text:
You've probably already heard that Lululemon, the maker of high-end yoga apparel, is undergoing a companywide crisis after a number of pairs of its signature black Luon yoga pant were found to be too sheer, revealing parts of women's bodies that were supposed to be kept covered.
The crisis, which has already spawned a pun epidemic, has hurt Lululemon's stock price and given the company an embarrassing turn in the media. Today, the company's CEO was forced to admit, on a conference call explaining the screw-up, that the only way to catch the problematic bottoms was to "put the pants on and bend over."
But it didn't have to end this way. Lululemon had a huge opportunity to turn its sheer-pants fiasco into a hit. It just didn't capitalize. Here are two suggestions for what it could have done instead — one from an experienced female yoga practitioner, and the other from a dude who has done yoga twice.
Charlotte says:
I've been going to yoga regularly for years. Classes at my studio are predominantly made up of women, but there are usually a few guys, some of whom are clearly straight because they're with their girlfriends. I've had male friends ask if going to yoga would be a good way to pick up women, and I always say no, because it seems too obvious and kind of creepy. Everyone's underdressed and bending into vaguely sexual positions. It would be like trying to flirt in a department store lingerie section. It's supposed to be a safe zone.
This is why I don't understand why Lululemon is so worried about their sheer pants. If you have problems with your butt being visible, then yoga is not for you! Yoga is where butts get waggled and stuck up in the air. You're supposed to show your tush with abandon. If you think sheer pants are too scandalous for yoga, try doing downward dog behind a shirtless man in tiny shorts. Being quasi-naked in yoga is practically a necessity, not a problem.
That said, there is the thong issue, which I can understand. The problem with sheer yoga pants isn't so much that your butt cheeks are visible, but that your thong is. Still, I don't see why this is a terrible concern, since lots of ladies' thongs stick out during yoga anyway. And since the pants are only see-through when you bend over, this wouldn't be a problem when you're walking to and from class, unless you drop your car keys or something.
Obviously Lululemon is trying to stick to their standards, and that's commendable. But instead of tossing the sheer pants, they should just slash the prices and/or sell them at one of their outlet stores. Plenty of their less butt-shy customers will be more than happy to buy them.
Kevin says:
I've been to two yoga classes in my life — both in Brooklyn, both at the same chi-chi yoga studio. It was a few years ago. I think I had a Groupon.
Charlotte and I must have gone to different studios, because what struck me about my yoga experience (besides my horrendous lack of flexibility) was how efficiently it performed its secondary role as a meat market. Men and women (and men and men, and women and women) partnered up for quick stretches before class, snuck obvious peeks at each other during class, and mingled over cookies and tea in the lobby after class. Take away the sun salutes, and it could have been any yuppie singles mixer.
Half the fun of yoga is seeing other hot young things sweating in skimpy clothes. So it's baffling to me that this is even an issue for Lululemon at all. The solution seems obvious: make sheer pants a feature, not a bug. Instead of recalling those transpara-pants, just make some new packaging, slap it on the defective pairs, and market them as a new line — "Sheer Nirvana," or somesuch. Hell, make 'em for men, too.
Lululemon was famously founded on the ideals of Ayn Rand. You think Ayn would have apologized for some see-through Spandex? Hell no. She would have defended the integrity of those pants with her life. "An inventor is a man who asks 'Why?' of the universe and lets nothing stand between the answer and his mind," she wrote in Atlas Shrugged.
A real Objectivist yoga company would have looked at that sentence, replaced "the answer" with "sheer-bottom yoga pants" and "his mind" with "record-breaking profits," and sold the damn things like hotcakes.


text: It's amazing what [Ben Heckendorn] can manage to crank out in just five hours. This time it's a wireless Xbox 360 controller stuffed inside an Atari 2600 controller. The guts are from a Guitar Hero 3 controller. It's a fairly compact board and [Ben] used thin ATA wire for the connections. While it doesn't have all the buttons of a true Xbox controller, this 3600 controller has enough to make it useful in arcade games. The joystick portion was reused without any modification. Things like the guide button and ring of light are located underneath.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
A stunning new video has emerged 15 years after Stanley Kubrick's death in which Kubrick admits that the NASA moon landings were faked.
Filmmaker T. Patrick Murray interviewed Kubrick three days before his death in March 1999. He was forced to sign an 88-page NDA to keep the contents of the interview a secret for 15 years.
Below is a transcript from the interview with Stanley Kubrick, in which the 2001 Space Odyssey Director admits on camera that, "the moon landings ALL were faked , and that I was the person who filmed it."
We have included a leaked rough cut of the interview below the transcript:
K: I'm so preoccupied. With my work, innovation, risk-taking, regrets…
T: Why are you giving this interview?
K: Because, it started to get to me after awhile. Well, this is difficult, because it is the first time I've talked about it. (sighs)
T: Sure, take all the time you need.
K: I've always been conflicted by it, but not consciously until years later. I was just blown away by the chance, the opportunity, the challenge of making this, this production, and I went into this like it was a regular film, like another regular film of mine, not thinking too much about uh the long term effects of what it would mean to society if it was ever discovered.
T: What are you talking about? I'm dying to know what you're talking about.
K: Well, a confession of sorts. A movie I made, that nobody is aware of – even though they've seen it.
T: A movie you made, no one knows you made? Is that what you said?
K: That's right. Is that intriguing? Do I have you intrigued?
K: I perpetrated a huge fraud on the American public, which I am now about to detail, involving the United States government and NASA, that the moon landings were faked, that the moon landings ALL were faked , and that I was the person who filmed it.
T: Ok. (laughs) What are you talking…You're serious. Ok.
K: I'm serious. Dead serious.
K: Yes, it was fake.
T: Ok. Wait. Wait…
T: I don't want this to be an R-rated film, but seriously, what the blank, but seriously…
T: I, I, I worked almost eight months to secure this once in a lifetime interview that almost no else could ever get, and instead of talking about his sixteen films that I've endured since I was a child…That we didn't land on the moon, you're saying?
K: No, we didn't.
K: It was not real.
T: The moon landings were fake?
K: A, a, a.. fictional moon landing. A fantasy. It was not real.
K: Don't you think it's important for people to know the truth?
T: The moon landing in '69, which was two years before my birth…
K: Is total fiction.
T: Total fiction.
T: Is that?…So, that's the 15 year thing. So that's makes sense now. That's why I can't release it for 15 years now, that makes total sense now.
T: Did we…we didn't land on the moon you're saying?
K: No, we didn't.
T: Why are you telling me?
K: A, a, a, a massive fraud. An unparalleled fraud perpetrated against them. They SHOULD know.
K: Nixon want to uh, they were planning, yeah, he want to fake this, this moon landing…
T: Are you contending that people DON'T want to know the truth about the world, reality, the moon landings…?
K: The government, knowing this, takes advantage of it by perpetrating fraud after fraud after fraud.
T: How did you end up giving in? Being complicit with this fraud?
K: I didn't want to do it.
T: This is NOT where I thought this interview was going!
K: With my help, with my, with my aid, and it is, it is bothering me.
T: I only have this certain amount of time with you. And I'll talk about whatever you want, but…
T: You're not…This isn't some type of joke, or…
K: No. No, it's not.
T: Or a film within a film thing…
K: Not joking. NOPE.
T: Okay.
K: The conspiracy theorists were right, on this occasion.
T: I don't know what to ask you first.
K: I thought it was wrong, I just…I didn't believe in perpetrating a fraud like that.
T: But you did.
K: It also undermined my artistic integrity to do that.
T: Ok, but you ended up saying yes. Why?
K: Well, yes, but because basically I was bribed. To put it bluntly, that's what it was. It was just a plain fucking bribe.
T: Why are you telling me?
K:A, a, a, massive fraud. An unparalleled fraud perpetrated against them. They SHOULD know! Don't you think it's important for people to know the truth?
T: Why did they have to fake it? Why? Why would they ever need to do something like that? Why would the government ever want or need to do…
K: It's no secret that NASA always wanted to fulfill this Kennedy prophecy.
T: Take it from the beginning…
T: I gotta be honest, this is where he (Kubrick) got me. I mean, when I actually put myself in his position, when I actually imagine that he was telling the truth, and that he was presented with this opportunity and if in the one in a billion chance that I lived his life and I was presented with the same opportunity, what would I do?
T: Yeah, he wanted his approval points up and he thought nothing could do it better than this.
T: What a conflict. I mean, gosh, I can't imagine being presented with that opportunity. On one hand, I'd really would want to do it, but then I'd probably say I'm committing a crime, and lying…
T: It depends, but my guess would be…no, if you're good, but you would do it.
K: Spielberg, (inaudible) Scorsese, even Woody Allen. There isn't one of them who wouldn't do this.
T: I gotta admit: I'd do it. I'd do it too.
T: But they dangled all this power and all this flattery on you, essentially?
K: Yeah, it got to me after awhile. You can listen to so much of that stuff before you start to believe it.
T: They just said you were the greatest and stuff?
K: Yeah, yeah – and I agreed with them.
K: Why are you telling the world? Why does the world need to know that the moon landings aren't real and you faked them?
K: Which I consider to be my masterpiece.
T: And you can't take credit, or even talk about…
K: Well, I am now..
T: Right, so you'll be dead. In ten years, or 15…
K: Right, ten or 15 something like that.
T: So, you can't talk to Roger Ebert about it. Does that frustrate you?
T: Why did they have to fake it? Why would they have to do that?
K: Because it is impossible to get there.
T: Ok, back up, back up, back up….
SHOOTING STANLEY KUBRICK (Correcti Edit File- 43 MINUTES SECOND EDIT) from PlayStationChannel on Vimeo.


