text:
Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw's Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you're ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The Wyoming Legislature consists of a Senate and a House of Representatives. The State Constitution provides that each of the State's 23 counties shall constitute a senatorial and representative district and shall have at least one senator and one representative, and requires the senators and representatives to be apportioned among the counties "as nearly as may be according to the number of their inhabitants." A 1981 Wyoming statute reapportioned the House of Representatives and provided for 64 representatives. Based on the 1980 census placing Wyoming's population at 469,557, the ideal apportionment would have been 7,337 persons per representative. But the reapportionment resulted in an average deviation from population equality of 16% and a maximum deviation of 89%. Niobrara County, the State's least populous county, was given one representative, even though its population was only 2,924, the legislature having provided that a county would have a representative even if the statutory formula rounded the county's population to zero. The legislature also provided that if Niobrara County's representation were held unconstitutional, it would be combined with a neighboring county in a single district so that the House would consist of 63 representatives. Appellants (members of the League of Women Voters and residents of seven counties in which the population per representative is greater than the state average) filed an action in Federal District Court, alleging that granting Niobrara County a representative diluted the voting privileges of appellants and other voters similarly situated in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The District Court upheld the constitutionality of the reapportionment statute.
Wyoming has not violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by permitting Niobrara County to have its own representative. Pp. 842-848.
POWELL, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C. J., and REHNQUIST, STEVENS, and O'CONNOR, JJ., joined. O'CONNOR, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which STEVENS, J., joined, post, p. 848. BRENNAN, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which WHITE, MARSHALL, and BLACKMUN, JJ., joined, post, p. 850.
Sue Davidson argued the cause and filed a brief for appellants.
Randall T. Cox, Assistant Attorney General of Wyoming, argued the cause pro hac vice for appellees Thyra Thomson et al. With him on the brief were A. G. McClintock, Attorney General, and Peter J. Mulvaney, Deputy Attorney General. Richard Barrett filed a brief for appellees James L. Thomson et al. [462 U.S. 835, 837]
JUSTICE POWELL delivered the opinion of the Court.
The issue is whether the State of Wyoming violated the Equal Protection Clause by allocating one of the 64 seats in its House of Representatives to a county the population of which is considerably lower than the average population per state representative.
Since Wyoming became a State in 1890, its legislature has consisted of a Senate and a House of Representatives. The State's Constitution provides that each of the State's counties "shall constitute a senatorial and representative district" and that "[e]ach county shall have at least one senator and one representative." The senators and representatives are required to be "apportioned among the said counties as nearly as may be according to the number of their inhabitants." Wyo. Const., Art. 3, 3. 1 The State has had 23 counties since 1922. Because the apportionment of the Wyoming House has been challenged three times in the past 20 years, some background is helpful.
In 1963 voters from the six most populous counties filed suit in the District Court for the District of Wyoming challenging the apportionment of the State's 25 senators and 61 representatives. The three-judge District Court held that the apportionment of the Senate - one senator allocated to each of the State's 23 counties, with the two largest counties having two senators - so far departed from the principle of population equality that it was unconstitutional. Schaefer v. Thomson, 240 F. Supp. 247, 251-252 (Wyo. 1964), supplemented, [462 U.S. 835, 838] 251 F. Supp. 450 (1965), aff'd sub nom. Harrison v. Schaefer, 383 U.S. 269 (1966). 2 But the court upheld the apportionment of the State House of Representatives. The State's constitutional requirement that each county shall have at least one representative had produced deviations from population equality: the average deviation from the ideal number of residents per representative was 16%, while the maximum percentage deviation between largest and smallest number of residents per representative was 90%. See 1 App. Exhibits 16. The District Court held that these population disparities were justifiable as "the result of an honest attempt, based on legitimate considerations, to effectuate a rational and practical policy for the house of representatives under conditions as they exist in Wyoming." 240 F. Supp., at 251.
The 1971 reapportionment of the House was similar to that in 1963, with an average deviation of 15% and a maximum deviation of 86%. 1 App. Exhibits 18. Another constitutional challenge was brought in the District Court. The three-judge court again upheld the apportionment of the House, observing that only "five minimal adjustments" had been made since 1963, with three districts gaining a representative and two districts losing a representative because of population shifts. Thompson v. Thomson, 344 F. Supp. 1378, 1380 (Wyo. 1972).
The present case is a challenge to Wyoming's 1981 statute reapportioning its House of Representatives in accordance with the requirements of Art. 3, 3, of the State Constitution. Wyo. Stat. 28-2-109 (Supp. 1983). 3 The 1980 census [462 U.S. 835, 839] placed Wyoming's population at 469,557. The statute provided for 64 representatives, meaning that the ideal apportionment would be 7,337 persons per representative. Each county was given one representative, including the six counties the population of which fell below 7,337. The deviations from population equality were similar to those in prior decades, with an average deviation of 16% and a maximum deviation of 89%. See 1 App. Exhibits 19-20.
The issue in this case concerns only Niobrara County, the State's least populous county. Its population of 2,924 is less than half of the ideal district of 7,337. Accordingly, the general statutory formula would have dictated that its population for purposes of representation be rounded down to zero. See 28-2-109(a)(ii). This would have deprived Niobrara County of its own representative for the first time since it became a county in 1913. The state legislature found, however, that "the opportunity for oppression of the people of this state or any of them is greater if any county is deprived a representative in the legislature than if each is guaranteed at least one (1) representative." 4 It therefore followed the [462 U.S. 835, 840] State Constitution's requirement and expressly provided that a county would receive a representative even if the statutory formula rounded the county's population to zero. 28-2-109(a)(iii). Niobrara County thus was given one seat in a 64-seat House. The legislature also provided that if this representation for Niobrara County were held unconstitutional, it would be combined with a neighboring county in a single representative district. The House then would consist of 63 representatives. 28-2-109(a)(iv).
Appellants, members of the state League of Women Voters and residents of seven counties in which the population per representative is greater than the state average, filed this lawsuit in the District Court for the District of Wyoming. They alleged that "[b]y granting Niobrara County a representative to which it is not statutorily entitled, the voting privileges of Plaintiffs and other citizens and electors of Wyoming similarly situated have been improperly and illegally diluted in violation of the 14th Amendment . . . ." App. 3-4. They sought declaratory and injunctive relief that would prevent the State from giving a separate representative to Niobrara [462 U.S. 835, 841] County, thus implementing the alternative plan calling for 63 representatives.
The three-judge District Court upheld the constitutionality of the statute. 536 F. Supp. 780 (1982). The court noted that the narrow issue presented was the alleged discriminatory effect of a single county's representative, and concluded, citing expert testimony, that "the `dilution' of the plaintiffs' votes is de minimis when Niobrara County has its own representative." Id., at 783. The court also found that Wyoming's policy of granting a representative to each county was rational and, indeed, particularly well suited to the special needs of Wyoming. Id., at 784. 5
We noted probable jurisdiction, 459 U.S. 819 (1982), and now affirm. [462 U.S. 835, 842]
In Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 568 (1964), the Court held that "the Equal Protection Clause requires that the seats in both houses of a bicameral state legislature must be apportioned on a population basis." This holding requires only "that a State make an honest and good faith effort to construct districts . . . as nearly of equal population as is practicable," for "it is a practical impossibility to arrange legislative districts so that each one has an identical number of residents, or citizens, or voters." Id., at 577. See Gaffney v. Cummings, 412 U.S. 735, 745 -748 (1973) (describing various difficulties in measurement of population).
