text:
When there is an accident on the side of the road, do you slow down and look or ignore it?
If everyone would only pay enough attention at accidents on the side of the road to ensure the safety of anyone involved in or responding to the accident and otherwise ignored it and travelled at a safe speed down the road, traffic wouldn't be so bad during rush hour.
There is certainly no reason to slow down and gawk when the highway is divided and the accident is in the opposite direction, but too many stop to look for carnage anyway.
6 Answers answer
For me it really depends on how fast I'm moving. If I'm going a decent speed as I drive past an accident, I'll just take a glance.
Most of the time I'll already be stuck in a long line of people driving slow. It's almost impossible not to look since I'm only going 5mph.
I don't slow down, but for two reasons:
1) Accident just happened and I may be able to help
2) Rubber-neckers in front of me are forcing me to slow
I try to help - if I can't - I get out of the way.
Depends on the situation. I will definitely slow down if I think there is any chance I could accidently hit someone or something...
Usually I end up making a statement "it better be worth it for all the traffic I am stuck in". Then in the 15-20 minutes it takes me to get to the accident I just get annoyed and say "is that really worth looking at" and don't bother looking unless there are a lot of emergency vehicles. I never can understand the stop and stare for a fender bender.
Unless I have a whole lane as a buffer, I slow down to make sure everything is safe, but I usually worry about keeping an eye on silly folks in traffic more than gawking.
The 5-0 in Austin have set up traps recently where they'll leave a car on the shoulder or rightmost lane, and have officers ready to ticket anyone who doesn't move over a lane or slow down.


text:
Given a mobius strip, what do the solutions of the wave equation look like qualitatively? How do they differ from solutions on the equivalent strip glued together as a cylinder? Any refs, particularly to symmetry?
Any solution to the wave equation on a Möbius strip lifts to a solution on its orientation double cover, which is a cylinder of equal width but twice the circumference. In order for a solution on the cylinder to descend to the Möbius strip, it is necessary and sufficient that it be invariant under a certain order two symmetry. If the cylinder has coordinates given by $[0,\pi a]$ in the free direction and $[0, 2\pi L]$ in the loop direction, then the solutions are linear combinations of products $AB$, where $A$ has the form $\cos (kn_a t)\cos(\frac{n_a}a x)$ or $\sin (kn_a t)\cos(\frac{n_a}a x)$, and $B$ has the form $\cos(kn_Lt)\cos(\frac{n_L}{L}y)$, $\sin(kn_Lt)\cos(\frac{n_L}{L}y)$, $\cos(kn_Lt)\sin(\frac{n_L}{L}y)$, or $\sin(kn_Lt)\sin(\frac{n_L}{L}y)$. Here, $n_a$ and $n_L$ are nonnegative integers, and $k$ is a constant. Invariance under the symmetry is equivalent to $n_a + n_L$ being an even number. In contrast, solutions on the cylinder of the same dimensions correspond to solutions on the double cover such that only $n_L$ is even.
The following paper by: Kousuke Yakubo,Yshai Avishai,and Doron Cohen describes in section II the solution of the Helmholtz equation on a flat rectangular surface having the topology of a Mobius strip. The solution is given in terms of the admissible wave numbers.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
If Klal Yisrael would all die, ch"v, then would Edom become obligated in Tora uMitzvot because of Yibbum? (because Jacob's/Israel's brother is Esav, Edom.) Or would chalitzah happen because no other nation is able to serve God like we are (cf. midrash about the Edomites and Ishmaelites rejecting the tora (and thereby rejecting God) because stealing and sexual immorality are forbidden)? When the Torah was given, and the Children of Israel were under the mountain (tachat hahar), Aruch Hashulchan and others compare Har Sinai being above us to being like a chuppah, and that kabbalat hatorah is like marriage. Obviously, generations of the Children of Israel have died out, but they had offspring. But if there is no offspring, then what? (Tangentially, it is a bit interesting because although Hashem is our Parent, He is also our Spouse. A bit incestuous if you ask me. Also, Edomite theology (if you say it equates Christianity) already says that God rejected Israel.)
Sign up
- Anybody can ask a question
- Anybody can answer
- The best answers are voted up and rise to the top
A gentile brother of a Jew (say the Jew is a convert) wouldn't be obligated in yibbum because he was never obligated in Torah. Even if he somehow were, the Jew is no longer his brother, halachically speaking, so yibbum wouldn't apply. (Per @DoubleAA, see Rambam: Issurei Biah 14:11-12 and in English.) And yibbum is a mitzvah that applies to individuals, not whole nations.
So no, Edom isn't an individual, and even if that somehow doesn't matter then Edom is no longer Israel's halachic brother, and even if that somehow doesn't matter then non-Jews were never commanded in yibbum.
God is often called our husband; I don't recall ever seeing him called our wife. If we were to die, then, presumably there would be no yibum.


text: AUTUMN LEAVES Stampology Layered Clear Stamp Set. This creative stamp set could only have come from Autumn leaves. These sets contain two pieces of every alphabet; number and various symbols. One piece of each is a solid letter/number/symbol designed to be the background and the other piece has a hollow decorative image which is intended to be stamped directly on top of the first: giving you the layered look. Available in a variety of themes each sold separately. Size and number of stamps and case of alphabet varies by design. Imported.


text:
Low carbs, no carbs, good fats, bad fats – with so many conflicting messages in the media, it's easy to get confused about what makes a healthy, balanced meal.
To dispel food fads and uncover the facts about nutrition, instructor Donna Louie teaches a nutrition class for students in the Libby Arts Residential Academic Program (RAP), Baker RAP, and Global Studies RAP at CU-Boulder.
To actively engage students in the learning process, Louie arranges field trips and other activities outside of class. One such outing taught students the value of food. They prepared nutritious meals for a homeless community using produce donated to Boulder Food Rescue from local grocers and the Center for Community on campus.
Louie's goal for the class is to help students understand how nutrition affects their health and performance. She stresses four characteristics of a healthful diet—an adequate amount of food to fuel the body, a balanced diet of all the food groups, a variety of nutrients and moderation of food intake.
"It's a comprehensive course," said Louie, "designed to inform students about their body, how it works, what nutrients it needs to perform well and stay healthy and what happens when they don't eat right."
The information she presents can be an eye-opener for many students. Take carbohydrates—Louie has found that students often have the misconception that all carbohydrates are bad and will cause them to gain weight.
Erica Bland, a freshman in vocal performance, learned that the body needs complex carbohydrates for energy and has changed her eating habits since taking Louie's class.
"No-carb diets are a no-no," said Bland, who now eats well-rounded meals that include whole grains and more vegetables and fruits.
Students learned about the nutritional value and taste nuances of quality chocolate at a chocolate tasting event featuring sustainably grown cacao. A trip to a local farmer's market allowed them to talk with farmers, vendors, and customers about the benefits of eating locally grown and produced organic food. Brunch at Dushanbe Tea House in Boulder, an authentic Persian teahouse serving international cuisine, introduced them to the foods of other cultures.
"The small class size of the RAPs makes a difference in the way I teach," said Louie. "It allows me to be creative and come up with field trips and hands-on activities, like making ricotta cheese and chocolate mousse in class to introduce the concept of protein denaturation. It's fun for me and the students."
Students had an opportunity to get their fasting blood metabolites measured and interpreted (including cholesterol, glucose, and hemoglobin) at the Wardenburg Health Center on campus, along with their blood pressure, heart rate, basal metabolic rate, and body mass index in class. In addition, they analyzed their diet for three days to see if it was healthy or not. Many of them reported that these assignments were wake-up calls to potential health problems and a motivator to make lifestyle changes.
They learned that a host of diseases that Americans develop can be traced back to a lifetime of poor dietary choices, including hypertension, cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, osteoporosis and cancer.
To shed light on the love/hate relationship people sometimes have with food and their body, Louie brings in health professionals to speak to her class. A psychologist provides insight on eating disorders and body image, while a registered nurse presents the scientific breakdown of how chronic diseases develop by telling real-life stories.
"I'm a runner," said Kaitlin Shepherd, a freshman considering a pre-medicine major, "so understanding how the food I put into my body affects my performance is very helpful. I learned that it's important to maintain a healthy diet while young because it will affect you as you age."
In addition to the science credit students receive for the course, it is Louie's hope that the information she presents will help them live long and healthy lives.
"My promise to them," said Louie, "is to provide information they can use for the rest of their life, share with their family and friends, and pass on to their children."
RAPs provide undergraduates with a shared learning and living experience in a community setting. More than 50 percent of CU-Boulder's entering freshmen in 2012 were involved in a RAP.
In a RAP, students can take selected courses in the hall, make friends who share their interests, participate in educational and social events, and develop their own ideas in a small group setting.


