text:
Scalia: Chief Judicial Activist?
Antonin Scalia, just a few days ago:
In a speech to lawyers gathered June 21 in Asheville, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia decried judicial activism.
That was to the North Carolina Bar Association on Friday. But today, Scalia and his colleagues struck down a law enacted by a 98-0 vote in the usually fractious Senate. Commonweal's editors predicted this "clear judicial activism" in their March 5 editorial. Now perhaps Commonweal's own legal experts can weigh in: Is Shelby County v. Holder the most "activist" Supreme Court decision of all time?
Let's see what the Senate's leader was saying about the Voting Rights Act all the way back in 2006:
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) called the vote a major success. "The Voting Rights Act has worked," he said. "We need to build upon that progress by extending expiring provisions."
Indeed, the Voting Rights Act has, on the whole, worked -- a fact demonstrated clearly by the ruling itself. Has it worked so well that it is no longer needed? This is unthinkable, as demonstrated by the long litany of abuses in Ginsburg's dissent, many of them from the 2000's. This is not even to mention more recent attempts to suppress voter turnout, as discussed in this 2012 Commonweal editorial.
Recall that during oral arguments, Scalia referred to the Voting Rights Act as the "perpetuation of racial entitlement." That inaccurate and offensive remark was likely to be forgotten over time, but with today's ruling, it will probably become the most memorable and quoted line of Scalia's career.
In the previous words of Commonweal's editors:
Scalia's offhand reference to the "perpetuation of racial entitlement" was another startling reminder of why the VRA is necessary. The federal government goes to great lengths to ensure equal representation not as a generous gift to racial minorities, but because the right of all to vote and be counted is fundamental to our political system.
A right, not a gift.
About the Author
Michael Peppard is associate professor of theology at Fordham University, author of The World's Oldest Church and The Son of God in the Roman World, and on Twitter @MichaelPeppard.
61 comments
- All
- Editor Featured
I think this decision will provide Democrats with a good opportunity to go on the offensive with the composition of the SCt.
We will see what happens on Thursday.
Perhaps most remarkable about this decision, given Scalia's originalism and his understanding that the courts should defer to the judgments of the people expressed through the legislative branch, is that we have in the VRA a statute re-authorized several times, most recently by a near-unanimous legislative branch only seven years ago. How an originalist who believes in the political branches of government and the primary authority of the people can say that the assumptions of section 5 no longer can apply is...puzzling.
From today's report in the NY Times:
The majority held that the coverage formula in Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, originally passed in 1965 and most recently updated by Congress in 1975, was unconstitutional. The section determines which states must receive preclearance from the Justice Department or a federal court in Washington before they make minor changes to voting procedures, like relocating a polling place, or major ones, like redrawing electoral districts.
John Neiman, an attorney who submitted an amicus curiae brief on behalf of Shelby County is quoted as saying:
All nine justices agreed in a 2009 case that the coverage formula had serious constitutional issues. The coverage formula is exceedingly difficult to justify as a matter of logic. I had hoped that more justices would agree to strike down the coverage formula, and to leave it to Congress to fix the problem if it so desired.
Does anyone know why Congress did not use a more up-to-date formula when they renewed the Act in 2006?
Does anyone know why Congress did not use a more up-to-date formula when they renewed the Act in 2006?
Lazy. Its just easier to keep renewing the same law rather than actually holding hearings and deciding what actually makes sense now.
And this post seriously mischaracterizies this issue. The real issue is that Congress failed to uphold its responsibility. The act itself is not unconstitutional; its that Congress failed to update it for changing conditions. Voting patterns have changed dramatically since 1975 which means the law should have changed. And in 2009 the Democratic party controlled both the House and the Senate so they certainly could have passed any update they wanted once the Supreme Court put them on notice. Lazy and irresponsible.
Bruce, what do you mean "once the Supreme Court put them on notice"? The Voting Rights Act was renewed in 2006 for 25 years by Congress and signed into law by President Bush. The Senate vote was unanimous; well over 90% of the House voted in favor as well. At the time, Republicans controlled both houses of Congress.
Here is the complete text of the 15th amendment to the US constitution:
"Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."
The Court's majority yesterday did not (so far as I know, I'd be happy to be prove wrong) cite what provision of the Constitution the Voting Rights Act violated, contenting itself with stating it violated the "letter and spirit of the Constitution".
So we have a case in which the Constitution gives explicit and unrestricted power to Congress to pass "appropriate legislation" to enforce a constitutional right, the Congress by near-unanimous vote exercises its power, and the Court's majority overturns the law. Can we agree that so-called "originalists" have lost all credibility when they decry "judicial activism"?
The constitutional objection is on the grounds of equal sovereignty, i.e. that the federal government should not impose an unequal burden on state governments because all states are equally sovereign. Still, I cannot elude the feeling that the changes in voting patterns provide only a convenient opportunity to strike down a law the majority might have liked to have struck down (and those who agree with them would've struck down) in 1966. The real objection is to any federal limitation of state sovereignty at all, and the presence of remarkable mountains of evidence of discrimination in the pending Texas case and other places seems not to move the majority much. This isn't a decision about voting or race so much as it is one driven by the oldest argument in American politics--state power vs. national power. (And like many of the times we've had that argument, the implications are charged with potential harm for minorities.) One reads the decision, its data-heavy demonstration of how voting patterns have changed, and one seems meant to feel the warm satisfaction of living in a post-racial society. The justices know that's not true as well as we do, but that's not the point. The goal was to limit the power of the federal government, and they have succeeded.
As for why the formula was not updated in 2006? I don't know that "lazy" really gets it. More like inertia. To tinker with the formula and crawl into the tall weeds of these issues offers members of Congress no win--especially because the appearace (to my eye) is not that the geographical loci of descrimination really have moved or changed so much as that the discrimination in those places has grown subtler, harder to quantify. Most probably the same disincentives that prevented congressional action in 2006 will continue to promote the same inertia now that the Court has forced the question. And that means that the majority has effectively struck down the VRA without actually striking it down. We'll all blame Congress, call them lazy, but there will be no more section 5 enforcements.
Last point. Does anybody remember Roberts's confirmation hearing where he talked about how important it would be to work for larger majorities on major cases, and how undesirable it is to make far-reaching changes to the law by 5-4 margins? Or do I remember that incorrectly?
Here is Justice Black in South Carolina v. Katzenbach (1966):
I cannot help but believe that the inevitable effect of any such law which forces any one of the States to entreat federal authorities in far-away places for approval of local laws before they can become effective is to create the impression that the State or States treated in this way are little more than conquered provinces. And if one law concerning voting can make the States plead for this approval by a distant federal court or the United States Attorney General, other laws on different subjects can force the States to seek the advance approval not only of the Attorney General, but of the President himself, or any other chosen members of his staff. It is inconceivable to me that such a radical degradation of state power was intended in any of the provisions of our Constitution or its Amendments.
Notice first that Black's fears of further laws encroaching on state sovereignty or powers over states being granted to faceless bureaucrats in the Executive Office of the President have not come to pass...despite fears that persist today that such 'tyrannical' excesses lurk around every corner of a federal building. But finally, the real logic of Shelby County is the same as Katzenbach: we cannot treat states unequally--no matter how much historical evidence or current practice demands that we recognize state and local behaviors that demand some federal remedy.
Steve Benen asks on what grounds the court found the struck section of the VRA unconstitutional. Oddly, Roberts's opinion doesn't say. Not so oddly, Roberts also neglected to mention the 15th amendment, which (as noted by Luke Hill, and in the editorial Michael Peppard links to) is the one that explicitly spells out Congress's right and responsibility to pass laws like the VRA. I don't see any way around the conclusion that Benen (and we) reached: "The justices decided to substitute their judgment for the people's and their elected lawmakers, because they felt like it."
It seems to me conservatives should be alarmed by the court's decision to vacate an action of the legislative branch, even if they happen to dislike the specific law that the Court delegitimized. Unelected elites overturning the work of the elected representatives of the people, in direct contradiction of the Constitution, strikes me as the sort of thing conservatives tend to protest. And if the Roberts court were inclined to look to precedent as part of its usual process, this decision would set a very bad one.
I'd respectfully disagree that "this isn't a decision about voting or race so much as it is...(about) state power vs. national power". The old argument that the Civil War was about "states' rights" is pretty well disproven by now (not least by the writings of the secessionists). It was about slavery and white power. It's hard not to see this decision as the latest episode in that long struggle.
The Voting Rights Act was renewed in 2006 for 25 years by Congress and signed into law by President Bush. The Senate vote was unanimous; well over 90% of the House voted in favor as well. At the time, Republicans controlled both houses of Congress.
This is one of Michael Peppard's points as well. My question is: is a provision's Constitutionality a function of the majority by which it is passed? Had it passed the Senate 51-49, and the House 218-217, would that be an indication to the Court that the provision was of dubious Consitutionality?
The PATRIOT Act also passed by significant majorities of both houses, including 98-1 in the Senate. The Defense of Marriage Act passed by overwhelming majorities in both houses, including 85-14 in the Senate. By the logic being put forth here, should the Court even agree to consider challenges to those laws?
I'm told that New York City was one of the areas that required Federal permission to change its voting laws under the Voting Rights Act. There are many New Yorkers who post and comment here. In your opinion, now that the provision is overturned, is New York particularly vulnerable to systematic racial discrimination against African Americans? Now that Mayor Bloomberg's hands no longer are tied, should we look for him to enact sweeping reforms that will disenfranchise black voters in New York?
Roberts also neglected to mention the 15th amendment, which (as noted by Luke Hill, and in the editorial Michael Peppard links to) is the one that explicitly spells out Congress's right and responsibility to pass laws like the VRA.
The 15th amendment is still in effect, and Congress is still (sort of) operating. Except for this single provision that was struck down, the Voting Rights Act remains in force. President Obama has already vowed to pass replacement legislation, presumably that would take into account the Court's ruling and avoid what is Constitutionally objectionable. Also, I don't know of any reason that individual states that were subject to the now-voided provision can't enact their own laws and regulations to ensure voting fairness. And with the publicity that this decision has engendered (except in Chicago, where nothing but the Blackhawks and the Stanley Cup is considered worthy of newscasts and front pages), the wind should be at the backs of those who want to replace the provision in question.
Sorry, meant to add to my previous comment: the political optics that led to the virtually unanimous extension of the VRA in 2006 haven't changed. While there is no percentage in supposing that Congress has hit bottom in its ability to be dysfunctional, I would guess that even House Republicans don't want to go on record as obstructing anything that smells like it would disenfranchise non-white voters. There is a presidential election in 2016, and Republicans have failed for two presidential elections to muster enough white voters to get anywhere near the summit, much less over the hump.
And today, says Justice Scalia, the Court's rulings on DOMA and Prop 8 "both spring from the same diseased root: an exalted notion of the role of this court in American democratic society."
And, yes. It's been fewer than 24 hours since announcing his vote to nullify a flawed though not unjustifiable standard adopted by the legislative branch with near unanimity only seven years ago.
We want what we want, after all.
Shame on the Catholics on the bench and the Catholics who justify it. Striking down the Voting Rights Act and Affirmative action in the same week! These are empire Catholics who exult in building 200 million dollar cathedral while cooly neglecting the disenfranchised. It is judicial activism. I am not sure how it will stimulate the Democrats. But it will surely galvanize minorities. I think it will help the Dems in the midterm elections. At any rate it removes all semblances of good will of the Catholics on the court. Shame on them. Wonder what Ted Hesburgh thinks about these Scotus Catholics.
To pick up on Steven M.'s observation, here's how Charles Pierce prefaces his views on the day-to-day statements of Antonin Scalia: "I'd be remiss if, in light of yesterday's day of jubilee regarding the Voting Rights Act, I didn't point out what an incredible passel of Janus-faced thooleramawns the Supreme Court's conservative faction is."
My two cents on the matter. Scalia is a lawyer not a justice. A legal fundamentalist. If there is, as he seems to believe, something divine in the law it was in the motives that led to its creation of some of its particulars.. As to the particulars of its implementations, that's another matter altogether.
Would it really have been so damaging, so irresponsible, to have passed on this one by merely suggesting the Congress reconsider its methods of identifying areas of our nation requiring the attention demanded by the VRA and, in the mean time, leave it be? Nope.
My thanks to Dominic for passing along the reference to thoolamawn. It joins bacciagalupe among my favorite ethnically-specific putdowns, the very spice of life in the remnant of Catholic immigrant culture.