We have recognized that some deviations from population equality may be necessary to permit the States to pursue other legitimate objectives such as "maintain[ing] the integrity of various political subdivisions" and "provid[ing] for compact districts of contiguous territory." Reynolds, supra, at 578. As the Court stated in Gaffney, "[a]n unrealistic overemphasis on raw population figures, a mere nose count in the districts, may submerge these other considerations and itself furnish a ready tool for ignoring factors that in day-to-day operation are important to an acceptable representation and apportionment arrangement." 412 U.S., at 749 .
In view of these considerations, we have held that "minor deviations from mathematical equality among state legislative districts are insufficient to make out a prima facie case of invidious discrimination under the Fourteenth Amendment so as to require justification by the State." Id., at 745. Our decisions have established, as a general matter, that an apportionment plan with a maximum population deviation under 10% falls within this category of minor deviations. See, e. g., Connor v. Finch, 431 U.S. 407, 418 (1977); White v. Regester, 412 U.S. 755, 764 (1973). A plan with larger [462 U.S. 835, 843] disparities in population, however, creates a prima facie case of discrimination and therefore must be justified by the State. See Swann v. Adams, 385 U.S. 440, 444 (1967) ("De minimis deviations are unavoidable, but variations of 30% among senate districts and 40% among house districts can hardly be deemed de minimis and none of our cases suggests that differences of this magnitude will be approved without a satisfactory explanation grounded on acceptable state policy"). The ultimate inquiry, therefore, is whether the legislature's plan "may reasonably be said to advance [a] rational state policy" and, if so, "whether the population disparities among the districts that have resulted from the pursuit of this plan exceed constitutional limits." Mahan v. Howell, 410 U.S. 315, 328 (1973).
In this case there is no question that Niobrara County's deviation from population equality - 60% below the mean - is more than minor. There also can be no question that Wyoming's constitutional policy - followed since statehood - of using counties as representative districts and ensuring that each county has one representative is supported by substantial and legitimate state concerns. In Abate v. Mundt, 403 U.S. 182, 185 (1971), the Court held that "a desire to preserve the integrity of political subdivisions may justify an apportionment plan which departs from numerical equality." See Mahan v. Howell, supra, at 329. Indeed, the Court in Reynolds v. Sims, supra, singled out preservation of political subdivisions as a clearly legitimate policy. See 377 U.S., at 580 -581.
Moreover, it is undisputed that Wyoming has applied this factor in a manner "free from any taint of arbitrariness or discrimination." Roman v. Sincock, 377 U.S. 695, 710 (1964). The State's policy of preserving county boundaries is based on the State Constitution, has been followed for decades, and has been applied consistently throughout the State. As the [462 U.S. 835, 844] District Court found, this policy has particular force, given the peculiar size and population of the State and the nature of its governmental structure. See n. 5, supra; 536 F. Supp., at 784. In addition, population equality is the sole other criterion used, and the State's apportionment formula ensures that population deviations are no greater than necessary to preserve counties as representative districts. See Mahan v. Howell, supra, at 326 (evidence is clear that the plan "`produces the minimum deviation above and below the norm, keeping intact political boundaries'"). Finally, there is no evidence of "a built-in bias tending to favor particular political interests or geographic areas." Abate v. Mundt, supra, at 187. As Judge Doyle stated below:
Here we are not required to decide whether Wyoming's nondiscriminatory adherence to county boundaries justifies the population deviations that exist throughout Wyoming's representative districts. Appellants deliberately have limited their challenge to the alleged dilution of their voting power resulting from the one representative given to Niobrara County. 8 The issue therefore is not whether a 16% average deviation and an 89% maximum deviation, considering the state apportionment plan as a whole, are constitutionally permissible. Rather, the issue is whether Wyoming's policy of preserving county boundaries justifies the additional deviations from population equality resulting from the provision of representation to Niobrara County. 9 [462 U.S. 835, 847]
It scarcely can be denied that in terms of actual effect on appellants' voting power, it matters little whether the 63-member or 64-member House is used. The District Court noted, for example, that the seven counties in which appellants reside will elect 28 representatives under either plan. The only difference, therefore, is whether they elect 43.75% of the legislature (28 of 64 members) or 44.44% of the legislature (28 of 63 members). 536 F. Supp., at 783. 10 The District Court aptly described this difference as "de minimis." Ibid.
We do not suggest that a State is free to create and allocate an additional representative seat in any way it chooses simply because that additional seat will have little or no effect on the remainder of the State's voters. The allocation of a representative to a particular political subdivision still may violate the Equal Protection Clause if it greatly exceeds the population variations existing in the rest of the State and if the State provides no legitimate justifications for the creation of that seat. Here, however, considerable population variations will remain even if Niobrara County's representative is eliminated. Under the 63-member plan, the average deviation per representative would be 13% and the maximum deviation would be 66%. See 1 App. Exhibits 22. These statistics make clear that the grant of a representative to Niobrara County is not a significant cause of the population deviations that exist in Wyoming.
Moreover, we believe that the differences between the two plans are justified on the basis of Wyoming's longstanding and legitimate policy of preserving county boundaries. See supra, at 841, n. 5, and 843-844. Particularly where there is no "taint of arbitrariness or discrimination," Roman v. Sincock, 377 U.S., at 710 , substantial deference is to be accorded the political decisions of the people of a State acting [462 U.S. 835, 848] through their elected representatives. Here it is noteworthy that by enacting the 64-member plan the State ensured that its policy of preserving county boundaries applies nondiscriminatorily. The effect of the 63-member plan would be to deprive the voters of Niobrara County of their own representative, even though the remainder of the House of Representatives would be constituted so as to facilitate representation of the interests of each county. See 536 F. Supp., at 784; id., at 786 (Doyle, J., specially concurring). In these circumstances, we are not persuaded that Wyoming has violated the Fourteenth Amendment by permitting Niobrara County to have its own representative.
The judgment of the District Court is
[ Footnote 2 ] An example of the disparity in population was that Laramie County, the most populous county in the State, had two senators for its 60,149 people, whereas Teton County, the least populous county in the State, had one senator for its 3,062 people. See Schaefer v. Thomson, 240 F. Supp., at 250, n. 3.
[ Footnote 3 ] Wyoming Stat. 28-2-109 (Supp. 1982) provides in relevant part:
[ Footnote 4 ] The legislature made the following findings:
[ Footnote 5 ] The District Court stated:
[ Footnote 6 ] In contrast, many of our prior decisions invalidating state apportionment plans were based on the lack of proof that deviations from population equality were the result of a good-faith application of legitimate districting criteria. See, e. g., Chapman v. Meier, 420 U.S. 1, 25 (1975) ("It is far from apparent that North Dakota policy currently requires or favors strict adherence to political lines. . . . Furthermore, a plan devised by [the Special Master] demonstrates that . . . the policy of maintaining township lines [does not] preven[t] attaining a significantly lower population variance"); Kilgarlin v. Hill, 386 U.S. 120, 124 (1967) (per curiam) (District Court did not "demonstrate why or how respect for the integrity of county lines required the particular deviations" or "articulate any satisfactory grounds for rejecting at least two other plans presented to the court, which respected [462 U.S. 835, 845] county lines but which produced substantially smaller deviations"); Swann v. Adams, 385 U.S. 440, 445 -446 (1967) (no evidence presented that would justify the population disparities).
[ Footnote 7 ] As the Reynolds Court explained:
This discussion in Reynolds is illustrated by the senatorial districts in Wyoming that were invalidated in 1963. Each county in the State had one senator, while the two largest counties had two. Because county population varied substantially, extremely large disparities in population per senator resulted. The six most populous counties, with approximately 65% of the State's population, had eight senators, whereas the six least populous counties, with approximately 8% of the population, had six senators. See Schaefer v. Thomson, 240 F. Supp., at 251, n. 5. The Wyoming House of Representatives presents a different case because the number of representatives is substantially larger than the number of counties.
