text:
By Bill Graziano
on 25 November 2001
| 2 Comments
| Tags: Site News
I'm currently upgrading the forums. They may act a little weird while I do this. Sorry for any problems. Updated: The forum upgrade is done and seems to be working. If you have any problems please post them here (if you can) or email me.
Discuss this article: 2 Comments so far.
Print this Article.
If you like this article you can sign up for our weekly newsletter.
There's an opt-out link at the
bottom of each newsletter so it's easy to unsubscribe at any time.
Email Address:
SQLTeam.com Reader Survey (6 August 2008)
ApexSQL Giving Away 25 Copies of Enforce (7 May 2008)
Win Free Software in our Forum Contest (31 October 2007)
Welcome to the new SQLTeam.com (11 June 2007)
SQLTeam.com: Five Fabulous Years (10 July 2005)
Site Updates (19 December 2004)
Are you a DBA? (27 September 2004)
Microsoft SQL Server MVPs at SQLTeam.com (13 February 2004)
Getting current quarter & 4 previous quarters data (1 Reply)
Report model security (1 Reply)
More data extract - expert opinion (1 Reply)
SQL Server Mirroring - Two Principal databases (1 Reply)
Ask a query to make reports (0 Replies)
SQL CLR, HttpWebRequest, and Connection Throttling (1 Reply)
Search 2 Dates between Date Range (0 Replies)
SQL group by clause issue (0 Replies)
Weekly SQL Server newsletter with articles,
forum posts, and blog posts via email. Subscribers receive our white paper
with performance tips for developers.
SQLTeam.com Articles via RSS
SQLTeam.com Weblog via RSS
- Advertisement -
SQL Server Resources
Advertise on SQLTeam.com
SQL Server Books
SQLTeam.com Newsletter
Contact Us
About the Site


text:
The Future of Female Leadership in the HIV/AIDS Movement, Part 1
May 30, 2012
In 2010, E. Tyler Crone, J.D., M.P.H., the ATHENA Network's coordinating director, and I had a very interesting conversation about the report Transforming the National AIDS Response: Advancing Women's Leadership and Participation, which highlighted the serious need for more female leadership and participation in policy making, as well as funding for grassroots HIV initiatives and programs that focus on women.
What the report's team of researchers found was discouraging. While the face of the global HIV epidemic is female, there was an alarming lack of female leadership in decision making, especially from HIV-positive women. This lack of involvement, particularly on a policy-making level, is so dangerous because, without direct input from HIV-positive women themselves, any initiatives are unlikely to be effective.
Fast forward to the present, and we find ourselves in the midst of serious local and federal budget cuts, in the middle of a serious war being waged on women and reproductive health, and on the cusp of the 2012 International AIDS Conference (AIDS 2012), which is why I thought this was a good time to revisit this topic together with a diverse group of female leaders in the field of HIV. We explore their experiences, whether or not we are seeing improvement in female participation in the HIV movement and their thoughts on the future of female leadership in the HIV movement.
Participating in this discussion are: E. Tyler Crone, the coordinating director for the ATHENA Network's USA branch; Naina Khanna, the director of policy and community organizing for Women Organized to Respond to Life-threatening Disease (WORLD); and Marsha Jones, the co-founder and executive director of the Afiya Center HIV Prevention & Sexual Reproductive Justice.
E. Tyler Crone, J.D., M.P.H.
Kellee Terrell: Tyler, I know it's been a short time since we spoke last, but has being a female leader in this movement improved, stayed the same or gotten worse?
E. Tyler Crone: I unfortunately have a pessimistic voice to offer on this. But I'll put a caveat on by saying that I'll be talking about things on a global landscape, and maybe what I see within the U.N. I'll try to leave speaking to what's happening in the U.S. to Marcia and Naina.
I'll flag a few different things that are incredibly challenging that we have seen since AIDS 2010. If you look at the narrow context of the International AIDS Conference, and see that as a mirror of where we've come and where we haven't, there was -- there is -- fantastic leadership, such as Naina, Delores Dockery, Beri Hull, and others who are sitting in key positions within the programming committee for this International AIDS Conference. And yet, even with these amazing leaders in place, it's been an uphill climb to keep women in HIV on the agenda. I've found it really disheartening to see that we're having to double down on our efforts to keep women -- that's women in all our diversity, and particularly women living with HIV -- front and center on the platform, especially at AIDS 2012.
I also see a real struggle to get young women and emerging leaders, particularly young women living with HIV, on the agenda and in positions of power. That, to me, is another depressing fact. And one of the substantive ways in the HIV movement that I see this play out is in the focus on prevention of vertical transmission. One of the ways that's playing out globally is that the plan on eliminating transmission only looks at HIV-positive women as mothers of babies, and not as women and the health care that they need to survive. The current focus doesn't utilize the women's rights approach, and it's not looking at women in all of our diversity in an inclusive and robust way.
One last point is to just look at the broader political landscape. I think we see a continued struggle on the women's rights and health agenda, both nationally and globally. In the United States, with the crazy statewide legislation being introduced about trans-vaginal ultrasound, cutting back on comprehensive sexuality education, and challenging family planning funding, there is this assault on women's health and choices and autonomy.
And then globally, in the U.N., we see that same dynamic playing out, where the very fundamental infrastructure and architecture for women's health and rights -- the International Conference on Population and Development process, or the Commission on the Status of Women -- have had increasingly conservative tides come over. And there has been challenge to the language of even gender equality by the Holy See.
Kellee Terrell: Naina?
Naina Khanna
Naina Khanna: I would have to agree with Tyler in many ways. I would say that, no, it's not necessarily getting better. In fact, in many ways, unfortunately, it seems to be getting worse.
The political environment and the backlash against women overall create a really difficult context. When you look at women within the HIV epidemic who are likely to already be marginalized on so many different levels -- race, class, access to education, access to technology, literacy levels, the digital divide -- it only seems to be getting exacerbated as time goes on. And then, of course, there's a war on women's health, on women's bodies, on women's choices.
We are also seeing funding cuts and slashing of budgets and tightening of belts across the board, and the most impacted by these cuts are women. So something as basic as cutting bus lines, or reducing levels for particular social services, is going to impact women most and first. In terms of power and leadership, restrictions on funding overall tend to make it worse for women. In order to meaningfully participate and not just be a token voice at the table, we have to invest in leadership. Oftentimes that's the first thing to go.
Unfortunately, even though research has shown these intersections between poverty, violence, gender-based violence, and HIV, there's been very little corresponding response, in terms of leadership, federal leadership, and certainly leadership by decision makers in really institutionalizing a response that looks at all these intersecting factors.
Within the HIV community, too, unfortunately, it's become really politically unpopular to take on and tackle women's issues. There are some brave male allies who have been champions for women, and that's much appreciated.
But I do want to point to the establishment of this new federal agency working group on Women, Violence and HIV, which was just launched a couple of months ago. Women leaders have been talking about the intersection between violence against women and HIV for years, or decades. Finally, we were able to get this federal-level interagency workgroup that's looking at these issues from a global and a domestic perspective. But this is two years after the National HIV/AIDS Strategy was released, which had no mention even of violence against women as a contributing factor to the HIV epidemic here in the U.S.
I'm a little bit hopeful that we have this new workgroup in place. I think it is a good sign. But it's been a long time coming.
Marsha Jones
Marsha Jones: Living in Dallas, living in Texas, living in the South, it's very bleak for me. I really don't see things getting that better -- I see my work getting harder. Some days I'm like, "Will it ever get any better?" Especially with this last year. And not to repeat what's already been said, but with these constant attacks on women and women's health, I don't think things have gotten better. And the world seems to be OK with it, except for the women who are fighting to make it stop. And when those women do step up, when we do begin to step up and rally around the injustices that are happening, we are looked at as being rebellious or having some sinister, ulterior motive.
It's like, all of a sudden -- excuse my language -- but now I'm a bitch because I'm stepping up to the table, stepping up to the plate. It's sad, because we still have to fight for just elbow room at the table. And that's why I say that there's an appearance that things may be getting better, because we see some women sitting at the table and may think women are making things happen. But really, we're fighting just for elbow room.
So I think that while things are happening, there is so much more that's got to happen. And I am appreciative of the men that are our allies. But they are so few and in between. Sometimes you are afraid; you don't know who you can trust, and who you can't trust. There are men in this city who were my friends until they realized I was a part of a 30 for 30 Campaign. And now I'm their enemy. It's like: "Women, what are you all trying to do to us?" My response has been, "We're not trying to do anything to you!" It's absolutely crazy. Sitting here in Dallas, I'm usually the only person at that table speaking for women. And then I get an e-mail that says, "We can fund you if you can give us a prevention program, but it's got to be MSM [men who have sex with men] driven." And I'm saying, "I'm a women-centric organization! I can't give you that." So, yes, it's very frustrating. I really want you to hear the frustration in my voice.
More From This Resource Center
Newly Diagnosed? Words of Encouragement from HIV-Positive Women
What Every HIV-Positive Woman Should Know About GYN Care and Prevention
Internet search results. Be careful when providing personal information! Before
adding your comment, please read TheBody.com's Comment Policy.)

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Why the Education Dept. should be eliminated -- Wood
My guest is George Wood, principal of Federal Hocking High School in Stewart, Ohio, and executive director of the non-profit Forum for Education and Democracy, a collaboration of educators from around the country.
By George Wood
After the election of 2008, I thought the stars were aligning for some serious changes in the way the federal government treated public schools.
Gone were the architects of No Child Left Behind. A president who had repeatedly said we should not judge schools or children on the basis of one test was elected to office. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act was up for reauthorization, and I was hopeful things would change.
I did not mind waiting while other issues took stage, because I liked most of what was going on. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, health-care reform, getting higher education student loans out of the hands of the banks, a recovery act, and much more. Schools were provided a generous slice of the recovery dollars –- not just once, but twice --- and that money kept the budget ax from falling on my school.
But reauthorization of ESEA languished, and the initiatives from the U.S. Department of Education including more money for charters, turnaround plans that seemed to focus more on punishing than supporting teachers, support for short-term teacher training, all echoed the plans of prior administrations.