text:
March 19, 2012
New York University College of Nursing's Dean Judi Haber along with the Rita and Alex Hillman Foundation will host a panel presentation and discussion on "Making Patient Centered Care a Reality: A Nursing Perspective," on Thursday, March 22, 2012, 5:30 – 7:30 P.M., at the NYU Global Center for Academic and Spiritual Life's Grand Hall, 5th Floor, 238 Thompson Street, NYC. [Subways A,C,E, B,D,M to West 4th Street; 6 line to Astor Place; R train to 8th Street.].
Patient-centered care is a key concept in the debate over how best to reshape our health system. It holds the promise of realigning care around the needs of patients and of improving the quality of care while reducing costs. Most health professionals agree that it represents a needed change. Why, then, is patient-centered care more rhetoric than reality? And what can nurses do to turn things around?
"Making Patient-Centered Care a Reality: A Nursing Perspective", brings together two nationally recognized nurse leaders, Amy Berman and Kimberly Glassman, to discuss the challenges, benefits and urgency of introducing patient- and family-centered care into practice. Drawing on their personal and professional reflections, the discussion will examine the roles patients, families and providers must play to produce successful outcomes; common myths and misconceptions about patient-centeredness; and what nurses can do to operationalize and advocate for patient-centeredness in their work environments.
To RSVP for the panel presentation, please email firstname.lastname@example.com or call (212) 998-5045. For more information, please contact Amy J.B. Knowles, assistant dean for Student Affairs and Admissions, 212-998-5333.
Members of the media interested in attending should contact Christopher James, 212-998-6876 or email@example.com
The panel discussion is co-sponsored by the Rita and Alex Hillman Family Foundation.
Editor's Notes:
The mission of New York University College of Nursing, as an integral part of a research-one private university "in the public service," is to generate new knowledge and educate future nursing professionals who in turn, demonstrate the highest standards of excellence in research, education and practice for a global society. Follow us on Twitter: @nyunursing
About the Rita and Alex Hillman Family Foundation
The Rita and Alex Hillman Foundation is a New York based philanthropy dedicated to improving the lives of patients and their families through nurse-led innovation.
This Press Release is in the following Topics:
College of Nursing, Events
Type: Press Release
Press Contact: Christopher James | (212) 998-6876


text:
When you
ssh, can the password you enter to connect, be intercepted if you're using untrusted public Wi-Fi (coffee shop, library, airport, etc).
You can certainly capture packets on a public wi-fi network but if you are using SSH and your passwords are not sent in the clear it would take quite a bit to decrypt the thing you will capture.
SSH is designed to be usable across an untrusted network. Wifi, wired, it doesn't matter: SSH assumes that all traffic can be monitored by an attacker, and even that the attacker will try to intercept packets and replace them by different ones.
The first time you run ssh from a particular client to a particular server, ssh asks you
At this point, you need to check that the remote server's identity (given by the key fingerprint) is the one you expect; an attacker could be trying to pass as the server. Once this verification is made, and for every subsequent connection from that client to that server, you can trust that the communication cannot be spied on by eavesdroppers and reliable (in that the commands you type really do go to the server and the responses are really the ones the server sent).
Eavesdroppers can't obtain the data in the ssh session, but they can observe the amount of traffic as well as its timing. This might leak confidential data; passwords typed interactively are particularly at risk: they're easy to recognize at the beginning of the connection, and they're sent character by character, so the eavesdropper can measure the time between keystrokes, and each measure makes it a little easier for her to guess the password (easier does not mean easy!). This weakness does not affect public key authentication, which is recommended over passwords for both security and usability.
SSH is encrypted. But the rule of thumb is that, even if difficult, you should never assume anything sent out through a public channel can't be eavesdropped.
I once walked into an article on how SSH passwords are vulnerable to statistical analysis — that's one way you can crack the credentials.
The passwords can be sniffed, it's just not easy to get the corresponding cleartext.
You can also explore other authentication strategies, such as public-private keypairs, which may be not as easy to break as passwords (as far as you can't factor primes quickly).


text:
I (the author) of this blog, am not really a Gnome.
I have taken on the Gnome's identity for the purposes of creating an identity for this blog.
I doubt he is even aware of the fact that I am writing in his name… You see whenever I am writing in his name, he is fast asleep.. or turned off, whatever the terminology is.
Nor am I a Gnome in a Murloc disguise, searching for love.
You may have heard rumors that there have been multiple Gnomeaggedon's writing on this blog, but that is all they are, baseless rumors.
Actually, to be completely honest, neither Gnomeaggedon or TreeHuggerDave are our real names…
But to those of you that are trying to look deeper into this, I have one thing to say…
Gnomer and Out!
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.