[ Footnote 8 ] Counsel for appellants, who represent the state League of Women Voters, explained at oral argument: "[A] referendum had been passed by the League of Women Voters which authorized the attack of only that one portion of the reapportionment plan. It was felt by the membership or by the leadership of that group that no broader authority would ever be given because of the political ramifications and arguments that would be presented by the membership in attacking or considering . . . that broader authority." Tr. of Oral Arg. 8.
[ Footnote 9 ] The dissent suggests that we are required to pass upon the constitutionality of the apportionment of the entire Wyoming House of Representatives. See post, at 857-859 (BRENNAN, J., dissenting). Although in some prior cases challenging the apportionment of one legislative house the Court has addressed the constitutionality of the other house's apportionment as well, we never have held that a court is required to do so. For example, in Gaffney v. Cummings, 412 U.S. 735 (1973), we considered only the apportionment of the Connecticut General Assembly, noting expressly that the "Senate plan was not challenged in the District Court" and that "[a]ppellees do not challenge the Senate districts on the ground of their population deviations." Id., at 739, n. 5. In this case, we see no reason why appellants should not be bound by the choices they made when filing this lawsuit.
[ Footnote 10 ] Similarly, appellees note that under the 64-member plan, 46.65% of the State's voters theoretically could elect 51.56% of the representatives. Under the 63-member plan, 46.65% of the population could elect 50.79% of the representatives. See 1 App. Exhibits 32-33.
JUSTICE O'CONNOR, with whom JUSTICE STEVENS joins, concurring.
By its decisions today in this case and in Karcher v. Daggett, ante, p. 725, the Court upholds, in the former, the allocation of one representative to a county in a state legislative plan with an 89% maximum deviation from population equality and strikes down, in the latter, a congressional reapportionment plan for the State of New Jersey where the maximum deviation is 0.6984%. As a Member of the majority in both cases, I feel compelled to explain the reasons for my joinder in these apparently divergent decisions.
In my view, the "one-person, one-vote" principle is the guiding ideal in evaluating both congressional and legislative redistricting schemes. In both situations, however, ensuring equal representation is not simply a matter of numbers. There must be flexibility in assessing the size of the deviation against the importance, consistency, and neutrality of the state policies alleged to require the population disparities.
Both opinions recognize this need for flexibility in examining the asserted state policies. 1 In Karcher, New Jersey [462 U.S. 835, 849] has not demonstrated that the population variances in congressional districts were necessary to preserve minority voting strength - the only justification offered by the State. Ante, at 742-744. Here, by contrast, there can be no doubt that the population deviation resulting from the provision of one representative to Niobrara County is the product of the consistent and nondiscriminatory application of Wyoming's longstanding policy of preserving county boundaries.
In addition, as the Court emphasizes, in this case we are not required to decide whether, and do not suggest that, "Wyoming's nondiscriminatory adherence to county boundaries justifies the population deviations that exist throughout Wyoming's representative districts." Ante, at 846. Thus, the relevant percentage in this case is not the 89% maximum deviation when the State of Wyoming is viewed as a whole, but the additional deviation from equality produced by the allocation of one representative to Niobrara County. Ibid.
In this regard, I would emphasize a point acknowledged by the majority. See ante, at 844-845. Although the maximum deviation figure is not the controlling element in an apportionment challenge, even the consistent and nondiscriminatory application of a legitimate state policy cannot justify substantial population deviations throughout the State where the effect would be to eviscerate the one-person, one-vote principle. In short, as the Court observes, ibid., there is clearly [462 U.S. 835, 850] some outer limit to the magnitude of the deviation that is constitutionally permissible even in the face of the strongest justifications.
In the past, this Court has recognized that a state legislative apportionment scheme with a maximum population deviation exceeding 10% creates a prima facie case of discrimination. See, e. g., Connor v. Finch, 431 U.S. 407, 418 (1977). Moreover, in Mahan v. Howell, 410 U.S. 315, 329 (1973), we suggested that a 16.4% maximum deviation "may well approach tolerable limits." 2 I have the gravest doubts that a statewide legislative plan with an 89% maximum deviation could survive constitutional scrutiny despite the presence of the State's strong interest in preserving county boundaries. I join the Court's opinion on the understanding that nothing in it suggests that this Court would uphold such a scheme.
[ Footnote 1 ] As the Court notes in this case: "[C]onsideration must be given `to the character as well as the degree of deviations from a strict population [462 U.S. 835, 849] basis.'. . . The consistency of application and the neutrality of effect of the nonpopulation criteria must be considered along with the size of the population disparities in determining whether a state legislative apportionment plan contravenes the Equal Protection Clause." Ante, at 845-846. Similarly, in Karcher, the Court observes:
[ Footnote 2 ] The Court has recognized that States enjoy a somewhat greater degree of latitude as to population disparities in a state legislative apportionment scheme, which is tested under Equal Protection Clause standards, than in a congressional redistricting scheme, for which the Court has held that Art. I, 2, of the Constitution provides the governing standard. White v. Regester, 412 U.S. 755, 763 (1973).
JUSTICE BRENNAN, with whom JUSTICE WHITE, JUSTICE MARSHALL, and JUSTICE BLACKMUN join, dissenting.
The Court today upholds a reapportionment scheme for a state legislature featuring an 89% maximum deviation and a 16% average deviation from population equality. I cannot agree.
Although I disagree with today's holding, it is worth stressing how extraordinarily narrow it is, and how empty of likely precedential value. The Court goes out of its way to make clear that because appellants have chosen to attack only one small feature of Wyoming's reapportionment scheme, the Court weighs only the marginal unequalizing effect of that one feature, and not the overall constitutionality of the entire scheme. Ante, at 846, and nn. 8, 9; see ante, [462 U.S. 835, 851] at 849 (O'CONNOR, J., concurring). Hence, although in my view the Court reaches the wrong result in the case at hand, it is unlikely that any future plaintiffs challenging a state reapportionment scheme as unconstitutional will be so unwise as to limit their challenge to the scheme's single most objectionable feature. Whether this will be a good thing for the speed and cost of constitutional litigation remains to be seen. But at least plaintiffs henceforth will know better than to exercise moderation or restraint in mounting constitutional attacks on state apportionment statutes, lest they forfeit their small claim by omitting to assert a big one.