Now that the reins of legislative power have again changed hands, what should we expect this time?
I am not sure. I worry that despite election-year rhetoric about the intrusion of the federal government into local school decision-making, the new bosses in Washington may be the same old boss (with apologies to The Who).
But I have an idea as to a bipartisan effort that might make everyone happy: Eliminate the U.S. Department of Education.
Everybody dislikes bureaucracies, but for different reasons. The "right" complains they are unresponsive, full of "feather-bedders," and a waste of taxpayer money. The "left" complains they are unresponsive, full of people who are too busy pushing paper to see the real work, and too intrusive into local, democratic decision-making. Maybe we should unite all this new energy for making government more responsive and efficient around the idea of eliminating a bureaucracy that was probably a bad idea in the first place.
Remember that the Department of Education was a payoff by President Jimmy Carter to teacher unions for their support. Before that, education was part of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare.
That's where I propose returning it. Here are several reasons why:
First, the current structure of the national Department of Education gives it inordinate control over local schools. The federal government provides only about 8% of education funding. But through through NCLB, Race to the Top, and innovation grants, they are driving about 100% of the agenda. Clearly this is a case of a tail wagging a very big dog.
Second, by separating education from health and welfare, we have separated departments that should be working very closely together. We all know, even if some folks are loath to admit it, that in order for a child to take full advantage of educational opportunities he or she needs to come to school healthy, with a full stomach, and from a safe place to live.
But the federal initiatives around education seldom take such a holistic approach; instead, competing departments engage in bureaucratic turf wars that, while fun within the beltway, are tragic for children in our neighborhoods.
Third, whenever you create a large bureaucracy, it will find something to do, even if that something is less than helpful. After years of an "activist" DOE, we do not see student achievement improving or school innovation taking hold widely. We have lived through Reading First, What Works, and an alphabet soup of changing programs with little to show for it.
In fact, DOE has often been one of the more ideological departments, engaging in the battles such as phonics vs. whole language. Who needs it?
It might be viewed as peculiar for someone who values education to be arguing for what has often been a very conservative position. I know I will hear responses that education is a national issue and is too important to be left to states and locales.
But this has always been the argument of the "I know better than you" crowd, and it's time we stop buying into that logic. The fact is that the federal government has demonstrated time and time again it does not know better when it comes to our schools.
I would also suggest that this smaller bureaucracy have a more limited role than in the past.
Instead of trying to tell our schools what to do, the feds should play a more circumspect role.
That role would include insuring all children have equal access to school programs, providing and disseminating high-quality research on successful schools and programs and funneling federal dollars to schools facing the most challenging conditions (the original intent of ESEA).
Of course it's probably naïve to even suggest a bureaucracy as large as DOE go away; it's hard to name any such organization that we have eliminated. But why not try out an idea that appeals to our current climate of more democratic localism, less federal intrusion, and more effective use of federal dollars?
It could end up being a case of addition by subtraction.
Follow my blog every day by bookmarking washingtonpost.com/answersheet. And for admissions advice, college news and links to campus papers, please check out our Higher Education page at washingtonpost.com/higher-ed Bookmark it!
Valerie Strauss
| November 10, 2010; 6:00 AM ET
Categories: George Wood, Guest Bloggers | Tags: ed department, education department, eliminate the education department, george wood, guest bloggers
Save & Share: Previous: Bloomberg errs again with NYC public schools
Next: De-legitimizing public education
I'd rather see the elimination of local boards of education. They are by and large an entirely useless group of people that have two purposes only -- 1) rubber stamp anything their school administrators propose and 2) pay lip service to whatever political issue holds sway in their community at the moment.
We don't need "local" control of schools. When my children graduate from high school they will be competing with kids from across the globe for admission to college and/or a good job. We need high national standards so that every kid, no matter what town they live in, is prepared for the demands of the future.
Posted by: EduCrazy | November 10, 2010 6:54 AM | Report abuse
I voted for Obama and the US Department of Education must be abolished as a result of misguided policies. Based on politics, the DOE exists to create winners and losers with America's K-12 students on the losing end.
A vision about quality education for students based on the individual's strengths and interests does not exist in the DOE.
Without evidence or merit, the DOE pushes low quality one-size-fits-all "education" and testing scams down the throats of students, teachers and parents. At the same time the political appointees use the media and routinely attack educators and public schools. Without oversight, billions in taxpayers' funds are funneled to for-profit charter operators, testing conglomerates, and the big-brother data collection industry.
NCLB Reading First grants must be exposed as a reminder of what will happen in Race to the Top with billions on the table for the Department's pet for-profit projects. Follow the chain of corruption and conflicts of interests related to the "Texas Miracle" and the "Chicago Miracle."
By abolishing the DOE, send the money to the states and local public schools with parents, educators, and taxpayers making decisions in the interest of all students at the local level.
Posted by: nfsbrrpkk | November 10, 2010 7:42 AM | Report abuse
Educrazy, I second that notion.
Posted by: hainish | November 10, 2010 7:47 AM | Report abuse
I agree fully. The DOE has certainly done more harm than good in the last ten years.
Posted by: DHume1 | November 10, 2010 8:36 AM | Report abuse
I am a native Washingtonian. My first, and maybe only 'private-sector' job I had was delivering this very newspaper through hilly streets in SE D.C. My youth, and young adult summer jobs have been with the Federal Government (FEMA), I served my country as a soldier and now am I public school teacher. I've lived on the East Coast, the Mid-West, and now reside in California. Folks in the federal government are no more capable or innovative than the folks across the country. I know a state or local entity can create 'world-class' standards for their children especially when everyone has such easy access to knowledge and research. Abolishing the DOE isn't just 'conservative,' it's just the smart thing to do.
Posted by: pdexiii | November 10, 2010 8:51 AM | Report abuse
Quite the contrary - get rid of all variation in curriculum. There needs to be one national curriculum, period. The lack of this is insane. Go look at any western country and see if they allow individual schools to figure it out on their own. I have watched this mess unfold for the last 20 years, and I wholeheartedly support taking education responsibility away from the states and local government. Get rid of the variability and you can remove all these admin windbags with inflated titles.
Seriously folks, we need a new "October Sky" scenario.
Posted by: ShowMeTheRealMoney | November 10, 2010 12:33 PM | Report abuse
This must be written by some other George Wood--some other Forum for Education & Democracy. The old George and the old Forum would never have given up on trying to impact federal education policy, especially civil rights policy, that easily. Go back to old states-rights approach? Hard to believe.
Posted by: MickeyK | November 10, 2010 12:46 PM | Report abuse
Finland certainly contradicts your position. Check it out.
I do not necessarily disagree with a national curriculum, though. It will give teachers a baseline for what is needed; new teachers could certainly use this baseline. I do worry about what Duncan and the rest of his ilk will do with it.
Posted by: DHume1 | November 10, 2010 1:23 PM | Report abuse
Showmetherealmoney -- Yes, rigid, centralized curricula have been behind the raging successes of:
the Soviet Union
North Korea
There should be a lot in common, I will agree, but that is not the way this country is wired. For example, in the South, systems will want to tell the story of the Civil War in a different way.
In Washington, DC, we would be happy if there were standardization. The earlier supt., Cliff Janey, is often credited with standardizing the curriculum, but his "achievement" is like most others claimed before M. Rhee arrived. That is why we may be shortly resuming our steady decline in public schools.
Posted by: axolotl | November 10, 2010 2:04 PM | Report abuse
States' rights in education is why the Feds got more involved in the first place. Could it be because it was a bit like states' rights with desegregation, feet-dragging, outright obstruction and worse?
The poorer states need help - they just don't like being reminded how bad it is for them. Then there was that issue of "states' rights" called the civil war - some still arguing that one.
Be VERY careful what you ask for!
Posted by: 1bnthrdntht | November 10, 2010 3:44 PM | Report abuse
Let's not confuse the getting rid of the DOE with abandoning national curriculum.
In other words, you don't need a DOE to standarize curricula on a national level.
After all, the Common Core standards were developed by STATES, not the national government.
Generally, DOE involvement has produced more negative than positive results. I realize complete local control has problems, too, but I would rather allow states to screw up their own education system than have a DOE that ensures ALL education systems will be screwed up.
Posted by: AJGuzzaldo | November 10, 2010 5:24 PM | Report abuse
Better yet, just get rid of Arne Duncan. That would be a start.
Posted by: chicogal | November 11, 2010 12:38 AM | Report abuse
Remember. The current intrusive provisions of NCLB and the appropriations for RttT were acts of Congress.
ESEA over the years and NCLB over the last decade has achieved two important accomplishments One, it has raised the matter of elhi from a level of local media attention to a national level of attention. Two, it has increased the capacity of State Departments of Education to at least match if not surpass the capability of the national Department of Education.
The scope of DoE extends more broadly than general ElHi instruction. It includes higher ed, ed research, special ed, and native American ed, among others.
Further, the DoE provides important administrative and regulatory services at the National level.
On the basis of the gains that have been made, the Congress is in position to declare victory and get the hell out of the schools. Education is a state and local matter but within a Federal system of government, not a national system.
The states were dumb enough to take the bait for the Common Core standards and the Race... The election operationally ended the "Race." The Governors and Chief State School Officers own these matters. They can now be freed to govern and educate.
Posted by: DickSchutz | November 11, 2010 11:30 AM | Report abuse
Well, DoE is one, of about 6 that should be eliminated, if we are ever to have a chance of balancing the budget.
Posted by: WalterSobchak1 | November 11, 2010 2:26 PM | Report abuse
I have to come to believe that the department of education should also be abolished.
Blarney Duncan is nothing but a bully with a suit and friendly personality.
Posted by: educationlover54 | November 11, 2010 5:51 PM | Report abuse
U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security should definitely be eliminated -- it was a payoff to the contractor set, the so-called Beltway bandits. As the Richmond newspaper wisely pointed out eight years ago, we have an agency whose purpose it is to protect the homeland: it is called Dept. of Defense.
Posted by: CesarSozei | November 13, 2010 3:21 AM | Report abuse
The comments to this entry are closed.