text:
Not taking "Yes" for an answer?
The case of the Obama administration v. the Little Sisters of the Poor (the theatrical sound of it is almost worthy of a Nast cartoon) is one of the many, many court cases over the HHS contraception mandate -- some of which (specifically, the issue of for-profit companies with religious owners) will be sorted out this term by the Supreme Court.
The fate of the faith-based cases will likely come later, as they are still making their way up through the appeals courts. But the issue of the Little Sisters of the Poor is front and center since Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a New Year's Eve injunction delaying enforcement of the mandate so the nuns would not have to comply.
The sisters operate a network of nursing homes around the world for the poor. It's not clear how many employees they have--their counsel, the Becket Fund, hasn't supplied that information)--but they don't want to provide contraception coverage for them and they say that the administration's much-debated (on this blog and elsewhere) accommodation for such religious entities is, to say the least, inaedquate.
The accommodation requires that a faith-based group like the Little Sisters (or the University of Notre Dame or a Catholic hospital etc) sign a form certifying their religious status and their objections and then a third-part administrator (TPA) unconnected to the religious entity will contact and contract with (if so desired) the employee to provide the contraception coverage. There is no payment from the religious employer and no other entanglement.
The Little Sisters and others say instead that signing the form is a "permission slip" that means they authorize someone else to undertake an immoral action, which would make the nuns culpable.
Lots of groups assert the same thing, but the unusual aspect of the Little Sisters' case is that their own insurer, Christian Brothers Services, is exempt from having to provide the coverage as well. So neither the Little Sisters nor any TPA will provide the coverage.
As Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. wrote to the high court in response to Sotomayor's injunction:
"With the stroke of their own pen, applicants can secure for themselves the relief they seek from this Court — an exemption from the requirements of the contraceptive-coverage provision — and the employer-applicants' employees (and their family members) will not receive contraceptive coverage through the plan's third-party administrator either."
Yet the sisters' lawyers at the Becket Fund (which is leading much of the legal action against the mandate) confounded reporters during a conference call last week because they could not explain what risk the nuns were running if both they and their insurer did not have to do anything that would provide or even trigger any contraceptive coverage.
After repeated requests to explain, Becket Fund attorney Eric Rassbach finally said of the administration: "I think they're just trying to fool the press, frankly."
I know there's no love lost for the White House, but to claim that they are lying to the Supreme Court and will turn around and fine the sisters seems more than a stretch. The administration would get hammered if it did something like that. Moreover, the plain language of the regulations say what Verilli says -- that neither the sisters nor their insurer can provide contracepive coverage. Michael Hitzik at the LA Times deconstructs it all quite well.
I haven't seen anything from the nuns' defenders that really clarifies the situation. At Mirror of Justice, posts by Kevin Walsh here and here don't address this issue and merely assert that the accommodation (which isn't the issue here) is a "permission slip" for all manner of evil.
So two questions:
One, if neither the nuns nor their insurer has to provide contraception coverage, what case do they have?
And two, on the secondary point that does regard many other cases, how is signing the statement that one has a religious objection and therefor an exemption a "permission slip"?
Over at Patheos, Rebecca Hamilton, a Catholic and Oklahoma state legislator, compares signing the request to opt out of the mandate to "hiring a hit man to kill your neighbor." Really?
At NCR, Michael Sean Winters calls this kind of argument the "big lie," and he makes the analogy to conscientious objector status. When you sign something saying you don't want to fight in a war, well, someone else has to go in your place. I might add that giving your employees a paycheck is a permission slip knowing that they can then do all manner of evil with the funds.
I have no love for the mandate at all and think it could have been done much differently or not at all. And I have no clue whether the Supremes will buy either the for-profit arguments or the arguments by the Little Sisters or other faith-based organizations when they do reach the high court. (This LA Times piece wonders if the lack of a SCOTUS decision on the injunction reflects a divided court.)
But the arguments being made against the mandate, especially in the case of the Little Sisters of the Poor, seem to be stretching Catholic teaching and legal reasoning beyond the breaking point.
About the Author
David Gibson is a national reporter for Religion News Service and author of The Coming Catholic Church (HarperOne) and The Rule of Benedict (HarperOne). He blogs at dotCommonweal.
62 comments
- All
- Editor Featured
David G - I'm confused (and saying that isn't a rhetorical posture - I really am confused :-)).
A common practice, as I understand these things, is that employer group insurance is handled by a sort of conglomerate of three entities: the employer, the insurance company and a third party administrator (TPA). The conglomerate is established via contracts, i.e. the insurer and the TPA each sign a contract with the employer.
So here's my confusion: you write, "The accommodation requires that a faith-based group like the Little Sisters (or the University of Notre Dame or a Catholic hospital etc) sign a form certifying their religious status and their objections and then a third-part administrator (TPA) unconnected to the religious entity will contact and contract with (if so desired) the employee to provide the contraception coverage.
... and that seems clear enough: under the accommodation, responsibility for fulfilling the mandate gets passed to the TPA. You also write, "the unusual aspect of the Little Sisters' case is that their own insurer, Christian Brothers Services, is exempt from having to provide the coverage as well. So neither the Little Sisters nor any TPA will provide the coverage."
I guess the kernel of my confusion is: which role, insurer or TPA, is the Christian Brothers in this scenario? Or is Christian Brothers handling both roles (as sometimes happens, I believe)? If Christian Brothers is the insurer but not the TPA, then presumably the TPA is another party, whose name we haven't learned yet, who will have to fulfill the contraceptive mandate, pursuant to the accommodation rules. If Christian Brothers is the TPA, then ... what? If Christian Brothers is the TPA but is exempt from doing what TPAs are supposed to do in these accommodation scenarios, then who gets 'stuck' with fulfilling the mandate?
Jim, I'm no expert, and my confusion I'm sure exceeds yours most times. The key point (I think) is that the sister's health pln doesn't fall under the ERISA statutes that the mandate operates through. So there's no TPA, no contraception coverage.
My personal view is that medical coverage is part of the workers remuneration and therefore the employer has no right to restrict workers right to medical care according to the workers own conscience. The danger here is for the Church to get into coercing the conscience of others. It seems to me that the Obama administration is in accord with Catholic doctrine in enforcing the workers right to freedom of conscience.
God bless
Who are the first party, the second party, and the third party?
Is the employer the first party?
Are the employees, collectively, the second party?
Is the employer's already established insurance provider necessarily the only possible third party?
In this case, the employer's already established insurance provider is exempt on religious grounds.
But does this insurance provider's exemption rule out the possibility of any other third party (e.g., another insurance provider) becoming involved and contacting the employer's employees about contraception insurance coverage?
I am aware that these questions do not directly address the issue of the employer refusing to sign the certification.
I've never understood the theory of religious liberty that is behind these lawsuits. It seems to me if we adopt these standards, I should be able to veto any action by the government that I find immoral because I object to my taxes paying for it.
Do you have any legal authority for the claim that the Little Sisters' position is "stretching...legal reasoning beyond the breaking point"? You don't cite to any legal authority in this post. Yet you make a legal claim.
Here's another set of questions. What is the purpose of compelling the Little Sisters to sign a certification, and to designate a provider of contraceptive products, if such certification and designation will not result in the provision of those products? Why not simply accommodate the Little Sisters without making them sign the certification and designation? Why compel the Little Sisters to certify and designate--actions which themselves have legal force irrespective of what the TPA will or will not do? Far from having a compelling interest in forcing the Little Sisters to sign and designate (which is the statutory standard), it appears that the government has no interest at all in having them certify and designate. It seems irrational to compel people to do something when you have no interest in having them do it other than demonstrating your power to compel them.
No, Marc, here's the question: What is the injury? What is their standing if their health plan is exempt, which it is, because it's a "church plan"? In other words, even if the Little Sisters self-certify, their employees still won't get contraception coverage because their health plan is itself exempt. And if they don't, what will happen? The Obama administration, whose lawyers keep saying the plan is exempt, would fine them for not signing the form that would trigger an accommodation that doesn't apply to them?
We all know the Obama administration's position. But you seem confused about how the self-certification process came to be. It was supposed to allow Catholic groups to say no, we won't include this in the health plan we contract for. It was supposed to make it easy for objecting groups to explicitly reject the controversial coverage while also fulfilling the Obama administration's policy goal of allowing employees of such groups--many of whom are not Catholic (or of the same religious tradition as their employers)--to receive coverage from a third party. The whole point was to try to fit this into Catholic moral reasoning. Time to use some.
The injury is the compulsion to sign the certification and designation. That form itself has legal effect. The form is a directive. What the TPA then does or does not do is a separate matter. Indeed, some TPAs may very well provide these products, though I agree that I do not believe that the TPA of the Little Sisters of the Poor will.
But let me turn the question around. Normally we require some reason for government action. We demand that government action at the very least satisfy a rational basis standard of review. What is the rational basis for compelling the Little Sisters of the Poor to sign a certification and designation if, as you say, ultimately it will accomplish absolutely nothing? A government policy as to which it has *no* interest is irrational. Or, if it does have an interest in forcing the Little Sisters to certify and designate, what is its interest? Not the provision of contraceptive products, in this case. So what, then?
I'm also afraid I disagree with your view about what was "supposed" to happen. What was supposed to happen is for the government not to make arbitrary distinctions among non-profit religious groups, offering different levels of exemption and compulsion as it chose. Even now, it would be perfectly simple ("the stroke of a pen" comes to mind) for the government to exempt groups like the Little Sisters, offering it the same exemption as it offers other nonprofit organizations. But failing that, the government could actually accommodate the Little Sisters in the way it wants *without* making it certify and designate. Why not do that with the stroke of a pen?
That seems pretty thin, Marc. First, the government makes all kinds of distinctions for tax purposes. It tried to incorporate some of those into the HHS regulations following complaints from critics like you. Those distinctions are not arbitrary. Because, second, there is a difference between a diocese and a hospital. The latter does not hire or serve primary co-religionists. Indeed, many of their employees have different religious commitments, or none at all. This is partly why the Supreme Court found in U.S. vs. Lee (1982) that "when followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes that are binding on others in that activity."
Thanks for the response, Grant, but I do not think you have answered my question (though you raise other interesting issues as to which I also disagree). The fact that the government makes all kinds of distinctions for tax purposes does not answer the problem of a putatively irrational policy, which is what we are by hypothesis discussing in the case of the Little Sisters of the Poor. If church plans are exempt from ERISA enforcement, and so the certification and designation of groups like the Little Sisters will result in the vindication of absolutely no government interest as to the Little Sisters, then what is the rational basis for compelling groups like the Little Sisters to certify and designate? RFRA requires an analysis of the specific government interest to be advanced as to the claimant before the court. It does not paper over the absence of such an interest by adverting to general bureaucratic efficiencies and distinctions in an overall legislative scheme. So what is the interest of the government in forcing the Little SIsters to sign a certification and designation as to which it concedes that no provision of contraceptive products and services will result?
I also disagree with your reading of Lee, which dealt with a context quite different from this one and much closer to taxation (social security). But for present discussion of the Little Sisters' case and other church plan cases like it, it's also beside the point.
At any rate, and not for lack of interest or gratitude for the engagement (only of time) I will now bow out. I appreciate the exchange.
What the sisters are required to do is to report to the government information about the benefits their employees receive. The fact that the government uses this information to determine the eligibility of various benefits, including contraception, is irrelevant to the religious freedom of the sisters.
The sisters can use this reporting as nonviolent resistance to contraception, but it is likely to backfire as most people will see it as them just being difficult rather suffering from a previously ignored injustice.
Marc, I suspect Grant and others have addressed many of your points, but let me reitrate and elaborate:
One, thing, as for citing a "legal authority," I'm not sure what you mean ... I cited the Solicitor General. What were you thinking of? There are many other legal opinions that agree with Verrilli. I think logic as much as legal authority is the context here in any case.
As for "compelling" the sisters to sign something, I don't understand the problem. This accommodation and/or exemption is something the sisters (and others) asked for. Why is it then a compulsion to give it to them?
Moreover, why is it a "burden" or "compulsion" when by accepting this exemption they are accomplishing a good thing, by their own lights, which is barring their employees from receiving contraception coverage?
I'm glad that we agree that in fact there is no injury suffered here by the Little Sisters because they will not be providing or accessory to contraception coverage. But if there is no injury -- and in fact a "good" achieved that the sisters in fact requested -- why is signing the form problematic?
Groups like this one that operate nursing homes around the world sign all kinds of forms all the time. Many have to show they are nonprofits or that they comply with local health regulations etc. Given that this one has no moral effect for them what is the issue? Why is this different?
Thanks. DG
even if the Little Sisters self-certify, their employees still won't get contraception coverage because their health plan is itself exempt. And if they don't, what will happen? The Obama administration, whose lawyers keep saying the plan is exempt, would fine them for not signing the form that would trigger an accommodation that doesn't apply to them?
Is that in fact what will happen if the Little Sisters don't prevail and don't sign the form - the Obama Administration will fine them (possibly substantially) for not signing the form? I apologize if I'm behind most of the class on this, but I'm just trying to get my arms around the facts.
even if the Little Sisters self-certify, their employees still won't get contraception coverage because their health plan is itself exempt.
Again, sorry if I'm not following the complexities. The reason "their health plan is itself exempt" is not because of the Little Sisters' status as an exempt religious org (under the contraception mandate, it's not exempt), but because its insurer (or is it TPA?), Christian Brothers Services, is exempt under some separate provision of the accommodation that applies to religious insurers. Is that correct?
If, for whatever reason, next year the Little Sisters decide to drop the Christian Brothers and switch to Blue Cross/Blue Shield, then it would no longer be the case that "even if the Little Sisters self-certify, their employees still won't get contraception coverage". Is that also correct?
Yes, that's the case. But moral purity doesn't come free.
For Marc, should he ever return to this thread:
You wrote, "What was supposed to happen is for the government not to make arbitrary distinctions among non-profit religious groups, offering different levels of exemption and compulsion as it chose." The distinctions are not arbitrary, and I explained why. You haven't explained why you disagree.
You also wrote, "If church plans are exempt from ERISA enforcement, and so the certification and designation of groups like the Little Sisters will result in the vindication of absolutely no government interest as to the Little Sisters, then what is the rational basis for compelling groups like the Little Sisters to certify and designate?" The point is that their case seems unlike the others because they do not have to contract for contraception services and their health-plan administrator cannot be made to provide it.
RFRA, you instruct, "does not paper over the absence of such an interest by adverting to general bureaucratic efficiencies and distinctions in an overall legislative scheme." Was I papering over that? I thought I was trying to get you to tell me how the Little Sisters could be injured by signing a form that doesn't apply to them. After all, they brought the suit. Not the U.S. government.
This issue has turned truly ludicrous. If I asked you, "Will you help me kill Jack"?" and you answered, "No", have you helped me kill Jack? OF COURSE NOT!!!!! Well, when Obama says to the Sisters, "Will you help me provide contraceptives to your employees? If not, just sign this paper". and the Sisters check "No" and sign it, they are NOT helping anyone contracept. And the notion that they're giving permission would be laugh-out-loud funny if it weren't so dumb. And here I thought the Becket Fund had some really bright lawyers. Sheesh.
I'll remind you guys that I was the first one around here to defend the bishops when they said their freedom of religion was being violated when they were ordered to provide the contraceptives. But this another issue entirely, or, I should say a non-issue. Shame on the Becket Fund, making those great ladies look hysterical. They should be sued for malpractice they're giving such nonsensical advice. Can't wait to see what Chief Justice Roberts or Scalia says about this, if they pay it any attention at all.
"The form is a directive."
No, the form is a denial. Like the difference between "Pick up your socks" and "No, I won't".
The *only* thing the Sisters are being compelled to do is answer the question, "Will you provide contraceptives for your employees?" The Beckets are complaining that Obama/the government is asking the Sister a question. What eejits.
Look at the form tjat the Little Sisters are supposed to sign:
i think it is badly designed. The Sisters sign at the bottom of the first page to certify that they qualify for the accomodation.
The design mistake is that the box on page 2 tells the TPA what the law requires it to do if the employer notifies it that it is qualified to exclude contraception from the plan.
This is a government-supplied form. I suppose that whoever designed the form thought that it would be helpful for the government to use the empty space on the back of the form to remind the TPA of what the regulations require it to do if the employer is qualified to exclude contraception.
The Sisters argue that if they sign the form and send it to the TPA, they are not just certifying that they are exempt, but are also directing the TPA to do what the regulations mentioned on page 2 require.
That's not their only issue, but I think that one could be resolved if the government reissued the form without the "Notice to Third-Party Administrators of Self-Insured Health Plans" on the back.
The *only* thing the Sisters are being compelled to do is answer the question, "Will you provide contraceptives for your employees?"
Ann - I don't say you're wrong. But there might be a precedent within the church for the sort of moral analysis that I think the Little Sisters and the Becket Fund are making.
During John Paul II's pontificate, Rome once ordered the Catholic Church in Germany to stop providing counseling to women seeking an abortion. The law there required that, before a woman could get an abortion, she was required to attend a counseling session with a religious organization. Women who attended the sessions sponsored by the church were (naturally) counseled not to have an abortion. At the end of the session, the church counselor would give the woman a certificate of proof that she had met the legal requirement. If the woman decided to go forward with the abortion, she would go to the abortion provider and present the piece of paper from the church. Rome's view was that, even though the church was counseling against getting an abortion, in effect it was part of the process of procuring an abortion. For all practical purposes (as Rome analyzed it) the church counseling sessions were a hoop that had to be jumped through, a checkbox that had to be checked off, in order to get an abortion. The church had allowed itself to be made a part of a structure of sin. It made the church a collaborator in the process - even though it was counseling against the very thing that was the end to which the process was directed.
I think the Little Sisters of the Poor could claim that there is a parallel here. That innocuous little form it is being asked to sign, the very form that would seem to wash the religious order's hands of the procurement and distribution of contraceptives, is in fact the trigger for the procurement and distribution of contraceptives. It is the instigating event in the chain of events. Without that paper, the women could not get free contraceptives. And it is the church that is pulling the trigger.
I am not necessarily endorsing this line of thought. Critiques of it have been made here, and Rome's decision with regard to abortions in Germany was also criticized at the time. I don't think the moral analysis in either case is straightforward.
I think this expresses a concern expressed many times by people who disagree with the Catholic position: If the Church can get away with it, it will try to impose its morality on others, like it or not. Shariah Law, anyone?
I might add that giving your employees a paycheck is a permission slip knowing that they can then do all manner of evil with the funds.
I love this argument because it's completely ridiculous on its face.
Suppose we look at this from the opposite side: if the sisters do nothing, will they be subject to penalties? I think the answer is yes. If that's the case, then they are being coerced by penalties to sign a form because that form triggers an obligation to provide something that without their signature would not be provided. Instead the penalty would be assessed AND there would be no contraceptive or abortive services provided. Seems to me like their signature is what causes the services, no ifs, ands, or buts.
Bad news, folks: I am going to Hell. After wondering about it for months, I checked this morning and discovered my retiree health benefits from my last employer include contraceptive coverage. I assume I always had it in the coverage while I was working as well.
Does it help if I never used it? Apparently not. The Little Sisters of the Poor and the Becket Fund deem it a no-no for Catholics even to refuse such coverage. I suppose I could have done that -- refused and found another job. But anywhere I went there would have been an employer ready to force contraceptive coverage down my throat.
The only salvation I can see for myself is the Becket Fund's unstated premise that the employer is the actual moral agent, and the employee only a subject. As a subject, whatever I got wouldn't have been my fault, huh? No?
Thank you, Tom Blackburn, for this innovative moral analysis. I hope it can be applied more widely. Auto accidents, infidelities, small-time graft. Let's kick sinnin' upstairs to the boss!
The nuns feell that signing a form taints them. However by hiring lay emplyees they have a responsibility to them. In that sense they "tainted" themselves by hiring lay people to provide services for them knowing these lay peple may not subscribe to the nun's religious conscience, creating a moral responsibility. That responsibility includes adherence to the legal and just provison called Obamacare, meaning that the employer has to provide health insurance for its employees. The nuns have the relgious exemption status which recognizes freedon of religion. That cannot mean that religious exemption extends to abrogating one's responsibility to one's employees. No one forced the nuns to hire lay people. If they choose to do so they must comply with legal and JUST responsibility of seeing that their employees get proper coverage. In this case, by signing the appropriate forms. A conscientious objector has to initiate his/her claim by filling out forms. A conscientious objector may not want to participate in the process but abstention only results in exclusion from exemption A conscientious objector speaks only for his/'her own conscience, not anyone else's. The nuns are free to believe whatever they want and to practice their relgion including exempting themselves from being party to paying for contraception. That does not mean that they can speak for their emplyees or that they can wash their hands of their responsibilty as employers to ensure that employees have access to health insurane as other employees of a large companies do. The employee is entitled to his/her contraceptive coverage.