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that a State, in apportioning its legislature, "make an honest and good faith effort to construct districts . . . as nearly of equal population as is practicable." Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 577 (1964). Under certain conditions the Constitution permits small deviations from absolute equality in state legislative districts, 1 but we have carefully circumscribed the range of permissible deviations as to both degree and kind. What is required is "a faithful adherence to a plan of population-based representation, with such minor deviations only as may occur in recognizing certain factors that are free from any taint of arbitrariness or discrimination." Roman v. Sincock, 377 U.S. 695, 710 (1964). "[T]he overriding objective must be substantial equality of population among the various districts, so that the vote of any citizen is approximately equal in weight to that of any other citizen in the State." Reynolds, supra, at 579. [462 U.S. 835, 852]
Our cases since Reynolds have clarified the structure of constitutional inquiry into state legislative apportionments, setting up what amounts to a four-step test. First, a plaintiff must show that the deviations at issue are sufficiently large to make out a prima facie case of discrimination. We have come to establish a rough threshold of 10% maximum deviation from equality (adding together the deviations from average district size of the most underrepresented and most overrepresented districts); below that level, deviations will ordinarily be considered de minimis. Ante, at 842-843; Connor v. Finch, 431 U.S. 407, 418 (1977); White v. Regester, 412 U.S. 755, 763 -764 (1973). Second, a court must consider the quality of the reasons advanced by the State to explain the deviations. Acceptable reasons must be "legitimate considerations incident to the effectuation of a rational state policy," Reynolds, supra, at 579, and must be "free from any taint of arbitrariness or discrimination," Roman, supra, at 710. See Mahan v. Howell, 410 U.S. 315, 325 -326 (1973). Third, the State must show that "the state policy urged . . . to justify the divergences . . . is, indeed, furthered by the plan," id., at 326. This necessarily requires a showing that any deviations from equality are not significantly greater than is necessary to serve the State's asserted policy; if another plan could serve that policy substantially as well while providing smaller deviations from equality, it can hardly be said that the larger deviations advance the policy. See, e. g., Kilgarlin v. Hill, 386 U.S. 120, 123 -124 (1967); Mahan, supra, at 319-320, 326; Connor, supra, at 420-421. Fourth, even if the State succeeds in showing that the deviations in its plan are justified by their furtherance of a rational state policy, the court must nevertheless consider whether they are small enough to be constitutionally tolerable. "For a State's policy urged in justification of disparity in district population, however rational, cannot constitutionally be permitted to emasculate the goal of substantial population equality." Mahan, supra, at 326. [462 U.S. 835, 853]
It takes little effort to show that Wyoming's 1981 House of Representatives apportionment is manifestly unconstitutional under the test established by our cases, whether one considers the instance of Niobrara County alone or in combination with the large deviations present in the rest of the scheme.
It is conceded all around, of course, that appellants have shown a prima facie case of discrimination. Wyoming's 89% maximum deviation greatly exceeds our "under 10%" threshold; indeed, so great is the inequality in this plan that even its 16% average deviation from ideal district size exceeds the threshold we have set for maximum deviations. On the other hand, one might reasonably concede that the State has met the second and third steps. Wyoming's longstanding policy of using counties as the basic units of representation is a rational one, found by the District Court to be untainted by arbitrariness or discrimination. It appears as well that the deviations at issue could not be reduced (at least not without substantially increasing the size of the House of Representatives) consistently with Wyoming's goals of using county lines and assuring each county at least one representative. It cannot plausibly be argued, however, that Wyoming's plan passes the fourth test - that its deviations, even if justified by state policy, be within the constitutionally tolerable range of size.
We have warned that although maintenance of county or other political boundaries can justify small deviations, it cannot be allowed to negate the fundamental principle of one person, one vote. E. g., Connor, supra, at 419. Likewise, we have recognized that it may not always be feasible, within constitutional constraints, to guarantee each county or subdivision a representative of its own. "Carried too far, a scheme of giving at least one seat in one house to each political subdivision (for example, to each county) could easily result, in many States, in a total subversion of the equal-population [462 U.S. 835, 854] principle in that legislative body." Reynolds, 377 U.S., at 581 (footnote omitted); see Mahan, supra, at 349, n. 11 (BRENNAN, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). And we have unambiguously rejected reliance on the very factor the State urges as the reason for its plan, stating that sparseness of population, far from excusing deviations from equality, actually increases the need for equality among districts:
As the Court implicitly acknowledges, ante, at 843, Niobrara County's overrepresentation - 60% compared to the ideal district size - cannot be considered "the kind of `minor' variatio[n] which Reynolds v. Sims indicated might be justified by local policies counseling the maintenance of established political subdivisions in apportionment plans." Kilgarlin, 386 U.S., at 123 . In Kilgarlin, we expressed strong doubt that the 26% maximum deviation there could ever be permitted, ibid. In Mahan, we warned that a 16.4% maximum deviation, even though fully justified by state policy, "may well approach tolerable limits." 410 U.S., at 329 . See also Abate v. Mundt, 403 U.S. 182, 187 (1971). Here, by contrast, Niobrara County voters are given more than two and a half times the voting strength of the average Wyoming voter, [462 U.S. 835, 855] and more than triple the voting strength of voters in some counties. 2 "[I]f a State should provide that the votes of citizens in one part of the State should be given two times, or five times, or 10 times the weight of votes of citizens in another part of the State, it could hardly be contended that the right to vote of those residing in the disfavored areas had not been effectively diluted." Reynolds, supra, at 562. The creation of this district represents not a deviation from the principle of population equality, but an absolute disregard of it. Niobrara County, alone in the State, has been allocated a seat "on a basis wholly unrelated to population." WMCA, Inc. v. Lomenzo, 377 U.S. 633, 645 (1964). This hardly constitutes "a faithful adherence to a plan of population-based representation." Roman, 377 U.S., at 710 .
If the rest of the State is considered as well, the picture becomes even worse. The scheme's treatment of Niobrara County is not a single, isolated abuse, but merely the worst of many objectionable features. Of Wyoming's 23 counties, only 9 are within as much as 10% of population proportionality. The populations per representative of Sublette and Crook Counties are, respectively, 38% and 28% below the statewide average; those of Washakie and Teton Counties are 29% and 28%, respectively, above that figure. The average deviation from ideal district size is 16%. The figures could be spun out further, but it is unnecessary. It is not surprising, then, that the Court makes no effort to uphold the plan as a whole. On the contrary, at least two Members of the majority express their "gravest doubts that a statewide legislative plan with an 89% maximum deviation could survive [462 U.S. 835, 856] constitutional scrutiny despite the presence of the State's strong interest in preserving county boundaries." Ante, at 850 (O'CONNOR, J., joined by STEVENS, J., concurring).
The Court attempts to escape these stark facts through two lines of reasoning, each relying on an unspoken legal premise. Neither withstands examination.
First, the Court apparently assumes that the only aspect of unequal representation that matters is the degree of vote dilution suffered by any one individual voter. See ante, at 847. The Court is mistaken. Severe dilution of the votes of a relatively small number of voters is perhaps the most disturbing result that may attend invalid apportionments, because those unfortunate victims may be virtually disfranchised. It is not the sole evil to be combated, however. It is equally illegal to enact a scheme under which a small group is greatly overrepresented, at the expense of all other voters in the State. Such a "rotten borough" 3 plan does tend to yield small figures supposedly measuring the harm to single individuals, as the Court's opinion illustrates; but that analysis overlooks the fact that very large numbers of persons are adversely affected. 4 It is the principle of equal representation, as well as the votes of individual plaintiffs, that a State may not dilute. Reynolds, supra, at 578. Just as the Equal Protection Clause does not permit a small class of voters to be deprived of fair and equal voting power, so does it forbid the elevation of a small class of "supervoters" granted an extraordinarily powerful franchise. We would not permit Wyoming, in its legislative elections, to grant a double- or triple-counted vote to 2,924 voters because they were named Jones, or because they were licensed to practice law - even though such an enactment would, by the Court's reasoning, have [462 U.S. 835, 857] only a de minimis effect on the rights of the rest of Wyoming's voters. Why, then, is it permissible to create such an exalted class based on location of residence?
The Court relies more directly on its unspoken assumption that we may judge the constitutionality of Niobrara County's representation by first severing that feature from the rest of the scheme, and then weighing it only by its incremental effect in increasing the degree of inequality present in the system as a whole.