text:
Minnesota's marriage amendment battle: Power of 'messaging' may be the key
Illustration by Linda de Haan and Stern Nijland
On Oct. 7, 2008, one month before California voters were to decide whether to amend that state's constitution to strip gays and lesbians of the right to marry, opponents of same-sex marriage aired a game-changing television ad.
"Mommy, Mommy, guess what I learned in school today?" a pig-tailed girl announces, rushing to show her mother a pink picture book. "I learned how a prince can marry a prince and I can marry a princess!"
If Proposition 8 did not pass, narrators cut in, schoolchildren would be taught about gay marriage and parents would have no right to object: "Think it can't happen here? It already has."
Gay rights supporters first froze and then, with less than two weeks to go, responded with fact-based ads that utterly failed to assuage voters' fears or strike emotional chords.
In terms of messaging, the princess ad, as it has since become known, is a direct descendant of Anita Bryant's Save Our Children campaign, whose late 1970s TV and print ads warned that gay-rights laws here and elsewhere would enable teachers to have sex with students and foster child prostitution.
The message's endurance is partly explained by its effectiveness. In California, the princess ad aired over and over, part of a saturation campaign that is credited with handing Yes on 8 a narrow upset victory. Of the 13.7 million votes cast, 52 percent favored the amendment opposing gay marriage.
Powerful, pivotal ad
According to an exhaustive analysis later performed by LGBT-rights strategist David Fleischer, 500,000 of the 600,000 deciding voters were prepared to vote against the initiative until Yes on 8's ads began airing.
The picture book the ad's princess protagonist brought home from school was "King & King," a Dutch fairy tale about a crabby queen who wants to hang up her crown but can't persuade her son to marry. She lines up princess after princess, but it's not until one shows up with her brother in tow that a royal wedding is in the cards.
In the 12 years since its publication, the book has gained more notoriety at the hands of same-sex marriage opponents than young readers, appearing in ads in other states where marriage rights are the subject of legal, legislative or election challenges.
Indeed, "King & King" and the conservative meme that has grown up around it has already hit the airwaves in Minnesota in a series of "Marriage Minute" videos being circulated by Minnesota for Marriage, the umbrella organization campaigning for the one-man, one-woman marriage amendment here.
"Children at a very young age, as early as kindergarten, will be taught in school that marriage is between any two adults, no matter what they have been taught at home, in church or in their ethnic traditions," MOM spokeswoman Kalley Yanta explains in one of the group's spots as the book's cover is displayed. "Under that kind of law, those who believe otherwise will be treated as racists and bigots."
In remarks published by the LGBT news site The Colu.mn, the former KSTP anchor took the message a step further.
"If marriage between homosexuals is legalized, what would some of the consequences be?" she asked rhetorically. "Parents who want to opt their kids out of the public school on the day that they're teaching about homosexual relationships how it should be OK and accepted, and the parents are charged with discrimination and are hauled away sometimes in handcuffs. … We just can't allow this to happen."
"King & King" has been the subject of several battles between parents and school districts, but no dispute has ended in the shackling of anyone, and there is no law that allows individuals to be "charged" with having bigoted or religious views. And yet, in the 29 states where gay marriage bans have gone to voters, the impressions created by the princess ad and others like it have proven incredibly difficult for same-sex marriage proponents to combat.
Competing 16-month messages
Still, expect Minnesota's pro- and anti-amendment campaigns to draw plenty of attention. Unlike other states where gay-rights supporters have struggled to counter a last-minute advertising barrage, amendment opponents here will have 16 months to get their own message out, as well as apply lessons learned from other states.
The coalitions working on both sides of the issue are tight-lipped about their strategies, but area experts on political messages have ventured some predictions.
Ed Schiappa is chair of the Department of Communication Studies at the University of Minnesota and author of a forthcoming paper examining the arguments used in the legal and public spheres in California.
The more closely an issue is tied to a prospective voter's identity, the harder it is to change their perception of it, he said. By now, same-sex marriage advocates know what doesn't work and opponents know what does.
At least internally, each side has probably acknowledged that there are a certain number of voters on either side who will not be swayed. Because 2012 is a presidential election year, those voters are more likely to turn out but not guaranteed.
And because the early building of grass-roots foundations is key, each is likely paying particular attention to voters in churches and outstate communities where social networks are vitally important to building a base.
Minnesota for Marriage's strategy of creating online videos that can be easily passed around is likely to be particularly effective here, said political strategist Bill Hillsman, whose clever TV ads are credited with wins by seeming dark horses such as Paul Wellstone and Jesse Ventura.
"Particularly on the side not in favor [of same-sex marriage], they will do it earlier because the more conservative factors of the state tend to get organized earlier and better and to consolidate support earlier and better," he said. "The more liberal groups tend to fall short because they assume support is going to be there when they need it."
This is doubly true when the experience of other states suggests a high-buck barrage of ads can be expected late in the campaign. "The lesson from that is there is no substitute for organizing in this," he continued. "The more organized you are, the less you have to match the other side dollar for dollar."
Targeting 'the squishy middle'
When those dollars do start flowing, said Schiappa, "You go for the squishy middle."
If you oppose gay marriage, that means two approaches: targeting people's fears, as in the princess ad or another very effective 2009 ad that warned ominously of a "Gathering Storm," and reaffirming the presumptions they already have.
In the latter, a violent storm sweeps over a group of people who decry their fears. "My freedom will be taken away," one says. "I am part of a New Jersey church group punished by the government because we can't support same-sex marriage," says another. Gay-rights advocates, a woman insists, "want to change the way I live."
("The Colbert Report" produced a hilarious, dead-on spoof.)
Another widely analyzed ad has no narration at all, instead reinforcing presumed childhood lessons about family by showing a blond toddler playing happily with bride and groom dolls before the words "Marriage: It's Simple" scroll onto the screen.
"That was an elegant, elegant ad, regardless of your politics," Schiappa said. "It doesn't say anything. It reinforces what you already know. And you know what a married person is by age 3 or 4."
Hillsman concurred: "When Wellstone was up for election in '96, he voted for [the Defense of Marriage Act] and I said, 'What are you doing?' He said, 'I grew up believing marriage was between a man and a woman.'"
Both add that by virtue of having less exposureto same-sex households, older Americans are more likely to hold this view. And exposure and time are by far the most effective ways to change it.
"Getting people to watch 'It's a Brad, Brad World' " — in which Bravo reality show star Brad Goreski and his longtime partner Gary Janetti, who are shown planning a commitment ceremony because they can't marry — "actually advances gay marriage," said Schiappa. "Because you see them and think, 'Why don't they have the same rights as a heterosexual couple has?' "
The question of gay marriage as a tangential plotline may be new, but Goreski and Janetti's pain probably resonates with more viewers because the scores of gay TV characters that preceded them make their relationship seem more normal. Newsweek, he added, titled a story about this impact of "benign exposure" with "The 'Will and Grace' Effect."
The messages with which Schiappa is familiar that have had the most resonance are some aired in New York, where gay marriage supporters filmed commercials encouraging people to urge their lawmakers to legalize it.
"Those ads were aimed at emotions," he said, citing one, shot in warm colors, in which a woman talked of wanting the same things for both her daughters.
"Another New York example is a pair of women in their 60s who had been together 30-plus years who talked about wanting to finally get married," Schiappa added. "They looked like your aunt. They weren't scary."
Hillsman agreed. "The things that tend to work are showing married gay couples and showing the normalcy of it," he said. "People tend to fear it's some kind of freak show, and to show the utter normalcy of it is very effective."
Finally, to succeed, Minnesota's amendment opponents "have to break the link between Christianity and opposition to gay marriage," he said, which is why the aforementioned grass-roots organizing is most likely where this state's campaign will be won and lost.
"Neither side is interested in having to make their case to swing voters if they don't have to," Hillsman continued. "It's much safer to drive turnout and depress turnout."
In the end, both sides need to be exceptionally careful, in Hillsman's opinion: "A misstep can be fatal in messaging."
Comments (55)
Good piece, Beth – ammunition for both sides, I suppose.
It's hard not to note, however, that Proposition 8 has currently foundered on the shoals of the Constitution and the appellate courts. It may survive, but it seems equally likely that it may not. If the latter is the case, one of the inconvenient truths for DOMA defenders and those who'd like to put similar restrictions into the Minnesota Constitution may simply be that, regardless of the effectiveness of the ad campaigns of opponents of same-sex marriage, discrimination against a particular group without a demonstrably good reason (in the legal sense) will still be considered discrimination under the law.
A Challenge
I challenge MinnPost to make available an unredacted, unedited copy of the "Safe Schools Manual" that is used in classrooms, starting in grade 3, in the Saint Paul public school district.
Then, let's have this discussion.
I have a copy, and will be happy to vouch for the authenticity of what is posted.
It's all well and good to discuss what happened in California, but I submit people in Minnesota are entitled to know the truth of what is happening in Minnesota today.
Human Dignity
May Minnesotans remember that this is an issue of human dignity. It is an issue of treating another like you would want to be treated. It is an issue of love. We all have the desire to find love and long for that love to be affirmed and supported by our families and friends. Let us be about living in grace and finding the goodness in others. As a couple who has been blessed with a 40 year marriage, we rejoiced as our 3 oldest children found love and got married. We want for our gay son Jacob what we cherish and hold dear.
With all due respect, Randi
I think most people want to find the goodness in others, but that really isn't what this issue is about.
We are complex creatures, a mixture of good and bad, rational and irrational. Dysfunctional behaviors do not preclude the likelyhood that a person has a considerable goodness within them, but that inherent good is not a valid argument that we must accept dysfunction as good, or desireable, or normal.
I'm sure your son is a great kid, and I wish the best for him. But I join with the majority of people on the planet that are not ready to cast aside science, human biology, common sense *or* morality to accomodate his, or your desire for approval of something that does not recommend itself for approval.
Finally, I certainly do not blame you, or your allies for pushing for your desires (except where it impinges upon the lives of children), but it is time to put it to rest. This vote makes that happen.
If marriage is just about procreation, then millions of people would be disqualified. So marriage isn't about human biology or science, is it?