This was a really odd argument for a group that claims to believe that the courts should defer to the legislature whenever possible. The court in essense said we don't much care what the Congress did. We are making a judgement that its standard should be changed based on our personal views. Judicial activism at its worst.
This wasn't a case of legal fundamentalism. This was a case of the judiciary substituting its judgement for that of the legislature, which is the very opposite of legal fundamentalism. Justice Scalia and his little me toos, Justices Thomas and the Alito, are effectively conservative political activist who with no coherent judicial philosophy. They have demonstrated this in any number of cases where deference to legislature, a fundamental position of conservative legal pricipal, or any number of other pricipals have been tossed aside in order to support concservative political causes.
The ULTIMATE issue is whether or not people's voting rights in those areas are being respected.
The IMMEDIATE issue is whether or not the data on which government action is to be based is in fact current data, that is, data which reflects the facts today.
The Court has not thrown out the VRA, it has only demanded current data in order to implement the that crucial section of the law.
Until we actually have facts and figures to tell us (both Congress and the Court) whether or not the facts have or have not changed, we can't really say whether the Court's decision regarding those facts is right or wrong, It thinks times have changed enough to require a change in the law. Maybe it's right, and maybe it's wrong. It's up to Congress to look and see.
This time I'm with the Court. Surely at least Manhattan should have been taken off the list, as Jim P. has noted.
A perfect example of this position is Scalia's disent in the DOMA case. Here is his comment:
"We have no power to decide this case. And even if we did, we have no power under the Constitution to invalidate this democratically adopted legislation."
Yet not 24 hours earlier the court in the voting rights act did exactly that and Scalia was among those who had no reservations about substituting his judgement on what standards a state should meet to be included under the act for those included in "democratically adopted legislation." He is a conservative political activist masquerading as a justice.
@Jim Pauwels (6/26, 8:20 am) To answer your first question, a law's constitutionality is not a function of the majority by which it is passed. I was merely pointing out to Bruce the strong degree of Republican support when it was renewed in 2006.
@Ann Olivier,
It really isn't the role of the court to decide what data one should use in establishing a standard. That puts the court in a role that goes way beyond its proper function. And I'm a supporter of a relatively activist court. Using the Roberts logic, the court should or could get into really detailed decisions for which it is ill equipt. It is as if what it did was to say "We agree that you have the right to set the speed limit, but we think it ought to be 75, not 65 because we've heard that cars and highways ar better built these days."
this was a case where they knew on the law they couldn't justify their decision so they went and threw out the details.
JIm D. --
True, it isn't the function of the Court to establish the data -- that's why it told Congress to revise the data in 2009 but Congress didn't do its duty, as usual. Yes, there should be blame -- and Congress should get it.
@Ann Olivier (6/26, 5:19 pm) But what makes the data set a matter of constitutionality when it comes to Congress carrying out its designated power under the 15th amendment? Upon which provision of the Constitution is the majority relying?
@Jim Pauwels (6/26, 8:28 am) - I can't speak for NYC. I can say that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts was successfully sued by civil rights organizations for the redistricting plan adopted after the 2000 census. (In a related matter, the House Speaker ended up in prison.)
UPDATE: Also very much worth noting is this excerpt from Justice Ginsburg's dissent: "The VRA permits a jurisdiction to bail out by showing that it has complied with the Act for ten years, and has engaged in efforts to eliminate intimidation and harassment of voters. 42 U. S. C. §1973b(a) (2006 ed. and Supp. V). It also authorizes a court to subject a noncovered jurisdiction to federal preclearance upon finding that violations of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments have occurred there. §1973a(c) (2006 ed.)."
In other words, "A jurisdiction included under Section 4 could take steps to get removed from preclearance requirements under Section 5. And a jurisdiction not included under Section 4 could be placed there if they demonstrated a pattern of systemic racial discrimination."
@Jim Pauwels (6/26, 8:38 am) Actually, with Section 4 struck down, section 5 cannot function---which was the goal of the plaintiffs and their backers.
True, in theory there's no "reason that individual states that were subject to the now-voided provision can't enact their own laws and regulations to ensure voting fairness".
However, in the real world in which we live, leaders of the governing party in several of the "individual states that were subject to the now-voided provision" have made clear that they intend to move forward with laws and regulations that will ensure voting unfairness, discriminating against the poor, the young, and the non-white.
UPDATE: According to this AP story, Republican officials in Texas, North Carolina and Mississippi are moving forward with plans to restrict voting.
Doubling back to the "state sovereignty" argument, ponder this: if Roberts, Scalia, Alito and Thomas care so much about protecting state powers from encroachment by the federal government, then why did they dissent from Kennedy's opinion in today's DOMA case---a classic case of "states' rights"?
In reply to Ann, here is George Will today:
Progressives resent progress when it renders anachronistic once-valid reasons for enlarging the federal government's supervisory and coercive powers. Hence they regret Tuesday's Supreme Court rulingthat progress has rendered Section 4 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act unconstitutional.
His reply is typical of conservative opinion here, and notice the importance of the "Hence." The role of voter supression and discrimination is absent from his consideration of the problem
Justice Jackson can guide us when we're setting our constitutional priorities. He quipped that the Constitution was never intended to be a suicide pact. A decision to uphold the Constitution can't be repugnant to the purposes of the Constitution. It might be ideal, yes, were Manhattan and other jurisdiction removed to reflect the state of things. Congress should do that. But it wasn't Manhattan that filed suit. Indeed, those jurisdictions haven't complained. The complaint came from Alabama where, perhaps, we'll agree that voter supression and discrimination continues...and, will continue unchecked now in light of what the Court has done.
What, in fairness, you call a reasonable and right decision (and which is, in its way, reasonable and right) will empower voter supression and discrimination, the very opposite of what the 15th Amendment intends. So I don't think the question is whether the formula should have been updated. Ideally, it should have. But practically, the Court has empowered voter supression and discrimination in the name of upholding a constitutional standard. That's a perverse mis-ordering of constitutional priorities.
Communities that will have 4-6 hour lines to vote will pay a big price and the SC could care less. MSNBC showed one Florida juristriction that had a polling place for 6000 voters and another for 68,000 ..
The SC will announce like some other un-skilled dolts.. "that's not our job'
"Hubris is a fit word for today's demolition of the V.R.A
Justice Ruth Ginsburg
I am convinced beyond debate we severly limit our ability to understand the often complete lack of reasonable political maneuvering in our nation when we accept as valid a label a person gives themselves without useful consideration of its validity. So many of those who label themselves conservatives are no such thing. To believe they are requires we believe conservatism does not merely tolerant the destructive aspects of ignorance it does in fact enshrine it. That we tolerate lunacy can be a fine thing. We all need a vacation from reality from time to time. That we demand it of our leaders is another matter.
BTW, if it is indeed true that Scalia's train of thought when expressing his opinions of the DOMA decision allowed him to find appropriate his dragging the phrase "homosexual sodomy" into the public arena....well....my goodness but the boy is a bit over the edge, fancy robe and all.
Nobody is denying that the section needs to be restored -- but Chief Justice Roberts insists that a restoration be done on the basis of current facts as they are determined by the Congress, which is, according to the Constitution, Art. 15, the body resposible for protecting the rights at issue.
It's time we voters take responsibility for the do-nothing Congresses that we've been electing.
Ed G.=
Is it the job of the SC to write the laws governing voting processes? Or do you think that it makes no difference which arm of the government gets a job done? That way would also lead to executives (Presidents) deciding what shall be done, not Congress.
@Ann Olivier (6/26, 11:04 pm) According to Justice Ginsburg in her dissent, "Congress may have been charged with rigidity had it afforded covered jurisdictions no way out or ignored jurisdictions that needed superintendence. Congress, however, responded to this concern. Critical components of the congressional design are the statutory provisions allowing jurisdictions to "bail out" of preclearance, and for court-ordered "bail ins." See Northwest Austin, 557 U. S., at 199. The VRA permits a jurisdiction to bail out by showing that it has complied with the Act for ten years, and has engaged in efforts to eliminate intimidation and harassment of voters. 42 U. S. C. §1973b(a) (2006 ed. and Supp. V). It also authorizes a court to subject a noncovered jurisdiction to federal preclearance upon finding that violations of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments have occurred there. §1973a(c) (2006 ed.)."
So Congress created mechanisms for "pre-clearance" jurisdictions to remove themselves from the requirement for pre-clearance, and for other jurisdictions to be subjected to pre-clearance.
How is that not an example of writing law "on the basis of current facts" (regardless of whether there might be other ways of accomplishing the same end)?
And what provision of the Constitution does Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act violate? (I've yet to find a citation.)
Re Scalia's use of the words "homosexual sodomy"
Not only inapprorpriate but a cheap shot.
Scalia has 9 children and over three times that many grandchildren (last I read, 28). Suppose one of that clan is gay. It's possible. And supposing that member of his clan finds a life partner and wants to marry.
Hmm... will he continue his rant about "homosexual sodomy?"
However, in the real world in which we live, leaders of the governing party in several of the "individual states that were subject to the now-voided provision" have made clear that they intend to move forward with laws and regulations that will ensure voting unfairness, discriminating against the poor, the young, and the non-white.
In the link you provided, I didn't see any reference to laws and regulations that will ensure voting unfairness, discriminating against the poor, the young and the non-white. I did see that a handful of states that are in various stages of enacting voter-ID laws, now no longer being burdened with getting clearance from the Obama Administration's Justice Department, are now proceeding with those initiatives.
The state that made news reports that I've heard in the last couple of days in this regard is Texas. Following the link you provided, I learned that Texas residents, in order to vote, will need to present an ID card. A driver's license serves this purpose; for those who don't have one, the ID card is free and is obtainable wherever drivers licenses are obtainable. To obtain one, a Texan needs to demonstrate citizenship which, for anyone born in the US, means producing a birth certificate. Is it your understanding that the poor, the young and the non-white are not issued birth certificates? That hasn't been my observation. I happen to have one kicking around the house already because I've needed it in the past to obtain other things required to get on with my life - in my case, I think it was a marriage license and a passport. I don't remember how I got it, but it wasn't particularly burdensome.
Texans also have to prove state residency. The link you provided doesn't specify how to establish residency in Texas, but I've had to do it here in Illinois for various purposes, such as getting a municipal sticker for the car, and obtaining a driver's license. Utility bills with my family's name and place of residence usually suffice in Illlinois, including for the poor, the young and the non-white, but there are many other ways to do it, too.
I note, too, that according to Slate Magazine, there are something in excess of 1.6 million illegal immigrants in Texas. Given that reality, it doesn't seem outrageous to me that proof of citizenship and residence be confirmed at the polling place. The population of illegal immigrants in Texas approaches 7% of the state's total population, and of course, many, many elections are decided by margins smaller than that.
All of the above is based on a couple of minutes' surfing on the web. Possibly there are concerns with the Texas requirement that didn't surface in my brief research. If that is the case, we're told that, despite this Supreme Court decision, a variety of other legal remedies (to say nothing of legislative remedies) are still available to those who advocate for voter fairness. But we already know this to be true, because we know at least two states, Ohio and Pennsylvania, that were not burdened with the VRA preclearance provision during the 2012 election season, but who nonetheless had problematic voter ID laws struck down by the courts.
What is so inappropriate about the words 'homosexual sodomy'. Sodomy is defined in Websters as 'oral or anal copulation with a member of the same or opposite sex'. Sodomy describes a physical act with humans actually perform; it is truthful. Homosexual is defined in Websters as 'of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex'. No problem with this word either. So Scalia's use of the words 'homosexual sodomy' accurately descibes a human activity and it describes it truthfully. So what's 'inappropriate [and] a cheap shot?
Maybe its an implied opprobrium against such human activity especially when that involves a 'loving couple'. Surely a God who is Love would not contenance such opprobrium. But God is also Truth. And the truth about the human sexual faculty is that it can only achieve its most astounding intended purpose, conception of a child, when only a male and a female are involved. A truthful and loving God cannot countenace sexual contact between a sex organ and a mouth or anus or any other non-sex-organ body part, else He becomes untruthful and hence not God. He cannot be loving and untruthful. Or perhaps He is just cruel, designing a world where it is impossible for humans to the ascertain right conduct of His truth. But in that case as well, He cannot be the God - Father, Son and Holy Spirit - which the Catholic church teaches. Love is not that God's only quality.
Maybe you are referring to my use of the word appropriate with respect to Scalia's comment about homosexual sodomy.
It is my belief that Scalia in his usual way was trying to get attention by making comments that are outlandish and quotable.
He thinks that he is funny and clever. To me he is a boor.
Luke H. --
Thanks. I didn't realize that Congress had already in the last version of the law made provision for changing the status of particular counties and states. You're the only one I've read who has made that point. Odd, though, that the minority view didn't make that point -- or did it?