We confronted an analogous situation in Maryland Committee for Fair Representation v. Tawes, 377 U.S. 656 (1964). The State argued in Tawes that since the plaintiffs had allegedly conceded that one house of the Maryland Legislature was constitutionally apportioned, and the courts below had passed only on the apportionment of the other house, this Court was required to limit its consideration to the apportionment of the challenged house. We flatly rejected the argument:
Although we have not invariably adhered to this rule with regard to the two houses of a legislature, the concerns that led us in Tawes to examine both houses, despite the scope of the plaintiffs' complaint, forbid us to consider the allocation of one seat without also examining the remainder of Wyoming's apportionment of its House of Representatives. A plan with only a single deviation - a good deal smaller than this one, [462 U.S. 835, 859] and necessary to carry out a rational state policy - might well be tolerated, even though in the same situation a greater number of substantial deviations would be unacceptable as too much of a departure from the goal of equality. See Lucas, supra, at 735, n. 27. Where that greater number of deviations is present, as in this case, common sense as well as Tawes and Lucas require us to consider the plan as a whole. The inequality created by Niobrara County's representation - a 23% increase in the maximum deviation from equality - is necessarily cumulative with the inequality imposed in the rest of the system. It is playing artificial tricks to assert that the fairness of the allocation of one seat in a legislative body can or should be considered as though it had no connection to the other seats, or to the fairness of their allocation. Indeed, the Court's own method contradicts its suggestion that the Niobrara problem is severable. The Court is fully willing to consider the system's other inequalities in this case, and even to give them controlling weight - only it wishes to consider those inequalities as weighing in favor of the plan. See infra, this page and 860. I agree with the Court that we may not consider Niobrara County in a vacuum; it seems to me, however, that the existence of numerous instances of inequality ought to be considered an undesirable feature in an apportionment plan, not a saving one. Only by examining the plan "in its totality," Lucas, supra, at 735, n. 27, may we judge whether the allocation of any seat in the House is constitutional. This Court is not bound by a referendum of the League of Women Voters. See ante, at 846, n. 8.
Here, Wyoming's error in granting Niobrara County voters a vote worth double or triple the votes of other Wyoming voters is compounded by the impermissibly large disparities in voting power existing in the rest of the apportionment plan. Supra, at 855. Yet, astonishingly, the Court manages to turn that damning fact to the State's favor:
JUSTICE O'CONNOR, joined by JUSTICE STEVENS, states that she has "the gravest doubts that a statewide legislative plan with an 89% maximum deviation could survive constitutional scrutiny . . . ." Ante, at 850 (concurring opinion). But the Court today holds that just such a plan does survive constitutional scrutiny. I dissent.
[ Footnote 1 ] As the Court notes, of course, we have been substantially more demanding with respect to apportionment of federal congressional districts. Mahan v. Howell, 410 U.S. 315, 320 -325 (1973). See generally Karcher v. Daggett, ante, p. 725; White v. Weiser, 412 U.S. 783 (1973); Kirkpatrick v. Preisler, 394 U.S. 526 (1969).
[ Footnote 2 ] The ideal district size - statewide population divided by number of seats - is 7,337; Niobrara County's population is 2,924. Thus, the average representative represents 2.59 times as many constituents as Niobrara County's representative. Similarly, the populations of Washakie and Teton Counties are, respectively, 3.25 and 3.19 times as large as the population of Niobrara County, yet all three counties are given one representative each. 1 App. Exhibits 19-20.
[ Footnote 3 ] See generally Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 567 -568, n. 44 (1964); Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 302 -307 (1962) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting).
[ Footnote 4 ] Cf. Swann v. Adams, 385 U.S. 440, 443 (1967).
[ Footnote 5 ] "[In] Maryland Committee for Fair Representation v. Tawes, . . . we discussed the need for considering the apportionment of seats in both houses of a bicameral state legislature in evaluating the constitutionality of a state legislative apportionment scheme, regardless of what matters were raised by the parties and decided by the court below. Consistent with this approach, in determining whether a good faith effort to establish districts substantially equal in population has been made, a court must necessarily consider a State's legislative apportionment scheme as a whole. Only after evaluation of an apportionment plan in its totality can a court determine whether there has been sufficient compliance with the requisites of the Equal Protection Clause." 377 U.S., at 735 , n. 27 (emphasis added).
See also Burns v. Richardson, 384 U.S. 73, 83 (1966).
[ Footnote 6 ] This case also presents an issue as to what relief should be accorded. At an absolute minimum, the District Court should have granted the relief requested by appellants - the combination of Niobrara and Goshen Counties into one district, as provided by the Wyoming Legislature in case its first plan was found unconstitutional. See ante, at 840. That would have yielded a combined district of virtually perfect size, and would have reduced the plan's maximum deviation from 89% to 66%. This improvement alone - 23% - is larger than any maximum deviation we have ever approved, with or without justification. See supra, at 854.
In my view, however, the District Court should have required Wyoming to devise an apportionment plan constitutional in its entirety. In Whitcomb v. Chavis, 403 U.S. 124 (1971), the plaintiffs' complaint attacked Indiana's apportionment statute only as to one county. Id., at 137. We reversed the District Court's judgment that that county was unconstitutionally apportioned. Nevertheless, we expressly approved the District Court's decision to expand the relief granted to include reapportionment of the entire State. "After determining that Marion County required reapportionment, the court concluded that `it becomes clear beyond question that the evidence adduced in this case and the additional apportionment requirements set forth by the Supreme Court call for a redistricting of the entire state as to both houses of the General [462 U.S. 835, 861] Assembly.'" Id., at 161 (plurality opinion), quoting 305 F. Supp. 1364, 1391 (SD Ind. 1969); see 403 U.S., at 172 -173, 179-180 (Douglas, J., concurring in result in part). See also supra, at 857-859, and n. 5; Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 54(c). [462 U.S. 835, 862]
Was this helpful?
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw's Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you're ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)


text:
Perfect scorer on the SAT & the ACT
Devorah is the founder of Advantage Point Test Prep and the author of the book "Boost Your Score" The Unofficial Guide to the Real ACT.
To unlock all 5,300 videos, start your free trial.
Case Western Univ., summa cum laude
Perfect scorer on the SAT & the ACT
Devorah is the founder of Advantage Point Test Prep and the author of the book "Boost Your Score" The Unofficial Guide to the Real ACT.
So hopefully I'm not outdating myself too much. If I tell you that when I was in High School the Makarena was really really big. You probably have heard it, you know with that dance that goes like, right, okay. But here's a question who's the artist who wrote the song? Everyone knows it, everyone knows the dance, who's the artist? You probably have no idea, let me tell you why, they never made another song that was a hit. So that's called a one hit wonder and in this episode we're going to talk about one hit wonders on the Math section. They're always going to be some questions that without fail will show up one time. And they look a little complicated unless you know exactly how to do them. So it's kind of like... if it's easy to learn why not learn and you can just nail those questions which you know will appear. In this episode, we're going to take a look at four one hit wonders and then afterwards we'll take a look at SOHCAHTOA which is a trigonometry question that can help you easily answer two out of the four trigonometry questions on the ACT.
Four one hit one hit wonders. You're always going to see a question about the fundamental counting principal, a question about matrices, a question about the equation of a circle and a question testing if you can find the area of a parallelogram. And you may be thinking oh my God I don't know how to do any of these things it just sounds really complicated. The reason I picked them out is 'cause they're actually very simple to learn. So we're going to quickly go through these and you'll see how you can really easily pick up these points on testing.
First, fundamental counting principle. Here I am in my closet deciding what to wear. I have 3 skirts, 5 shirts, 6 pairs of shoes and 2 pairs of socks. If I mix and match these elements, how many total different outfits can I make? An interesting question you've probably seen under the practice test. So okay students do all sorts of things you know, making a list of how many actions they have, no need. The fundamental counting principal says you just multiply all your different options and that's the total amount of combinations that you have. So here we go, it's just 3 times 5 times 6 times 2. Okay well 5 times 6 that's 30 times 2, 60 times 3, 180. So 3 times 5 times 6 times 2, 180 and we have 180 different kinds of outfits I can make with these combinations.