text:
Asteroid may be embryonic planet harboring water ice
Posted: September 7, 2005
Observations of 1 Ceres, the largest known asteroid, have revealed that the object may be a "mini planet," and may contain large amounts of pure water ice beneath its surface.
"Ceres is an embryonic planet," said Lucy A. McFadden of the Department of Astronomy at the University of Maryland, College Park and a member of the team that made the observations. "Gravitational perturbations from Jupiter billions of years ago prevented Ceres from accreting more material to become a full-fledged planet."
The finding will appear Sept. 8 in a letter to the journal Nature. The paper is led by Peter C. Thomas of the Center for Radiophysics and Space Research at Cornell University in Ithaca, N.Y., and also includes project leader Joel William Parker of the Department of Space Studies at Southwest Research Institute in Boulder, Colo.
Ceres is approximately 580 miles (930 kilometers) across, about the size of Texas. It resides with tens of thousands of other asteroids in the main asteroid belt. Located between Mars and Jupiter, the asteroid belt probably represents primitive pieces of the solar system that never managed to accumulate into a genuine planet. Ceres comprises 25 percent of the asteroid belt's total mass. However, Pluto, our solar system's smallest planet, is 14 times more massive than Ceres.
The astronomers suspect that water ice may be buried under the asteroid's crust because the density of Ceres is less than that of the Earth's crust, and because the surface bears spectral evidence of water-bearing minerals. They estimate that if Ceres were composed of 25 percent water, it may have more water than all the fresh water on Earth. Ceres' water, unlike Earth's, would be in the form of water ice and located in the mantle, which wraps around the asteroid's solid core.
Besides being the largest asteroid, Ceres also was the first asteroid to be discovered. Sicilian astronomer Father Giuseppe Piazzi spotted the object in 1801. Piazzi was looking for suspected planets in a large gap between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter. As more such objects were found in the same region, they became known as "asteroids" or "minor planets."


text: Conventional wisdom says that quantum mechanics is a theory of discreteness, describing a world of irreducible building blocks. It stands to reason that computers—which process information in discrete chunks—should be able to simulate nature fully, at least in principle. But it turns out that certain asymmetries in particle physics cannot be discretized; they are irreducibly continuous. In that case, says David Tong, author of "Is Quantum Reality Analog after All?" in the December 2012 issue of Scientific American, the world can never be fully simulated on a computer.


text:
- From: Aaron M Leventhal <email@example.com>
- Date: Sat, 24 May 2008 23:07:50 +0200
- To: firstname.lastname@example.com (Henry S. Thompson)
- Cc: Henri Sivonen <email@example.com>, "firstname.lastname@example.com" <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.com, "firstname.lastname@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.com>, email@example.com, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.com>, "firstname.lastname@example.com" <email@example.com>
- Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.com>
email@example.com (Henry S. Thompson) wrote on 05/23/2008 12:54:32 PM: > >> > HST wrote: > >> >> AML wrote: > >> >> > I'm very concerned that there is not a realistic view about how > >> >> > much this will hurt authors. > >> >> > >> >> I agree that if things were as bad as you thought they were, that > >> >> would be a problem. But I hope I've shown above that they are _not_ > >> >> as bad as you thought. > >> > > >> > You don't think the fact that I got 2 different DOMs for the same > >> > attribute in my XHTML is a problem? That happens when your > >> > instructions are followed correct[ly]? > >> > >> Not a problem for most users, no, because as long as they stick to > >> doing set/get/removeAttribute("aria:...") they will never notice that > >> (in Firefox) the DOM sometimes starts out one way and changes to > >> another. > > > > I want to ensure that everyone understands the proposal clearly: > > HT is advocating that the DOM starts out one way and changes to another, > > for the same property value combination. > > Please be careful when you put words in my mouth. Not advocating, > simply observing that this happens in some (quite limited, actually) > circumstances. The observed change happens _only_ if you introduce an > aria: attribute into an XML DOM by parsing a document with such an > attribute present, _remove_ the resulting attr node programmatically > using removeAttribute, and then add it back using setAttribute. This > has got to be a pretty unusual sequence of events: by far the more > common pattern is to use setAttribute only to change the value, and > that does _not_ provoke the change we're talking about. This admits the problem and dances around it at the same time. Let's be clear: you are most certainly advocating for this proposal, and not just observing where it would go wrong. How unusual can the bug be if it happened in the very first example I tried? Come on, you know that a checkbox is not unusual :) Before trying it, I really wasn't sure how easy or hard the conversion to the fake namespace proposal would actually be. The proposal made me believe that mixing with real namespaces might actually go smoothly. Unfortunately it just turned out to be a quagmire. But, I'm actually glad the bugs in your proposal would happen in the most basic of places! It's even worse when bugs are rare, because they sneak up on you. The rarely seen bug is less likely to be accounted for ahead of time and missed. Fortunately this bug would occur in the common checkbox. But unfortunately it will still be missed because it does not produce console or JS errors. Bugs and complexities in the foundation of an architectural design will ripple outward into the software ecosystem that is built on top. Setting a property is at the very foundation of what makes ARIA work. I think W3C really needs to figure out what is in its DNA at this point. Contributors that want credibility need to provide implementors with proposals that will actually work, not theories that will break the web as it exists today. We're spending too much time debugging proposals asking us to change what already works. While I realize it's not the way people do things around here, I think it would be leadership by example to just withdraw this proposal because of the proven bugs. Let's not try to whitewash problems and pretend they don't matter because they're rare. Admittedly, I have often made mistakes in my own proposals. I promise to do by best to keep them clear of obvious problems before recommending them. I will listen to the community and try to keep the path clear so everyone can keep improving the web through standards. - Aaron
Received on Saturday, 24 May 2008 21:10:46 UTC


text:
Rebound! Hef is dating a new Playboy model, 25-year-old Anna Sophia Berglund. She was Playmate of The Month in January, and you will find this absolutely shocking, but she is blonde. Apparently she and Hef are already calling each other "babe," although it's possible that from time to time she may slip up and call him "bank." She's moved into Hef's room, and on movie night, they were seen kissing and cuddling. I almost typed "curdling," which somehow also seems possible. [Showbiz Spy, TMZ]
BTW: On Saturday night — the evening her wedding would have taken place — Hef's ex-fiancée Crystal Harris went to a pool party in Las Vegas. Holly Madison weighs in: "That's a new low. That's disgusting, and whoever booked her is tacky." [People]
Puff puff pass: Your new Miss USA, Alyssa Campanella, believes that medical marijuana should be legal. [People]
If you watched the awkward footage, it will come as no surprise to you that Amy Winehouse has cancelled part of her tour. [TMZ]
Just let this sink in: "The A-list celebrity 'of substantial fame internationally' who allegedly gave a Las Vegas visitor herpes has settled the case for just over $5 million." This unnamed celebrity — a male — allegedly lured the plaintiff into a hotel room, where there was "mutual oral copulation, mutual self-gratification, rubbing and massaging each other, play-wrestling, licking and [unprotected] intercourse." And it was videotaped. The plaintiff claims that the celebrity knew all along that he had herpes, and was giving the plaintiff herpes, but since the suit has been settled we may never know the identity of the star. Just insist on a fucking condom, people. [TMZ]
It's tough to picture Tom Cruise as a long-haired tattooed rock star, but here he is, in costume for Rock Of Ages. [NYDN]
- LaToya Jackson's memoir includes information like, "My brother Michael was murdered" and "my husband beat me." [NY Post]
- Gwyneth Paltrow was stopped by cops on Friday, but we're unsure of her crime. Any guesses? [Page Six]
- Here's a Twitter post from Gwyneth: "How the f do i get these kids off the wii? i swore i would never have one in the house, now they freebase Mario." [Contact Music]
- Oprah Winfrey won something called the Chairman's Crystal Pillar at the Daytime Emmy awards, for her contribution to daytime TV. [Digital Spy]
- Headline of the day: "Marxist Muse Befriends Gaga." [NY Post]
- Khloe Kardashian threw her sister Kim a last-minute engagement party. [Showbiz Spy]
- This item about Beyoncé's mom having a "diva attitude" is such bullshit. Allegedly she asked the crew on her daughter's video shoot to call her "Miss Tina," and we're supposed to think that is a prima donna move. But everyone knows you don't call Southern ladies older than you by their first name! Listen to Miss Tina, y'all, she is teaching you some manners. [Gatecrasher]
- Here are some super sexay photos of Beyoncé to be used as promotional shots for her new album. [The Sun]
- J. Lo nip slip on German TV. Yawn. [Pop Eater]
- Tone Loc was arrested Saturday for felony domestic violence. [TMZ]
- Paris Hilton's boyfriend Cy Waits has taken an interest in her diet. "He explained everything to me. Now I only eat organic foods when we're at home. He makes me watch documentaries on food, like Fast Food Nation, and he makes me aware of what things are good for your body because he's very into that." [People]
- Alec Baldwin's girlfriend, yoga instructor Hilaria Thomas, might get her own reality show. [Gatecrasher]
- Vampire Diaries fans: Damon and Elena, aka Ian Somerhalder and Nina Dobrev, aka Delena, showed up hand in hand to an award show last night. They've taken the relationship public. [Us Magazine]
- OMFG why is it that noxious men have no trouble finding ladyfriends? Jesse James is engaged, Hef's got a new playmate, and now: Mel Gibson has a girlfriend. She's a "gothic model" from Greece named Stella Mouzi. [TMZ, NYDN]
- New website: Fuck The Killing. [Buzzfeed]
- Mindy Kaling claims that Pippa is a verb now. Here, she uses it in a sentence: "Angelina Jolie totally Pippa'd Girl Interrupted from Winona Ryder, didn't she?" [Twitter]
- Did Megan Fox call Michael Bay a Nazi? And did that get her fired from Transformers? And does anyone give a shit? [Contact Music]
- Evangeline Lilly will play the Woodland Elf Tauriel in The Hobbit. [Digital Spy]
- Your favorite Glee characters might be graduating in 2012. And leaving the show. But producers will add new musical theater geeks for you to love and loathe. [AOL TV]
- Blind items! 1. "What attention-starved star has been trying to convince the media she's finding romance with a hottie who everyone in the business knows is gay?" 2. "Which heartthrob actor doesn't live up to his reputation and can't really perform in the bedroom? Previous conquests are not sure whether it's a lack of interest or far too much booze." [Page Six]
- "That's so boring, and it seems like a depressing goal for a modern woman… I work out to be healthy and because I like it." — Zooey Deschanel does't work out to be skinny. [Digital Spy]
- "My breasts, because they're so big, really needed some time. So I'm just starting to work out again after my surgery. Sometimes I get shooting pains, but I hear that's normal." — Heidi Montag. [Showbiz Spy]