As for last version of Section 4 violating the Constitution, if the majority of the justices assumed that there was no provision to change the status of offending state jurisdictions, then that would be a clear violation not of Amend. 15 (which is concerned with the rights of individuals to vote) but it would be a matter of violating the right of non-national jurisdictions to not-be-burdened with the requirements of Section 4. I have no idea which article or amendment that right to not-be-burdened would violate. But that point is moot if Section 4 still allows action to be taken to correct any unfair implementing of the voting rights.
Oops - - Justice Ginsberg did make that point. No wonder she's so angry.
A couple of my thoughts in response to the above:
- The Constitution really could not be clearer on this one. That's why the VRA opinion did not even try to dispute the letter of the law. It made a spirit of the law argument -- the kind that Scalia et al. say that they avoid.
- Of course the majority can be wrong. It often is. But 98-0 in a Senate that rarely agrees on anything -- a vote only 7 years old -- is no simple majority. The point here is about how much power the Supreme Court arrogates to itself, without giving a constitutional argument.
- As I understand it, the NYC aspect of the VRA pre-clearance stuff has in part been about linguistic barriers, which correspond to but do not directly overlap with racial barriers, to voting. As the most linguistically diverse place in the country -- I think Bronx and Queens are actually the most linguistically diverse places on earth -- changes to voting practices here ought to be held to serious scrutiny.
- As for voter ID, there have been lots of compliations by journalists of citizens denied their right to vote, including things like: birthed by rural midwife and no hospital record; misspelled name on hospital record and unable to get birth certificate; no proof of address because all documents were in name of deceased spouse; being turned away with Veterans Affairs ID because it didn't include his home address on it. These stories are all easily available. They are mostly elderly and poor. Many of the reported stories have also been veterans.
- Another method of voter suppression is to eliminate early voting, which is heavily used by folks who cannot get off work on election day. Because we don't have holidays for election days, people with unstable employment often have to choose between showing up to work and voting. And yes, some people really do work two jobs on a Tuesday and can't take a long period to go wait in line at the polls. A election holiday (like every other civilized country) would of course remove this excuse.
- And finally, the fact that voting has improved in these states since 1965 does not negate the need for the law. It proves the success of the law. That's the most twisted part of the logic. To make an analogy that I think is better than Ginsburg's about the umbrella:
Because it is much easier for handicapped citizens to enter public buildings nowadays does NOT mean that the Americans with Disabilities Act has run its course and can be done away with.
@Jim Pauwels (6/27, 10:01 am) Thanks for the response. Quoting from the federal court ruling last summer that blocked Texas' voter ID law: ""The State of Texas enacted a voter ID law that — at least to our knowledge — is the most stringent in the country. That law will almost certainly have retrogressive effect: it imposes strict, unforgiving burdens on the poor, and racial minorities in Texas are disproportionately likely to live in poverty. And crucially, the Texas legislature defeated several amendments that could have made this a far closer case."
This quote is not from the court's ruling, but from the linked news story, "One set of data provided by the state showed Hispanics were 46.5 percent more likely to lack a state-issued form of photo identification, while another showed Hispanics were 120 percent more likely to lack that type of ID."
I find the following statement from your comment illuminating: "Is it your understanding that the poor, the young and the non-white are not issued birth certificates? That hasn't been my observation. I happen to have one kicking around the house already because I've needed it in the past to obtain other things required to get on with my life - in my case, I think it was a marriage license and a passport."
First, my understanding---like yours---is that everyone gets issued a birth certificate. You have a copy of yours because you needed one to get "a marriage license and a passport". Young adults---particularly low-income young adults---very often have never needed to get a marriage license or a passport, because they've not been married and they've not travelled to other countries.
In-person voter fraud is virtually nonexistent in Texas, and in every other state in the union. The wave of voting restrictions introduced in recent years have two things in common: 1) they're all aimed at creating an electorate that is older, whiter and wealthier than the citizenry at large; and 2) they're all proposed by Republicans---the party that has made a conscious decision over the past two generations to leave behind its pro-civil rights tradition in order to appeal to the racial and ethnic resentments of a sizable bloc of white voters.
I'll ask you, as I've asked others in this thread: what provision of the Constitution---according to Justice Roberts---did section 4 of the Voting Rights Act violate? Because, from everything I've read so far, his decision never makes that clear.
@Ann Olivier (6/27, 12:33 pm) Thanks for your reply. Actually, the minority did make that point. Above I quoted directly from Justice Ginsburg's dissenting opinion where she makes precisely that point. Apparently the majority either misread the statute or ignored that section of it.
I'm not sure what you mean by the "right to not-be-burdened". It seems fairly clear from the history of the 15th amendment, that its framers quite consciously wrote it so as to remove voting rights from the power of the "several states" and lodge it firmly with the federal government, specifically by giving Congress the power to enforce those rights.
Luke --
By the right not-to-be-burdened I was just referring to the right of a jurisdiction not to be burdened with irrelevant laws. For instance, if a county in up-state new York were covered by Section 4 even though it had no voter registration problems, that would violate its right not-to-be-burdened by the law.
Ann, thanks for clarifying. As I think you indicated, and as Ginsbrug wrote in her opinion, Congress seems to have written the Voting Rights Act to accommodate that situation. If a jurisdiction had no recent history of discriminatory voting laws or practices, then it's not subject to pre-clearance. If a jurisdiction starts adopting discriminatory laws or practices, then it is.
I note, too, that according to Slate Magazine, there are something in excess of 1.6 million illegal immigrants in Texas. Given that reality, it doesn't seem outrageous to me that proof of citizenship and residence be confirmed at the polling place. The population of illegal immigrants in Texas approaches 7% of the state's total population, and of course, many, many elections are decided by margins smaller than that.
Jim Pauwels (6/27, 10:01 am)
That's a strong argument if one assumes that the 1.6 million illegal immigrants, who have good reason not to draw attention to themselves, are going to vote fraudulently at far higher rates than Texas citizens vote legitimately.
Closer to reality, I suspect, is this state-by-state map of known voter fraud cases since 2000.
Texans have cast tens of millions of votes since 2000, and 37 of them are known to be fraudulent. The probability that fraud falsified any election result is exceedingly small, although still larger than the chance that voter fraud prevention is the true motivation for voter ID laws.
I don't remember how I got [a birth certificate], but it wasn't particularly burdensome.
I think you might agree that it is hazardous to generalize from one's own case to that of millions of other people whose circumstances are known to be different. We who have a computer and the leisure and inclination to post comments on this blog may be better able to overleap small administrative hurdles than those whose waking hours must be devoted almost entirely to feeding their families and keeping them sheltered, that is, poor people.
" A truthful and loving God cannot countenace sexual contact between a sex organ and a mouth or anus or any other non-sex-organ body part, else He becomes untruthful and hence not God."
BruceTraditional Catholic moral theologians allow oral and anal sex as long as the semen ends up in the vagina. Yyour conclusions contradict both conservative and moral theologians.
conservative and liberal theologians.
The ability to know and to assert with utter confidence what God can and cannot countenance must be one of those charisms I hear so much about. It's a little surprising how many people seem to have this one.
Last week the Supreme Court Ruled that states could not require proof of citizenship to register to vote in federal elections. The decision of the court was written by Justice Scalia
I haven't looked into what Texas proposes to do but, on the surface, I don't see how this week's ruling on the Voting Rights Act helps them to get around last week' ruling.
I think the worrysome issues are redistricting, hours and locations of polling places, early voting, absentee voting, and foreign language ballots and instructions
First, my understanding---like yours---is that everyone gets issued a birth certificate. You have a copy of yours because you needed one to get "a marriage license and a passport". Young adults---particularly low-income young adults---very often have never needed to get a marriage license or a passport, because they've not been married and they've not travelled to other countries.
Young adults can, should, and do get married, and in fact some of them do travel outside the country - one of the reasons being that some of them are the children of immigrants and they travel to their country of family origin to visit extended family (as when they get married, or have a baby). But the point is that, whatever the impetus - including to be able to vote - getting one's birth certificate is not an overwhelming burden. It's a hoop to jump through that is no more difficult, and in some cases easier, than other hoops we jump through to keep our lives afloat. It is no more difficult for the poor than for the middle-class or rich; it is no more difficult for the old than the young; it is no more difficult for blacks than for whites; and it is no more difficult for the children of immigrants than it is for the children of native-born Americans. It is an equal-opportunity hoop to jump through.
Your comment about a federal court blocking the Texas voter ID law is confusing, as the story to which you had linked previously, which is my sole source for knowing anything about Texas and voter ID laws, seemed to imply that, now that the pertinent provision of the VRA is dead, Texas will move forward with its voter ID law. Is the law live now, or is it blocked by a federal court?
First, my understanding---like yours---is that everyone gets issued a birth certificate. You have a copy of yours because you needed one to get "a marriage license and a passport". Young adults---particularly low-income young adults---very often have never needed to get a marriage license or a passport, because they've not been married and they've not travelled to other countries.
Young adults can, should, and do get married, and in fact some of them do travel outside the country - one of the reasons being that some of them are the children of immigrants and they travel to their country of family origin to visit extended family (as when they get married, or have a baby). But the point is that, whatever the impetus - including to be able to vote - getting one's birth certificate is not an overwhelming burden. It's a hoop to jump through that is no more difficult, and in some cases easier, than other hoops we jump through to keep our lives afloat. It is no more difficult for the poor than for the middle-class or rich; it is no more difficult for the old than the young; it is no more difficult for blacks than for whites; and it is no more difficult for the children of immigrants than it is for the children of native-born Americans. It is an equal-opportunity hoop to jump through.
Your comment about a federal court blocking the Texas voter ID law is confusing, as the story to which you had linked previously, which is my sole source for knowing anything about Texas and voter ID laws, seemed to imply that, now that the pertinent provision of the VRA is dead, Texas will move forward with its voter ID law. Is the law live now, or is it blocked by a federal court?
I think the worrysome issues are redistricting, hours and locations of polling places, early voting, absentee voting, and foreign language ballots and instructions
As a resident of Illinois, I just want to knote that redistricting / gerrymandering is a bipartisan sport.
The probability that fraud falsified any election result is exceedingly small
So is the possibility that someone will blow up an airplane with his shoe, yet it has been thought prudent for all of us to take ours off every time we go through airport security. Personally, I think voter fraud is more likely than shoe bombs. And I think it happens more frequently than it is detected (admittedly, this last opinion may be colored by my living in Illinois, but on occasion I see newspapers from other locales that lead me to believe that political corruption isn't unique to my part of the country).
Jim P. --
You don't seem to understand just how difficult it is to be very poor, and there are many very poor Americans. Many of them work two jobs, and some work three. People like them cannot afford to take off an afternoon to go down to City Hall and register. Saturday elections don't help because they're working then too. Further, bus fare can cost them a meal or two, e.g., here bus and trolley fare is $1.25 one way and 25 cents per transfer.
Ann - I have been poor - I am very grateful that I am not poor now. Yes, it is difficult - I have lived the difficulties myself, and I minister to those who are poor. The difficulties you described would apply no matter what the election rules are. My own experience is that most poor adults have a photo ID already - they have already needed to obtain one in order to jump through all the degrading hoops that we make the poor jump through in order to get subsidized food, housing and other forms of public assistance. For those that don't have a photo ID already, in Texas (and Illinois) there is an option to get a birth certificate by mail (a birth certificate being one of several acceptable proofs of eligibility). Mail service seems to deteriorate every year, but it is still democratic - it is still the same for the poor, the middle class and the rich.
Jim P, --
I suppose our differences in outlook are largely due to the amount and depth of poverty where we come from. Historically New Orleans has been a city with a relatively large middle-middle class but an extremely large poor one, and the poor are poorer than in other places, up until Katrina anyway. Since Katrina housing has become even more expensive (so many houses were destroyed), and something like a third of the former citizens haven't been able to return, though that proportion keeps changing. We're not typical, at any rate.
Still, voting problems here don't seem to be the worst. Texas and So. Carolina are. But we'll see -- it's the State voting laws that cause the problems, and I don't doubt we'll see some chicanery going on in the legislature (depending on what Congress does, or more likely, doesn't get around to doing). But who knows. Education in the state has been improving a lot in the last 10 years, though it still has far to go. We'll see if that makes a difference in civic participation. (When you can't read forms you can't fill them out.)