Let's look at at a more difficult problem. Once in a while you'll see these and these require an extra step, but you can still do it with no problem. How many different combinations are possible for a seven digit telephone number? Also just an interesting question, I'm kind of curious myself. Well, okay, think about what we did before, we thought about how many choices we had for each option and we multiplied that. Right we have... I'll take 3 skirts, 2 shirts, so how many choices for each and then multiply them. Here we know we have seven different options right? So seven different numbers in our telephone number, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven. And the question is how many choices for each one of those slots for the number? Okay, this is the part where it's harder; you have to think how many choices are available there? Well for each digit of a phone number, ten choices right, you've got zero, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, that's ten. So how many different combinations are possible for seven digit number? Well ten options for everyone in the slots, so you would have 10 times 10 times 10 etcetera for each of the seven slots, so really 10 to the seventh power. Okay and we if we do that on a calculator, what would that look like? Well, 10 to the seventh is 10,000,000, okay that's answer choice C, perfect. So 10,000,000 different possibilities for a seven digit telephone number. Again we've found the amount of slots that we need to fill right, seven slots for the seven digits and then how many options for each digit, 10 and then we just did 10 times 10 times 10 times 10 times 10 times 10 times 10. That's the amount of total combinations that we have, great.
Next one hit wonder, matrices. Students tend to get really intimidated with these. They look at them maybe it's been a while since you've seen it, maybe you haven't seen this at all. Actually, they're really easy once you know what to do. You've got this funky looking shapes here with some numbers in it. All you need to do is combine them in whatever way they tell you and you're going to combine each number with its corresponding number in the other square. So here, what is A plus B? Okay, so here you want to add A and B and all you do is add each number to the corresponding number. So for example, 2 plus 0 is 2, 3 plus 2 is 5, and you know what, let's first look at the answer choices too and just make sure do we even have to keep going. 2 plus 0 is 2 and actually only one of these even has a 2 here. So 2 plus 0 is 2 but let's just double check. We said 3 plus 2 is 5, that looks great, 0 plus 1, 1 and negative 1 plus 1 is 0. So this is the solution for this matrix problem. So you see, not that complicated at all, nothing to be intimidated about. And once in a while you'll have subtraction and then you would just subtract each relevant part. So that's a matrix problem.
On to equation of a circle. So here we go, we've got our equation for our circle and this kind of a complicated circle thing to learn, but once you know what to do, you'll be able to get this question and it definitely will show up. x minus h square plus y minus k squared is r squared. In this equation all you need to know, h and k are the center of the circle, h is going to be the x coordinate of the center point and k is going to be the y coordinate of the center point, r squared that's the radius squared that's the equation of the circle. So you'll see a problem that looks something like this; a circle with a radius of 5 is placed on the coordinate plane so that it is centered at the point 1,2, this is our essential point, this is the h and the k that we care about. What's the equation of the circle? Okay, so all you would do is just plug these in to the equation for the circle. We know the center is h and k, h is the x and k is the y coordinate, so here we're going to plug in our 1 here, x minus 1 squared, we're going to plug in out 2 here, y minus 2 squared and our radius is 5 so remember 5 squared which would be 25. Let's look at some answer choices, okay again we want x minus 1 squared right, then we want y minus 2. If you look at the answer choices, keep an eye out for this, they know there going to be students who forget the radius has to be squared. So there's always going to be some answer choices with pure un-squared radius. And here we go we already know C and D are out right, they're just 5. Also by the way, when we talked about strategies we talked about getting rid of the misfits and by the way, E is negative and it's the only negative one of all the answer choices, so that can't be right either. Okay, if you look at A and B which one of these fits the equation? Here we go, x minus 1 and y minus 2 right? It was x minus h, y minus k and we plugged in our 1 and our 2 for h and k and here we go we have a radius squared which gives us 5 squared 25. So this is the equation of our circle.
Next one hit wonder, area of a parallelogram. So this is a common parallelogram area question you would see. What's the area parallelogram ABCD and you've got a parallelogram with some of the side lines in it. Students do some really funky things with these, they just forget, it's been a while since you learned the area of a parallelogram. I've seen students divide it up, they make it into a square with two triangles all sorts of things not necessary. It is so easy to find the area of a parallelogram. It's just base times height, so just base times height. Okay we talked about a height and a base, we talked about how a height hits the base at 90 degrees. So here we've got our base which is 6, we've got our height, which is hitting at a 90 degree angle okay. So we know we need to find this length, we also talked about triangles when we talked about geometry so we have a right triangle here, you've got two of the sides you can find the third using the pythagorean theorem. We know that 3 squared plus this side squared is going to give us 5 squared. Okay let's write this out, so 3 squared or 9 plus, that side that we're missing, we'll call it x squared, is equal to 5 square right so 25 okay. In that case x squared is equal to 25 minus 9. So x squared is equal to 16, so if x squared is equal to 16, x is just equal to 4, x is equal to 4. I'll just write that here and we can write that in and here we go. We've got our height, we've got our base and we can find the area of our parallelogram, just 4 times 6, 24. So B is correct here.
And that's it for one hit wonders and you see now, they are not as intimidating as they look. If you go over this concepts a little bit more, you'll be able to get these questions which you'll know will show up on the ACT.
Let's move on and talk about SOHCAHTOA. So there are four trigonometry questions on the ACT and two of them are going are to be simple, two of them are going to be pretty complex. The cool thing is that if you know SOHCAHTOA which we'll talk about in a second, you can easily answer two out of the four questions. And now if you're interest in how to answer the other two questions, we do have a good tutorial for that in the bonus material. But right now we're going to talk about how to easily use SOHCAHTOA to find those two easier trig questions. So let's review SOHCAHTOA. SOHCAHTOA stands for Sine is the opposite over the hypotenuse, Cosine is the adjacent over the hypotenuse and Tangent is the opposite over the adjacent. And now if you want it written out it is right here. But it's good to remember just that whole acronym, how it's spelt and what the different parts stand for. Okay so we're going to want to find the Sine, the Cosine and the Tangent of an angle and the question is how do you know? Students always ask me, how do I know what's opposite? What's adjacent you know for a particular angle? So let me just show you, lets say we care about angle A here and they'll always tell you what angle you need. So you need to know what's the adjacent, what's the opposite, what's the hypotenuse. Well the hypotenuse is always the side opposite the right angle no matter what. So just to review, the opposite side is the side opposite the angle, you'll feel it, it's pretty opposite, it's far on the other side. And adjacent is always going to be connected to the angle you care about. You know you've heard the phrase, let's say the adjacent building, it's connected so that's how you'll know this is your adjacent this is your opposite. Let's take a look at a sample question. What's the cosine of angle B? So keep in mind angle B right here, we'll mark it, is the one we care about. Cosine, where does that come in in SOHCAHTOA? SOH CAH, the middle. C A H right? SOH CAH TOA. Okay, so cosine is adjacent over the hypotenuse, that's what that stands for. So adjacent over hypotenuse okay, in relation to angle B, adjacent remember attached, so 4 over the hypotenuse which would be 5 so your answer would be 4 over 5 answer choice C, great! There's a lot more practice with SOHCAHTOA in your bonus material so if you feel like you need a review you may want to head there next.
Let's recap. We talked about one hit wonders and how you know they're going to show up, they're not as intimidating as they look. So it's good to just have the skills to be able to tackle them on testing. And we talked about SOHCAHTOA, the one trigonometry concept that can help you easily tackle two out of the four trig concepts you'll see on the ACT.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Fox News: Luv Yu Lon Tymeposted by Moderator
Filed under: Media Pranks
Local Newscast Uses DMCA to Erase Air Crash Reporting Blunder
by David Kravets
July 22, 2013
Local San Francisco television news station KTVU has embarked on a novel use of copyright law to cover up embarrassing footage. It has been issuing takedown notices to YouTube for videos showing its anchor literally reading fake names of pilots involved in the recent airline crash at San Francisco International Airport.