text:
FARMERS EDUC. & CO-OP. UNION V. WDAY, INC., 360 U. S. 525 (1959)Subscribe to Cases that cite 360 U. S. 525
U.S. Supreme Court
Farmers Educ. & Co-op. Union v. WDAY, Inc., 360 U.S. 525 (1959)
Farmers Educational & Cooperative Union of America v. WDAY, Inc.
No. 248
Argued March 23, 1959
Decided June 29, 1959
Section 315(a) of the Federal Communications Act of 1934 provides, in effect, that, if anyone licensed to operate a radio broadcasting station shall permit any person who is a legally qualified candidate for public office to broadcast over such station, he shall "afford equal opportunities" to all other such candidates for that office, and "shall have no power of censorship" over the material broadcast under this section.
1. Such a licensee may not delete material from a candidate's radio speech on the ground that such material may be defamatory. Pp. 360 U. S. 527-531.
2. Regardless of state law, such a licensee is not liable for defamatory statements made in a speech broadcast over his station by a candidate for public office under § 315(a). Pp. 360 U. S. 531-535.
89 N.W.2d 102 affirmed. chanrobles.com-red
MR. JUSTICE BLACK delivered the opinion of the Court.
We must decide whether § 315 of the Federal Communications Act of 1934 bars a broadcasting station from removing defamatory statements contained in speeches broadcast by legally qualified candidates for public office, and, if so, whether that section grants the station a federal immunity from liability for libelous statements so broadcast. Section 315 reads:
"(a) If any licensee shall permit any person who is a legally qualified candidate for any public office to use a broadcasting station, he shall afford equal opportunities to all other such candidates for that office in the use of such broadcasting station: Provided, That such licensee shall have no power of censorship over the material broadcast under the provisions of this section. No obligation is imposed upon any licensee to allow the use of its station by any such candidate. [Footnote 1]"
This suit for libel arose as a result of a speech made over the radio and television facilities of respondent, WDAY, Inc., by A. C. Townley -- a legally qualified candidate in the 1956 United States senatorial race in North Dakota. Because it felt compelled to do so by the requirements of § 315, WDAY permitted Townley to broadcast his speech, uncensored in any respect, as a reply to previous speeches made over WDAY by two other senatorial candidates. Townley's speech, in substance, accused his opponents, together with petitioner, Farmers Educational and Cooperative Union of America, of conspiring to "establish chanrobles.com-red
a Communist Farmers Union Soviet right here in North Dakota." Farmers Union then sued Townley and WDAY for libel in a North Dakota State District Court. That court dismissed the complaint against WDAY on the ground that § 315 rendered the station immune from liability for the defamation alleged. The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed, stating:
"Section 315 imposes a mandatory duty upon broadcasting stations to permit all candidates for the same office to use their facilities if they have permitted one candidate to use them. Since power of censorship of political broadcasts is prohibited, it must follow as a corollary that the mandate prohibiting censorship includes the privilege of immunity from liability for defamatory statements made by the speakers."
For this reason, it held that the state libel laws could not apply to WDAY. 89 N.W.2d 102, 110. We granted certiorari because the questions decided are important to the administration of the Federal Communications Act. 358 U.S. 810.
Petitioner argues that § 315's prohibition against censorship leaves broadcasters free to delete libelous material from candidates' speeches, and that therefore no federal immunity is granted a broadcasting station by that section. The term censorship, however, as commonly understood, connotes any examination of thought or expression in order to prevent publication of "objectionable" material. We find no clear expression of legislative intent, nor any other convincing reason, to indicate Congress meant to give "censorship" a narrower meaning in § 315. In arriving at this view, we note that petitioner's interpretation has not generally been favored in previous considerations of the section. Although the first, and for years the only, judicial decision dealing with the censorship provision did hold that a station may remove chanrobles.com-red
defamatory statements from political broadcasts, [Footnote 2] subsequent judicial interpretations of § 315 have, with considerable uniformity, recognized that an individual licensee has no such power. [Footnote 3] And while, for some years, the Federal Communications Commission's views on this matter were not clearly articulated, [Footnote 4] since 1948, it has continuously held that licensees cannot remove allegedly libelous matter from speeches by candidates. [Footnote 5] Similarly, the legislative history of the measure, both prior to its first enactment in 1927 and subsequently, shows a deep hostility to censorship either by the Commission or by a licensee. [Footnote 6] chanrobles.com-red
More important, it is obvious that permitting a broadcasting station to censor allegedly libelous remarks would undermine the basic purpose for which § 315 was passed -- full and unrestricted discussion of political issues by legally qualified candidates. That section dates back to, and was adopted verbatim from, the Radio Act of 1927. In that Act, Congress provided for the first time a comprehensive federal plan for regulating the new and expanding art of radio broadcasting. Recognizing radio's potential importance as a medium of communication of political ideas, Congress sought to foster its broadest possible utilization by encouraging broadcasting stations to make their facilities available to candidates for office without discrimination, and by insuring that these candidates, when broadcasting, were not to be hampered by censorship of the issues they could discuss. Thus, expressly applying this country's tradition of free expression to the field of radio broadcasting, Congress has, from the chanrobles.com-red
first, emphatically forbidden the Commission to exercise any power of censorship over radio communication. [Footnote 7] It is in line with this same tradition that the individual licensee has consistently been denied "power of censorship" in the vital area of political broadcasts.
The decision a broadcasting station would have to make in censoring libelous discussion by a candidate is far from easy. Whether a statement is defamatory is rarely clear. Whether such a statement is actionably libelous is an even more complex question, involving, as it does, consideration of various legal defenses such as "truth" and the privilege of fair comment. Such issues have always troubled courts. Yet, under petitioner's view of the statute, they would have to be resolved by an individual licensee during the stress of a political campaign, often, necessarily, without adequate consideration of basis for decision. Quite possibly, if a station were held responsible for the broadcast of libelous material, all remarks even faintly objectionable would be excluded out of an excess of caution. Moreover, if any censorship were permissible, a station so inclined could intentionally inhibit a candidate's legitimate presentation under the guise of lawful censorship of libelous matter. Because of the time limitation inherent in a political campaign, erroneous decisions by a station could not be corrected by the courts promptly enough to permit the candidate to bring improperly excluded matter before the public. It follows from all this that allowing censorship, even of the attenuated type advocated here, would almost inevitably force a candidate to avoid controversial issues during political debates over radio and television, and hence restrict the coverage of consideration relevant to intelligent chanrobles.com-red
political decision. We cannot believe, and we certainly are unwilling to assume, that Congress intended any such result.
Petitioner alternatively argues that § 315 does not grant a station immunity from liability for defamatory statements made during a political broadcast, even though the section prohibits the station from censoring allegedly libelous matter. Again, we cannot agree. For, under this interpretation, unless a licensee refuses to permit any candidate to talk at all, the section would sanction the unconscionable result of permitting civil and perhaps criminal liability to be imposed for the very conduct the statute demands of the licensee. Accordingly, judicial interpretations reaching the issue have found an immunity implicit in the section. [Footnote 8] And, in all those cases concluding that a licensee had no immunity, § 315 had been construed -- improperly, as we hold -- to permit a station to censor potentially actionable material. [Footnote 9] In no case has a court even implied that the licensee would not be rendered immune were it denied the power to censor libelous material.
Petitioner contends, however, that the legislative history of § 315 shows that Congress did not intend to grant an immunity. Some of the history supports such an inference. As it reached the Senate, the provision which became § 18 of the Radio Act of 1927 provided in part that, if a station permitted one candidate to use its facilities, it chanrobles.com-red
should "be deemed a common carrier in interstate commerce . . . ," and could not discriminate against other political candidates or censor material broadcast by them. [Footnote 10] In the Senate, Senator Dill -- the bill's floor manager -- introduced an amendment to this provision which, among other things, specifically granted a station immunity from civil and criminal liability for "any uncensored utterances thus broadcast." [Footnote 11] The amendment was adopted by the Senate, but its provision expressly granting immunity was removed by the Conference Committee without any explanation. [Footnote 12] Section 18 was incorporated into the Communications Act of 1934 with no explanatory discussion. Subsequently, a great deal of pressure built up for legislation to remove all possible doubt as to broadcasters' liability for libel either by granting them a power to censor libelous statements or by providing an express legislative immunity. Many legislative proposals were made to accomplish these purposes, [Footnote 13] but no legislation providing either was ever enacted. Thus, whatever adverse inference may be drawn from the failure of Congress to legislate an express immunity is offset by its refusal to permit stations to avoid liability by censoring broadcasts. And more than balancing any adverse inferences drawn from congressional failure chanrobles.com-red
to legislate an express immunity is the fact that the Federal Communications Commission -- the body entrusted with administering the provisions of the Act -- has long interpreted § 315 as granting stations an immunity. [Footnote 14] Not only has this interpretation been adhered to despite many subsequent legislative proposals to modify § 315, but, with full knowledge of the Commission's interpretation, Congress has since made significant additions to that section without amending it to depart from the Commission's view. [Footnote 15] In light of this contradictory legislative background, we do not feel compelled to reach a result which seems so in conflict with traditional concepts of fairness.
Petitioner nevertheless urges that broadcasters do not need a specific immunity to protect themselves from liability for defamation, since they may either insure against any loss or, in the alternative, deny all political candidates chanrobles.com-red
use of station facilities. [Footnote 16] We have no means of knowing to what extent insurance is available to broadcasting stations, or what it would cost them. Moreover, since § 315 expressly prohibits stations from charging political candidates higher rates than they charge for comparable time used for other purposes, any cost of insurance would probably have to be absorbed by the stations themselves. Petitioner's reliance on the stations' freedom from obligation "to allow use of its station by any such candidate" seems equally misplaced. While denying all candidates us of stations would protect broadcasters from liability, it would also effectively withdraw political discussion from the air. Instead, the thrust of § 315 is to facilitate political debate over radio and television. Recognizing this, the Communications Commission considers the carrying of political broadcasts a public service criterion to be considered both in license renewal proceedings and in comparative contests for a radio or television construction permit. [Footnote 17] Certainly Congress knew the obvious -- that, if a licensee could protect chanrobles.com-red
himself from liability in no other way but by refusing to broadcast candidates' speeches, the necessary effect would be to hamper the congressional plan to develop broadcasting as a political outlet, rather than to foster it. [Footnote 18]
We are aware that causes of action for libel are widely recognized throughout the States. But we have not hesitated to abrogate state law where satisfied that its enforcement would stand "as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress." [Footnote 19] Here, petitioner is asking us to attribute to § 315 a meaning which would either frustrate the underlying purposes for which it was enacted or, alternatively, impose unreasonable burdens on the parties governed by that legislation. In the absence of clear expression by Congress, we will not assume that it desired such a result. Agreeing with the state courts of North Dakota that § 315 grants a licensee an immunity from liability for libelous material it broadcasts, we merely read § 315 in accordance with what we believe to be its underlying purpose.
48 Stat. 1088, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 315(a). See also § 18, of the Radio Act of 1927, 44 Stat. 1170.
Sorensen v. Wood, 123 Neb. 348, 243 N.W. 82. Following this decision the case was remanded for a new trial. Appeal from a judgment for plaintiff was dismissed by the Supreme Court of Nebraska. Appeal to this Court was dismissed sub nom. KFAB Broadcasting Co. v. Sorensen, 290 U.S. 599, because, as the records of this Court disclose, the Supreme Court of Nebraska's holding had been based on adequate state grounds, namely, that the case had become moot through settlement.
See Lamb v. Sutton, 164 F.Supp. 928; Yates v. Associated Broadcasters, Inc., 7 Pike and Fischer Radio Reg. 2088; Felix v. Westinghouse Radio Stations, Inc., 89 F.Supp. 740, reversed on other grounds, 186 F.2d 1; Charles Parker Co. v. Silver City Crystal Co., 142 Conn. 605, 116 A.2d 440; Josephson v. Knickerbocker Broadcasting Co., 179 Misc. 787, 38 N.Y.S.2d 985. But see Daniell v. Voice of New Hampshire, Inc., 10 Pike and Fischer Radio Reg. 2045; Houston Post Co. v. United States, 79 F.Supp. 199.
See In re Bellingham Broadcasting Co., 8 F.C.C. 159, 172.
In re Port Huron Broadcasting Co., 12 F.C.C. 1069; In re WDSU Broadcasting Corp., 7 Pike and Fischer Radio Reg. 769; Public Notice (FCC 54-1155), Use of Broadcast Facilities by Candidates For Public Office, 19 Fed.Reg. 5948, 5951; Public Notice (FCC 58-936), Use of Broadcast Facilities by Candidates For Public Office, 23 Fed.Reg. 7817, 7820-7821.
See S.Rep. No. 1567, 80th Cong., 2d Sess. 13-14 (1948), where, discussing S. 1333, the Committee Report stated:
"The flat prohibition against the licensee of any station exercising any censorship authority over any political or public question discussion is retained and emphasized. This means that the Commission cannot itself or by rule or regulation require the licensee to censor, alter, or in any manner affect or control the subject matter of any such broadcast, and the licensee may not in his own discretion exercise any such censorship authority. . . ."
"* * * *"
"[S]ection 326 of the present act, which deals with the question of censorship of radio communications by the Commission . . . , makes clear that the Commission has absolutely no power of censorship over radio communications and that it cannot impose any regulation or condition which would interfere with the right of free speech by radio."
"And see, e.g., H.R.Rep. No. 404, 69th Cong., 1st Sess. 17-18 (minority views); S.Rep. No. 772, 69th Cong., 1st Sess. 4; 67 Cong.Rec. 5480, 5484, 12356; 78 Cong.Rec. 10991-10992; Hearings before Senate Committee on Interstate Commerce on S. 1 and S. 1754, 69th Cong., 1st Sess., pt. 2, 121, 125-134; Hearings before Senate Committee on Interstate Commerce on H.R. 7716, 72d Cong., 2d Sess., pt. 2, 9-13; Hearings before Senate Committee on Interstate Commerce on S. 814, 78th Cong., 1st Sess. 59-68, 943-945."
§ 29 of the Radio Act of 1927, 44 Stat. 1172; § 326 of the Communications Act of 1934, 48 Stat. 1091, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 326.
Lamb v. Sutton; Yates v. Associated Broadcasters, Inc.; Josephson v. Knickerbocker Broadcasting Co., supra, note 3 Cf. Felix v. Westinghouse Radio Stations, Inc.; Charles Parker Co. v. Silver City Crystal Co., supra, note 3
H.R. 9971, 69th Cong., 1st Sess., as reported to the full Senate, May 6, 1926, p. 50, § 4.
67 Cong.Rec. 12501.
H.R.Rep. No. 1886, 69th Cong., 2d Sess. 10, 18.
See, e.g., H.R. 9230, 74th Cong., 1st Sess.; S. 814, 78th Cong., 1st Sess., §§ 7, 9, 10, 11; S. 1333, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., § 15; 98 Cong.Rec. 7401. See also Hearings before the Senate Committee on Interstate Commerce on H.R. 7716, 72d Cong., 2d Sess. pt. 2, 9-11; Hearings before Senate Committee on Interstate Commerce on S. 2910, 73d Cong., 2d Sess. 63-67; Hearings before Senate Committee on Interstate Commerce on S. 814, 78th Cong., 1st Sess. 59-68, 162-163, 362-381, 943-945; Hearings before Select Committee of the House to Investigate the FCC, pursuant to H.Res. No. 691, 80th Cong., 2d Sess. 1-109.
See note 5 supra. In Port Huron, only two of the five Commissioners participating in the decision expressly concluded that § 315 barred state prosecutions for libel. Two of the others expressed no view on the subject. And one dissented. The Commission's 1948 report to Congress stated, however, that the Commission had interpreted § 315 to grant a federal immunity. 14 F.C.C.Ann.Rep. 28 (1948). And, in WDSU, released November 26, 1951, a majority of the Commission affirmed the Commission's Port Huron decision. 7 Pike and Fischer Radio Reg. 769. See also 24 F.C.C.Ann.Rep. 123 (1958); Lamb v. Sutton, supra, note 3 164 F.Supp. at 932-933; Daniell v. Voice of New Hampshire, Inc., supra, note 3 at 2047; Charles Parker Co. v. Silver City Crystal Co., supra, note 3 142 Conn. at 619, 116 A.2d at 446.
The Commission's position with respect to § 315 was not only reported to Congress in an Annual Report of the Commission, 14 F.C.C.Ann.Rep. 28 (1948), but it was made the subject of a special investigation by a Select Committee of the House expressly constituted for that purpose. See H.R.Rep. No. 2461, 80th Cong., 2d Sess. See also In re WDSU Broadcasting Corp., supra, note 5 at 772-773. Compare H.R.Rep. No. 2426, 82d Cong., 2d Sess. 20-21. For examples of legislative proposals to modify § 315, see, e.g., S. 2539, 82d Cong., 2d Sess.; H.R. 4814, 84th Cong., 1st Sess.
A dissent here suggests that, since WDAY's broadcast was required by federal law, there is a "strong likelihood" that the North Dakota courts might hold that the broadcast was not tortious under state law, or, if tortious, was privileged. The North Dakota District Court, however, struck down a state statute which would have granted WDAY an immunity as in violation of a state constitutional provision saving to "every man" a court remedy for any injury done his "person or reputation." In this situation, we do not think that the record justifies the inference that WDAY could have obtained an immunity by calling it a privilege. But, whatever North Dakota might hold, the question for us is whether Congress intended to subject a federal licensee to possible liability under the law of some or all of the 49 States for broadcasting in a way required by federal law.
In re City of Jacksonville, 12 Pike and Fisher Radio Reg. 113, 125-126, 180 i-j; In re Loyola University, 12 Pike and Fischer Radio Reg. 1017, 1099. See also In re Homer P. Rainey, 11 F.C.C. 898. Cf. F.C.C. Report, In re Editorializing by Broadcast Licensees, 1 Pike and Fischer Radio Reg., pt. 3, 91:201.
See, e.g., statement of Senator Fess, 67 Cong.Rec. 12356.
Bethlehem Steel Co. v. New York Labor Board, 330 U. S. 767, 330 U. S. 773; Hill v. State of Florida, 325 U. S. 538, 325 U. S. 542. See also San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U. S. 236; California v. Taylor, 353 U. S. 553.
MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, whom MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, MR. JUSTICE WHITTAKER, and MR. JUSTICE STEWART join, dissenting.
The language of § 315 of the Federal Communications Act, "such licensee shall have no power of censorship over the material broadcast under the provisions of this section," [Footnote 2/1] and the legislative history of this provision call for the conclusion reached in 360 U. S. namely, that WDAY could not have lawfully deleted from chanrobles.com-red