text:
06-10952 Carmichael (Doc. # 112) - Document Text
- Details
- Category: Judge Somers
- Published: 11 October 2012
- Written by Judge Somers
- Hits: 3121
SIGNED this 10th day of October, 2012.
For on-line use but not print publication.
In re:
The Chapter 7 Trustee has filed a Motion for Adequate Protection Payments (Motion) to
protect the estate's lien in Debtor's manufactured home.1 Debtor opposes the Motion. After
having thoroughly considered the matter, the Court denies the Motion.
1 This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(a) and §§ 1334(a) and (b) and the Standing
Order of the United States District Court for the District of Kansas that exercised authority conferred by §
157(a) to refer to the District's Bankruptcy judges all matters under the Bankruptcy Code and all proceedings
arising under the Code or arising in or related to a case under the Code, effective July 10, 1984. A motion
for adequate protection to protect the estate's interest is a core proceeding which this Court may hear and
determine as provided in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) and (O). There is no objection to venue or jurisdiction
over the parties.
Case 06-10952 Doc# 112 Filed 10/10/12 Page 1 of 6
The facts are evidenced by the court record and are uncontroverted.
Debtor filed for relief under Chapter 7 on June 12, 2006. The Court appointed Edward J.
Nazar Trustee. Debtor's Schedule A includes her interest as joint tenant of real property, with a
value of $120,000 and subject to a real estate mortgage securing a claim of $70,000. The
improvements on the property include a 1999 Duchess Limited manufactured home
(Manufactured Home), which is personal property under Kansas law. The lien in the personal
property described in the mortgage was not perfected. The mortgaged property is claimed as
Debtor's exempt homestead on Schedule C. Schedule D includes the claim of the mortgage
lender, and Schedule H lists Matthew Milligan as a codebtor as to the mortgagee's claim.
Debtor did not reaffirm the debt secured by the mortgage. Debtor was granted a discharge on
October 24, 2006.
In May 2007, the Trustee filed a complaint to avoid the lender's lien on the Manufactured
Home because the lien on the home was not properly perfected by notation on the certificate of
title. An order entered on June 28, 2008 held the mortgagee's lien in the mobile home was
avoidable under 11 U.S.C. § 5442 and preserved the lien for the benefit of the estate under § 551.
On December 3, 2009, the Trustee filed a complaint seeking authority to sell Matthew
Milligan's interest in the Manufactured Home under § 363(h). Debtor opposed the motion.
Debtor's motion for summary judgment was granted. The Court ruled in part:
Subsection 363(h) therefore does not empower the Trustee
to sell the homestead property. The Trustee's argument in
opposition to Debtor's motion for summary judgment that the
2 Future reference to Title 11 in the text will be referenced by section number only.
Case 06-10952 Doc# 112 Filed 10/10/12 Page 2 of 6
exempt status of the homestead is irrelevant is misplaced. When
the Trustee avoided the lien granted by Debtor in the
Manufactured Home, the avoided lien and only the avoided lien
became property of the estate under § 541(a)(4). The only property
interest which the Trustee may sell under § 363(b) is the estate's
one-half interest in the unperfected lien in the Manufactured
Home. The Trustee has no authority under § 363(h) to sell the
entire homestead as a method to realize the value of that avoided
The Trustee's problem, which he is attempting to solve by
this adversary proceeding, is how to realize the value of the
avoided lien for the benefit of creditors. The Court holds that the
method chosen by the Trustee in this case is not authorized by the
Code. It is the combined effect of the exemption of the homestead
and the limited consequences of lien avoidance which create the
difficulty. If the Mortgaged Property were not the exempt
homestead, Debtor's interest on the Mortgaged Property, including
the Manufactured Home, would be property of the estate and
subject to sale by the Trustee under § 363(b). However, since
Debtor's interest in the property the Trustee seeks to sell is
Debtor's exempt homestead, § 363(b) does not authorize the sale
and § 363(h) is unavailable. As to lien avoidance, under § 544, the
Code provides the Trustee no specific remedies other than
automatic lien preservation under § 551.28 "Section 551preserves
only 'transfers' and 'liens.' Related ancillary rights held by the
party whose lien has been avoided are not preserved for the benefit
of the estate." Hence, upon lien avoidance, the trustee "receives
only the bundle of rights given him by Congress in the Bankruptcy
Code," the status of a holder of an unperfected lien.
In the circumstances of this case, the Trustee appears to
have at least three alternatives, none of which include sale under §
363(h). First, the Trustee could sell the estate's lien interest to a
third party, such as Lender or another entity. Second, the Trustee
could enter into an agreement with Debtor for release of the lien
upon receipt of a lump sum or periodic payments. Third, the
Trustee could await foreclosure by Lender, during which process
the estate would receive the value of its interest.3
3 Adv. 09-5291, dkt. 35 at 10-11, 13.
Case 06-10952 Doc# 112 Filed 10/10/12 Page 3 of 6
Because of the Court's ruling, the Trustee decided to close the case, while holding the
estate's lien until the real property sold. The Trustee's final report shows the lien as having a
value of $30,000. The case was closed on October 18, 2011.
On December 7, 2011, the United States Trustee's Office directed the Trustee to reopen
the case and administer the available assets, including the preserved lien. The Court granted the
Trustee's motion to reopen the case on March 6, 2012.
On June 7, 2012, the Trustee moved for the entry of an order to require the Debtor to
make adequate protection payments under § 361. The Debtor objects.
Section 361 provides: "When adequate protection in required under section 362, 363, or
364 of this title of an interest of an entity in property, such adequate protection may be provided
by" cash payments, additional or replacement liens, or other relief. Here the Trustee argues that
he is entitled to cash payments under § 361 because: (1) the creditor whose lien was avoided
would have been entitled to such payments to protect its interest while foreclosure of its lien was
precluded by the § 362 stay; and (2) "the trustee inherits that right when he or she avoids and
preserves that interest in property for the benefit of the estate."4 The Trustee correctly does not
assert a right to adequate protection under § 363, addressing use, sale, or lease of property, or §
364, addressing obtaining credit, the two code sections referenced in § 361 in addition to § 362.
The Trustee's "standing in the shoes of" the creditor under § 362 argument suffers from
two fatal infirmities. First, since the lien of the creditor whose claim was secured by a lien on
4 Dkt. 109 at 6.
Case 06-10952 Doc# 112 Filed 10/10/12 Page 4 of 6
the Manufactured Home was unperfected and subject to avoidance, such creditor would not have
been entitled to adequate protection payments in lieu of relief from stay. In Utah Aircraft
Alliance,5 the Tenth Circuit BAP affirmed a bankruptcy court's denial of a motion for relief from
stay for cause for lack of adequate protection under § 362(d)(1) filed by a creditor holding an
unperfected lien. The court noted that a majority of courts have held that § 362(d)(1) does not
apply to unsecured creditors and that the minority of courts which have held that unsecured
creditors may be protected by §362(d)(1) require extraordinary circumstances. Finding no
extraordinary circumstances, the BAP did not predict whether the Tenth Circuit would follow the
majority or the minority positions. Likewise, in this case, there are no extraordinary
circumstances, so the holder of the unperfected lien in the Manufactured Home would not have
been entitled to adequate protection payments with respect to the home as a condition to
continuation of the § 362 stay. If the Trustee were entitled to stand in the creditor's shoes under
§ 362, the Trustee would not be entitled to adequate protection payments.
Second, the Trustee is attempting to step into the shoes of the secured creditor to assert
rights under the Code. As this Court has held in this case when denying the Trustee' motion to
sell the mortgaged real property and the Manufactured Home located on that property, upon
avoidance of a lien under § 544 and preservation of that lien under § 551, the Trustee has only
the "status of a holder of an unperfected lien" and "'receives only the bundle of rights given him
by Congress in the Bankruptcy Code.'"6 Consistent with this general principle, case law in this
5 G & B Aircraft Management v. Smoot (In re Utah Aircraft Alliance, 342 B.R. 327, 337-338 (10th
Cir. BAP 2006).
6 Adv. 09-5291, dkt. 35 at 11, quoting Morris v. St. John Nat. Bank (In re Haberman), 516 F.3d 1207,
1212 (10th Cir. 2008).
Case 06-10952 Doc# 112 Filed 10/10/12 Page 5 of 6
circuit has established that the Code does not grant the Trustee the ancillary contractual rights
against the debtor that were held by the party whose lien has been avoided.7 Likewise, there is
no basis in the Code for recognizing a "standing in the shoes of" argument as applied to ancillary
rights of the creditor against the debtor under the Code. Section 551 does not grant the Trustee
the ancillary rights under the Code held by the party who lien has been avoided.
The Court denies the Trustee's Motion for adequate protection payments. As the holder
of the unperfected lien in the Manufactured Home under § 551, the Trustee has no right to such
Judgment is granted denying the Trustee's Motion for Adequate Protection
The foregoing constitute Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law under Rules 7052 and
9014(c) of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure which make Rule 52(a) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure applicable to this matter. The judgment based on this ruling stated
above will become effective when it is entered on the docket for this case, as provided by
Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9021.
7 In re Haberman, 516 F.3d at 1212.
Case 06-10952 Doc# 112 Filed 10/10/12 Page 6 of 6
- << Prev
- Next