The wrong names of the pilots for Asiana flight 214 that anchor Tori Campbell read on air were "Captain Sum Ting Wong," Wi Tu Lo," "Ho Lee Fuk" and "Bang Ding Ow."
Some of the YouTube videos, uploaded from last week"™s newscast, leave behind a message: "This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by KTVU."
While many of the videos of the segment were still live on Google-owned YouTube, the reason why the Fox affiliate has been demanding their removal doesn"™t concern copyright.
"The accidental mistake we made was insensitive and offensive. By now, most people have seen it. At this point, continuing to show the video is also insensitive and offensive, especially to the many in our Asian community who were offended. Consistent with our apology, we are carrying through on our responsibility to minimize the thoughtless repetition of the video by others," the station"™s general manager and vice president, Tom Raponi, told Mediabistro today.
More than 180 were injured and three were killed July 6 when the Boeing 777 slammed on the tarmac.
Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, owners of websites where the content is user-generated are obligated to remove copyrighted material at the rights holder"™s request, or face the same potential penalties as the uploader. A successful copyright lawsuit carries damages as high as $150,000 per violation.
Related links:


text:
Diversity and Inclusion
The Ikoku Philanthropies is committed to ensuring diverse and inclusive communities, where persons are respected and valued for their differences as well as commonalities, and furthermore encouraged to develop and offer their perspectives, skills and talents.
Therefore, persons engaged in activity within, for, on behalf of, in reference to and otherwise pertaining to The Ikoku Philanthropies are expected to uphold the following:
Diversity and Inclusion as Valued
— that The Ikoku Philanthropies acknowledge, recognize and value the differences and uniqueness of all individuals.
Diversity and Inclusion as Beneficial
— that The Ikoku Philanthropies communicate, recognize and value such differences and uniqueness as providing individual, interpersonal, institutional, private and public benefit.
Creating and Sustaining Communities
— that The Ikoku Philanthropies create and sustain conditions in which people of commonalities, differences, diversity and uniqueness are included, and benefit from, contribute to and participate in activities, operations and communities.
Accordance with Ethics
— that The Ikoku Philanthropies ensure following the above principles further remains in accordance with the Codes and Policies and especially the Founding and Governing Code of Ethics.
Central and Associated Policies
As stated earlier, The Ikoku Philanthropies User Agreement and Code of Conduct consist of several Codes and Policies that collectively govern all of your activity with, within, for or pertaining to The Ikoku Philanthropies (as well as its series, subsidiaries and affiliates). By continuing, you indicate that you understand that these Codes and Policies include — but are not limited to — the Founding and Governing Code of Ethics, the Policy on Privacy and Confidentiality, the Terms and Conditions of Use and Service, and the Acceptable Use Policy along with all Associated Codes and Policies. We provide access to all of the described below.
Founding Code of Ethics
Privacy and Confidentiality
Terms and Conditions
Acceptable Use Policy
All Associated Policies
*Note: Please see the main Policies page for notice on conditions incompatible with the founding and mission of The Ikoku Philanthropies.
To Further Consider
Your Knowledge and Agreement
The Ikoku Philanthropies strongly recommends you develop and maintain your knowledge of all the Codes and Policies, and so asks that you read, understand and regularly visit this page and other communications regarding the Policy on Diversity and Inclusion, as well as the Codes and Policies. The Ikoku Philanthropies takes your continued visiting and use of its Products and Services, including its Sites, as active indication of your knowledge, understanding, legally binding acceptance and agreement.
Your Duty to Company Integrity
To protect the company and organizational integrity of The Ikoku Group and The Ikoku Philanthropies — as well as the properties, rights and protections of the company, division and their official persons — The Ikoku Philanthropies requires all natural and legal persons concerned to read, understand, abide by and, where applicable, sign contracts and agreements delineated and described in the Policy on Company and Division Integrity.
The Ikoku Philanthropies reminds you that the Policy on Company and Division Integrity forms part of The Ikoku Philanthropies User Agreement and Code of Conduct. Thus, The Ikoku Philanthropies takes your continued visiting and use of its Products and Services, including its Sites, as active indication of your legally binding acceptance of this Policy as well as the Codes and Policies.
Your Questions and Feedback
Please contact firstname.lastname@example.com with any feedback, issues or questions — which will be addressed by the President, CEO and Chair, Alvan Azinna Chibuzo Ikoku.
Your Reporting of Violations
If you detect, notice or are informed of a possible breach or violation of this Policy or any of these Codes and Policies, please contact firstname.lastname@example.com with any details you have — which will be addressed by the President, CEO and Chair, Alvan Azinna Chibuzo Ikoku.
The Definitions
As with all official documents, materials, policies and statements of The Ikoku Group, definitions for terms used here can be found in the main Codes and Policies page.
Ethics in the Division, and Company
The Codes and Policies above deeply reflect the founding and mission of The Ikoku Group and The Ikoku Philanthropies. They inform each instance of commitment, effort and work to achieve benefit, impact and success. The result, therefore, are three features evident in the company, the division, their products, services, sites, and most importantly, their communities:
The Ikoku Group as a Company of and about Ethics
The company ethics and policies are carefully crafted, then adhered to by a range of individuals and divisions working in varied relation to The Ikoku Group to establish, develop and provide a private company dedicated to fostering care and creativity, ethics and innovation.
Built with Integrity and Respect in Mind
Who take as their basis the most robust conceptions of respect, humanity, integrity, civil liberties and civil rights — up to and beyond what the law protects and provides for — as they carry out and embody the mission and purposes of The Ikoku Group.
In Divisions that are Safe, Secure and Respectful
And who also join in ongoing efforts to ensure that The Ikoku Group, its Divisions and its Products and Services remain safe, secure and respectful places to do work, to express and discuss, to teach and learn, to form, inform and even alter local and global communities.
More About Us
The Ikoku Philanthropies
The Ikoku Group was formed to foster care and creativity, ethics and innovation in work and communities of enduring concern to its founder, Alvan Azinna Chibuzo Ikoku, and partners.
— About The Group
Mission, Scope, Founder
Founded as a US limited liability company, The Ikoku Group is engaged in work that is both domestic and international in scope, concerned as it is with communities and entities located across borders.
— Founding & Governance
Nature, Leadership, Ethics
The Ikoku Group is governed by its Founder's Agreement, Code of Ethics and associated Policies — each thoughtfully developed and collectively constituting the governance documents of The Ikoku Group.
— Policies
Agreement, Codes, Terms, Conditions
Where available, The Ikoku Group provides updates on news, events and media coverage pertaining to its operation, development, work, and communities.
— Press & Media
News, Events, Coverage
Where appropriate, The Ikoku Group also provides periodic alerts, newsletters and reports for those who wish to become more deeply informed of recent developments as well as past and future work.
— Reports
Alerts, Newsletters, Periodicals
Those interested in its mission, objectives and work may contact The Ikoku Group and its Founder for available positions, contributorships and partnerships. A career at and with The Ikoku Group will likely be deeply rewarding.
— Careers at The Ikoku Group
Positions, Volunteers, Contributors


text:
[Johannesburg, South Africa, August 28, 2014]: Huawei and MTN, Africa's largest telecommunications operator, today announced the successful live trial of a Transport Software-Defined Networking (SDN) and 2.4Tbit/s wavelength-division multiplexing (WDM) system. This trial is currently the fastest and most intelligent optical network to date in the industry, setting the standard for the evolution of optical transport.