You often make reference to "common sense", but where does that apply here? In my mind, marriage between any two people provides all necessary "common sense".
So it comes down to morality. My sense of morality provides for any two loving, committed people to form a legal bond to honor and codify that commitment. Yours doesn't. There is the real rub.
The logical fallacy of the False Dilemma
"Not every couple that gets married has children, so procreation cannot warrant an argument based upon human biology or science".
Too easy. Next!
The exception
does not make a rule.
Mr. Cygan wrote:
"marriage between any two people provides all necessary "common sense"."
Male 1 marries Female 1.
Male 1 decides to Marry Female 2.
Female 1 decides to marry Female 3.
Male 1 also decides to marry Female 3.
Female 3 decides to marry the daughter of Male 1 and Female 1.
Is that what you consider to be "common sense", Mr. Cygan?
Mr. Cygan wrote:
"My sense of morality provides for any two loving, committed people to form a legal bond to honor and codify that commitment."
Does your "sense of morality", Mr. Cygan, argue for the repeal of Chapter 517 of the Minnesota Statutes, specifically, do you argue for the repeal of MN Stat. 517.02 and 517.03?
I invite any same sex marriage supporter, Beth Hawkins included, to answer this question.
Why did you choose these particular sections? Neither needs to be repealed, and of the two, only 517.03 should be amended. Unless you're suggesting that the slippery slope argument applies. That is, are you indicating that if we allow people of the same sex to get married, kids and relatives must inevitably end up getting married?
To alleviate your fears, let me assure you that slippery slopes are rarely anything more than imaginary. Looking specifically at this one, you must look at the legal reasons for the prohibition of marriages that involve children and close relatives.
The reason children should not (and cannot legally) get married is because of the fact that marriage is a contract. Children cannot enter into a contract because they cannot give legal consent.
The reason that relatives should not get married is because children resulting from a union of close relatives are at higher risk of congenital birth defects and diseases.
Neither of these reasons apply to a gay couple.
Mr. Cygan made the argument that:
1. "marriage between any two people provides all necessary "common sense"."
2. "[His] sense of morality provides for any two loving, committed people to form a legal bond to honor and codify that commitment."
I gave two examples where his arguments would lead.
"Neither of these reasons apply to a gay couple."
That's wasn't the point of his stated arguments. He or any supporter of "same sex marriage" needs to answer the questions I raised.
Your response was generic
Individually, all of the situations you provided in response to Mr. Cygan's comment were perfectly fine, unless your scheme requires the marriage to be between all of those people at once--but then, that doesn't apply to Mr. Cygan's comment (TWO loving, COMMITTED people), does it?
You're arguing the slippery slope. No one with common sense will follow your logic into the pit you're trying to bait them into. If you provide some serious questions, then maybe someone will take you seriously and seriously answer them.
In the meanwhile, I took your comment to be general and pointed out that providing examples of marriages that violate consent or genetic health issues has nothing to do with the gay marriage issue.
your definition of "dysfunction" doesn't make sense
Why do you get to define "dysfunctional", and why define it the way you do? To me, someone is "dysfunctional" if they operate in a way that causes problems for themselves or others. The only problems for homosexuals are the ones caused by the "family values" crowd - otherwise they would live their lives as they wished and not cause harm to anyone.
Moreover, you use the same line every time you talk about this. But upon examination, none of it stands up. "Science" and "human biology" have nothing to say about the matter. Yes - it takes a man and a woman to make a kid. Duh. So what? Why does that matter? Science makes no statement about how we should treat people who are attracted to others of their same sex. Further, since you're an on-the-record science denier, science is not your mantle to claim anyways.
"Common sense" is simply not an argument. And "morality" in this case is defined by your religion, which we don't all share. It certainly doesn't come from any rational or ethical argument I've seen presented.
So what do you really have here Tom? It seems like nothing other than a weird obsession with other peoples' sexual predilections.
Logic and facts. A good basis for any argument
dys·func·tion also dis·func·tion (ds-fngkshn)
Abnormal or impaired functioning, especially of a bodily system or social group.
If homosexuality was normal, it wouldn't result in the extinction of the species; it wouldn't be relegated to a miniscule percentage of the population and it wouldn't cause physical damage when practised.
We could get into the stastics that bear out the "problems", emotional and physical that accompany homosexuality, but that is not the argument I'm bringing (although I'd be happy to accomodate one).
My definition of morality is primarily based upon natural law and the history of civil society, but if I'm ever stumped, I ask myself "Is this something I'd want my kids to know?" I don't need religion to teach me the most basic tenants of right and wrong.
Finally, you've completely destroyed your own argument: "Yes - it takes a man and a woman to make a kid. Duh. So what? Why does that matter?"
With all due respect, that might serve as a gold plated example of failed logic.
And yet you're not using any
"If homosexuality was normal, it wouldn't result in the extinction of the species"
Is this something you're concerned about? Are we running out of people and nobody told me? By that definition, we should be treating as dysfunctional everyone that doesn't want to bear children for any reason, or can't for any reason. Oh, and "miniscule percentage of the population"? EVERYONE has some characteristic that only applies to a "miniscule percentage of the population." Like leftys? There was a time when they were sent to right-handed reeducation camps.
There are no special "problems" that homosexuals face that aren't caused by those who want to treat them as psych cases. Ask them! Their problems come from YOU, not them.
"if I'm ever stumped, I ask myself "Is this something I'd want my kids to know?"
Well, let's all base our societal policy on what you'd tell your kids. There's a plan for success. Saying your sense of right and wrong is somehow internal is not an argument. Unless you can articulate an argument, you have nothing.
And you've yet to explain why the kid thing matters. Nobody else here thinks this is patently obvious so you're talking to yourself. I'm straight and I don't want kids. Where does this put me?
Ultimately, it's not clear what you're suggesting. If you're a remotely decent human being, you would do one of two things with homosexuals. You'd either treat them like everyone else or "fix" them somehow. And since there's a lot of evidence the latter doesn't work, and nor do they want it, it seems like the former is the only reasonable course of action.
I think...
that comment should just stand inspection all by itself, Jeff. There's nothing I could add that the thoughtful reader won't find condescending to their intelligence.
Oops, almost forgot.
On top of everything else wrong with your argument, ad hominem the gold standard of fail, Jeff. "Wierd obsessions" do not impinge on the validity of ones positions whether one has them or not.
It's not ad hominem, it's an observation.
You are demonstrably deeply interested with the sex lives of people who are not you, and by our upper-midwest standards that is indeed "weird".
Dirty little secret
However the vote over the marriage amendment goes, the dirty little secret in this effort (along with Voter ID and "right-to-work") is the precedent the GOP is bringing to Minnesota concerning legislation by amendment. Do you think it will stop with this election?
If any of these amendments succeed, I would expect future DFL-controlled legislatures to put repeals on the ballot. Then, I would expect that they might put new amendment proposals on the ballot. What's sauce for the goose...
Perhaps if all of these pointless amendments can be defeated this year, the unpleasant prospect of continuing to vote endlessly on the same amendment propositions and later repeal efforts can be averted.
Maintaining the foundation of western civilization -marriage - is not "pointless".
1. It's pointless when what is excluded by the amendment is already disallowed under the law.
2. If marriage is the foundation of Western civilization, then it is under far greater threat from those people who are currently married.
Making it up as they go along.
Mr. Cygan wrote:
"It's pointless when what is excluded by the amendment is already disallowed under the law."
Tell that to the people in California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Vermont, where lawyers in robs issued judicial edicts without regard for anything except their roles as philosopher kings.
The Marriage Amendment will prevent judicial fraud.
Saving marriage
Do you advocate repealing the no-fault divorce laws?
How about forcing "The Bachelor" off the air?
RB, you got me
I routinely keep my personal opinions out of comment threads on my stories, but you dangle too massive a temptation: I am unapologetically in favor of forcing "The Bachelor" off the air. Where do I sign?
Question for Miss Hawkins.
"Gay rights supporters first froze and then, with less than two weeks to go, responded with fact-based ads that utterly failed to assuage voters' fears or strike emotional chords."
Are you inferring, Miss Hawkins, that a claim in the ad about Parker v. Hurley was *not* based upon fact?
"…what is happening in Minnesota today."
What *appears* to be happening in Minnesota today, at least from what I'm reading in the comments, is that one group of people are conducting a campaign against another group of people whose sexual preferences the first group finds abhorrent. The object of the campaign is to prevent the second group of people from marrying.
What often seems to be forgotten in these exchanges is that marriage has *both* a religious and a civil basis. There are religions, obviously, that condemn homosexuality in any and every form, and would never endorse a homosexual union. There are other religions that either don't care in the slightest, or that approve of any loving, committed relationship. What that says to me is that there doesn't appear to be a sound theological basis for the prohibition being advanced as a constitutional amendment, since there's no real consensus among religions in regard to the practice. Some hate it, some don't care, some embrace it.
The societal interest in endorsing marriage as an institution is not to *create* children. Humans do that quite readily whether marriage takes place or not. The societal interest is in *raising* children, or, if you will, in *training* children to become useful and productive citizens of the society. That's something that's not at all gender-specific, nor does it require procreative ability. Procreation *can* have a role to play in that context, but it's certainly not the be-all and end-all as a reason for the institution of marriage. If it were, marriage would have a long history of being forbidden unless and until a couple had, indeed, produced a child, and most of the societies of which I'm aware want couples to marry *before* the children begin to arrive, not after.
As others have pointed out, there are many, many childless marriages that are strictly heterosexual (a term that only goes back about a century). I don't think the advocates of a Constitutional amendment that bars same-sex marriage help their cause by insisting that procreation is the fundamental basis for marriage unless they're prepared to write off all those childless couples. That position also implies, in case it hasn't occurred to people of that viewpoint, that birth control in any form is similarly tainted, and shouldn't be used if a couple is married. Devout Catholics might nod their heads in approval, but all the statistics I've seen suggest that a sizable majority of women of every reproductive age and theological orientation, including Catholics, make regular use of birth control, a fact which basically renders the "procreation is the reason for marriage" argument facile, at best, and simply wrong at worst.