subset: commoncrawl


text:
I'm trying to use a part of the file name to be inserted into a new file created using the script. For eg:
dcn_2014_01_31_14_17_45_505.pcap and
dcn_2014_01_31_14_32_27_656.pcap should give
2014_0131_1417_to_1432_utc.pcap. I can get it up to
dcn_2014_01_31_14_17_45_505_to_dcn_2014_01_31_14_32_27_656.pcap . How do I select each number so as to get the desired output?
I have used the following script:
TAG1=$(basename ${FILES[0]} | sed 's/.pcap//')
TAG2=$(basename ${FILES[$N-1]} | sed 's/.pcap//')
#merge the files
mergecap -w /mnt/md0/capture/DCN/"${TAG1}_to_${TAG2}".pcap ${FILES[@]}
Where FILES[] is an array of 15 files.


text:
So I've create a custom walker for nav menu (i am talking about the menus located at:
appearance -> menu -> add a new menu.
I now use the following for several things i need:
Title Attribute
CSS Classes (optional)
My question is how do i change the labels of those fields to be more explanatory toward my uses.
So instead of title attribute for example it will say something like
menus width
Thanks in advanced.


text:
The sound of your baby's rapidly moving heart muscle can be detected using a simple handheld listening device-the frequency change it produces is converted into a sound that is easy for you and your doctor to hear.
At around this time, your baby may start to hiccup. Just like your own, his hiccup is a short, powerful, jerky contraction of his diaphragm, which will last for less than a second.
Hiccups frequently follow each other in rapid succession and are often followed by gentle limb-stretching movements. No one is certain why babies hiccup. Perhaps it's due to the immaturity of the nerves supplying the diaphragm, or else to your baby's small stomach quickly becoming overdistended.
Your baby's ears and eyes are now in their final position on his face. The ears have moved up from the jaw line and the eyes have moved from the side of the head to lie closer together, looking forward. The eyes move beneath the lids but not yet in a coordinated way. He will open them at around 26 weeks.
Many fats are healthy, and should be consumed as part of a heart-healthy diet. The key is to choose healthy fat. For example unsaturated fats, such as those found in olive oil, canola oil, and in nuts and avocados, are good for you and your baby.
Saturated fats, such as those found in butter and whole milk, and trans fats (chemically altered vegetable oils) found in many processed foods, should be kept to a minimum. Substitute good fats for bad fats in your diet:
Excerpted from Pregnancy Day by Day.
Copyright © 2008 Dorling Kindersley Limited.
Buy this book now!
© 2000-2016 Sandbox Networks, Inc. All Rights Reserved.