A. C. Townley's broadcast his defamation of petitioner. But due regard for the principle of separation of powers limiting this Court's functions and respect for the binding principle of federalism, leaving to the States authority not withdrawn by the Constitution or absorbed by the Congress, are more compelling considerations than avoidance of a hardship legally imposed. Consequently, the claim that WDAY cannot be held liable under constitutionally enacted state libel laws must be tested not by inquiring whether a particular result would be "unconscionable," but whether the result is or is not barred by federal legislation as construed and applied in accordance with settled principles of statutory and constitutional adjudication. When the question in this case is thus properly put, it is necessary to examine the three relevant legal concepts to which resort must be had in order to find that WDAY is not liable for defamatory remarks broadcast by it.
(1) If § 315 could be construed to contain implicitly, between the lines, a grant by Congress of immunity from state libel laws, the Court's result would follow. But it is not possible to find such implied grant of immunity. It is common ground that an express provision granting such immunity was excised from the bill which later became the Radio Act of 1927, and repeated attempts in later revisions of the Act to introduce similar provisions have failed.
(2) If there were consistent administrative rulings that the Communications Act required that immunity be granted, and if that administrative ruling had been acquiesced in by Congress even by implication, the Court's result would have support.
(3) If § 315 alone, or together with the remainder of the Communications Act, could be said to manifest a congressional purpose to oust state law from application to licensees, or if the state law could be said to be in clear chanrobles.com-red
conflict with § 315 or the Act as a whole, then, in either event, it could be concluded that the libel law of the State had been preempted insofar as its applicability to a broadcaster acting within § 315 is concerned.
Because I believe that agreement with the Court's conclusion involves either disregard of the legislative and administrative history of § 315 or departure from the principles which have governed this Court in determining when state law must give way to overriding federal law, I dissent from 360 U. S. and therefore from its judgment.
An administrative agency cannot, of course, determine the constitutional issue whether a federal statute has displaced state law, certainly not by way of determining what Congress has, in fact, done. In re Port Huron Broadcasting Co., 12 F.C.C. 1069, the case in which the Federal Communications Commission first held that stations could not censor, the Federal Communications Commission's dictum that stations would not be liable was not a relevant administrative interpretation of the meaning of § 315, but was a finding that the States were preempted from this area. It was said not that the broadcasters operating under § 315 had a federally created defense, but that the state libel laws had been supplanted.
"The conclusion is inescapable that Congress has occupied the field in connection with responsibility for libelous matter in broadcasts under section 315. . . ."
12 F.C.C. at 1075-1076.
We have here not a course of administrative interpretation of an ambiguous statutory provision; it is not even a case of a single administrative application of a statute. This is a ruling of constitutional law -- that the Supremacy Clause, Const. art. 6 requires that the existence of the Communications Act of 1934 oust the States of jurisdiction to impose libel laws upon broadcasts made under the provisions of § 315. Such constitutional rulings are for this Court, and not for chanrobles.com-red
administrative agencies. I would suppose that a consistent administrative insistence on the constitutionality of § 315, were that a question, would not affect this Court's consideration of its constitutionality.
But suppose that, even as to preemption, we are to assume that Congress should be said to defer to consistent administrative interpretation. There was no such consistency here in the FCC. The Commission has never issued a regulation, nor held in an adjudicatory proceeding that there is immunity. Dictum in the Port Huron case was affirmatively embraced by only two of the five Commissioners who presided. Since Port Huron, the Commission has referred to its language in that case in increasingly tentative fashion. In In re WDSU Broadcasting Corp., 7 Pike and Fischer Radio Reg. 769, 770, the FCC said of its dictum in Port Huron:
"We said in the Port Huron case that, in our view, the station was relieved from liability, but that, whether or not this was the case, the fact remained that a licensee is prohibited from censoring material broadcast under the provisions of § 315."
In a regulation issued in 1958, the Commission answered the question "[i]f a legally qualified candidate broadcasts libelous or slanderous remarks, is the station liable therefor?" in this way:
"In Port Huron Bctg. Co., 4 R.R. 1, the Commission expressed an opinion that licensees not directly participating in the libel might be absolved from any liability they might otherwise incur under state law, because of the operation of section 315, which precludes them from preventing a candidate's utterances."
23 Fed.Reg. 7820. Thus, the FCC has demonstrated apparent waning confidence in its Port Huron dictum -- from "[t]he conclusion is inescapable" to "in our view, the station was relieved chanrobles.com-red
from liability, but . . . , whether or not this was the case," to "an opinion that licensees . . . might be absolved from any liability."
Even if the FCC's position were of a type to which the principle of deference or acquiescence were applicable, even if that position were longer held than just the past decade, and were taken with more confidence than was true here, the history of congressional dealings with the question of liability of stations for libel would not support a conclusion that Congress had acquiesced in such a ruling. For, when the last congressional discussion of an immunity provision took place in 1952, the Conference Committee, in reporting out the revised version of § 315, stated it had rejected a House immunity provision [Footnote 2/2]
". . . because these subjects have not been adequately studied by the Committees on Interstate and Foreign Commerce of the Senate and House of Representatives. The proposal was adopted in the House after the bill had been reported from the House committee. The proposal involves many difficult problems, and it is the judgment of the committee of the conference that it should be acted on only after full hearings have been held."
H.R.Rep.No. 2426, 82d Cong., 2d Sess. 21. This language negates, rather than supports, the conclusion that Congress, in failing to enact proposed immunity measures, was in fact acquiescing in the Port Huron dictum. [Footnote 2/3] chanrobles.com-red
For these many reasons, a conclusion that, in failing to change § 315 after the Port Huron decision, Congress, by its inaction effected the preemption which the Commission had found is an assumption wholly unsupported in fact. The attempt to use congressional acquiescence to support the constitutional ruling of supersession of state law raises political stalemate and legislative indecision [Footnote 2/4] to the level of constitutional declaration. As we should go slow to read into what Congress has said the negation of state power unless it speaks explicitly or there is obvious collision, we should even less willingly find such negation in what Congress has frankly refused to say.
The Court proceeds not only from an insupportable finding that Congress acquiesced in the Commission's Port Huron opinion. It also relies upon a determination that North Dakota's libel law could not constitutionally be applied to WDAY in this case, since the State's libel chanrobles.com-red
laws had been superseded by federal law for broadcasts made under § 315. A determination of supersession of sate law rests on legal and political presuppositions which should be made explicit, and not left clouded. States should not be held to have been ousted from power traditionally held in the absence of either a clear declaration by Congress that it intends to forbid the continued functioning of the state law or an obvious and unavoidable conflict between the federal and state directives. The first does not exist here. Indeed, congressional refusal to act has often been suggested as implied recognition of the opposite. Thus, it may well be urged that repeated refusal to relieve from state libel laws amounted to an affirmance that the state laws of defamation should continue in operation, since the Congress debated the issue in terms of erecting a defense to these laws, and then declined to do so. In any event, the legislative history emphatically does not support the affirmative conclusion that Congress intended preclusion of state law. Congress can speak with drastic clarity when it so intends. It has not so spoken here; it has refused to speak with drastic clarity.
The nature of the conflict which necessitates striking down state law has been considered in numerous decisions of this Court. In the much-cited case of @ 63 U. S. 243, this Court said:
"We agree that, in the application of this principle of supremacy of an act of Congress in a case where the State law is but the exercise of a reserved power, the repugnance or conflict should be direct and positive, so that the two acts could not be reconciled or consistently stand together."
Whether denying to WDAY the power to eliminate defamatory matter from broadcasts made under compulsion of § 315, while at the same time refusing to find in chanrobles.com-red
§ 315 either immunity or a negation of state power to apply libel laws to programs required by the Federal Act is or is not fair, is not the question with which this Court must, consistent with the Supremacy Clause and the long history of this Court in construing it, begin. We are dealing with political power, not ethical imperatives. The most harmonious deduction to be drawn from the many cases in which the claim has been made that state action cannot survive some contradictory command of Congress is that state action has not been set aside on mere generalities about Congress' having "occupied the field," or on the basis of loose talk, instead of demonstrations about "conflict" between state and federal action. We are in the domain of government and practical affairs, and this Court has not stifled state action unless what the State has required, in the light of what Congress has ordered, would truly entail contradictory duties or make actual, not argumentative, inroads on what Congress has commanded or forbidden.
It is to be noted initially that since defamation is generally regarded as an intentional tort, it is a solid likelihood that the North Dakota courts would conclude that WDAY's compelled broadcast of Townley's speech lacked the necessary intent to communicate the defamation, and that therefore WDAY's conduct was not tortious, or, if prima facie tortious, that WDAY was privileged. [Footnote 2/5] In no case has any state court held a station liable on finding that the station could not censor. Some forty States have enacted statutes granting various degrees of privilege. [Footnote 2/6] chanrobles.com-red
In two States, exercising the flexibility of common law principles, the courts have extended a defense of privilege to broadcasters compelled to carry broadcasts by § 315. [Footnote 2/7] Thus, the largely abstract assumption on the basis of which the Court makes such heavy inroad on state laws -- that broadcasters will be held without having committed a volitional act -- may be entirely contradicted by experience.
How treacherous it is for this Court to be speculating about state law is well illustrated by a detailed examination of North Dakota law in the situation presented by this case. A North Dakota statute extending general immunity to all broadcasts by radio and television stations was found by the District Court of North Dakota to violate the North Dakota and United States Constitutions. WDAY, the appellee before the Supreme Court of North Dakota, did not except to this finding, and therefore the Supreme Court of North Dakota declined to rule on the validity of the North Dakota statute. But no inference may be drawn from the District Court's conclusions that a station broadcasting under compulsion of § 315 would be liable under North Dakota law. On the contrary, the District Court found that WDAY had a valid defense not only under § 315 of the Communications Act, but also within the provisions of Chapter 14-02 of the North Dakota Revised Statutes of 1943. One section of this chapter extends a privilege to
"one who stands in such relation to the person interested as to afford a reasonable ground for supposing the motive for the communication innocent."
And so, rather than being justification for a belief that, under North Dakota law, WDAY would be liable for defamation, the District Court's opinion chanrobles.com-red
is clear evidence that at least one North Dakota court believed that North Dakota law creates a privilege in favor of broadcasters who are compelled by federal law to broadcast the defamatory matter. In any event, the finding of unconstitutionality was by a lower court, and not by the North Dakota Supreme Court, which is, of course, the final interpreter of North Dakota law.
Even granting the Court's unsupported assumption about state law, however, there is not that conflict between federal and state law which justifies displacement of state power. Conflict between the North Dakota libel law and § 315 might be attributed to the fact that broadcasters, to avoid being held liable without fault, will refrain from permitting any political candidate to buy time. This result, the argument would conclude, is contrary to the congressional command that stations operate in the "public convenience, interest, or necessity." 48 Stat. 1083, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 307. The Federal Communications Commission has determined that, to fulfill this congressional command, stations must carry some political broadcasts. But the state libel laws do not prohibit them from airing speeches by political candidates. They merely make such broadcasts potentially less profitable (or unprofitable), since the station may have to compensate someone libeled during the candidate's broadcast. The Federal Act was intended not to establish a mode of supervising the income of broadcasters -- not of protecting or limiting their profits -- but of insuring "a rapid, efficient, nationwide, and worldwide wire and radio communication service" for the benefit of "all the people of the United States." 48 Stat. 1064, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 151.
We have held that the Communications Act does not govern relations between stations and third persons. Radio Station WOW, Inc. v. Johnson, 326 U. S. 120. And chanrobles.com-red
we have permitted a state court to award damages for breach of a contract despite the fact that that breach was ordered by the FCC as a condition for renewal of a license. Regents of the University System of Georgia v. Carroll, 338 U. S. 586. If North Dakota were to rule that its libel law applies to broadcasts made under compulsion of § 315, it would rule that broadcasters are liable without fault. There is nothing in such liability which conflicts with the necessity of broadcasting imposed by § 315. If Congress came to fear impairment of its policy on political broadcasts, Congress could act to alter the condition which it has created by declining to legislate immunity. There may be a burden, even unfairness, to the stations. But there may be unfairness too, after all, in depriving a defamed individual of recovery against the agency by which the defamatory communication was magnified in its deleterious effect on his ability to earn a livelihood. Adjustment of what is fair to all should be done by a congressional change in the federal law, or, in the absence of such enactment, by state law, through legislation or common law rulings that the stations are partially or totally immune. Again, allocation of risk of loss through defamation does not necessarily imply the duty not to defame. The application of libel laws by North Dakota to WDAY merely means that, since the harm could no more have been avoided by the person defamed than by WDAY, in balancing these conflicting undesirables, the risk of loss should fall upon WDAY. Whether or not this would be a wise decision, it would not conflict with § 315's compulsion to broadcast speeches by opposing candidates for office.
In discussing in the Federalist Papers the respective areas of federal and state constitutional powers, Hamilton wrote that state powers would be superseded by federal authority if continued authority in the States would be "absolutely and totally contradictory and repugnant." chanrobles.com-red
"I use these terms," he wrote,
"to distinguish this . . . case from another which might appear to resemble it, but which would, in fact, be essentially different; I mean where the exercise of a concurrent jurisdiction might be productive of occasional interferences in the policy of any branch of administration, but would not imply any direct contradiction or repugnancy in point of constitutional authority."
The Federalist, No. 32 at 200 (Van Doren ed. 1945). Since this concurrent jurisdiction was "clearly admitted by the whole tenor" of the Constitution in Hamilton's view,
"It is not . . . a mere possibility of inconvenience in the exercise of powers, but an immediate constitutional repugnancy that can by implication alienate and extinguish a preexisting right of sovereignty."
Id. at 203.
Hamilton's suggestion, emanating from the contest of constitutional creation, is disregarded in the approach taken by the Court today on a precisely analogous, if not identical, question, for there exists here not an explicit conflict, but, at the very most, an interference with policy. Hamilton said, and this Court has in the past begun from similar presuppositions, that alienation of an area of state sovereignty is not to be implied from occasional interferences by state law with federal policy. Particularly should this rule be adhered to where the precise nature of that federal policy on the issues involved rests on the conjectures of the Court. When a state statute is assailed because of alleged conflict with a federal law, the same considerations of forbearance, the same regard for the lawmaking power of States, should guide the judicial judgment as when this Court is asked to declare a statute unconstitutional outright.
In this decision, a state law is invalidated by hypothesizing congressional acquiescence and by supposing "conflicting" state law which we cannot be certain exists and chanrobles.com-red
which, if it does exist, is not incompatible with federal law when judged by the considerations governing supersession in the long course of our decisions, judged as a corpus.
I would reverse the North Dakota Supreme Court and remand the case to it with instructions that § 315 has left to the States the power to determine the nature and extent of the liability, if any, of broadcasters to third persons.
48 Stat. 1088, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 315(a).
See 98 Cong.Rec. 7401-7416.
The situation would not have appeared to Congress to be one in which acquiescence was a meaningful concept. Immediately after Port Huron, the decision was criticized as being without statutory basis. Houston Post Co. v. United States, 79 F.Supp. 199. In discussing the Port Huron decision before a House Committee, FCC Chairman Coy insisted that that decision "only represents the views of the Commission," and that he did not think "his decision clarifies it as far as the industry is concerned." Hearings before House Select Committee to Investigate the Federal Communications Commission, 80th Cong., 2d Sess. 14. After Port Huron had been argued, but before the decision, a bill, S. 1333, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., § 15, granting immunity was reported favorably by the Senate Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, S.Rep. No. 1567, 80th Cong., 2d Sess. 13, but was never enacted. Every indication is persuasive that the question was regarded as open and highly debatable.
Both before and after Port Huron, bills to permit censorship or grant total or partial immunity have been introduced. See H.R. 9230, 74th Cong., 1st Sess.; H.R. 3038, 75th Cong., 1st Sess.; S. 814, 78th Cong., 1st Sess., § 11; S. 1333, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., § 15; H.R. 3595, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., § 15; H.R. 6949, 81st Cong., 2d Sess., § 202; H.R. 5470, 82d Cong., 1st Sess.; S. 2539, 82d Cong., 2d Sess.; H.R. 7062, 82d Cong., 2d Sess.; H.R. 7756, 82d Cong., 2d Sess.; S. 1208, 84th Cong., 1st Sess.; H.R. 4814, 84th Cong., 1st Sess.; S. 1437, 85th Cong., 1st Sess., § 401. The congressional declination to act partakes not of satisfaction with the Port Huron decision, but of indecision about the propriety and constitutionality of the alternative solutions to the broadcasters' plea of unfairness.
See Developments in the Law of Defamation, 69 Harv.L.Rev. 875, 907-910; Remmers, Recent Legislative Trends in Defamation by Radio, 64 Harv.L.Rev. 727.
Friedenthal and Medalie, The Impact of Federal Regulation on Political Broadcasting: Section 315 of the Communications Act, 72 Harv.L.Rev. 445, 485.
Charles Parker Co. v. Silver City Crystal Co., 142 Conn. 605, 116 A.2d 440; Josephson v. Knickerbocker Broadcasting Co., 179 Misc. 787, 38 N.Y.S.2d 985.