Morality is always socially defined, and historically, societies have devised some interesting value frameworks within which to operate, some of which would create this same sort of emotionally-charged reaction if they were still in place. Plenty of people convinced that same-sex marriage is an abomination don't even flinch at the prospect of killing someone via capital punishment. I'm sorry I won't be around to see how that combination is viewed by social historians and their societies a few centuries from now.
It's an old joke, but it nonetheless seems relevant in the context of this particular argument: If marriage is the foundation of Western Civilization, which of Newt Gingrich's three marriages is the one that we build the society on?
And, while I hate to bring a dose of reality into Mr. Krasnoff's world, there's at least a possibility that, even if the proposed Amendment to the Minnesota Constitution passes in November, it may well be ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court (you *know* it's going to be challenged in court if it's adopted). I'm not taking bets on that, since the current SCOTUS is a conservative one, but Supreme Court Justices stick pretty closely to precedent and established law, and if they should rule that prohibiting same-sex marriage is discriminatory on its face, and thus unconstitutional, then same-sex marriage would automatically be legal throughout the United States, including Minnesota.
If that seems far-fetched, keep in mind that the same SCOTUS ruled that prohibiting corporations from donating large sums of money to political candidates (money being defined as a form of "speech") was discriminatory on its face, and thus unconstitutional. I think it was a terrible decision, but I don't think it was "judicial fraud."
"…what is happening in Minnesota today."
Mr Schoch wrote:
"What *appears* to be happening in Minnesota today, at least from what I'm reading in the comments, is that one group of people are conducting a campaign against another group of people whose sexual preferences the first group finds abhorrent. The object of the campaign is to prevent the second group of people from marrying."
Hmm. Doesn't seem quite right.
"What *appears* to be happening in Minnesota today, at least from what I'm reading in the comments, is that one group of people are conducting a campaign against another group of people whose religious beliefs and adherence to fixed standards in civil society the first group finds abhorrent. The object of the campaign is to completely dismantle the standards of American civil society and prevent the second group of people from expressing and living by their Jewish or Christian beliefs."
There. Fixed.
Exaggerate much?
" . . . . completely dismantle the standards of American civil society"
Wow. Next thing you know we'll have dogs and cats living together . . .
Argumentum ad ridiculum
Is there a valid reason you can't provide a legitimate counterargument?
Because . . . .
it's next to impossible to argue logically with someone who continues to present hyperbole and opinion as if they are facts.
No religion will be forced to redefine their own sacraments and no individual citizen will have to view same-sex marriages as moral. Having equal access to and protection of the law is in now way an interference with your neighbor's individual conscience.
Feel free to educate your own children. If you wish to teach them that the sky is pink because you dislike blue, that's up to you. Just don't be surprised when the courts tell you that you can't sue the school district because you relegated your ability to teach your own children to the state. In other words, your religious freedoms have not been affected by your inability to teach your own kids.
If parents are still compelled by law to pay school taxes, not only are they compelled by the state to pay to teach ideologies they oppose, they must pay for schools they do not use, it also diverts money from paying for education as they see fit.
The cost of society
We're all obligated to pay taxes for things we don't use. I could walk everywhere or ride a bike, while never setting a wheel to the road, but I'd still have to pay taxes for roads. I don't have kids, but I still pay taxes for education. I pay taxes to employ firemen and police, yet I've never directly used their services. It's the price we pay for society--because it's not all about you. You reap the benefits of society due, in part, to your contribution to the things you don't use directly. You still have the choice to use or not use them. No one, even the politicians that agree with you to your face, is going to buy the argument you just put forth. You do have options for not paying taxes, though. They involve leaving society, or at least the society set up in this country. If you wish to pay taxes as if you live in a third-world country, you have to expect third-world country standards and benefits.
So, yes, wrong. If you can't afford to educate your own kids, that's not anyone else's problem but your own. But, luckily for you and many others, that's why public education is available.
And if a family can't afford private school?
They will be indoctrinated by the out and queer-friendly coursework, forcing the family to make a choice: violate their rights of conscience (guaranteed by Art. I Sec. 16 of the Minnesota Constitution) or homeschool..
If they homeschool, they will still be forcibly compelled to pay school taxes supporting a curriculum that violates their beliefs. Unless the family is freed from paying taxes for a school they don't use and for the funding of beliefs that are antithetical to their own, the government will be in violation of their constitutional liberties.
Too bad
If a teacher can "indoctrinate" your kids better than you, who should have greater access to their time and behavior, then you might want to consider whether your need to indoctrinate them into your own beliefs outweighs your need to live in a society in which you're allowed to do so.
Your argument about paying taxes and freedom and their part in the Constitution is bent. As I said before, it's not all about you (nor is there any provision in the Constitution that suggests that it is). After all, I pay taxes that support you even though your beliefs are antithetical to my own. As a specific example, the infrastructure that supports the internet and your ability to air your beliefs in public while you sit at a computer is, at least in part, paid for by MY tax dollars. And you are here trying to make me believe what you believe. There's not a single thing I can do about it. And for liberty's sake, I'm glad for it.
Following your logic, I shouldn't have to pay taxes that support schools because those schools teach that Republicans exist and that my kids shouldn't shove Republican kids on the playground because they're Republicans and we don't like what they believe. How dare they teach my kids to respect all people, even Republicans, while forcing me to pay taxes to schools! That violates my constitutional liberties!
You apparently mistakenly believe that freedom, the US Constitution, society, and social benefit are available for purchase a la carte, where you can buy the stuff you want and never dirty your plate with a morsel you dislike.
What you said
Ray, I really appreciate your thoughtful insights into current events and look forward to reading future posts.
This issue is actually kind of moot since the opponents of marriage equality have already lost the battle. Perhaps they can delay the inevitable in the short term but the generations following us overwhelmingly support marriage equality. To them it's a "given" just as is women's equality, racial equality, religious equality, etc. etc. Ironically the argument for marriage equality seamlessly intertwines with conservative arguments for "freedom".
So constitutional amendments may temporarily provide a sense of security for those unwilling to accept change, maybe get a few more of the base to the polls. But as far as I've seen in my years on this earth, the most constant constant is change.
I think you can draw an easy
I think you can draw an easy line stating that marriage must be between consenting adults.Gays and lesbians do not seek a "new" right, but merely the same right that heterosexuals have, and a right which in America is first and foremost a civil and not a religious matter. Procreative capacity has never been the basis of marriage, therefore it is irrelevant, infertile heterosexuals are allowed to marry, after all.
Purpose of marriage.
The fundamental purpose of marriage is to form a union of a man and a woman as the basis for a family, the man and the woman engaging in the procreative act, and raising the successive generation. Exceptions do not make a rule. It is biologically impossible for members of the same sex to engage in the procreative act and consummate a marriage.
You are entitled to your own opinions, Mr. Schulze. You are not entitled to your own facts.
Context matters
Actually, the "fundamental purpose of marriage" has a lot to do with the context within that question is asked.
Within a (conservative) religious context, the "fundamental purpose of marriage" is likely to be stated to be procreation.
Whereas, within a secular (and some religious) context, the "fundamental purpose of marriage" may be more often held to be for loving companionship.
In some societies, and at other points in history, the "fundamental purpose of marriage" was to cement national or political alliances.
And among the very wealthy - again at various points in history - the "fundamental purpose of marriage" was a means to ensure that money stayed within the control only certain familial lines.
See? The "fundamental purpose of marriage" isn't quite as clearcut a "fact" as you thought it was . . . .
since marriage was always in the "context" of male and female.
Learning from Mr. Swift
Isn't a good way to win your argument.
For example, avoiding facts, such as the fact that not all cultures only considered male/female pairs to be legitimate marriages. Several cultures have for quite some time been much more flexible about "marriage."
http://www.galiciae.com/nova/78210.html (in Spanish)
Another example of a poor habit to adhere to while having a reasonable conversation is dismissing another's statements with "next." This is a place where you may interact with people by conversing, not filling orders at a deli.
Learning from other "progressives"
Miss Kahler: do you really want to present as an argument for your cause based upon the Nandi and Nuer tribes in Africa, a non-western culture in Papua New Guinea, a single instance of two men in 1061 AD, and a book with (what appears to be) a homosexualist agenda?
Again, Miss Kahler, exceptions do not make a rule.
If you want to give an example of groupthink, there are better examples here at MinnPost. I have presented my arguments at Minnpost and have not received valid, fact based counterarguments and have gone unanswered.
Please, no lectures.
Again, that word. It's not what you think it means.
Anyway, yeah. I'm saying that your statement that marriage has always been in the context of one man and one woman is wrong, and those are examples of why. Are you suggesting that non-Western cultures have no bearing on your statement? That they don't count? I don't have time to dig up every counterexample to your argument. But, it only takes one to disprove your statement. If you wish to provide a reason as to why these are not valid examples, feel free. But simply stating that they're not or they are part of a "homosexualist agenda" doesn't cut it.
If you don't want lectures, don't make false statements in public. I gave you valid, fact based counterarguments; I can't help that you deny their existence.
No, they don't count.
Miss Kahler wrote:
"Are you suggesting that non-Western cultures have no bearing on your statement? That they don't count?"
Exactly. The examples you cited were exceptions to even non-western cultures. You're really digging. Again: exceptions do not make a rule.
Exceptions are perfectly valid for defeating an absolute statement, which is what you made. Besides, I'm sure there are more. I still can't see why non-Western cultures don't count. It's odd that you consider African and Asian cultures to be inadequate examples. On what basis are they inferior to Western culture examples?
You're misrepresenting my argument, whether by error or calculation. I did not state that "non-Western cultures don't count", nor did I state that "African and Asian cultures [were] inadequate examples".
I clearly stated that your examples "were exceptions to even non-western cultures."
Emphasis added: The examples Miss Kahler cited WERE EXCEPTIONS TO EVEN NON-WESTERN CULTURES.
I hope I have made my argument clear and that you understand the same.