text:
The question says it all. Did Cannonical make any changes to the basic GNU/Linux OS before building Ubuntu on top of it, or is the full GNU/Linux still under there somewhere?
Strictly speaking, Linux is the kernel that is used by various distributions. GNU is an organisation that developed and popularised a widely used free software license and also provide a home for various pieces of free software.
So there is no standard GNU/Linux operating system (despite what it says on gnu.org). There is GNU kernel (Hurd) but that is nowhere near being a production level kernel, though it is packaged by Debian among others.
There are multiple distributions that package up the Linux kernel and lots of GNU software (and X software, GNOME or KDE software, etc) and produce an easy to install and maintain operating system. Ubuntu is one of those distributions.
There isn't really a "basic" GNU/Linux OS. Linux is an operating system kernel. A kernel is a set of protocols that allows the software on your computer to interact with the hardware on your computer.
A Linux "distribution," like Ubuntu, is a kernel plus a lot of useful software, including an installer, command line interface, editors, GUI, etc. A lot of this software has roots in the GNU project, which is why many people refer to a distribution as "GNU/Linux".
Most of the basic tools are the same across distributions. Canonical's contribution has mainly been to streamline the user experience in the installer and graphical user interface. Once you get under the hood, the tools are basically the same as in any other distribution.
Among these question and answers there are a lot of erroneous ideias.
An Operating System is a program or a set of programs that manage hardware resources and applications. Period.
This is what Linux does.
There are a lot of people that have written software that runs on Linux (That can interact with the hardware through Linux). And much of this software is open source.
Acctually, Linux by itself would not have served any purpose at the beginning without some basic applications to interact with it. A shell and a set of basic commands, like cp, mv, ls, etc, etc. When Linux was released, The GNU Software foundation had already released some POSIX-compillant set of applications that could be ran on any POSIX-compilant system (i.e. Linux). Thus, Linux has mostly (if not always) been distributed with this set of tools, and that is why some insist in calling it GNU Linux.
The GNU/Linux distributions are just collections of software that runs on Linux (including the former GNU applications) that ship together with GNU/Linux. Ubuntu is one of them.
As the quality of the distributions is important to their companies, sometimes they improve part of the software they distribute, and sometimes they create new software that is specifically tailored for their distributions.
Canonical (the company responsible for Ubuntu), has made a lot of improvements in applications that run on GNU/linux and has also created new applications that run on this system.
The best example of an application that is being written by Canonical is Unity, the new main ubuntu's graphical interface.
Ubuntu IS Linux, Fedora IS Linux, Slackware IS Linux etc.......
Ubuntu is just a distribution. Distributions basically just makes choices as to what to include and not include. Every distro tweaks things a bit but they're all Linux.
I really consider them a whole operating system of their own. Though I like when they acknowledge their free software roots. The one answer above states it well. Yes, Ubuntu does use the Linux Kernel and the GNU Userspace. It also adds it's own technology, as well as the Debian infrastructure and package manager.


text:
I want to move all my content, posts and pics from Tumblr to Wordpress ..! What would be the best way to do this???
Try the Tumblr Importer. :)
Let me know if you have any problems with it, we're actively trying to improve it.
It doesn't look like Tumblr offers a built-in export service, but you have some options through tools that use the Tumblr API.
NOTE: You may get any number of errors when running this app because of API limits, especially if you have a large site. You might need to try a few times, I had to wait about 10 minutes before it would work for my site. If you have your own web server with PHP, you can grab the Tumblr2WordPress source code and run it yourself.
After you've exported your Tumblr blog to an XML file, you can use WordPress's built-in Import utility under Dashboard > Tools > Import in WordPress. You may need to tweak the formatting of your Tumblr XML file to get the best results, this site may be a helpful reference if you experience problems.
WordPress has just included a New Tumblr import tool Which makes moving Tumblr to WordPress very easy.


text:
I got several explanations but so far I'm not able to understand that what are the abstract classes and methods in Java. Some said it has to do something with the security of the program, other said it isn't anything like that. Even from the Dietel & Dietel's book I don't get it's purpose. When, where and why do we use it?
Sign up
- Anybody can ask a question
- Anybody can answer
- The best answers are voted up and rise to the top
First of all, the examples will be in C#. But I think you'll have no problem understanding it. So...
You CANNOT instantiate objects of an abstract class. You must have a subclass that derives from the class, if you want to instantiate it. But this probably won't help you since you may have come across that before.
So let's try an example.
Suppose you want to lose weight and your nutritionist asks you to track your food intake. When you go to her again, you can't tell her that you ate a "food". Although it's not wrong, since all food has calories, it is too "abstract" for her. So you need to tell her WHICH food.
So, if she were to code that... She'd have an abstract class Food.
Why? Because that wouldn't allow you to say "I ate a food".
So you need concrete classes:
So you'll have to tell exactly which food it is.
But she still needs the food class, it is still interesting to her:
That's an example of when you need an abstract class. When you want to have a base class, but you don't want anyone creating an object of your class.
An abstract CAN have abstract methods. It doesn't need to. Is totally ok to have an abstract class without abstract methods. Speaking of which...
Abstract method is something that it's too broad. There's no similarities on how things work, so the classes that derive from your class that has an abstract method won't be able to call the super class implementation. And you're also forcing all the sub classes to implement their version of that method.
Let's try another example? An Animal Band Simulator. You'd have animals, and each one of them would make a sound. But those are very different "implementations", they have nothing in common A dog differs from a cat, a cat from an elephant, an elephant from a cricket. So you'd have an abstract method MakeSound.
But, if you have an abstract method in your class, that makes the whole class abstract!
So the rest of the code might be:
And the BAND!
So this is an example of when you use an abstract method.
I guess this is the essence. It may be a little forced/convoluted, but I think it gets the point across. Go back to the examples that didn't help you before and see if they make sense now.
I'm go out on a limb and say you're a beginner. This stuff may seem strange to you, and you may not see any benefit in using abstract classes.
It's ok. It's strange for almost all of us when we start. But in time, you'll learn to appreciate it.
An abstract class is a class that cannot be instantiated (i.e.
An abstract method is a method in an abstract class that can be overridden (i.e. implemented) in a derived class.
The difference between an
With abstract classes you can have some kind of skeleton for other classes to extend.
You can't instantiate them but you can put some common implementation which you can use in the classes that extend them.
An abstract class is a class that implements some common functionality used by one or more concrete (not abstract) classes.
A good example of this would be the AbstractList class in java. This class is extended by
One would never instantiate an
An abstract method is a method that is not implemented in an abstract class or interface, but must be implemented in the concrete class.
The core reason why one would want to have a method be abstract is to be part of a public API. If you the
An abstract class/method is, conceptually, a "starting point" for a concrete implementation.
An abstract method or other member cannot have any code; it is quite literally a placeholder for a member that must be implemented by classes deriving from the abstract base. It's similar to a method declaration in an interface, but an abstract class can define abstract members of any inheritable visibility, not just public. That abstract member can be used in any code in the abstract class. The purpose is usually to allow the deriving class to specify some implementation-specific logic or behavior, whose extraction from the surrounding code makes that remaining code implementation-independent.
An abstract class cannot be instantiated; it exists to be derived from and to be used as a common type for members and parameters, similar to an interface in this respect. Classes with any abstract members must themselves be marked abstract, but a class with no abstract members can also be marked abstract. Thus, abstract classes can have code in non-abstract members, which is the primary difference from an interface (the other key difference being the ability to define abstract members less visible than "public"). This is a common tactic to share (and thus re-use) code that is common between implementations of the abstract class.
As far as when to use them, succinctly, use an abstract class whenever you would normally use an interface, but when you also wish to define code that can be shared among derived implementations of the base.
There are differing best practices between Java and C# regarding whether to combine interfaces and abstracts in the same inheritance hierarchy. It's been my experience that an interface directly implemented by a single abstract class is redundant in Java due to naming conventions (interface names are supposed to look like class names so coders don't have to care what they're using). In C#, the pattern's still considered a bit "deep" but is more acceptable because the interface, by convention, would be prefaced with "I-". Either way, the arrangement allows even the abstract class to be refactored or replaced without affecting dependent classes; not only can any implementation of an abstract DoerBase be used, but any Doer (or IDoer) including an implementation of a new BetterDoerBase, or a concrete class inheriting directly from the interface.
A real life example of an abstract class would be Human for example. But would you intantiate a Human object? No! You would further derive classes from the Human abstract class like Infant, Child, Adult, Man, Woman, etc. And you will extend/retrict the original behaviour in these derived classes down in the heirarchy.