text:
J Brand Colored twill: I loved the color of these bright blue skinnies that made an impact to be worn day or night. I wore them first for FNO then later with a loose top while shopping.
Tory Burch eddie leopard flats: Eyeing these for quite some time mainly because of the comfort factor but who can resist leopard footwear (told ya). They popped up on sale via ToryBurch.com last week so I grabbed them up. I believe I spied a pair still available on Nordstrom if you're fast...
Yumi Kim blouse: My last purchase from my trip is going to be a fall staple. Loose silk blouse perfect for tapered trousers or dark denim. The color was a magnet.
Les jeans de Chanel polish trio: Part of FNO exclusive polish still available on Chanel.com and well I'm just a sucker for their colors. Peter Phillips knows what's up.
French Connection dress: Snagged this pretty at bloomingdales and loved the fit. Thinking of it to be quite versatile with adding patterned tights, blazer, statement necklace, sparkling heels... it goes with everything!


text:
Click here to see important news regarding the aCar App
from other Chevrolet P30 vehicles (View All)
Switch off accessories.
Before you completely kill the engine after your commute, re... ...
by getkaizer
Read more tips
© 2023 Fuelly.com - All Rights Reserved. Sep 22, 2023 11:51 PM CDT
A simple & effecive way to track fuel consumption
Easy to understand the real cost of your vehicle