Bruce, signing the form does not authorize anything the nuns object to. Their insurer does not have to and wil not provide contraception coverage. That's the point.
Jim P: Excellent example from Germany, one I've always been fascinated by. I tended to agree with the German bishops, whose moral reasoning argued that the counseling was legitimate under the Catholic moral tradition. The system also helped prevent abortions. Another German bishop, one Cardinal Ratzinger, disagreed, and of course he had the throw weight behind him.
So in the end the church stopped counseling women in that system, and as a result there was one less way to stop abortions. But the church remained morally pure. I guess...
The problem with the German analogy in this case is that by signing the certification the nuns do not endorse providing something; nothing sinful happens.
if signing the form does not authorize anything, the why is the government insisting they sign it? Exempted institutions don't have to sign anything.
Freedom means being free to proclaim my beliefs or keep quiet depending entirely on my choice. Once someone else forces me to disclose something, even if it's true, I'm no longer free.
Btw, contraception is not a human right, not necessary for human flourishing, and no one has any right to expect a third party, however closely related, to give it to them for free.
Pope Fancis tells the clergy that they need to mingle with the smelly sheep. These nuns have done that but now they want to pretend that their sheep don't smell.They're disingenuous.
Bruce, I don't know if exempt institutions have to sign anything for this regulation but they will have to prove they are exempt -- and they have to sign all sorts of other documents related to their status vis-a-vis the IRS etc. If this entire controversy comes down to whether the sisters sign a standard issue government form, of the sort they and church organizations sign gazillions of times a year, and which does nothing, then we have truly approached the absurd. How can you say that signing one form is suddenly a form of persecution when you sign untold number of other government forms without protest?
It's not a human right.It is a legal right. Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's. If you don't want to give to Caesar then stop signing tax exempt forms. See how far that gets you.Caesar has determined that people need health care coverage and that unfortunately for us christians includes contarceptive coverage.That form gives Caesar what is necessary to get coverage to the nuns' emplyees who may want such coverage,without them having to jump though more hoops then other people workng for large companies do.it's called equaliy under the law.Without the forn the emyployes get discriminated against as they have to fend for themselves on the exhanges simply becaue they work for ths company.
Because signing this particular form presents a moral issue that the others do not. Tax forms fall under 'give to cesear what is cesears' and so are fundamentally different.
So, for a hypothetical example, if I was a member of a persecuted group, I might be very happy to sign all manner of government forms for drivers license, taxes, etc, etc, but highly object and maybe even lie, if asked to sign a form that even implicitly gave up my group identity. The point is simple, not all forms are the same, so your argument fails.
The implicit assumption of many posters on this site, and explicitly stated by some, is that todays women need contraception and abortion and they need it provided for free. That is, to put it charitably, highly debateable. But let me ask this question: until passage of the ACA, this was not an issue at all in our society, the entire society seemed to function well without real dissension over contraception. Everyone made their free choices and we all got along. Now, the US government has interjected itself into the issue, and created a controversy which did not previously exist. Since government exists to help us all get along for the common good, and here that government has acted in a way which explicitly contradicts its basic charge, why does anyone support its action? And given that the regulation which the government designed fails to work because it didnt understand its own laws (ERISA and church plans), how can anyone support its actions?
Pope Fancis tells the clergy that they need to mingle with the smelly sheep. These nuns have done that but now they want to pretend that their sheep don't smell.They're disingenuous.
No, they're not. The Little Sisters of the Poor offer a service to lay and ordained people that few others are willing to provide. They are not educated in the way many sisters are, and they are simple in the best sense of the word. Before denouncing these great women, it might be a good idea to learn something about their history, their training, their customs, etc.
A few points: there was a time, not long ago, when they went begging, with baskets, to support the old people in their care. There was a time, not long ago, when they were not allowed to know each other's family names. Etc., etc. They are vulnerable to those upon whose approbation they depend. If those who are their superiors decide they would be useful tools in the battle against Obama, they obey, probably with little knowledge or understanding of what's going on.
When I went to the Becket website and saw the groups that that they have defended and are defending vs. the ACA, e.g., dioceses, universities, businesses, etc. I began to wonder if perhaps the Little Sisters of the Poor are being used. Their name and mission sure do tug at the heart strings.
Point taken Gerelyn.If it is as you say and if they're gettig their orders from higher up then I wrongly disparaged them and I'm sorry for that.
by signing the certification the nuns do not endorse providing something; nothing sinful happens.
Right. I'm still puzzled :-).
I also haven't figured out yet exactly how ERISA fits into this story. I believe ERISA sets rules for employee pensions, so I'm not sure what the connection is between Obamacare and ERISA. Does the mandate and accommodation only apply to employers to whom ERISA regulations would apply in the event they establish an employee pension? If that is the case, and if the Little SIsters are exempt from ERISA requirements, then does it even matter who their insurer and/or TPA are?
Bruce, this may actually be more akin to a tax given that the Supremes (well, Roberts) have ruled the individual mandate a tax.
But the issue here is that since there is no moral effect in signing the form what is the injury?
Moreover, as for the matter of their identity -- which I don't think is necessarily relevant legally speaking -- I don't know how this compromises their Catholic identity in any way. For one thing, it is an exemption they asked for in order to preserve their Catholic standing. And by going through this process they are in fact broadcasting their Catholic bona fides, their opposition to contraception -- not compromising it.
I'm starting to think the Little Sisters have a point, although I think the government could fix the problem by rewriting the regulations.
How i had understood the accomodation worked in the case of self-insured plans is:
1. Most self-insured plans already have a third-party administrator (TPA) who processes claims and pays them using the employer's money.
2. If the employer (here the Little SIsters) qualifies for the accomodation, it fills out a certification form and sends a copy to the TPA telling it that no contraceptives are to be paid for under its plan.
3. Without any involvement by the little Sisters, the government independently directs the TPA to pay for contraceptives and be reimbursed by the government.
The problem I see now, is that the regulations are written so that the deal is not off to the side between the TPA and the government, but seems to be triggered by the form the Little Sisters send to the TPA. I think the regulations could be rewritten to work in the way I described in my three points, but there may be some basis for the Sisters complaint until that is done. The regulations say:
(b) In the case of a self-insured group health plan established or maintained by an eligible organization, as defined in §2590.715-2713A(a) of this chapter, the copy of the self-certification provided by the eligible organization to a third party administrator (including notice of the eligible organization's refusal to administer or fund contraceptive benefits) in accordance with §2590.715-2713A(b)(1)(ii) of this chapter shall be an instrument under which the plan is operated, shall be treated as a designation of the third party administrator as the plan administrator under section 3(16) of ERISA for any contraceptive services required to be covered under §2590.715-2713(a)(1)(iv) of this chapter to which the eligible organization objects on religious grounds, and shall supersede any earlier designation. A third party administrator that becomes a plan administrator pursuant to this section shall be responsible for—
(1) The plan's compliance with section 2713 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg-13) (as incorporated into section 715 of ERISA) and §2590.715-2713 of this chapter with respect to coverage of contraceptive services. To the extent that the plan contracts with different third party administrators for different classifications of benefits (such as prescription drug benefits versus inpatient and outpatient benefits), each third party administrator is responsible for providing contraceptive coverage that complies with section 2713 of the Public Health Service Act (as incorporated into section 715 of ERISA) and §2590.715-2713 of this chapter with respect to the classification or classifications of benefits subject to its contract.
(2) Establishing and operating a procedure for determining such claims for contraceptive services in accordance with §2560.503-1 of this chapter.
(3) Complying with disclosure and other requirements applicable to group health plans under Title I of ERISA with respect to such benefits.
The ERISA exemption only applies to a relatively small number of self-insured plans that have a religious organization as its TPA; however the issue of whether, by signing the certification form, the employer is authorizing the TPA to provide contraception on the government's dollar will apply to any Catholic hospital, university, charity, etc that has a self-insured plan.
Gerelyn --
Thanks for defending the Little Sisters. They are special. Would you know if they're represented in the LCWR? (I couldn't find the answer on the net.) I fear they're rather naive about some things and that the Becket people are taking advantage of their deserved great reputation.
"The Little Sisters and others say instead that signing the form is a "permission slip" that means they authorize someone else to undertake an immoral action, which would make the nuns culpable."
Without wading through what others have said, my point is this: each and every paycheck that the LSOP give to their employees is a "permission slip" to do what ever they want with the money: contracep, abort, drink, do drugs, keep a girl/boy friend on the side.
Enough with the in loco parentis nonsense, OK?
I see that my point was sort of alluded to in the text of the main article, but sort of cautiously.
Of course a paycheck is a permission slip!
Ann Olivier
The Little Sisters of the Poor are members of the Council of Major Superiors of Women Religious (CMSWR est. in 1992), an association of communities disillusioned with the goals and focus of the Leadership Council of Women Religious (LCWR est. under a different name in 1959). They are listed on the CMSWR website.
There are a few communities that have dual membership. The LCWR do not list their membership but I doubt that the Little Sisters of the Poor are members of the LCWR.
Jim McCrae, It isn't loco parentis. It's another Latin phrase, Cuius regio, eius religio -- "Whose realm, whose religion." In the 16th Century it meant the ruler determined the religious affiliation of his subjects. Today, if the Becket Fund is to be believed, it means that the employer determines the religious morality of those who work for him.
If the Little Sisters win, there should be no logical objection to extending the religious veto to wage and hour laws and other government-imposed inconveniences to the "job creators." After all, the religious claim can be made on behalf of that all-American god, the almighty dollar.
Let's suppose that I have a religious objection to serving on a jury in a criminal case, because I believe that it is God's place and no one else's to judge human beings. If I receive a summons to jury duty, what are my options?
- I may say nothing, serve on the jury, and thus violate my conscience.
- I may ask for a waiver based on religious grounds. If it is not granted, I will either serve and violate my conscience, or suffer the heavy hand of government in the form of a penalty. In that last case, as well as when the waiver is granted, I will not serve, but another person will take my place, and I will have caused that person to do something that I consider sinful, thus violating my conscience.
- I may ask a court to enjoin the jury administrators from summoning me at all without saying anything about my religious belief. But if successful, I would again be causing my replacement to engage in what I consider sinful behavior.
- My only conscientious action, it seems, the only way to safeguard my religious freedom and preserve my conscience, will be to ask a court to summon no one and to dismantle the entire criminal justice system in the jurisdiction that has summoned me. Still, that might leave me a little uneasy about contributing, howbeit with the best of motives, to a rise in crime.
I don't see a parallel with counseling against abortion in Germany.In that case the church is BROUGHT in to counsel as a first step to the abortion.That is a true pipe line.That's akin to bringing in a medical doctor at a execution or in gitmo or cia blacksite where people were being tortured.There Cardinal Ratzinger was right to reject this collaboration.It was not about remaining morally pure but about holding a sign; this way to the abortuary[ovens?],a rubber stamp.With the nuns it s about the fact that the employer who freely hired lay workers has a moral and now legal obligation to insure their health coverage. This is intrinsicaly good.The evil aspects of this coverage ,contraception and abortion are unfortunately included as part of health insurance. The nuns have been granted a religious exemption from having to provide coverage for what we deem as evil.This ratifies the exemption which is all that the nuns have a right to expect as they can't control their employees who they chose to hire and who have the same rights as other employees.
I disagree with 2 elements of your analysis:
1) The government needs the nuns to sign this form to start their regulatory process. Without the signed form they are only able to assess monetary penalties if the nuns provide a healthcare plan without the required contraceptive and abortive (IUD and plan B) and the employees wont receive those benefits. So the process in the case of plan B and IUD's produces the exact same result as in Germany and the nuns are a required part of the process.
2) While health care might be intrinsically good, employer provided healthcare is only one choice amoung many. The nuns could simply pay the penalty to the government for not providing healthcare and then increase their employees salaries by some amount and leave the decision to purchase healthcare to them.
3) The nuns have not been provided an exemption; they have been provided an accomodation. The exempt institutions, like churches, do not need to sign any form.
Btw, healthy women between adolescence and menopause are fertile and those who infertile need care to regain their fertility. Its an oxymoron to call making oneself infertile or killing the new human life within you healthcare.
The regulatory process was started by the nuns in their hiring of lay people who have a legal and just right to health care.The employees, once hired by the nuns are entitled to health insurance provided by their employer.The nuns are exempt but their employees are not them and may not have the same objections the nuns have. The employees are not extensions of the nuns but people in their own right who are entited to the same treatment under the law as other workers. Hence they should not have to go on the exchanges. The accommodation recognizes both facts;the nuns exempt status and the rights of their employees to have their insurance provided for by the employer.The nuns are wearing two hats here;that was their choice.I agree wholeheartedly with you that neither contraception or abortion should be provided for by the government.Abortion should be outlawed and contaception is not usually medical care.If the nuns want to engage in civil disobedience then we'll see where that leads.
Has anyone reported on exactly WHO is funding or underwriting the legal fees of the Little Sisters of the Poor?
I'm only speculating, but I wouldn't be surprised if some right-wing Obama-hating group, or some insurance company, has picked-up the court costs and legal fees for the LSotP pro bono - especially since David Gibson has so clearly drawn how obtuse the legal arguments of the LSotP attorneys.
With the Little Sisters of the Poor as a front, these anonymous attack groups get to try to continue to muck-up the works for the ACA.
Jim Jenkins,
My thoughts exactly. From the beginning I have been suspicious that the Beckett people have sought out the Little Sisters of the Poor for their own purpose.
How horrible that these good sisters are having to violate their conscience!!
The problem I see now, is that the regulations are written so that the deal is not off to the side between the TPA and the government, but seems to be triggered by the form the Little Sisters send to the TPA. I think the regulations could be rewritten to work in the way I described in my three points, but there may be some basis for the Sisters complaint until that is done.
But how does the TPA and the government know that the Little Sisters are declining to provide the benefit unless the Sisters notify them? The "default" expectation is that the Sisters provide the benefit. Unless/until they decline, wouldn't everyone expect them to do so? And as soon as they notify the other stakeholders that they'll not provide the benefit - at that point, the TPA and the government can step in, but isn't that notification still the "trigger"? I guess I'm not seeing a process that doesn't have the sisters 'pulling the trigger'.
Now I'm wondering if this signature thing could have been avoided had the sisters not used a catholic insurer[christian brothers]? How ironic is that[if that's true.]If that's the case is it that the lawyers were incompetant and did not forsee this or that this is the Rights way of challenging the notion of employer mandated, universal health care!
With regards to Mr. Gibson's second question, "And two, on the secondary point that does regard many other cases, how is signing the statement that one has a religious objection and therefor an exemption a 'permission slip'?"
I think the way to see how the accommodation for non-exempt religious employers involves cooperation in evil is to compare it to a question we might ask if in a similar situation: 'What happens when I sign?' If one does not sign, one is fined: ostensibly because *without* such authorization, the contracted third-party would not begin to offer contraceptive services--what the government prefers. "With" such authorization, that third-party offers contraceptive services (or subsidization of services).
And if we ask what *kind* of act it is (in order to draw relevant moral distinctions like between material and formal cooperation), such authorization it seems is more along the lines of "participating" (formal) than "providing conditions or instruments" (material)--unless we describe the act as "appeasing someone's conscience", which could be construed as a condition for someone to then go on and surreptitiously commit some evil. But "appeasing someone's conscience" is routinely a motive, if not a separate act--not the most formal character of what is being done here. If the act of signing the accommodation is not a participation in the (evil) act of the principal agent, then what is the natural object of the (good) act of the cooperator, that which is being used as a condition or instrument for the principal agent's act?
I find it difficult to describe the cooperator's act as anything else but *permission for another to provide what one would otherwise not provide*. The moral onus is precisely the fact that without *permission*, the act is question (that priorly contracted third party committing an evil) does not occur: someone else may or may not provide the service, but that is outside the moral responsibility of she who would have othersie been the cooperator. With the authorization of the signer, the third party provides contraceptive services and receives reimbursement. Without it, the government arranges on its own some sort of initiative to provide services for the employed--no doubt by some less expensive means.
Helen and Jim J,
Seeking out clients in order to advance a cause may be a common practice. In the 2005 Dover, PA, court case about Intelligent Design, the Thomas More Law Center defended the school board for no charge. There were suggestions at the time that the law firm had initiated the arrangement.
It is quite possible, for all I know, that firms of all ideological persuasions woo clients in this way. Not all of them, I trust, produce the result that the TMLC got: a crushing defeat, in which the presiding judge declared some of the defendants to be outright liars; and an order for the board to pay the plaintiffs' lawyers $1,000,000 in legal fees.
rose-ellen caminer January 13, 2014 - 9:12am
"Abortion should be outlawed and contraception is not usually medical care."
I was with you until this statement.
Until and unless there is a general consensus that abortion is immoral or otherwise, there is no way that it should be "outlawed." Failure to persuade is not a reason to outlaw. The RCC has been singularly unsuccessful in getting the non-RCC world (and a large number of its own female adherents) to avoid abortion. The more it tries to impose its beliefs (not facts … beliefs) on the rest of the world, the less credibility it has and will have.
Contraception does not enter into my life, but I know that many women use it for purposes other than prevention of birth. As such it is medical care.
Viagra is not medical care in the main, but I don't hear a great hue and cry that it not be covered by a health plan. Ditto on vasectomies.
The regulatory process was started by the nuns in their hiring of lay people who have a legal and just right to health care
False. The regulatory process was initiated by the government under the Affordable Care Act. The employees have NO right to employer provided healthcare. The government, through a series of carrots - tax exemptions primarily - and sticks - penalties - want the employer to provide a health insurance policy. But no employer - none - is required to provide health insurance for any employee.
Furthermore, the nuns lawsuit is essentially the civil disobedience you profess to support.
Refusing to cooperate in an action one considers immoral is just that -- *refusal to cooperate in evil*. How can any refusal to do wrong be immoral? Can someone give us an example?
The ACA is the law. The nuns initiated their entaglement with the law by becoming employers.That was their choice.The employer is required under penalty of fines to provide health care coverage for their workers. Whether health care coverage is a right or not is a philsophical issue. The point is that thanks to the ACA employees are insured by their employer.An employer cannot pick and choose which laws to obey.Without incuring a penalty. Yes what the nuns are doing is putting a hurdle on ths law. That's civil disobedience.If enough people in positons of power agree with them then thy will prevail and the law will change or another accomodation will be provided .We'll see what happens.The nuns are not cooperating with evil if they sign the form, they're afirming their exemption from cooperating with evil.
Abortion should be outlawed because it is the taking of innocent humn law,That is not a relgious only position that recognizes a right to life. it wa once llligal for that reason.
If the nuns were self-insured, in order to comply with ACA, would they need to set up a clinic and perform abortions themselves?
Just kidding - Of course I side with the nuns on this one.
I do not see where condoms, bc pills, or abortions are "treatments" for any medical malady. They are a means whereby some people seek to avoid responsibility for their own choices and actions, but they are not medical treatments.
In general I think it best if peorple finance their lifestyle choices themselves.
Tom --
The St. Thomas More Law Center was founded by Tom Monaghan, and he's still active in it. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if he's behind the suit.
The MCSE (Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer) capability is the head certificate for experts who examine the business needs and plan and actualize the set-up for business results dependent upon the Microsoft Windows working framework and Microsoft Servers programming. MCSE accreditation will help you to attain appreciation as a specialized proficient with built aptitudes. This certificate can help you in securing a more generous and http://theexamcollection.com/ fortifying occupation, winning an advancement, or procuring a raise. It is undoubtedly the most distinguished and profitable accreditation in its field. The persons, having a MCSE Certification serve as an insurance that they have picked up the fundamental competency in certain occupation related abilities. MCSE certificate guarantees that you will be a profitable part of your association from the very first moment, without weeks or months in preparing. Taking after are the exams needed to get MCSE Certification:


text:
Welcome to the weekly Friday Night Fights planning thread. If you aren't familiar with Friday Night Fights, it's a Destructoid community event where members get together online each Friday to play games. This is where we make up the schedule. The final list will appear on the the PS3 FNF community blog and Destructoid front page on Friday. There is no approval process for players or hosts and everyone is welcome. If you want in, just read the instructions below and drop your info.
Games? Fortunately, I won't need to do another Saturday blog this week.Originally Posted by Trev, Czar of the Friday Night Fights
All times Eastern.
Game: Call of Duty: Black Ops 2
Time: 9:30pm
Host: KymikoLoco
PSN: KimikoLoco
Domination/Ground War/Kill Confirmed.
Game: Battlefield 3
Time: 10:30pm EST (7:30 pacific)
Host: Elsa
PSN: Elsa
Rush and Domination. If you're not on my buddy list, send me a note clarifying you're with Dtoid and I'll add. Squads only hold 4, but just join the game I'm in if the squad is full and we'll just make sure everyone uses team chat instead of squad chat.
Game: Anarchy Reigns
Time: 11:30pm
Host: Epic-KxDtoid
PSN: UncannySilk


text:
Brockett's reaction to win
Reader Comments
The following are comments from online readers like you. In no way do they represent the view of The Republican-American.
Tom wrote on Dec 4, 2013 12:22 PM:
" Coginchaug's coach "Bozzo" should shut his mouth. His team gets destroyed by 28 pts and has the damn nerve to say his team is better? He is such a bitter man. Enjoy your offseason "Bozzo'. "
Kenneth Plavnicky wrote on Dec 9, 2013 12:13 PM:
" A great coach Good luck to him Friday night On his 100 win "
Submit a Comment
We encourage your feedback and dialog.
Please be civil and respectful.
Registered users comments will be posted automatically.
All other comments will be reviewed by our staff before appearing on the Web site.
If you're witty, to the point and quotable, your reader comments may also be included on the Around the Towns page of The Sunday Republican.
Redzone Videos
Photo Galleries
Redzone Blog
XML_Parser: undefined entity at XML input line 8:18