text:
All of a sudden, the graphics aren't working on my Ubuntu 13.04 64bit. I ran sudo apt-get upgrade yesterday, and now the launcher and dash transparency don't work. What's odd is that the notifications transparency-blur-thingy does work. Auto-hiding the launcher also gives me weird results. I have some screenshots:
The launcher is not transparent. Neither is dash.
And that is what the desktop looks like with the launcher on auto-hide.
My hardware is a Gigabyte h61n motherboard with an intel i3 CPU. What's wierd is that System Settings -> Details can't make up it's mind what graphics I have.
the output of
lspci -nnk | grep -iA3 vga:
00:02.0 VGA compatible controller [0300]: Intel Corporation 2nd Generation Core Processor Family Integrated Graphics Controller [8086:0102] (rev 09) Subsystem: Gigabyte Technology Co., Ltd Device [1458:d000] 00:16.0 Communication controller [0780]: Intel Corporation 6 Series/C200 Series Chipset Family MEI Controller #1 [8086:1c3a] (rev 04) Subsystem: Gigabyte Technology Co., Ltd Device [1458:1c3a]


text:
Curriculum is an approved expense under the ESA program, but since it is not clearly defined in statute ADE has provided a definition:
"Curriculum is defined as a complete course of study for a particular content area or grade level. Supplemental material (manipulatives, kits, workshops, games, puzzles) may not be substituted as a complete course of study."
Curriculum, as defined by the department, may include a set of math books or English texts that directly delivers instruction. It does not include supplemental material that is not part of a "complete course of study."
For example, you can buy the "Saxon Grammar" curriculum, but not "Cat in the Hat" as it is not a part of a "complete course of study."
ADE does allow the purchase of some supplemental reading materials if they are required by a textbook within a purchased curriculum. For example, your English text may require you to read "The Tale of Two Cities" or other stand-alone classics. If a parent is unsure about the purchase of supplemental material required by a curriculum, please contact ESA staff.
Posted in: Approved Program Expenses


text:
The title pretty much explains it all - I want to be able to take screenshots from my DS, but haven't been able to find out whether it is possible and affordable.
Hate to break it to you, but it's in the $3,000 range.
Currently, no there is not. :(
There must be some means of getting video output from a DS, because G4TV and GameTrailers include gameplay video in their reviews, and there's no way they're playing the entire game in an emulator. And they're definitely not just filming the screen, because you can see effects of the stylus without seeing the stylus in front of it.
It's possible they have special hardware from Nintendo, or they may have in-house modders crafty enough to figure out where to solder a video cable to the motherboard. You might want to try asking on the GameTrailers forums how they record their videos of DS gameplay.
I also found this article on Nintendo DS on your TV, but it's really old (August 2006) and it says in an update that the device was a prototype that was never actually sold.


text:
Georgia understands that to keep existing jobs, employers must continually sharpen their competitiveness by investing in leading-edge technologies. The state specifically encourages this by helping our existing employers offset the employee retraining costs typically associated with such investments.
This is accomplished through Georgia's Retraining Tax Credit. The Credit enables eligible businesses to gain tax credits against their Georgia state tax liability. For information on eligible retraining programs call 229.931.2040 (Americus) or 229.271.4045 (Cordele).


text:
I saw a movie in the early 1970's that was an x-rated comedy. The movie was comprised of dirty skits. One was a scene of a big eyed, big nosed character talking. As the camera pulled back you realized it was an upside down penis with googly eyes on the testicles.
The movie was a double feature with Fritz the Cat, an x-rated animated film. Both were funny but I can't remember the name of the first movie.


text:
Sign In
August 26, 2013,
Posted Date:
Construction, visuals spark engineered sales
Solid hardwood floors have traditionally been viewed as the aspirational cornerstone of the flooring industry. But today, advancements in production and design techniques are fueling rapid growth of engineered woods — at a pace of 5 percent to 7 percent increase this year over last year, industry executives said.
Engineered floors, with its dense core board, is ideal for popular character and textured design visuals.
Driving engineered sales
While solid hardwood sales are growing, engineered sales are growing faster, according to Harry Bogner, senior vice president of hardwood at Unilin. "The reason is because of the diversity of the product provided by engineered. Combine diversity with cost position as it compares to solid hardwood and lumber pricing pressures and engineered is growing. Also, the texture, scraped, character floor market is a strong market and you tend to find those visuals more on an engineered platform than a solid platform," he said.
At Mullican, Brian Greenwell, vice president of sales and marketing, said it is a combination of diversity and cost efficiency. "Engineered products offer great, unique stylings such as wire brushing and different staining techniques. Hardwood cost has gone up tremendously recently and that has opened up the market to look at more engineered products," he said.
Lukasz Piatek, regional vice president of sales at Elegance, said engineered woods are gaining popularity in a younger demographic because the technology used to create engineered woods produces the same as solids at a lower cost. "A younger crowd prefers engineered for stability and flexibility with different applications," he said, adding, "That being said, I believe the biggest reason is the price."
Jeanette Lam, president of Struxtur, agreed. "In solid you have much more limitation when it comes to making a visual statement. We can play with a lot more in engineered wood, from hand scraping to staining techniques. We can create beautiful long boards with much wider planks than with solids," she said.
The rise in demand for handscrapes is also affecting imports, acording to Milton Goodwin, vice president of product management, wood, at Armstrong. "A lot of those engineered handscraped floors are coming in from China, which is why we saw growth in imports in 2012," he said.
At Anderson, the company's history of leading in design and quality has set the stage for its growth, according to Rick Knowles, vice president of sales and marketing for Anderson Hardwood Floors. "Dealers, builders, and consumers are looking more than ever for value, meaning the best combination of styling, quality, price and service. Anderson has undergone a major transformation as we have consolidated brands, completed a facelift to our in-store merchandising, initiated capacity upgrades, added value-oriented introductions, and implemented a re-pricing of the line in order to prepare for the upturn," he said.
Geographic preferences at play
Regional preferences also come into play. Goodwin said that the Midwest is one region in particular where the volume of engineered wood flooring sales is growing rapidly. "Typically, California sets trends and handscrapes offer rustic visuals that were quickly adopted in the southwest. The mid-Atlantic and northeast are traditionally smooth, solid markets," he said.
Veronica Ventimiglia, marketing manager at Johnson Hardwood, added, "Those that live in the east and upper mid-west are still insistent that solid is the only option for hardwood flooring. Our dealer customers in those regions are trying to educate consumers that engineered flooring is a viable option due to the stability, affordability, and less chance for problems over time. We would estimate that it's an overall 30 percent solid and 70 percent engineered demand overall."
The southern half of the U.S. is also experiencing strong engineered growth, according to Unilin's Bogner. "Many homes in the southern region of the U.S. are built on a slab foundation which means you have to have an engineered product because the floor is going on top of concrete. We've had good business going into the multi-family segment," he said.
Mike McReavy, director of training and product sourcing, Mercier, also said that the company distributes more products in areas with a higher volume of multi-unit housing. "The expectation for Mercier is seeing a larger volume opportunity, geographically, in different regions," he said.
Still, Dan Natkin, director of wood and laminate business at Mannington, said the market share for engineered and solid wood remains close to 50/50. But, he added, "Depending on the region of the country, those percentages can swing widely. Engineered is once again experiencing growth as the traditional concrete slab markets recover and as the gap in pricing between solid and engineered grows."
Defining factors
Bogner said that signs of recovery in 2012 helped to boost engineered wood flooring sales. "Textured, engineered products, and even textured surfaces on solid products, are becoming such a big part of the industry. Multi-width, solid scraped, wire-brushed and engineered are big trends," said Bogner.
The dimensional stability of engineered woods, in conjunction with the rising cost of premium hardwoods, is increasing the success of engineered products, according to Ron Oliver, vice president of sales and marketing, Hallmark Hardwoods. "What helps us is the trend toward a wider width plank. The advancements of 7 inch oak and dimensional stability are driving the sales of our [engineered woods] in the more traditionally 'solid markets' in the northern markets," he added.
Tony Em Mergreh, vice president of marketing at Urban Floors, added, "Engineered flooring has stronger tolerance to temperature and moisture changes. The structural stability makes the engineered flooring a versatile item. You can install this kind of flooring in almost in area of the home."
Kevin Thompson, product category manager at Shaw, also noted that engineered wood flooring is not being challenged by rising raw material pricing to the same degree that solid wood is. "Rising raw materials are having a greater impact on solid than on engineered which makes engineered a more economical option. Also, engineered hardwood floors offer increased performance and structural stability," he said.
Engineered construction provides a suitable platform for textured, character floors such as this from Columbia's Ashlynn collection.
Copyright ©
Floor Covering Weekly All rights reserved. |
Privacy Policy
300 W 57th St, 37th floor, New York, NY 10019
Media Kit
Product Source Guide
Carpet and Area Rugs
Tile and Stone
Editorial Calendar
Print Rate Card
Product Source Guide Ad Specs
Product Source Guide Rates
Education Center
Sales Agents
Order Back Issue
Contact Us
Media Kit


text:
STEUBENVILLE - Jeff Lyons is looking forward to the chance to meet some decision-makers in the local shale oil and gas industry during Tuesday's Business-to-Business networking event at St. Florian Hall in Wintersville.
"I don't know how huge it will be for a small store like me, but I see it as an opportunity," said Lyons, owner of Richmond Village Hardware. "This is a tough economy, and any opportunity to increase your business isn't to be ignored. We're a struggling small business, we've only been open a year and a half, so any chance we have to improve our business is helpful."
Business-to-Business, sponsored by Progress Alliance and the Jefferson County Chamber of Commerce, is a chance for the local business community to get face time with shale industry representatives. The event will be held from 2 p.m. to 7 p.m.
Article Photos
PREPARING FOR EVENT — Working on the plans for Tuesday's Business-to-Business networking event at St. Florian Hall are, from left, Donna Hrezo, Progress Alliance small business coordinator; Ed Looman, Progress Alliance executive director; and Kim Cline, RLF administrator and financial officer. -Linda Harris
Originally billed as an expo, it morphed into a full-scale networking opportunity after its local organizers realized the expo format typically left local business leaders feeling isolated and frustrated.
"We went to several expo-style events where we saw that happen - we heard small businesses complaining that it wasn't doing them any good to be there because they didn't have a chance to get in front of the people they needed to meet," said Ed Looman, Progress Alliance executive director. "Ours is going to be more of an opportunistic-type experience than a standard expo would deliver to local businesses."
Looman said it's a kind of entrepreneurial ice-breaker. He said local business people can use the time not just to talk business, but to hand out their cards, brochures and fliers, "anything they have."
"The idea is to give our local business people a chance to meet these people and talk about their services," he said. "I think one of the key elements is that we hope this is almost a get-to-know-Jefferson County type of event.
"It's a real opportunity for the local business community to learn more about how to do business with the shale oil and gas industries, to understand what they need to do to do business with them and get to know, or at least meet, some of the people they can do business with," he said.
Lyons said he doesn't figure his company is big enough to get the attention of an industry giant like Chesapeake Energy, "but they use a lot of sub-contractors and they're the one's I want to get hold of. I want to (connect with) the ones out in the field."
But Looman said big or small, there are opportunities to be had by local entrepreneurs.
"These shale companies are anxious to do business with local merchants, at least, that's what we're hearing, and we've compiled pretty in-depth lists of the types of things we're told they'll be looking to the local business community for. ... things like tires, truck repairs, security, catering, industrial supplies, welding services, construction services. This is kind of an awareness event, at least, that's my vision, to help these companies become aware of what Jefferson County has to offer in the way of services that can be of benefit to them once they're here and up and running."
Lyons said his family owned-and-operated shop already has seen an uptick from shale contractors searching for tools or hardware they need.
"I've been wanting to get hold of their bosses - let them know we're here and we have a lot of things in stock," he said. "If we don't have what they need, if they let us know we'll bring it in. We might even be able to do some short-range deliveries to wellpads."
Looman said that kind of interaction is exactly what they hope to promote at the Business-to-Business event.
"It's an opportunity for local business people to meet some of the companies that are going to be doing businesses in Jefferson County. It's an awareness event, it's not going to be your typical business expo."


