more efficient fleets
added Thomas Schmidt, Managing Director, TomTom Business Solutions. Today's announcement illustrates how successful our strategy to leverage tried and tested TomTom technology in new markets is proving
The technology can also help fleet managers to keep a lid on insurance premiums by reducing accidents and the value of related claims.
Se requiere tu consentimiento
En esta sección, el contenido externo se integra desde .
Para mostrar el contenido, se requiere tu consentimiento para las siguientes categorías de cookies:
- Publicidad personalizada
- Análisis
- Personalización
- Esenciales
Para obtener más información, consulta nuestra política de privacidad. Si te interesa saber cómo procesa tus datos ###vendor_name###, consulta su política de privacidad.


text:
The Confederate flag. The Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage. Policing minority communities. Nuclear weapons and Iran. Summer often brings a lull in the news, but not this year. And, come September, students are going to want to talk about these headlines.
But how should teachers navigate our nation's thorny politics?
Do politics belong in the classroom at all, or should schools be safe havens from never-ending partisan battles? Can teachers use controversial issues as learning opportunities, and, if so, to teach what? And then, the really sticky question: Should teachers share with students their own political viewpoints and opinions?
In their book, The Political Classroom: Evidence and Ethics in Democratic Education, Diana E. Hess and Paula McAvoy offer guidelines to these and other questions, using a study they conducted from 2005 to 2009. It involved 21 teachers in 35 schools and their 1,001 students. Hess is the dean of the school of education at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and McAvoy is the program director at UW-Madison's Center for Ethics and Education.
Schools, they conclude, are and ought to be political places — but not partisan ones. I talked with them recently about how, in today's highly polarized society, teachers can walk that very fine line.
Sometimes it seems there's a belief that schools should be political ... sort of. With students taking on issues – like smoking – that are political but not too political. Did you find that in your study?
Hess: You're absolutely right, there are a number of schools that encourage students to get involved in political campaigns, but they tend to be political campaigns that really aren't very controversial. They'll encourage kids to form a campaign about something that everyone agrees should be done. For example, that we should clean up the litter that's around our school, or that it's important for people to eat healthy food...
We have evidence that kids learn a lot from doing that. It's not necessarily a terrible thing. My view is that if you're going to have students involved in authentic politics, then it's really important to make sure you have issues for which there are multiple and competing views, and you don't give students the impression that there's a political view that they should be working toward.
McAvoy: How political do we want students to be? That's really a question that a lot of communities struggle with and a lot of teachers struggle with. And the point of the book is to say that, in general, to be able to talk about politics is a skill that people need to learn. And it would be great if it were learned in school because these are great moments in which you bring a group of young people together who are forming their political views. They can really learn to engage across their differences and to start to see that political conflict is a normal part of democratic life.
A key point in your book is that, while teachers are teaching about the issues – immigration or same-sex marriage — they're also teaching students how to have these discussions. They're teaching the process of democracy.
McAvoy: Right. The "political classroom" is a classroom in which young people are learning to deliberate about political questions. It really is the process of deliberation that is the major skill being taught. And then, through deliberation, students are learning about the issues. They're learning how to form arguments, how to weigh evidence. So there's social studies content that is being learned in a process that is, at its heart, democratic.
Are there issues that are, or should be, completely off the table?
Hess: One of the things we talk about in the book is the distinction between issues that we called "settled issues" and issues that are "open"...
It's a little complicated, but, in a nutshell, we suggest that there are some issues that are settled and should be taught as settled and to not do that is being dishonest with young people. For example, the question about whether climate change is occurring — that's a settled issue. The question is, What to do about climate change? That's an open issue.
We wouldn't suggest that teachers engage kids in talking about whether climate change is occurring, but we strongly encourage teachers to engage in discussion about what should be done about climate change.
You mention in your book policies that might allow students to opt out [of a controversial topic or discussion]. Which raises questions about whether that's a good thing, to just allow students to sit out.