text:
Officials in the UAE have launched a campaign designed to protect their country from "manly women," or what they describe as the "fourth gender" (read: lesbians).
The initiative will include educational campaigns and workshops that aim to re-feminize the women of Dubai. Naji Hay, an official at the ministry of social affairs, said: "The phenomenon of manly women has become apparent in society.... These women are against the normal nature of females. Their deviant behavior threatens other normal girls. This is why we had to launch this initiative to protect society from this menace." [LA Times via Global Voices Online]


text:
The Villas are the perfect getaway! Comfortable, interior of villa is in great condition, good A/C, plenty of space, secluded private pool area. Quiet and instant vacation-mode. The views and... read more
We chose the Oasis as a self-catering base whilst we had a hire car to visit the island. The property was just what we wanted and the views were amazing.... read more
So happy we chose Oasis Marigot. The hotel is absolutely fabulous. Our view looking over Marigot Bay could not have been any better. The room was very clean. Everything worked... read more
Everyone knows the benefits of a private villa over a big resort or hotel – like more privacy, freedom to explore and do as you wish, and just better immersion in the surrounding nature and culture for a more authentic experience! But renting a villa and planning out all the details of your vacation like taxis, car rentals, cooks, activities, etc., can be overwhelming. Here at Oasis, we take a different approach by offering only hand-picked villas, help with all the details of planning your trip, and an on-island concierge office so you can enjoy a private villa the way it should be enjoyed – relaxed and worry-free.
There's hundreds of listings out there. We've already identified the best ones and personally visited & vetted each one so we can help you find exactly what you're looking for.
Dealing directly with multiple property owners gets to be tiring and confusing. All it takes is just one of our specialists to help you through your whole trip.
Whether it's airport transfers, car rentals, check-in services, a pre-stocked fridge, hiring a chef, or arranging activities, we worry about every detail of your trip.
Not only do we offer more services and assistance in your vacation planning than the other guy, we'll also match any price you find for the same villa rental.
Once you're on the island, it's nice knowing there's an office there to help with planning activities and excursions, or to help with any of your accommodation needs.
We've been a small but established family-run business for over 20 years in St. Lucia. Making sure you have a good trip is something we take personally.
Experience the Caribbean as it was meant to be experienced; from the sea on several-day or week-long crewed charters!
Experience the wondrous beauty of St. Lucia from the sea – rugged landscapes, secluded coves, quiet beaches, and of course, the famous Pitons Mountains. St. Lucia is an island full of character and charm. Our St. Lucia charters are perfect for anyone looking to mix a villa vacation with a bit of sailing, or just for those who are new to sailing, as these are short itineraries and don't involve any open water crossings.
Martinique is the neighboring island to the north of St. Lucia and is actually part of France. Thus as one may imagine, Martinique is an enchanting blend of Caribbean and French culture, with delicious cuisine, fine shopping, beautiful beaches, and picturesque villages. We offer several itineraries to Martinique; short or long, for anyone who's looking to go experience Martinique from the sea.
The Grenadines & Grenada are known as the "jewels of the Caribbean", a long chain of islands, largely uninhabited, separated by crystal clear emerald waters. This is the Caribbean at its heart, palm-studded islands, secluded beaches, pristine reefs and marine life, and so much more. We offer some shorter charters for those just looking for a "taste" and longer charters for those who wish to make this their full vacation!
*Only applies to Marigot Bay-based villas.
"The first thing worth mentioning is how helpful the staff were. There was nothing they wouldn't do to make our trip enjoyable. I am thinking specifically of the staff in the office. They helped with suggestions for activities and with scheduling them, in addition to making arrangements for transportation to and from the event. The second thing that was wonderful was the actual villa itself. It was simple and clean and had wonderful views out over the bay that were a joy to see every morning whilst sitting on the balcony sipping my morning cup of tea."@PhilKlidaras Via TripAdvisor
"The view from the house is absolutely breathtaking! Worth every penny we spent on this trip. We spent most of the time that we weren't exploring the island by the pool or on the rocking chairs on the balcony. The housekeeper Christine was wonderful. She came every day and tidied up, unloaded the dishwasher, gave us fresh towels, and made our bed. It felt like we were staying in a hotel."@MonicaHinson324 Via TripAdvisor
"This is a delightful and comfortable villa in a stunning location. Plenty of restaurants and facilities nearby. Very helpful staff. Quiet and peaceful."@Richard H Via TripAdvisor
"The house staff were fantastic and came every day to clean and tidy up. The villa was even better than depicted on the web site. Oasis Marigot took care of all our outings, day sail to Sourfriere with snorkeling, volcano, botanical gardens and lunch on the sailboat."@Kathy Light Via TripAdvisor
"We went to St. Lucia for our honeymoon. After months of planning, we were discussing an all inclusive resort. We are so glad we didn't! We rented the Emerald Hill Villa and lived in a true paradise for a week. I could not imagine anything more relaxing. The pool overlooks the Caribbean sea and was a total dream. We watched the sun set from the best view in the bay every night. You could not get a better view of the bay, water, or sun set than the one at Emerald Hill Villa."@MooreTravelers Via TripAdvisor
We are a provider of quality villa rentals across the Caribbean island of St. Lucia. But unlike most villa rental websites who just hand over a set of keys, we do much more. In fact, we bridge the gap between hotel services and private villa rentals, letting you enjoy the peace & quiet and authenticity of a private villa, but with many of the services a hotel would offer so you can feel comfortable and at home in your vacation rental. We help you arrange everything from airport pickups to car rentals, activities to restaurant reservations, housekeeping services to private cooks, and more.
As our tagline states, we offer "more than a set of keys".
Although we offer private villa rentals across the island of St. Lucia, our 'home base' so-to-speak is in Marigot Bay where we have a resort-like community of 12 villas called the 'Vacation Club'. It's within this community that we have our Oasis Marigot Guest Services Office where our St. Lucia manager and other island concierge staff are located. Regardless of which villa you are staying at on the island, our staff here are just a visit or phone call away, and will always be happy to help you with your every need. In fact, our pleasant and helpful staff are proudly one of our most appreciated service aspects on Tripadvisor.