text:
Managing Your Maternity Leave
In This Article:
Planning your leavePlanning Your Maternity Leave
Before you begin negotiating your maternity leave, you need to do the following important things first:
- Begin planning earlyAs soon as you know you're pregnant, start musing about the responsibilities. Don't hesitate to toss out ideas and ponder new ones. The initial confusion will eventually sort itself out, and you'll be clearer about the way to go. Jot down ideas as they come to you. Refer to your notes often until you decide whether your idea has merit.
- Research your organizationGet a read on the culture of your company by talking to people who have successfully negotiated flexible work arrangements for themselves. Know your supervisor and your negotiating position in the company.
- Check your office manual for flexible work policies and review their provisions thoroughlyResearch your company's literature to study your employer's mission statements, company credos, and consider how you can pull the language in these statements for possible inclusion into your written proposal.
- Review your company's short-term disability and medical policiesYou should search for anything that strikes you as treating pregnancy as any different from any other short-term disability. (Some disability plans will provide for a paid leave to begin two to four weeks before your due date. That would give you time to tie up the loose ends, arrange the baby's room, or just relax.) Of course, your company may have a specific maternity leave policy, so be sure to study that as well.
Find out specifically what paid and unpaid leave you are eligible for. You might have some leave without pay that still includes benefits (usually a combination of your company's maternity leave policy, a short-term disability program, and accrued time off). Add up your accumulated vacation, sick, and personal days, and determine just how much unpaid leave your finances will allow. (Keep in mind when budgeting that your employer can legally require you to use up your paid leave first, and that some states require you to cover at least a portion of your leave before disability kicks in.) Again, check with your state labor office to learn about disability options. This is particularly important if you are working in a smaller company.
- Review your work performance since your last job evaluationYou will want to show two things: First, that you can and have done the job, even through you're pregnant. Second, you want to pay attention so that when the employer starts to reduce your duties, you can document the change. Then make an appointment with your human resources department and let them know about your pregnancy.
- Talk to someone who understands your company's policyYour personnel officer, union representative, human resources department, or office manager will know the answers to your questions. Larger companies will have the facts, in writing, usually in the employee's handbook. You are legally entitled to look at it without having to say why or to specify what policy or policies you're reviewing. Many companies also have this information on the Internet. The smaller your company, the less likely it is to have an official policy (see "What to Do If Your Employer Does Not Have a Maternity Leave Policy," below). You may discover that no policy exists because it's preferred to provide a general leave negotiated on an individual bias.
- Gather intelligenceTalk to several other women in the firm who have gone on maternity leave. They can tell you whether obtaining your rights will be easy or a struggle. Discreetly ask them how they managed to strike a deal. Assuming that a maternity leave policy does exist, your guiding principle in considering it is a simple question: is it made more difficult for pregnant women than for disabled employees? If your company allows employees to return to the job after a heart attack, or an injury from a car accident, or continues their pay while they heal, then it must provide at least the same terms for your disability leave.
- Approach the meeting in a matter-of-fact way and avoid any antagonistic statementsThe person you're meeting with wants to inform you, not to argue about an already established policy. Use the Maternity Leave Policy Worksheet that follows to document the facts about your company's maternity leave policy.
More on: Work
excerpted from:
© 2005 by Marla Schram Schwartz. Excerpted from The Working Woman's Baby Planner with permission of its publisher, Sourcebooks, Inc.
To order this book visit Amazon.com.