States should not ban, even
States should not ban, even by popular vote, gays and lesbians from marrying because this would violate America's constitution by denying some couples a fundamental right without a legitimate (much less compelling) reason. Fundamental rights cannot be at the mercy of the mob, even of the majority. If heterosexual individuals have the right to marry, this same right cannot be denied to homosexual couples unless a compelling reason for the prohibition can be shown.
If and when it goes to the Supreme Court level, anything could happen. Attorneys will be facing some of the best legal minds in the country, who will see the question from very different and probably unusual or quirky angles. Even if fails there, though, the general argument has benefited from having the issue teased out so thoroughly, with the strongest arguments on both sides teased out so meticulously, in an arena when law rather than simply gut reaction matters.
I'm going to repeat my challenge
Lot of "slippery slope" deniers making hay on this subject. Defenders of science, human biology, common sense and traditional morality make the case that the national gay rights groups want to force indoctrination upon our public school children, they use the book Beth speaks of as evidence.
But I have offered clear, unambigious proof of the agenda.
So again, I challenge MinnPost to make available an unredacted, unedited copy of the "Safe Schools Manual" that is used in classrooms, starting in grade 3, in the Saint Paul public school district.
Then, let's have this discussion.
I have a copy, and will be happy to vouch for the authenticity of what is posted.
It's all well and good to make dismissive declarations regarding "slippery slopes", but I submit people in Minnesota are entitled to know the truth of what is happening in Minnesota today.
Given the effort MinnPost is putting into fighting the proposed constitutional amendment, I think in the interest of journalistic integrity, it is imparitive that the truth be told. This manual is public information, printed at public cost. There is no reason not to pubish it online.
The truth
According to you? I'll bite. Feel free to scan the document and upload it (once you get copyright permission). Go ahead and convince someone that it should be freely available online. Otherwise, I'm not particularly worried about a document that is supposed to provide "Practical strategies to make schools more safe and respectful for all students, families, and staff." Forgive me if it's not on my short list of things I'm afraid of.
Your burden of proof
You laid out a challenge. It's not up to you to tell MinnPost what to do. You made a claim, YOU prove it. If there really is a reason to be shaking in our shoes about this alleged agenda being passed through the schools as a handbook, then provide the evidence. With all due respect, the evidence so far is underwhelming. This booklet appears to provide no more than guidance on how to facilitate the creation of a respectful environment for all students and families. If you're worried about gay kids using this handbook to form a club of gay kids and kids that support gay kids, then you worry too much. But, if you want to make a big deal out of that, I'm sure I can find evidence that other special interest groups are doing the same thing--like Young Republicans.
Miss Hawkins and "rights"
Miss Hawkins wrote:
"On Oct. 7, 2008, one month before California voters were to decide whether to amend that state's constitution to strip gays and lesbians of the right to marry, opponents of same-sex marriage aired a game-changing television ad."
Exactly what right to marry existed that was going to be "stripped" from homosexuals in California? There never existed any right for same sex marriage at any time in American jurisprudence, ever - until a lawyer in robes made one up.
There's no need to be an obscurantist, Miss Hawkins.
MinnPost states:
"MinnPost is a nonprofit, nonpartisan enterprise whose mission is to provide high-quality journalism for news-intense people who care about Minnesota."
Miss Hawkins is not being non-partisan.
It may have been short-lived . . . . .
but from May to November of 2008, gays and lesbians had the right to marry.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_re_Marriage_Cases :
"On May 15, 2008, the court ruled in a 4–3 decision that laws directed at gays and lesbians are subject to strict judicial scrutiny and that marriage is a fundamental right under Article 1, Section 7 of the California Constitution, thereby holding unconstitutional the previously existing statutory ban on same-sex marriage embodied in two statutes, one enacted by the Legislature in 1977, and the other through the initiative process in 2000 (Proposition 22)."
Obscurantist, huh? You're really giving that dictionary of yours quite the workout!
More bad news for Minnesota's legislature...
So what gives the Minnesota legislature or its people a right to establish marriage laws and regulate who may marry and who may not? Is that not the same as regulating religion? It is.
"Marriage" as an institution with a deep tap root. It goes deep into the Koran, the Bible, and the history of many indigenous peoples. "Marriage" includes the Zoroastrian ceremony conducted by Dr. Framrose Bode who married my wife and I in 1969. Dr. Bode told the gathering that ceremony was several thousand years old. That ceremony supposedly was among the first of any in human history.
I realize this is a tough notion for Minnesota's legislature to fathom because they see themselves as omniscient; but the news is a world existed before Minnesota became a state or the USA became nation, and in this world people were married.
Recent Stories
Most Commented
58 comments
27 comments
19 comments
15 comments
13 comments


text: Reports and Bean Harvest to Resume October 17, 2013 05:37 AM Tweet TAGS: Marketing, Overseas December 18, 2014 By Fran Howard AgWeb Contributing Writer Email Both soybean harvest and USDA reports have resumed. Late last night the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives voted to reopen the government and raise the debt limit. The bill funds the government through mid-January and raises the debt ceiling through mid-February. The 16-day shutdown has not been without its consequences, though. Standard and Poor's says the shutdown cost the economy $24 billion and will reduce fourth-quarter gross domestic product (GDP) growth from 3% to 2.4% as a result. "The lack of USDA news has left us in limbo, trade volumes have been waning, and the markets have been quiet," says Ben Parks, risk management consultant for INTL FCStone, Kansas City. "We need news and market moving news to spur people back into action." Parks expects volume to pick up, but it could take time to get back to the pre-shutdown level. Federal workers returned to the office early Thursday, and USDA-NASS announced that it would not publish the October World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates (WASDE). USDA also said it would cancel the October 7 and 15 Crop Progress reports. The next WASDE report is scheduled for November 8. "While the lapse in federal funding has ended, NASS has not been able to engage in the necessary data collection and analysis over the past few weeks," the news release states. "NASS is assessing its data collection plans and evaluating the timing of upcoming reports." Bean harvest interrupted, too Two days of soaking rains from Mississippi to Minnesota delayed soybean harvest this week. But without the past two Crop Progress reports, which are now canceled, no one knows exactly how much progress soybean producers have actually made. While rains have eased, weather forecasts call for freezing temperatures in much of the Midwest this weekend, which could end the growing season. "Early soybean yields were highly variable, but as we get deeper into harvest—40% to 50% of the crop is likely now harvested—yields are generally better than expected," says Parks. "Seasonally the market should remain weak for 30 to 45 days, but I don't see prices reaching the July lows." Soybean prices were nearly $1/bu. lower in July that they are now. Reports from the Upper Midwest indicate that soybean yields are much better than expected near 45 bushels to 65 bushels per acre. Back to news


text:
Spring Step Filomena Pump Womens gFQdt8CxH
YP - The Real Yellow Pages SM - helps you find the right local businesses to meet your specific needs. Search results are sorted by a combination of factors to give you a set of choices in response to your search criteria. These factors are similar to those you might use to determine which business to select from a local Yellow Pages directory, including proximity to where you are searching, expertise in the specific services or products you need, and comprehensive business information to help evaluate a business's suitability for you. "Preferred" listings, or those with featured website buttons, indicate YP advertisers who directly provide information about their businesses to help consumers make more informed buying decisions. YP advertisers receive higher placement in the default ordering of search results and may appear in sponsored listings on the top, side, or bottom of the search results page.
In the first
Aetrex Krista Clog Sweater Rim XpUrzzI6w
, there was a tense disagreement about which ball to use. So for the final game of this famous 1930 competition, FIFA intervened and Argentina got to use their "Tiento" for the first half while Uruguay put in a "T-model" for the second:
For decades, each subsequent competition saw an evolution in ball design. Still, most held to a similar format made up of parallel and perpendicular leather strips — that is, until the iconic Telstar ball hit the field during a crucial period of change for at-home sports viewing.
In 1970, the United States was in the middle of transitioning to color televisions. Most households had TVs, but the majority of those were still black-and-white sets. So the new ball design featured a high-contrast array of black pentagons alternating with white hexagons.
This pattern made the ball's form and motion clearer both on the field and on home screens, a big improvement on the uniform organic colors of earlier balls. The new look also informed that year's event logo, with its dark geometric shapes against a light background (designed by
Gentle Souls Juniper Barry EaPjfuhW7
Developed by Adidas, the Telstarwas the first World Cup ball to use the now-familiar
OTBT New Wave Sneaker Womens uTIrHKhwuG
for its design, consisting of 12 black pentagonal and 20 white hexagonal panels. It has since become the world's most recognizable soccer(or: football) ball.
Following the designs' success, the same company has been designing World Cup balls ever since. They have continued to change, but the basic idea of using alternating tone patterns is often used to help players and onlookers alike keep better track of the action.
Side note: one could be forgiven for accepting at face value a widely-circulated claim that
Blondo Fay Waterproof Bootie Womens DOtjc71rWf
designed the modern soccer ball (a claim repeated in this otherwise neat ball history video):
Though he widely used triangles to create his
Nine WestScheila Block Heel Pump 8OCUE5izN
, theBuckminsterfullerene (or " SKECHERS GlidersElton HT9CPqgS
") shape named after this famous architect does strongly resemble a soccer ball. There is, however, no evidence that he was involved in the design.
In fact, the ball was named after (and looks like) a key communications satellite launched in 1962. Aportmanteau of "television" and "star," this original Telstar transmitted the first live transatlantic TV feed (as well as the first telephone and fix signals) through space.
Color and shape also aren't the only things that set the Telstar and other newer balls apart. Made out of animal bladders and stomachs, many early soccer balls naturally broke down with use. Other old variants employed cork shavings inside a leather shell, but hitting a wet leather ball (particularly with one's head) can be dangerous and painful. In the 1800s, innovations in rubber vulcanization led to sturdier new models. In more recent years, the use of thermal bonding has helped balls become more spherical and easier to handle as well.
When DENV 2-infected patients were considered individually, 3 DENV 2/IgG + patients (2056, 2287, and 2425) had viral loads (1 × 10 8 to 1 × 10 9 genomic equivalent/mL) that were up to 2 logs higher than the other patients. This might represent the antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) of DENV viral load, despite the fact that only 1 of these patients had severe manifestations of dengue (Supplementary Table 2).