McAvoy: The philosopher in me thinks there's not a really good way to defend the view that students should always be able to opt out. We don't allow students to opt out of writing essays because they don't like writing essays.
At the same time, democracies allow us, when we're in the public sphere, to walk out of a discussion if we don't like what's happening or if we're being offended. Classrooms are unusual in that we're compelling students to be there. Teachers do need to weigh [whether] there might be times when a particular student has a good reason for wanting to pass on a comment...
Opting out because I feel uncomfortable sharing my views or talking out loud in class is a skill that can be taught and overcome. Opting out because this discussion is really hard for me given my religious background — that might be a reason that you let a student pass on a discussion.
You note the challenges and dangers of teaching both in mixed classrooms – with students of varied racial and economic backgrounds — and homogenous classrooms. How should teachers adapt to these different scenarios?
Hess: In many ways the more difference you have within a classroom the better. We want to make sure that we have as many multiple competing views as we possibly can ... So difference is a good thing, something that can be used and primed as opposed to something to be feared and quelled.
One of the challenges of lots of difference is, difference often causes high emotions and often can cause breaches of civility. So teachers who are in classrooms that have lots of naturally occurring difference often have to go to great lengths to make sure that students understand what it looks like to participate in a civil manner...
In classes where there's a lot of sameness, the first thing we learned is that, though it might appear that there's a lot of sameness, there's always some difference. So when teachers say, "Well all these kids think alike," we're almost sure — all the time — that the teachers are wrong, that in fact not all the kids do think alike.
That being said, there are classes that are more similar than they are different, and teachers have to use a lot of strategies to bring differences into the discussion. Those strategies might include bringing in guest speakers or making sure the materials the kids are using to prepare for discussion are full of multiple and competing ideas.
Students really seem to like this stuff – to engage in issues that are current and relevant to their own lives.
Hess: Absolutely. There are two things going on here: In many schools, students still spend most of the day listening to teachers talk. One reason we think kids like [these issues] is they finally get a chance to talk themselves. More than that, we did find that the content of these political issues was really interesting to kids. Especially when they were hearing multiple and competing views. Students would report that in discussions where there was a lot of shared opinion, those were not as interesting as in discussions where there were differing views ... They were really responding to the fact that it's quite interesting to hear what your peers think about things. And not just that they have different points of view but what they're supporting those points of view with.
What advice do you have or does your study have for teachers considering how to talk about [breaking events such as] Baltimore or Ferguson, Missouri?
Hess: One of the problems with discussing events that just happened is that often we don't know enough about what happened. There's a distinction between current events ... and discussions about controversial political issues where kids are preparing in advance and being deliberative. In the best-case scenario, teachers are able to take advantage of current events and use them as opportunities to get kids to talk about controversial political issues. There's a big difference in talking about, "What do you think happened?" and talking about a policy issue like "Should police officers be required to wear video cameras?"
McAvoy: Young people need to see these as moments within their historical context – need to understand some of the history. It's difficult to have those materials at the ready when things sort of erupt as they have in the last year or so with Baltimore and Ferguson. Good teachers start building curriculum about the history of redlining in cities or how cities become segregated. [To] put these moments within the context is much better than having young people just reacting to "What do you think about what you're seeing on television today?" Young people really need to study these issues in depth.
OK, the big elephant in the room: the question of whether teachers should talk about their own personal beliefs to their students. Should they?
Hess: What we found is that there were teachers who were doing an excellent job who shared their own views with students, and there were teachers doing an excellent job who didn't share their views. So we don't believe that there is one right answer to this. And we think empirically we can show that there's not.
That being said, we think that there are times when it's probably better for teachers to share than other times when it's better for them not to share. That depends in large part on the context — on who's in their class and what their goals are.
One thing we were really intrigued by was that a lot of the teachers we interviewed talked about changing their minds on that question over time. Some of them would say, "Well, it used to be that I would never share, but now I do only in these circumstances." Other teachers would say, "I used to be really prone to share a lot, and now I don't and here's why." We think it's all a matter of professional judgment. Teachers need to think about this very carefully...