text:
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — California lawmakers will consider updating family law and parental rights to keep up with the evolving nature of families when they return from summer break.
Bitter, high-profile disputes have inspired legislators to modernize laws molded for "Leave it to Beaver"-era families. Jason Patric, star of "The Lost Boys," has been seeking custody rights over a son he fathered through sperm donation. The children of radio personality Casey Kasem had been in a legal fight with their stepmother to visit their father in the last years of his life.
Supporters of these bills say such cases demonstrate that laws are lagging behind technology and social change. Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, a San Francisco Democrat and longtime gay rights advocate, said updating the laws is just one way for nontraditional families to gain acceptance.
"As a lawmaker, what you can accomplish is changing what's in the law that's being detrimental and dehumanizing," Ammiano said.
For example, legislation signed by Gov. Jerry Brown this month deletes the definition of marriage as "between a man and a woman" in family law and replaces references to husband and wife with the word spouse.
With same-sex marriage legalized in California last year, the Senate is considering Ammiano's "Modern Family Act" to confront thorny situations same-sex and other couples have found themselves in under existing law.
The bill, AB2344, would expedite adoptions for non-biological parents, such a lesbian woman whose spouse gave birth to their child.
Article continues below
The bill also creates methods to clarify the financial and legal responsibilities of surrogate mothers and sperm donors. That's an important step to prevent disputes from happening, some family law experts say.
"Most of the laws we have in place deal with the use of these technologies once they have already been used and the child is born," said Lisa Ikemoto, a University of California at Davis law professor specializing in reproductive-technology issues.
The need was highlighted by the case of Patric, who helped former girlfriend Danielle Schreiber artificially conceive a child in lieu of her using an anonymous sperm donor. They disagree whether he was meant to have a role in the now 4-year-old boy's life, after Schreiber cut off Patric's access.
Broader legislation that failed last year would have allowed sperm donors to petition for paternal rights if they demonstrate involvement in their biological children's lives.
The new bill, AB2344, instead would create an optional form that would clarify what, if any, role a sperm donor should have in a child's life. But it doesn't address the underlying question in Patric's case when a donor takes on fatherly roles regardless of agreements.
"Because families are formed in so many different ways and (disputes) are always based on the factual situation that a particular family is facing, it's almost impossible for any family code to address all needs," said Cathy Sakimura, the family law director at the National Center for Lesbian Rights.
Social conservatives say legislation to change family law wouldn't be necessary if traditional family structures remained the norm.
"This shows how far our society has fallen: It used to be a simple answer to who's your father and who's your mother," said Randy Thomason, president of SaveCalifornia.com and an advocate of traditional families.
Such arguments didn't resonate in the Assembly, where the Modern Family Act passed on a 62 to 4 vote with some Republican support and little organized opposition.
Another bill moving through the Legislature addresses conflicts between children and their stepparents given the prevalence of divorce and remarriage. The bill, AB2034 by Assemblyman Mike Gatto, D-Los Angeles, would create a new avenue for adult children who want to visit ailing parents over the objections of new spouses.
Kerri Kasem, whose father, Casey Kasem, was a famous radio personality and voice of Scooby-Doo's sidekick Shaggy, tearfully testified in support of the bill a week after her father died in June. She and two siblings were in a lengthy battle with their father's second wife Jean over his care.
Gatto's bill allows adult children to petition judges for visitation rights of abused or dependent parents. It's meant to be a simpler alternative to existing law.
Kasem said in an interview that she and her siblings settled for limited visitation at one point after facing more than $100,000 in legal costs and months in court for a complicated dispute over dueling conservatorships.
"Most people don't have that money. Most people don't have anything signed," Kasem said. "There are so many people suffering through the same exact horrible experience we are."
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.


text:
July 11, 2011
Education professor receives distinguished service award from national organization
Janice Wissman, professor of curriculum and instruction, was honored with the American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences' most prestigious national award, the AAFCS' Distinguished Service Award, at its recent 102nd Annual Conference and Expo in Phoenix, Ariz. Wissman is the first Kansas member of the association to receive the award, which is given in recognition of exemplary state and national professional service.
Wissman has served as president of two national family and consumer sciences teacher education organizations and was a member of the development panel for national family and consumer sciences standards. At K-State she initiated, developed and coordinated a summer in-service program that has been offered 15 times during the last 20 years and continues to serve as a model for preparing high school food science teachers throughout the country.
Her professional work associated with program development and accreditation extends to all K-12 teacher education programs. In the state of Kansas she served on the statewide committee responsible for the development of Kansas's teacher licensure standards and chaired the Kansas State Department of Education Program Evaluation Committee that approves and recommends all new and continuing teacher education programs and recommends unit accreditation in the state.
Wissman has served on numerous teacher education accreditation teams in the state, and at the national level has been an invited presenter for the National Association of Council of Teacher Education.
Following graduation from K-State Wissman commenced her professional career as a high school home economics teacher in Anaheim, Calif. She returned to her alma mater where she served as a secondary teacher educator in the College of Education. In 2010 she retired as associate dean of the College of Education and began phased retirement.
She holds a master's degree from K-State and a doctorate in higher education from the University of Kansas. She has received numerous awards for her professional leadership and service including the national AAFCS Leaders Award, the national Mortar Board Excellence in Advising Award and in 2010 she received the Kansas Association for Career and Technical Education's Carl Perkins Outstanding Service Award and the Kansas State University College of Human Ecology Alumni Award.
Based in the Washington, D.C., area, the American Association of Family & Consumer Sciences is the only professional association for family and consumer sciences students and professionals from both multiple practice settings and content areas. For more than 100 years AAFCS has focused its mission on providing leadership and support for professionals whose work assists individuals, families and communities in making more informed decisions about their well-being, relationships and resources to achieve optimal quality of life.
Members provide research-based knowledge about the topics of everyday life, including human development, personal and family finance, housing and interior design, food science, nutrition and wellness, textiles and apparel and consumer issues. They are early childhood, elementary, secondary, university/college, and Extension educators, administrators and managers, human service professionals, researchers, community volunteers, business people and consultants who create integrated solutions to complex social and economic challenges.


text:
Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (PATCO) Records
Established in 1968, PATCO was certified as the exclusive representative for all FAA air traffic controllers. A little more than a decade later, union members went on strike demanding better working conditions despite the fact that doing so was in violation of a law banning strikes by government unions. In response to the strike, the Reagan administration fired the strikers, more than 11,000, and decertified the union. Over time the union was eventually reformed, first in 1996 as an affiliate with the Federation of Physicians and Dentists union, and later as an independent, national union in 2004.
Correspondence, financial records, notes and memos documenting the activities of the Boston area branch of PATCO. Letters, announcements, and planning documents leading up to the 1981 strike shed light on the union's position.