There was also no significant difference in viral load between the DENV IgG + and IgG – patients infected by ZIKV (n = 44; P = .25, Mann-Whitney U test). The least significant value for this analysis was 0.70 log 10 PFU/mL; thus, the analysis had high power (90%) to detect a 10-fold difference in viral load between IgG + and IgG – patients. Moreover, no IgG + patients had dramatically higher levels of ZIKV than the IgG – patients ( Figure 1 ).
Viral load in patients with Zika virus (ZIKV) and dengue virus (DENV) serotype 2 during primary and secondary dengue infections. , Viral load quantified in ZIKV-positive patients with primary (immunoglobulin G–negative [IgG]) DENV infection (n = 10) and secondary (immunoglobulin G–positive [IgG]) DENV infection (n = 35). The Mann-Whitney test demonstrated no significant difference in viral load. , Viral load quantified in DENV 2 patients with primary (IgG) DENV infection (n = 6) and secondary (IgG) DENV infection (n = 14). The Mann-Whitney test demonstrated no significant difference in viral load. Medians with interquartile range are shown.
Viral load in patients with Zika virus (ZIKV) and dengue virus (DENV) serotype 2 during primary and secondary dengue infections. , Viral load quantified in ZIKV-positive patients with primary (immunoglobulin G–negative [IgG]) DENV infection (n = 10) and secondary (immunoglobulin G–positive [IgG]) DENV infection (n = 35). The Mann-Whitney test demonstrated no significant difference in viral load. , Viral load quantified in DENV 2 patients with primary (IgG) DENV infection (n = 6) and secondary (IgG) DENV infection (n = 14). The Mann-Whitney test demonstrated no significant difference in viral load. Medians with interquartile range are shown.
A commercial panel consisting of IFN-γ, IL-1β, IL-2, IL-4, IL-6, IL-8, IL-9, IL-10, IL-13, and IL-17 was used to analyze the levels of circulating cytokines in patients exposed to a second infection. These cytokines are involved in the "cytokine storm" phenomenon that is known to affect patients with severe dengue and which may be considered a marker of severe disease [ 7 ] (Supplementary Table 2).
John Varvatos Brooklyn Lug Boot jaTayp1M1O
Six defaults in the past century do not deter a bet on 2117
New Balance NumericAM574 QNU8dEmP9M
But they have not been equally adept at seizing the opportunity
New Balance NumericAM424 aVEpl
Three South American countries have much of the world's lithium. They take very different approaches to exploiting it
The Economist explains: The Argentine-American lemon war of 2001-2017
Peace breaks out at last
Spring Step Tirrana Clog Womens WlqLoIVK
The end of bogus accounting
Giorgio Brutini Travis Leather Driver oiXsA77
Politicians challenge the supreme court
Tasting menu: Podcast: Highlights from the April 22nd 2017 edition, in audio
Oscar de la Renta Jacky Pump F5cSC3dp4
Putting the vex in vexillology
La Canadienne Phinn aTc4G4
TVTropes is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from
PARC City BootColumbia ko6lwr
. Steve Madden Mania Strappy Sandal Womens dpbk04NVI


text:
Full Toddler Wrap Conversion Tula - Tula Mockingbird Pitaya
Baby Carrier Comes With:
- Removable hood to support baby's head while asleep, protect from sun or wind, and allow for comfortable breastfeeding
- Dual-adjustment straps to allow for the perfect fit
- Additional leg-opening and shoulder padding
- Large pocket on the contouring hip belt
- Highest quality Duraflex buckles available
- Instruction brochure
- This Baby Tula carrier is a STANDARD wrap conversion made with Tula Mockingbird Pitaya
Each Baby Tula Carrier:
- Can be used in both front carry and back carry
- Can be used from 15*-45 pounds (toddler carrier is approved for 25-50 pounds)
- Can be used from birth with the use of the revolutionary Baby Tula Infant Insert (not included), and into toddlerhood with Baby Tula Free to Grow Extenders (not included)
- Is easy to use and comfortable
- Provides an ergonomic M-position seat supporting optimal development for baby's body
- Is easy to care for and machine washable
- Is made by hand from 100% OEKO-TEX® Standard 100 certified cotton
Product Measurements:
- Panel: 18" tall & 19" wide
- Hip belt: 5" height, 28" - 55" length
- Weight of the baby carrier: 2 lbs.
- Shoulder straps: The padded part of strap, when not expanded, is 20." It is 23" when expanded. The webbing attached to the strap is additional 29" long. The toddler's strap is 18" and 21" when expanded and the webbing attached to the strap is an additional 29" long.
*Infants weighing 7 - 15 pounds must use the Baby Tula Infant Insert (sold separately). Infants more than 15 pounds (7 kg) must continue using the Baby Tula Infant Insert with the Tula Baby Carrier until the baby can hold head up consistently for an extended period of time, and is tall enough to be placed in a fully seated position with knees dangling freely at a right angle.
We do not recommend back carrying your child until 12 months, or until baby has strong and consistent head, neck, and torso control, and can push him or herself independently into, and remain in, a seated position on a consistent basis.
About Baby Tula
An award-winning industry leader, Baby Tula is proud to offer beautiful, easy-to use, versatile, and long-lasting carriers which provide a comfortable, ergonomic method of supporting the bond between caregiver and child from birth through 4 years old and beyond. Tula Baby Carriers are available in a variety of prints, making them both useful and stylish! Baby Tula is proud to meet and exceed safety standards and norms, and is a business member of the Baby Carrier Industry Alliance (BCIA).


text:
Gibson has the power!!
Reviewed By RACHELL H (Murfreesboro, TN) Reviewed for a 2003 Nissan Murano —6/24/2011 12:21 PM
Wonderful exhaust, we had it installed in less than two hours. Sounds great this exhaust has the quality finish and the power to back it up. Now to finish it off with the Cat. Great exhaust system!!


text:
This rare and highly prized molasses is a natural source of carbohydrates (sugars) and plant nutrients that have been specially tailored into liquid formulation for indoor and outdoor plants in soil and hydroponics. It can be used in conjunction with a variety of fertilizers and highly recommended for the brewing of plant teas.
— Ships separately from HF: OR, CA, CO, PA, TX, FL USA.


text:
Villager photo by Robert Stolarik
FIERCE! members marched down Christopher St. on their way to Pier 45 last Saturday.
Gay youth want Hudson Parks 1 a.m. curfew lifted
By Albert Amateau
It rained on the FIERCE! parade last Saturday, but that didnt stop about 100 queer and transgender youth and their allies from marching and chanting with banners flying from Christopher Park to Weehawken St. just off the Village waterfront.
The group (Fabulous Independent Educated Radicals for Community Empowerment) called for an end to the l a.m. closing of Hudson River Park and Pier 45, which they call a curfew, and an end to Operation West Side, the special post-midnight patrol of the West Village that the Sixth Precinct instituted this summer. The new initiative came in response to a fatal stabbing on W. 10th St. in July that resulted after an argument between a man and group of transgender youth and also in response to residents complaints about rowdy youth and prostitution.
Beginning with a 4 p.m. rally in Christopher Park just opposite the Stonewall Inn, where the lesbian and gay rebellion began 45 years ago, the event ended about three hours later after a closing rally on cobblestoned Weehawken St., a favorite route of FIERCE! A detail of police on foot and two patrol cars, one ahead of the march and another bringing up the rear, kept the parade moving and there were no arrests.
Where are we supposed to go when you close the pier? demanded Justin Anton Rosado, one of the speakers at the opening rally in Christopher Park. If you are too young to go to the clubs and bars or you have no money, where else are you supposed to go? Many of us cannot return home to our families and neighborhoods because of mental, verbal and physical harassment because we are queer, he said.
Chris Martin, a spokesperson for the Hudson River Park Trust, which is building and administers the 5-mile-long riverfront park, including Pier 45 known as Christopher St. Pier said later that the Trust follows the city practice of closing all parks at 1 a.m.
In response to charges by FIERCE! activists that the Trust would have required the group to pay $25,000 to hold its final rally and an evening event on Pier 45, Martin said that was the regular rate for a permit to use Pier 45 for an event. Use of the pier for a political rally is free, he said, but a permit is required. FIERCE! had advised the Trust one week earlier that it wanted to rally on Pier 45. But Martin said the group had not faxed the complete application to the agency until the Friday before the rally not giving the Trust time to decide.
Theyre welcome to apply for a political rally like any other group but they shouldnt do it at the last minute, Martin said.
FIERCE! held its post-rally event at the Brecht Forum on W. 27th St.
Members and friends of the group also demanded a drop-in center for homeless and queer youth who have gravitated to the Village waterfront for decades. Neutral Zone, a former drop-in center on Christopher St., closed about 10 years ago, demonstrators noted. Since then, there has been no place for transgender and gay street youths to get services such as safe-sex information, H.I.V. counseling and food. Neutral Zone closed in the midst of neighborhood complaints about violence and prostitution that residents and merchants attributed to the center.
Bob Kohler, a veteran of the 1969 Stonewall riots, also was on the Sat., Oct. 10, march expressing solidarity with the young demonstrators. So was Mel Stevens of Act Up. Observers from the Sylvia Rivera Law Project, a group of lawyers dedicated to legal protection for the transgender community, were also at the rally.
Earlier this month, several youths were arrested after street fights at Seventh Ave. and W. Fourth St., incidents that Ruth Kuzub, owner of Silversmiths, a W. Fourth St. jewelry shop, attributes to large crowds of youth going to the subway after being turned out of Pier 45 all at the same time.
If the pier were left open later, the kids would drift away gradually instead of descending on Fourth St. all at once in a mob, she said in a phone interview this week.
View our previous issues
Report Distribution Problems
The Villager is published by
Community Media LLC.
The Villager | 487 Greenwich St., Suite 6A | New York, NY 10013
Phone: 212.229.1890 | Fax: 212.229.2790
Email: email@example.com
Written permission of the publisher must be obtainedbefore any of the contents of this newspaper, in whole or in part, can be reproduced or redistributed.