text:
By Richard Shears and Rob Cooper | Daily Mail | May 7, 2012
Thousands of capsules filled with powdered human flesh have been discovered by customs officials in South Korea, it was revealed today.
The are believed to have emanated from China and it looks as though the bodies of dead babies have been chopped into tiny pieces which were then dried in ovens before being pummelled into powder.
The gruesome series of discoveries since last August has shocked even hardened customs agents who have pledged to strengthen inspections.
The capsules are in demand in China because they are viewed as being medicinal - a cure-all for ailments.
Chinese officials are understood to have been aware of the trade and have tried to stop the capsules being exported but thousands of packets of them have been smuggled through to South Korea.
There is a huge demand for alternative Chinese remedies - which include ground up rhino horns.
The Chinese have historically consumed human placentas to improve blood supply and circulation.
The South Korean Customs Service said today that it had heightened its searches of suspicious packages being brought into the country by travellers from China in an attempt to stamp out the sickening trade.
According to customs agents, 35 smuggling attempts have been made since August last year involving more than 17,000 capsules disguised as 'stamina boosters'.
Hospitals and abortion clinics in China reportedly pass the remains onto drugs companies when a baby is stillborn or aborted, the South Korean SBS documentary team reported last year.
The San Francisco Times reported that tests carried out on the pills confirmed they were made up of 99.7 per cent human remains.
The tests were successfully able to establish the genders of the babies used.
There is a huge demand for the pills which are thought to enhance stamina. Microwave-dried placenta is also sought after for its alleged 'medicinal' benefits.
However, in reality the human flesh capsules contain super-bacteria and other harmful ingredients.
A number of smugglers who have been detained by the South Korean authorities have claimed they did not know what the ingredients were or the manufacturing process behind them.
'Ethnic Koreans from north-east China who now live in South Korea are those who were mostly intending to use the capsules or share them with other Korean-Chinese' said a customs official.
'They are normally brought into South Korea in luggage or posted by international mail.'
Chinese newspapers have identified the north eastern provinces as the source of the human flesh capsules, in particular the Jilin region which is close to North Korea.


text:
We were heartbroken about the terrible loss that the band Addison Road suffered this past week. While on tour with Sanctus Real, their RV burned to the ground and they lost everything. Thank you so much for praying for them, it's been a really tough time. But God is faithful!
God wouldn't let me sleep after hearing about this. He laid some friends of mine on my heart. Geoff and Jill Ludlow of Full Sail Ministries. They travel with their family in an RV spreading the word of God. I felt that God wanted me to call them and see if Addison Road could use their RV. Turns out, they didn't need it until June and after hearing Addison Road's story, Geoff jumped at the chance to offer them the use of their RV for the remainder of the tour!
Jenni shared that they were considering leaving the tour and heading home. They were even questioning their career choice. It's amazing to see how God can use us to make a difference! For Geoff and his family, it was sharing their RV. For you, it may be something different. We are all called to reach out to those around us and share the love of Jesus.
Thank you for praying. Thank you for making a difference!
Geoff and Jill Ludlow
Now Playing: Good Good Father
Artist: Chris Tomlin
On-Air: Morgan Wood
Thanks for listening to the Scott and Kelli Show! You can listen online weekdays from 5-9pm Eastern at www.klove.com/listen.
Like Us
Scott Smith
Kelli Caldwell


text:
Showing 1-17 of 17 items found in Events
- Sort by:
- <
- 1
- >
East Peoria Festival of Lights & Folepi's Winter Wonderland
Light up your night at the East Peoria Festival of Lights (FOLEPI)! The annual Festival of Lights is a one-of-a-kind holiday spectacular. With more than two million lights in the festival, the beauty will be sure to mesmerize you and your family.
CITY:East Peoria
The Illinois Shakespeare Festival is a professional Shakespearean Repertory Festival that is a part of the College of Fine Arts at Illinois State University. The Festival is recognized as a nationally renowned Shakespeare Festival that over 10,000 patrons visit annually. The Festival produces a repertory season of Shakespeare plays and new works during the months of July and August each summer on the grounds of the Ewing Cultural Center. Celebrating its 39th season in 2016, the Festival is a theatrical gem located in the heart of central Illinois.
A small town festival has carnival rides, a petting zoo, car show, pie and cake baking contest/auction, bingo and bands nightly that are sure to entertain the whole family!
Over 50,000 ears of fresh sweet corn, sidewalk sales, arts, crafts, and flea market vendors await you on the streets of Uptown! Come out and enjoy the fun, food and some of the best blues music around. On Saturday the festival runs from 10 am to 5 pm (or 'till the corn runs out.) and on Sunday from 11 am to 4 pm. Visit the Sweet Corn Blues Festival page for entertainment listings and details. Free Parking in the College Ave. Parking Deck.
Thousands of collectors clear their calendars to shop the Third Sunday Market, an event devoted exclusively to the finest in antiques, collectibles, crafts, and garden. A Bloomington tradition since 1988, the indoor/outdoor sale features more than 450 top dealers, representing 17 states. Whether you're looking for the finest in antique furniture, Americana, folk art, vintage advertising, sport memorabilia, or antique linens & clothing you're likely to find it here.
Downtown Bloomington Farmers Market
The Market is open from 7:30 a.m. to noon every Saturday morning from May through October. Located on the historic downtown square, the Farmers' Market is managed by the Downtown Bloomington Association. Not only does the market give customers a colorful venue to buy locally grown farm products, it also puts them in touch with local artisans of prepared goods and fine arts, musicians, and community organizations. The Downtown Bloomington Association Farmers' Market is a producer-only market offering a wide array of farm products — including vegetables, fruits, cheeses, pork, beef, free-range poultry and eggs, flowers, plants, herbs, and more grown and produced by the individual selling these items! The market features different musical performances each week. Cooking demos are offered regularly, and the Kids' Zone has sponsors that offer weekly hands-on activities for all ages.
This beautiful and unique amphitheatre is easily accessible from the Constitution Trail. Some of the current programs include: High School Summer Theatre productions, Dress-Up Movie Nights and the outstanding concert series known as the Sounds of the Amphitheatre, which highlights local talent from the Bloomington/Normal area. Programming begins in May and runs through October, weather permitting.
The Evergreen Cemetery Walk brings the voices of McLean County's history to life. Costumed actors portray individuals representing all walks of life from the county's past on the beautiful grounds of Evergreen Memorial Cemetery. Put on your walking shoes and bring your family to participate in this fascinating, award-winning outdoor theatrical program.
Danvers Days is fun filled family festivities featuring entertainment, food, raffles, kids games, Bingo and Tug of War. Attendees also enjoy a carnival, craft show, community auction, and one of the biggest parade in Central Illinois. For more details on the schedule of events please visit their website.
Brüegala is an annual charity beer and wine festival run by the Bloomington-Normal Jaycees. The festival has multiple food vendors, over 500 beers, 50+ wines, glasses of draft beer and wine slushies. They also will have entertainment with live music throughout the two-day event.
Built in the 1930's, this golf course offers old, mature trees lining each fairway on the 5,539 yard course. In addition to the narrow fairways, small greens make for a challenging round. USGA Course Ratings and Slope Ratings are 66.9 and 111, respectively. A hilly terrain with a beautiful creek meandering through the course make this a very scenic golf course. Golf Digest Places to Play has given Highland Park a 3 Star Rating. The full-line Golf Shop carries a great selection of golf equipment and apparel at discount prices.
The Heartland Community College campus is a community resource that may be scheduled as available for activities consistent with the mission and policies of the College and Board of trustees. the campus includes several conference rooms, classrooms, computer labs and an auditorium that can hold 430 people. All of these spaces can be reserved through the special events department.
The Ironwood Golf Course is the Town's full service golf facility with 18 holes, 7,100 yards and a par 72 championship layout playing from 5400-7100 yards with four sets of tees. The course offers cart rental, a driving range and has a pro shop with club rental. Ironwood was designed by highly regarded golf course designer Roger Packard and meanders through the Ironwood residential subdivision. Opened in 1990, Ironwood Golf Course has hosted numerous high school regional, sectional and conference tournaments, collegiate invitational tournaments, local charity events and site of C.D.G.A and U.S.G.A. qualifiers.
Christmas at the Mansions Tour
Travel back in time to the late 1800s and early 1900s and experience a traditional Victorian and Edwardian Christmas! Tour Ewing Manor, the David Davis Mansion and a Mystery Mansion in Bloomington-Normal and take in the architecture and history of these homes while they are decorated for Christmas. Tours will be at: 2 pm – 5 pm and 5 pm – 8 pm
Illinois Porcelain Art Show "Celebrating 50 years!-A Golden Year"
Illinois Porcelain Art Show will be celebrating 50 years of Porcelain Painting in Illinois. You will be able to view beautiful displays of hand-painted china by our member guilds, shop with our vendors and porcelain art teachers, vote on museum pieces, have the opportunity to bid on silent auction pieces (will include painted pieces as well as wreaths/swags created by our members) Supplies will be included in fee. We are excited by this new concept of learning.
Mannheim Steamroller at U.S. Cellular Coliseum
The show features classic Christmas hits from Mannheim Steamroller all with dazzling multimedia effects in an intimate setting. The spirit of the season comes alive with the signature sound of Mannheim Steamroller. Performance begins at 8pm
Beautiful, historic cars in a beautiful, historic setting – that's the promise of 19th Annual Antique Car Exhibition on Aug. 6 at the David Davis Mansion State Historic Site. More than 75 cars from the 1900s through the 1980s will be displayed on the mansion grounds from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. Visitors can stroll through the amazing collection of vintage vehicles on display. They can view the cars up close, talk with the owners and meet fellow automobile enthusiasts.
- <
- 1
- >