text:
Hoops with the Mayor: Southpark:
Mayor Mike McGinn stopped by Southpark Community Center for some late night hoops. See how he did!
Youth Appreciation Week: Northgate:
YAW at Northgate was an insane event. Silent Library and Minute to WIN IT! AHHHHH!
Youth Appreciation Week: Main Event:
This years youth appreciation week kicked off to an incredible event at the Seattle Center. Our life sized version of The Sims proved to be a learning experience for countless teens this spring break.
Heart of the Matter (4/28/2011):
As part of the Northwest African American Museum's Checking Our Pulse exhibit, 10 teens worked with NAAM , Garfield RecTech and a 911 Media Arts instructor this winter to produce a public service announcement on heart health. Upon learning that cardiovascular diseases are the leading cause of death for African Americans, the youth combined their talents for 12 weeks to create, film and edit a piece that informs others of this staggering statistic and ways to stay healthy.
MLK March: His Dream was for Me (1/15/2011):
Some 200 teens joined together for a march and day of reflection. From MLK park to Garfield CC, what a great day of remembrance
Top Teen Chef: Northgate (12/7/10):
The event was action packed at Northgate Community Center. Check out the teen chefs prepare for the judges as they take on Holiday appetizers..
All City Teen Dance:
The All City Teen Dance was a huge success this year. Check out the great video of the event!
Southpark Dodgeball Sessions:
Who doesn't love dodgeball? Southpark Community Center is taking all comers to challenge their elite group of dodgers, and we've got the videos to prove it.
Southpark Film Projects:
A collection fo short films from South Park Community Center. Special thanks to Matthew Roberson for the videos.


text:
It was different a long time ago.
Do these two Japanese sentences mean the same thing?
Here is the sentence in the original context. The translations are not mine, but are supplied by the Japanese writer. If I replaced 昔は違っていた。with 昔は違った。, how would the meaning change?
February is the coldest in Japan. 日本は2月が一番寒い。
It was different a long time ago. 昔は違っていた。
There were ages where it was the coldest in December or January. 12月や1月が一番寒い時期もあった。
But now, you can say February is the coldest month. しかし、今はやっぱり2月が最も寒い。
The seasons are getting shifted little by little according to global warming. 地球の温暖化にともない、季節もだんだんずれ始めている。


text:
Almost from its inception in 1961, Seattle's CORE chapter struggled against employment discrimination in Seattle's downtown businesses. CORE collected extensive documentation on hiring practices and racial discrimination and then attempted to use the information to negotiate with business management to bring about changes. When this failed, or moved slower than CORE thought was reasonable, they changed tactics to pickets, boycotts, and direct action techniques, culminating in the Drive for Equal Employment in Downtown Stores (DEEDS) in 1964. Though the DEEDS campaign failed, CORE continued its attempts to influence larger layers of African-American workers by turning its attention, in 1966, to segregation within labor unions. These documents from employment discrimination and CORE's DEEDS campaign are part of a special section of the Seattle Civil Rights and Labor History Project. Digitization of documents courtesy of the Special Collections Library, University of Washington (CORE, Seattle Chapter Records, 1961-1970, Manuscript Collection 1563). Copyright (c) reserved.
Beatrice Jackson's applications for employment, September 12, 1961
Ollie M. Phillips' application for employment, September 6, 1961
Businesses negotiating with CORE
Report on Negotiations with Albertson's Grocery, by Ethel Lightfoot, January 16, 1962
Hiring equality negotiations with the Bon Marche, October 9, 1963
Employment discrimination survey
Seattle's Downtown Business District
"DEEDS Background and Basics," by Charles A. Valentine, October 1964
Fact Sheet on Downtown Employment, c. 1964
Letter announcing the formation of the DEEDS campaign, August 26, 1964
Flyer for DEEDS rally, October 4, 1964
"An Appeal to Black and White," flyer for the downtown boycott, c . winter 1964
Minimum Goals for Downtown Integration, August 1964
Letter to CORE supporters about the winter boycott, November 16, 1964
DEEDS Boycott flyer, c. winter 1964
Negotiations on Equal Employment, August 5, 1964
Propaganda Sheet on Employer Discrimination
DEEDS campaign flyer, c. 1964
"Shop In" Action Guidelines
"Support DEEDS" leaflet, c. 1964
Negotiations with Tradewell Grocery, June 19, 1964
John Cornethan report on Hiring Discrimination, September 28, 1966
" A Proposal for Union Cooperation"
Press Release supporting "Project Equality" campaign targeting labor unions, July 21, 1966
Labor Unions: A Report on the Seattle Area," by CORE, November 9, 1966


text:
News and Events Archives
Monday, September 29, 2008
(COLUMBIA, Mo.) -- Columbia College employees have long been generous, with recent employee contributions reaching record highs. Hundreds of dedicated staff and faculty have given $1.2 million to the college since 1993.
"We are overwhelmed by the support of Columbia College employees," said Dr. Gerald Brouder, president. "Our faculty and staff work extremely hard for their money, and the fact that so many of them give a portion of their paycheck to the college in support of its mission speaks volumes about the sense of community that exists here."
Nearly 2,000 faculty and staff, both current and former, have made donations to support the college. Employees of all levels and positions contributed--from receptionists to senior-level administrators. Their reasons are as varied as their job titles.
"What inspires me to give to Columbia College is the intellectual growth I see in the students from year to year and knowing the role the college's faculty and staff have in promoting it," said Terry Obermoeller, executive assistant for academic affairs.
Karen Fry, office coordinator for administrative services, said she gives because the college provides a pleasant work environment and excellent benefits to its employees.
Kevin Palmer, chief information officer, said, "I'm inspired by the sense of community and the belief that Columbia College has a unique ability to contribute to many different areas of our society through education, which produces a more informed populace--the essence of a free society."
Brouder said employee contributions, together with support from alumni and other constituents, allow the college to continue to improve its facilities, services and academic programs.


text:
I am not connected to the network and it seems I need build-essentials to get the drivers working. Best I can do is transfer the packages by thumb drive. What is the process for offline installations of the package, and where can I download it?
you can get the download links from the following command
This will give you the download links + other details (hash values + etc). You can use these download links to download the packages. Then you can install the packages by double clicking or using the dpkg command (dpkg -i).


text:
Plain English campaign news articles
- Details
- Created on Tuesday, 20 July 2010 10:18
A current campaign from Keep Britain Tidy (KBT), called "Get behind keep Britain tidy" follows similar lines to a previous campaign from some years ago. The current campaign uses "saucy seaside postcard humour" to highlight the increasing costs of cleaning up litter.
During that campaign we received some complaints from the public about the messages being inappropriate, particularly for an audience of young people. A number of young people we interviewed thought the campaign was close to the bone and unnecessary but agreed it would raise a few laughs. However, they doubted that the campaign would stop people littering as it just belittled the problem rather than highlighted the serious issues of hygiene and health.
Read more: Whitewashing the real dirt with the same old smut
A plainly confusing life of letters and numbers
- Details
- Created on Friday, 16 April 2010 09:46
Algebraic calculations with their mysterious mixture of letters and numbers have been named as number one in the Top 10 of the most confusing things we might come across in our lives. Surprisingly, handling and changing foreign money made the top four, coming in behind 'understanding the theory of relativity', and just beating 'the opposite sex'.
This survey of 3000 holidaymakers by onepoll.com has resulted in the leading foreign exchange specialist Travelex, creating a 'Plain English guide to exchanging currency'. It is the first guide of this kind to receive accreditation from Plain English Campaign for the clarity of its wording, and its explanations of foreign-exchange jargon.
Plain English manifestos
- Details
- Created on Friday, 09 April 2010 16:38
Plain English Campaign calls for 'clear and straightforward' manifestos
Gordon Brown has announced the general election is to take place on 6 May 2010. Plain English Campaign is pleased to know that the Prime Minister is appealing to the public for a 'clear and straightforward mandate'. For over 30 years Plain English Campaign has been fighting for 'clear and straightforward' information from Parliament and government offices.
Labelling lunacy loose on our roads
- Details
- Created on Thursday, 08 April 2010 09:36
Following complaints from drivers over the Easter break, we are highlighting the confusing and unnecessary road signs that have appeared up and down our roads and motorway.
Road users have asked us whether the increasing numbers of messages and signs are a help or a distraction. They have quoted 'Don't drink and drive' messages and advice to look at websites as particularly annoying. And some visitors from abroad have struggled with phrases such as 'adverse weather ahead' instead of simply being told to expect rain, fog or snow.
Plain English rates for mobile phone users
- Details
- Created on Tuesday, 06 April 2010 16:49
Plain English Campaign congratulated campaigners and welcomed the recommendation from Ofcom that mobile termination rates should be lowered. Ofcom's proposals could see mobile termination rates gradually lowered over the next four years, from the current 4p a minute to 0.5p, providing the recommendation survives opposition during the remaining 12 months of the consultation period.