text:
By Edith Honan
NEWTOWN, Connecticut (Reuters) - Former Representative Gabrielle Giffords, who survived a mass shooting in her Arizona district two years ago, visited Newtown, Connecticut, on Friday to meet with families of the victims of last month's Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre.
Giffords arrived at Newtown's town hall and met with First Selectman Pat Llodra, the town's top elected official, and School Superintendent Janet Robinson, who hugged her.
"How horrible," Giffords said as she embraced the superintendent, according to the Danbury News-Times.
Then Giffords and a small entourage, including U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut and Connecticut Lieutenant Governor Nancy Wyman, drove off.
Giffords, wearing a dark coat over a plaid top and dark pants and walking with a slight limp, climbed into her black SUV aided by her husband, former astronaut Mark Kelly, without responding to reporters' questions.
Giffords planned to attend a private event at a local home, an official had said.
Giffords' visit is three weeks to the day since 20-year-old Adam Lanza burst into the school in Newtown, about 70 miles northeast of New York City, and killed 20 first graders and six school staff members, an attack that plunged this rural New England town and the nation into grief.
President Barack Obama, who came to Newtown two days after the shooting to console the families of victims, has called December 14 the worst day of his presidency.
Giffords retired from Congress last year to focus on her recovery from the January 2011 shooting in Tucson that left six dead and 12 others wounded. Her assailant, Jared Loughner, was sentenced in November to life in prison.
Giffords, shot in the head in the attack, has become a symbol for proponents of stricter gun control in the national debate about the right to bear arms, which has grown louder since the attack in Newtown.
Kelly, her husband, tweeted after the attack: "When will we address this problem as a nation? The time is now."
Obama has responded as well, tasking Vice President Joe Biden with assembling a package of gun-control measures that the White House wants to submit to Congress in the coming weeks.
The administration's measures will meet staunch opposition from the nation's most powerful gun rights lobby, the National Rifle Association. The NRA has so far rejected calls for more stringent gun-ownership laws and instead called for armed guards in all U.S. public schools.
On Thursday, the more than 400 children who escaped from Sandy Hook without physical harm returned to school for the first time since the assault. Police were on hand to provide security at the students' new school in the neighboring town of Monroe.
The NRA's call has found some following, however. At least two New Jersey school districts this week put police guards at the entrance to public schools in the wake of the Connecticut massacre.
Police have provided no new evidence in their investigation in recent days, and the motive for Lanza's attack remains a mystery. Connecticut State Police spokesman Lt. Paul Vance has said it will be months before investigators are in a position to issue a report on the attack.
Before the attack, Lanza killed his mother, Nancy Lanza, in their home about 5 miles from the school. Lanza, who has been described by family friends as having Asperger's syndrome, a form of autism, took his own life as police arrived at the Sandy Hook school.
(Writing by Dan Burns; editing by Claudia Parsons and Kenneth Barry)


text:
Lily C. Costa, 83
Lily C. (Cabral) Costa, 83, of Dewey Lane, passed away Saturday, Nov. 10, 2007 at
the beloved wife of Francis Costa for 55 years.
Born in Providence, she was a daughter of the late Charles and Gloria (Medeiros) Cabral.
Mrs. Costa and her husband co-owned and operated the Jamestown Country Club for over 40 years before retiring. She was a communicant of St. Mark Church.
Besides her husband, she leaves a daughter, Cynthia Wolfe of Jamestown; a brother, Charles Cabral of Jamestown; three grandchildren, Richard, Daniel and Tiffany Wolfe; a great-granddaughter, Scarlet Rose Wolfe; and several nieces and nephews. She was the mother of the late Richard D. and Mark J. Costa.
Her funeral will be held today, Nov. 15, at 8:45 a.m. at the Fagan- Quinn Funeral Home, 825 Boston Neck Road, North Kingstown, with a Mass of Christian Burial at 10 a.m. in St. Mark Church, 60 Narragansett Avenue, Jamestown. Burial will be in St. Mark Cemetery.


text:
Shopping Cart 0United Kingdom
Recently added item(s) ×
You have no items in your shopping cart.
- Features
- Specifications
- Ci Software Download
Ventura 6Weatherproof, IP65 certified and salt spray tested, marine quality Ventura Series outdoor models can flood your pool, garden or yacht with high quality sound, even in the most extreme atmospheric conditions.
Key Features
- Weatherproof sealed enclosure
- Salt spray tested for over 1200 hours
- Operating temperature range: -40 to +70 C (-40 to +158 F)
- Independent test lab certified IP65
- Aluminium grille and mounting bracket, 1/4"-20 threaded inserts for mounting options
- Stainless steel / brass hardware
- Rotatable logo
Additional Information
|Two-way Sealed box
|Nominal Impedance
|6 Ohms
|90dB (at 1m on axis for an input of 2.83v)
|Frequency Response
|54Hz - 20kHz (±6dB)
|Crossover Frequencies
|Drive Units
|HF Unit : 25mm Tweeter (Fluid Cooled Aluminium)
LF Unit : 160mm (6.5in.)
|Recommended Amplifier Power
|10 - 125 Watts
|Product external dimensions
|H x W x D
300 x 226 x 219 mm (11.8 x 9 x 8.6 in.) Cabinet only
300 x 226 x 263.5 mm (11.8 x 9 x 10.375 in.) With bracket and knobs
|Net Weight
|3.8kg (8.4lbs)
|Unit measurement
|Document Download
|Ci Series Pamphlet
Outdoor series brochure
Information sheet
User Manual
EASE GLL Data
Product Drawing
|Ventura 6 Independent test laboratory certified IP65. GP Acoustics (UK) Ltd, reserve the right, in line with continuous research and development, to amend or change the specifications without prior notice. E. & O.E.
Ci Software Download
1. KEF Speaker Placement ToolCreated by KEF UK engineering, the "KEF Speaker Placement Tool" is a software program* designed to assist you in the placement and layout of KEF Ci loudspeakers. Able to accommodate both 70V/100V and stereo music systems the software will graphically show room sound coverage, show speaker layout, and to provide wiring diagrams. For your convenience room layouts can be saved, printed, exported, and retrieved for future reference.
Download Ci Software
* KEF Speaker Placement Tool currently runs only on Windows based machines. Due to a compatibility issue between the "KEF Ci Speaker Placement Tool" and the latest version of Java, previous versions of the "KEF Ci Speaker Placement Tool" may not run. To correct this problem please uninstall the KEF Ci Software and then download and install the latest version from the link on this page.
2. KASA500 Software Update ToolKASA500 is a powerful Class-D Dual 250WPC amplifier. This DSP controlled system amplifier is optimized to deliver thunderous bass from KEF Ci subwoofers. With both line and speaker level inputs, and DSP configurable pass-through with optional high pass filters – the KASA500 is versatile and can be deployed in limitless system configurations. To allow for future flexibility KEF engineers may update the KASA500 DSP firmware to optimize performance with additional KEF speakers. The KASA500 Programmer* is a proprietary tool for updating the KASA500 firmware. NOTE: KASA500 software requires a "USB Type A Male to USB Type A Male cable" for connection between your computer and the KASA500.
Download KASA500 Programmer
Download KASA500 Firmware Rev. 10.04 - The latest KASA500 Firmware provides settings for KEF Ci subwoofer models Ci3160RLb-THX, Ci200QSb-THX, Ci200TRb and Ci4100QLb with THX certified performance (if applicable) in both mono and stereo mode.
Download KASA500 EQ setting dip switch chart
Download KASA500 user manual - KASA500 manual includes installation diagrams for both home theater and music sub/satellite installations.
* KEF KASA500 Programmer currently runs only on Windows based machines.


text:
Book Review: Classic American Short Stories compiled by Michael Kelahan
This book is more or less exactly what it says in the title, a compilation of short(ish) stories written by American authors, most of which are acknowledged as classics by American Lit professors. The stories are arranged by author in roughly chronological order from the early Nineteenth Century to the 1920s to stay safely in the public domain.
The fifty-one stories included begin with Washington Irving's "Rip Van Winkle", a tall tale about a henpecked husband who drinks ghostly beer and sleeps for twenty years, right through the American Revolution. The book ends with "Winter Dreams" by F. Scott Fitzgerald. A young man from Minnesota finds great success in the laundry business, but heartache when the woman he loves cannot settle for just him. In between are ones that are very familiar to me, like "The Telltale Heart" by Edgar Allen Poe (a murderer confesses his crime in an effort to prove his sanity) and stories that were new to me, like "The Revolt of 'Mother'" by Mary E. Wilkins Freeman (a New England woman, tired of an unkept promise, takes matters into her own hands.)
There's a wide variety of genres represented, from "realistic" slice of life stories through mystery and fantasy to outright horror. The chronological order highlights the changing social attitudes depicted in the stories, particularly the two Edith Wharton stories about divorce. Women are reasonably well-represented, and there are a couple of writers of color as well.
Of course, just because a story is "classic" does not mean it will appeal to everyone. I found Henry James' novella "The Aspern Papers" (literary buff infiltrates the household of a famous poet's ex-lover in an effort to gain any memorabilia she might have of him) tedious and predictable. I am not alone in this, but many other readers have found it fascinating.
Content issues: Many of these stories have elements of period racism, sexism and classism; sometimes it's dealt with within the story itself, but other times it pops up as a nasty surprise. "Paul's Case" by Willa Cather, about a boy who wants the finer things in life without the tedium of putting in decades of hard labor to get them, deals with suicide.
This is a Barnes & Noble collector's edition, and is quite handsome and sturdy, with a leather binding, gilt-edged pages and a silk bookmark for a reasonable price. However, the fact that it has a "compiler" rather than an editor is telling. There are scattered typos; I do not know if they were caused by errors in transcription, or if the sources were not scrutinized carefully enough. The author bios at the end are not quite in alphabetical order, and miss out Washington Irving altogether.
Overall, most of these stories are worth reading at least once, and many are worth rereading over the years. Highly recommended to people who don't already have their favorites from this collection in a physical book, or are curious about the stories they haven't read yet. It'd also make a nice gift for your bookworm friend or relative.