text:
Alba Strips, Rourke Scowls, And Gordon-Levitt Gets Mad In New Sin City: A Dame To Kill For Stills
Back before Robert Rodriguez' and Frank Millers Sin City: A Dame To Kill For saw its release date get pushed back a full year, we saw our first still from the film thanks to a still released by the filmmaker. Unfortunately, we haven't seen a thing since, presumably because of how visual effects-heavy the movie is. Apparently it's now reached a marketable level, however, because the latest issue of Entertainment Weekly (via Yahoo! UK) has some brand new sneak peeks of the comic book adaptation.
Up top we have our first look at Jessica Alba back in Nancy Callahan's costume... or rather lack there of. Apparently she is back to her stripping ways in the sequel, but she is also out for revenge. The text below the photo reveals that Nancy is at the center of her very own revenge story in the new film and will be hunting down the people responsible for the imprisonment and death of John Hartigan (Bruce Willis), the police detective who saved who from a rapist/pedofile when she was a child. As Rodriguez says in the blurb, "You see a little girl in that first film. By the end of this, she's the avenging angel."
This second image is actually a two-fer, as we get a peek of Mickey Rourke back under the Marv make-up and a debut shot of Joseph Gordon-Levitt as Johnny, a character created specifically for the movie who is a gambler who, as Rodriguez says, winds up beating the wrong guy in a game of poker. Those of you who have seen the first film may be scratching their heads about Marv's inclusion in the sequel, as this was the final scene of his storyline in Sin City:
The answer is that the stories being told in Sin City: A Dame To Kill For actually take place earlier in the narrative timeline than "The Hard Goodbye." That also explains why Dwight McCarthy - played by Clive Owen in the original - is now being played by Josh Brolin. The character underwent massive reconstructive surgery before the events portrayed in "The Big Fat Kill," and apparently before the operations he looked like Brolin.
Sin City: A Dame To Kill For has been in post-production for a long time now, but we'll finally get to see it when it's released on August 22nd.Relive some of the memories of the first movie with the trailer below.
Your Daily Blend of Entertainment News
NJ native who calls LA home and lives in a Dreamatorium. A decade-plus CinemaBlend veteran who is endlessly enthusiastic about the career he's dreamt of since seventh grade.
Most Popular
By Mick Joest
By Laura Hurley
By Nick Venable
By Nick Venable
By Carly Levy


text:
Howdy y'all.
So, tomorrow I'm off to the hospital to mend the little hole in my heart. During my most recent echo cardiogram, the doctors were able to capture this image:
Isn't technology amazing? Who knew the hole had personality?
I'm planning on milking this event for all it's worth. We're having dinners brought in, and that means my family will have home-cooked meals for the first time in their lives. They are very excited. Kid C even offered to punch a new hole in my heart if it meant more meals.
I'm bringing my computer with me. Sam asked me why, and I'm all, "Because heart surgery is my only chance for quiet writing time."
He thinks I'm a little unclear on the concept. But have you seen my summer? It's loud and obnoxious, and constantly tapping me on my shoulder asking to be fed or entertained. So sure, I'll be in a hospital room, slightly drugged, but it will be quiet, because no code blue can compete with a bored 7-year-old and a frustrated 4-year-old.
Yes, I realize I'm approaching this as if it's a weekend at the spa, but it's keeping me sane.
Wish me luck. Or, what do you say to someone pre-surgery? Break a leg? Try not to nick an artery? Hope the anesthesia works?
I'll be thinking of all of you as I drift into la la land. Well, either you or Barry Manilow. Okay, let's be honest... I'll be thinking of Rafael Nadal.
Sweet Dreams, y'all.


text:
Moog purists who felt uncomfortable with the release of the Animoog iPad app earlier this week can take solace in the launch of The Ladder, a new rack-mountable hardware processor that's based on Bob Moog's original ladder filter design.
Promising to deliver "all the punch, fullness and analogue euphoria of the original Moog Filter," this also offers features designed to make it useful in today's studios, details of which can be found in the press release below.
The Ladder will be available in December priced at $769.
Moog The Ladder press release
Moog Music, a North Carolina-based electronic musical instrument manufacturer, today announced the release of The Ladder, a Professional 500 Series Dynamic Ladder Filter based on Bob Moog's original ladder filter design. The Ladder is Moog Music's first 500 series module for the Pro Audio market and is designed to add depth, flexibility and classic Moog vibe to sound sources.
"There have been a lot of firsts for Moog this year." said Mike Adams, President/CEO of Moog Music Inc. "The release of Animoog, the first professional synthesizer for the iPad has introduced us to whole new segment of customers. Now The Ladder will reacquaint Moog with the Pro Audio community that embraced Moog Modular Synthesizers in the 1960's. We are very happy to see the market embracing this exciting format and we look to developing other modules."
The Ladder packs all the punch, fullness and analog euphoria of the original Moog Filter, but adds key component and feature upgrades required for professional studio use. From classic Moog filtering and vibe to modern sweetening and wild, exciting behavior; The Ladder is a powerful, articulate sound sculpting tool.
The Ladder features include:
Low Pass and High Pass: The Ladder has inherited the smoothest all-analog filter section possible. Choose between LP and HP at the flick of a switch.
Cutoff: Simply adjust this knob to determine where The Ladder begins to sculpt the sound.
Attack and Release: These variable controls allow you to perfectly dial in the timing behavior of The Ladder's envelope section. Use them to open and close the envelope as fast as lightning, or slow as molasses.
Amount: Use in Positive or Negative mode for mild to extreme sound shaping and manipulation. The amount determines how much signal is sent to the envelope section of The Ladder. From slight timbral excitement and voicing to extreme compression-like behavior and even reversed filtering is achievable.
Resonance: Controls the amount of harmonic bump at the cutoff frequency. This is the voice of The Ladder. Create sweet, dynamic or extreme speech like behavior and beyond. Accentuate specific frequencies to excite a sound or create completely new and unique ones.
NOTE: The Ladder's Resonance control can push the unit into self-oscillation. This can be used for effect if desired.
2Pole/4Pole: Select how aggressive the filter slope is. 2 pole is equal to 12db per octave, which is smooth and sweet, while 4 pole is 24db per octave, which is hard, aggressive and most similar to a Classic Moog filter.
Bypass: Totally transparent relay bypass for routing and A/B comparison
Availability and pricing: The Ladder will be available at Moog Dealers worldwide in December 2011 for MSRP US$769.00.


text:
Editor's Note: George A. Lopez holds the Hesburgh Chair in Peace Studies at the Kroc Institute, University of Notre Dame. He is a former member, UN Panel of Experts on DPRK.
Story highlights
N. Korea said Thursday it plans to carry out new nuclear test and more long-range rocket launches
It said they are part of new phase of confrontation with United States
George A. Lopez says North Korea's aim is to be recognized as a 'new nuclear nation by fait accompli'
The Security Council sanctions aim to deteriorate and disrupt N. Korea's programs, says Lopez
North Korea has responded to new Security Council sanctions condemning its December 12 rocket launch with a declaration that it plans a third nuclear test and more missile launches. Politically, it has made unambiguous that its "aim" is its enemy, the United States.
In this rapid reaction to U.N. sanctions, the young government of Kim Jong Un underscores what Security Council members have long known anticipated from the DPRK. Their end-game is to create a vibrant, integrated missile and nuclear weapons program that will result - as in the cases of Pakistan and India - in their being recognized as a new nuclear nation by fait accompli.
Read more: North Korea says new nuclear test will be part of fight against U.S.
In light of DPRK defiance - and a soon to occur nuclear test - the Security Council's first set of sanctions on North Korea since 2009 may seem absurd and irrelevant. These sanctions will certainly not prevent a new DPRK nuclear test. Rather, the new sanctions resolution mobilizes regional neighbors and global actors to enforce sanctions that can weaken future DPRK programs and actions.
Read more: U.N. Security Council slams North Korea, expands sanctions
The utility, if not the necessity, of these Security Council sanctions are to deteriorate and disrupt the networks that sustain North Korea's programs. Chances of this degradation of DPRK capabilities have increased as the new sanctions both embolden and empower the member states who regularly observe - but do nothing about - suspicious vessels in their adjacent waterways.
The resolution provides new guidance to states regarding ship interdiction, cargo inspections, and the seizure and disposal of prohibited materials. Regarding nuclear and missile development the sanctions expand the list of material banned for trade to DPRK, including high tech, dual-use goods which might aid missile industries.
Read more: South Korean officials: North Korean rocket could hit U.S. mainland
These new measures provide a better structure for more effective sanctions, by naming new entities, such as a bank and trading companies, as well as individuals involved in the illicit financing of prohibited materials, to the sanctions list. To the surprise of many in the diplomatic community - the Council authorizes states to expose and confiscate North Korea's rather mobile "bulk cash." Such currency stocks have been used in many regions to facilitate purchases of luxury goods and other banned items that sustain the DPRK elites.
Finally, the Security Council frees the Sanctions Committee to act more independently and in a timely manner to add entities to the list of sanctioned actors when evidence shows them to be sanctions violators. This is an extensive hunting license for states in the region that can multiply the costs of sanctions to the DPRK over time.
Read more: North Korea's rocket launches cost $1.3 billion
Whatever their initial limitations, the new round of U.N. sanctions serve as a springboard to more robust measures by various regional and global powers which may lead back to serious negotiations with DPRK.
Despite its bluster and short-term action plan, Pyongyang recognizes that the wide space of operation for its policies it assumed it had a week ago, is now closed considerably. To get this kind of slap-down via this Security Council resolution - when the launch was a month ago - predicts that any nuke test or missile launch from Pyongyang will bring a new round of stronger and more targeted sanctions.
Read more: North Korea silences doubters, raises fears with rocket launch
Although dangerous - a new game is on regarding DPRK. Tougher U.N. measures imposed on the North generated a predictable response and likely new, prohibited action. While DPRK may be enraged, these sanctions have the P5 nations, most notably China, newly engaged. A forthcoming test or launch will no doubt increase tensions on both sides.
But this may be precisely the shock needed to restart the Six Party Talks. Without this institutional framework there is little chance of influencing DPRK actions. And in the meantime, the chances of greater degrading of DPRK capabilities via sanctions, are a sensible next best action.
Read more: Huge crowds gather in North Korean capital to celebrate rocket launch
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of George A. Lopez.


text:
Rotary Cutter Gearbox EP09
We promise will offer the best price by the high quality in china! We also accept special order about the products. If you are interested in our products. Please do not hesitate to let us know.We are pleased to give you the detailed information.We promise that our products would be safety and were in high quality and reasonable price. If you are interested in our products, please contact us asap.We are sincerely looking for your cooperation.
Most of our products are exported to Europe or Americas, both standard and nonstandard products available. We can produce as per your drawing or sample. Material can be standard or as per your special request. If you choose us, you choose reliable.
Q: Are you trading company or manufacturer ?
A: Our group consists in 3 factories and 2 abroad sales corporations.
Q: Do you provide samples ? is it free or extra ?
A: Yes, we could offer the sample for free charge but do not pay the cost of freight.
Q: How long is your delivery time ? What is your terms of payment ?
A: Generally it is 40-45 days. The time may vary depending on the product and the level of customization. For standard products, the payment is: 30% T/T in advance ,balance before shipment.
Q: What is the exact MOQ or price for your product ?
A: As an OEM company, we can provide and adapt our products to a wide range of needs.Thus, MOQ and price may greatly vary with size, material and further specifications; For instance, costly products or standard products will usually have a lower MOQ. Please contact us with all relevant details to get the most accurate quotation.