I sometimes worry that, even though there can be really good ethical reasons for teachers to share, in a very polarized time that sharing can be misinterpreted. And if it's misinterpreted by the public or by parents as teachers trying to get kids to adopt their beliefs, then I think we could have a big problem.
That being said, we have no evidence from the study of teachers who were actively and purposely trying to indoctrinate kids to a particular point of view...
We think that this feeling that the public seems to have that teachers by definition are trying to push their political views on students is just false.
You were critical of the notion – that teachers would do that.
Hess: What we learned from students when we interviewed and surveyed them is that they make a really clear distinction between a teacher sharing his or her own view and a teacher trying to push his or her own view. Students not surprisingly report that they don't like being pushed.
You seem to draw a pretty firm line that teachers should not be advocating for their own beliefs.
McAvoy: What we argue in the book is that what's most important is that teachers create a culture of fairness in the classroom. That means being fair and reasonable to all the competing views that are in the classroom and that are being represented in the public. The practice that we found most troubling, from the study, is what we referred to in the book as political seepage: teachers who make sarcastic comments, who use partisan humor. It's these offhanded comments that are sort of biting and mean-spirited about the political climate that I think is problematic. Because it creates a climate not of fairness, but it creates a kind of insider/outsider feeling. If you get the humor that I just said or, "Do you agree with me that that politician's a big idiot?" That invites the most divisive parts of the partisan climate into the classroom.
Copyright 2023 NPR. To see more, visit https://www.npr.org.


text:
December 19, 2018—KB4483232 (OS Build 16299.847)
Release Date:
OS Build 16299.847
Note: Because of minimal operations during the holidays and upcoming Western new year, there won't be any preview releases for the month of December 2018. Monthly servicing will resume with the January 2019 security releases.
Improvements and fixes
This update includes quality improvements. No new operating system features are being introduced in this update. Key changes include:
Security update to Internet Explorer.
If you installed earlier updates, only the new fixes contained in this package will be downloaded and installed on your device.
For more information about the resolved security vulnerability, please refer to the Security Update Guide.
Known issues in this update
Symptom |
Workaround |
After you install the August Preview of Quality Rollup or September 11, 2018 .NET Framework update, instantiation of SqlConnection can throw an exception. For more information about this issue, see the following article in the Microsoft Knowledge Base: 4470809 SqlConnection instantiation exception on .NET 4.6 and later after August-September 2018 .NET Framework updates. |
This issue is resolved in KB4480967. |
How to get this update
Deployment Notes
For customers using Windows Update offline scan file, Wsusscn2.cab, no new December scan cab will be issued. You will need to download the December 2018 WSUS scan cab and then manually download this KB from Microsoft Update Catalog to deploy. An updated scan file that includes this KB will be available in the next security release in January 2019.
A Delta package for this update will not be available. Customers using Delta package updates need to apply the Full Update. Customers who do not apply the Full update, and only the December Delta package update from December 11, 2018 will experience an update failure when installing the January Delta Update. The January Full update will install correctly.
Before installing this update
Microsoft strongly recommends you install the latest servicing stack update (SSU) for your operating system before installing the latest cumulative update (LCU). SSUs improve the reliability of the update process to mitigate potential issues while installing the LCU and applying Microsoft security fixes. For more information, see Servicing stack updates.
If you are using Windows Update, the latest SSU (KB4477136) will be offered to you automatically. To get the stand-alone package for the latest SSU, go to the Microsoft Update Catalog.
Install this update
This update will be downloaded and installed automatically from Windows Update. To get the stand-alone package for this update, go to the Microsoft Update Catalog website.
File information
For a list of the files that are provided in this update, download the file information for cumulative update 4483232.


text:
Just when I thought it was safe to watch TV news again without having to cringe at Canadian accents and mispronunciations, Channel 7 hires Ravi Baichwal. I'm sure he is a nice guy, and I'm willing to give him three months. If he hasn't dropped the Canadian accent by then, I say we call it a day.
I disagree--I like Canadian accents!