text: Balancing the compute, storage, and network resources in an Apache Hadoop* cluster enabled the full benefit of the latest Intel® processors, solid state drives, Intel® Ethernet Converged Network Adapters, and the Intel® Distribution for Apache Hadoop Software. Building a balanced infrastructure from these components enabled reducing the time required to complete a workload from about four hours to about seven minutes, a reduction of approximately 97 percent. Results such as these pave the way for low-cost, near-real-time data analytics.


text:
Possible Duplicate:
What are the best ways to increase your site's position in Google?
What can I do to compete against existing established websites with Google page rank 3?
I will try to add more keyword to my site by populating my website with similar articles (not copies) present on the other websites, but will my page get a good ranking since they have good SEO with lots of good articles and Facebook followers?
How can I get customers?


text:
This article takes the cake for troubling Defence news. In it whistle-blowers claim that security checks on a variety of Defence personal and contractors are faked to try and reduce a backlog of background checks and personal security reports.
It involves claims of threatening those employees to pick up the pace and fake documents to get things done.
If true, it is one of the most serious breaches of security to be made public.
An investigation should be launched with an outside agency that doesn't directly report to Defence. The Federal Police would probably do. An investigation of this size is worthy of a fund-site, sufficient manning and standing up of office space in the Federal Police to find out the exact health of our Defence security vetting process.
Besides losing a war it doesn't get much bigger than this. Matter of fact it is something as serious as this that COULD make us lose a war, suffer a domestic terrorist incident (on any scale), leak large amounts of secret information, or see equipment pilfered on a large scale for lack of a crim-check.
Without proper security vetting of Defence personnel and contractors, we have no credible national defence.


text:
To make spherical pano, a wide angle converter is likely to be used and a zenith shot may be needed. So there is a lower limit on its vertical headroom.
To make spherical pano, a wide angle converter is likely to be used and a zenith shot may be needed. So there is a lower limit on its vertical headroom.
We listen. We try harder.
It has been nearly three years since I submitted photos of my heavily modified NN3 MkII. Pictures above show that the completed panoramic head fits in the palm of my hand. I've upgraded to the latest Canon Powershot S120 which has lowered the minimum focal length from 28 to 24 mm. This combined with a 4:3 aspect ratio allows a spherical panorama to be captured with 16 shots plus nadir. Also the camera will bracket three exposures, plus and minus two stops. Fixing aperture, manual focus and short self timer yields superb results. PTGui handles the bracketing effortlessly.
The point of the exercise was to reduce the size and weight of a pano rig dramatically. The whole thing including tripod fit in a small bag that is easy on the shoulder... far more convenient than the Nikon DSLR setup I also have.
I agree and believe you would find a market for what I have improvised. The performance of the compact point-and-shoot cameras has improved such that panoramas made with them are comparable to a DSLR at a fraction of the size and weight. The setup described above produces 18,000 by 9,000 pixel panoramas that are nearly identical to those from my Nikon D3. The only difference is the Canon S120 is limited to plus or minus two stops in bracketing, so very high contrast scenes might wish for more. I have not found this to be a problem. It opens a new world of panoramas because people frequently have a compact camera with them rather than hauling around a heavy DSLR.
You would need only three new pieces - shortened horizontal and vertical arms, and a simplified camera plate. For the latter I used a piece of aluminum channel, anti-skid tape and a captive 1/4-20 screw.
Hi, would like to see the pics of your model.
I've made some minor changes but pictures taken three years ago are in the first message, top of the thread. By the way, ideal tripods for this setup are the Velbon Ultra Voxi L or Gitzo GT1550T, both very light weight but sturdy with this small load. Note the advantage of the Canon Powershot S120... each shot is bracketed around the exposure of that scene, eliminating the wide range of bracketing using manual mode with a DSLR.
A quick example made using this simple arrangement.
Yes, auto exposure with subtle differences. First set the camera to Av (Aperture variable) mode and adjust aperture to f8. This fixes the aperture, ensures good sharpness and excellent depth of field. Next set bracketing to three shots, one properly exposed, one two stops under and one two stops over. Also set shooting such that all three shots are made when the shutter button is depressed. Bracketing will be accomplished now by automatically changing shutter speed only. Allow me to digress with the rationale on ISO setting. With shutter speeds as the only variable, the camera has a dynamic range of 12 stops - from 1 to 1/2500 second. We want to place the 'normal' exposure in the middle of this, at 1/50 second, to make maximum use of the dynamic range to fill in shadows and attenuate highlights. Set ISO as required to get about 1/50 second exposure on a representative scene, typically 100 to 200 on a sunny day, then set white balance for conditions. Next set manual focus for 10 feet, about the hyperfocal distance for a 24 mm equivalent lens, ensuring very good depth of field. Fixing focus also ensures the NPP will not move, and the scenes will all look the same to the stitcher. Finally set the self timer for a couple second delay to allow camera shake from the button push to damp out. So to recap, each of the individual shots will be optimized for that scene and will vary widely from sky to deep shadow. But each is captured optimally, plus the brackets high and low. On a typical outdoor panorama PTGui will show 20 to 25 different exposures ranging from 1/4 to 1/2000 second. The program will warn you not to expect the same good results as bracketing at identical exposures but the results are excellent. For low light situations you could use a wider aperture or run up the ISO...maximum for the Canon S120 is 6400. I haven't tried fully automated exposure where the camera varies both aperture and shutter speed but suspect this would work okay. It would provide a much wider dynamic range which I have not needed yet. Again the point of this is capturing very nice panoramas with a camera/pano head combination that will fit in your coat pocket.
Last edited by aviator; 10-30-2013 at 07:49 PM.
John, Thanks for your comment. I should have qualified saying...excellent results for a palm-size solution. Note that I am still tinkering with settings on the just-released Canon S120, and would now turn off the Vivid color setting used in the example. 'My other car' is a Nikon D3/14-24/NN4RD16 setup and it does a better job with HDR using true bracketing.
Although not intended to compete with a heavy DSLR and full HDR, attached is today's panoramic example. The modified NN3, Canon S120 and Gitzo GT1550T combination weighs only 1615 grams complete and fits in a small nylon bag. The stitched photo comprises 24 images each bracketed plus/minus two stops. Dynamic range in this case was 9 stops and the closest object was 300 mm away. Of course results would improve with a lower contrast scene, such as indoors.
I can say that Nick does listen when a garage machinst creates something that the Pano community would be interested in.
I show Nick my ideas all the time (at least when I have spare time to create something new and/or interesting).
It took about a year of pestering to get him to finally make the Nadir adapter.
This pano head helped inspire the latest pano heads for small cameras. I used it for monopod panos when I wanted to swivel the camera up in order to handle lens flare.
It is possible to go smaller and lighter, but I have started using a different rig.
We emailed back and forth with ideas. He finalized his design and released the final product to the public.
Keep making stuff and sharing it with Nick. Fanotec does in fact listen.
chances are you will see smaller models in 2014.
We listen. We try harder.
"Success has many fathers, but failure is an orphan."


text:
Why are my posts disappearing?
Who is deleting my posts, and why? Last week, I posted a deal on gas grills at www.tuesdaymorning.com (deal was Team Grill MVP series gas grills for $250). It was removed. Then, I posted the "Free Fishing Day" link yesterday. Again, removed (someone else posted the exact same deal today, and it's still up, so I'm assuming it didn't break any rules for deal posting... why hate on mine?). Also, I just commented on that deal talking about my experience with fishing licenses in Florida. That was deleted, too! I have repeatedly tattled (other) asking for an explanation through e-mail and pm (there are no official rules to refer to and no one has answered any of my previous requests for explanation). Whoever is deleting my posts, please tell me what I'm doing wrong so I can post properly next time.
3 Answers answer
Don't know about the tuesdaymorning deal, but I would bet that the fishing deal was deleted because it's not active yet. Deals.woot takes a dim view on pre-posting deals.
edit: The other post of the free fishing day appears to have been deleted, as well. And here's a link to the most recent user-generated FAQ:
Another edit: you aren't' the only one who's had problems with tuesdaymorning deals:
Is it just me, or has this question appeared about once a day ever since the woot revamp?
I know where your comment went - there was a massive spam cannon launched early in the evening yesterday (Pacific time) and in the middle of the laser deployment needed to PEW PEW it all away, your post clearly got caught in the cross fire. Careful as we are with the lasers, that happens on rare occasion.
Sorry about that.
Also, yeah. No pre-deals, sorry. Day of. That's the word around these parts. :)