The ultra-fast single-channel 2.4 Tbit/s field trial took place on MTN's national fibre backbone network in South Africa. In the first scenario, 2.4 Tbit/s with 16QAM (Quadrature Amplitude Modulation) was achieved over a transmission distance exceeding 300 km. In the second scenario, 2 Tbit/s with QPSK was achieved over a transmission distance of 1031 km. The success of this trial demonstrates the advanced optical transport system with bandwidth capacities far beyond the existing 100G technology.
In addition to the large system capacity, the "world's first" transport SDN new features were also tested. Huawei Transport SDN solutions, using physical network modeling and resource abstraction, have realized transmission pipe virtualization. These advances allow traditional communication technology networks to be "IT-like". This trial successfully demonstrated SDN features such as Bandwidth on Demand (BoD), Virtual Transport Service (VTS) and Automatic O&M functions.
Mr. Navi Naidoo, Group Technology Officer, MTN, said: "With this successful field trial, we have demonstrated our commitment to digital innovation. MTN continues to invest in future-proof transport networks to realize world class technologies, not only to our existing markets, but to extend our technology offerings globally. We believe that networks such as cloud computing, streaming media and mobile broadband must be scalable, intelligent and flexible. To this end, Huawei's next generation optical evolution concept 'SDN-based flex optical network' properly fits our requirements."
Mr. Zha Jun, President of Huawei's Fixed Network Business Unit, said: "Huawei will maintain cooperation and joint innovation with MTN, and continue to promote the commercialization process of SDN and ultra-high speed optical transmission technology, in order to jointly meet the challenges of a digital future. "
PR Archives: Latest, By Company, By Date


text:
A 2010 ethics scandal involving the chief legal counsel for the state's utility regulatory agency, who presided over cases favorable to Duke Energy Corp. in the months prior to taking a job at the utility, has come back to bite the state's biggest electric utility.
The Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission on Wednesday reversed a ruling made by former chief counsel and administrative law judge Scott Storms. It would have allowed Duke at its next rate case to seek to recover from ratepayers $12 million in costs the utility incurred during a 2009 ice storm.
Also on Wednesday, the commission dismissed a case handled by Storms in which Duke sought permission to tap ratepayers to install "smart" electric meters in central Indiana to help better regulate loads. That project was estimated to cost $22 million.
The case in which Duke sought to collect storm damage costs is most notable. It was the only Scott Storms case the commission decided to reopen for further review after the ethics scandal came to light last year.
It was the also the only proceeding involving Storms in which one of the parties—the Indiana Office of Utility Consumer Counselor—had appealed to the state Court of Appeals.
The OUCC argued that Duke's attempts to recover the ice storm damages during a future rate case amounted to retroactive ratemaking, which is only permitted in the case of extraordinary financial events. Charlotte-based Duke reported 2010 revenue of $14.2 billion.
"We are pleased with the outcome. … We think that it's commendable that the commission reconsidered," Anthony Swinger, spokesman for the OUCC, said of Wednesday's IURC ruling on the storm cost case.
"It's been our position all along that we did not believe the facts supported Duke's request."
Swinger said Duke is already authorized to collect $2.6 million a year from ratepayers for storm damage costs.
Two IURC commissioners, Kari Bennett and David Ziegner, dissented from the decision to reverse the storm damage case handled by Storms.
They wrote that, "upon reopening this cause, no evidence was offered concerning allegations of [Storms having] undue influence associated with the original proceeding."
Bennett and Ziegner said the majority views the decision to reopen the case to mean that it is authorized "to reconsider and reweigh" all the evidence and reach a different outcome despite the fact that none of the resubmitted evidence is materially different than the original.
"We do not agree that such an expansive reconsideration is appropriate."
Duke officials said late Wednesday they continue to believe that its storm damage costs were "prudently incurred" and will address the issue in its next rate case.
Although it now cannot seek to recover the $12 million in 2009 storm damage in a lump sump, per se, it is possible Duke could instead seek to increase the current $2.6 million a year it's permitted to collect for general storm costs.
As for the other ruling Wednesday — the dismissal of Duke's request to invest in smart grid features such as advanced metering — the spectre of the Scott Storms scandal loomed large.
The commission said Storms presided over the 2010 evidentiary hearing in the case after he accepted a job offer from Duke as an attorney for its Indiana operations.
The Indiana Ethics Commission in May said the move was in violation of state ethics laws, although Storms has appealed the ethics board's final report in Marion County Circuit Court.
"The ethics case … which relates directly to this cause, has resulted in and continues to cause, substantial delay in the commission's ability to review and decide the merits of this case," the IURC said Wednesday.
The delay means that cost estimates presented in Duke's smart grid case may havebecome outdated.
"In addition, the commission has concerns about rendering an opinion on the current record in light of the Indiana Ethics Commission's factual finding in its final report," the IURC said, adding that it is thus "not in the public interest" to decide the merits of Duke's smart grid deployment.
Duke Energy spokesman Lew Middleton said the utility respects the commission's decision given the passage of time. He noted that the IURC did not dismiss the case based on the merits in the smart grid proposal.
"We will evaluate our next steps," he said.
Kerwin Olson, interim executive director of utility watchdog group Citizens Action Coalition, said he was still trying to make sense of the IURC rulings late Wednesday.
Olson noted that the commission in these two cases made decisions that centered on orders involving Storms. Yet the commission isn't taking into consideration Storms' rulings involving Duke's controversial Edwardsport coal-gasification plant, which has $530 million in cost overruns.
"I fail to understand the difference," Olson said.
The Storms scandal proved an embarrassment for both Duke and the IURC.
Duke later fired Storms, along with Michael Reed, the head of Duke's Plainfield-based Indiana operations.
Another casualty was IURC chief David Hardy, who Gov. Daniels fired last fall. E-mails revealed Hardy knew Storms was handling Duke cases even after immersed in job discussions with the utility. They also showed Hardy making light of a routine state ethics panel hearing triggered after Storms announced his intention to seek work at Duke.
E-mails also show that Hardy was chummy with Duke Energy executives to the point it may have tainted commission decisions involving Duke, including those of the controversial Edwardsport project.


text:
Prague, Czech (SPX) Aug 16, 2006
16-August-2006, Prague The world's astronomers, under the auspices of the International Astronomical Union (IAU), have concluded two years of work defining the difference between "planets" and the smaller "solar system bodies" such as comets and asteroids.
If the definition is approved by the astronomers gathered 14-25 August 2006 at the IAU General Assembly in Prague, our Solar System will include 12 planets, with more to come: eight classical planets that dominate the system, three planets in a new and growing category of "plutons" � Pluto-like objects � and Ceres. Pluto remains a planet and is the prototype for the new category of "plutons."
With the advent of powerful new telescopes on the ground and in space, planetary astronomy has gone though an exciting development over the past decade. For thousands of years very little was known about the planets other than they were objects that moved in the sky with respect to the background of fixed stars. In fact the word "planet" comes from the Greek word for "wanderer". But today hosts of newly discovered large objects in the outer regions of our Solar System present a challenge to our historically based definition of a "planet".
At first glance one should think that it is easy to define what a planet is � a large and round body. On second thought difficulties arise, as one could ask "where is the lower limit?" � how large, and how round should an asteroid be before it becomes a planet � as well as "where is the upper limit?" � how large can a planet be before it becomes a brown dwarf or a star?
IAU President Ron Ekers explains the rational behind a planet definition: "Modern science provides much more knowledge than the simple fact that objects orbiting the Sun appear to move with respect to the background of fixed stars. For example, recent new discoveries have been made of objects in the outer regions of our Solar System that have sizes comparable to and larger than Pluto. These discoveries have rightfully called into question whether or not they should be considered as new 'planets.' "
The International Astronomical Union has been the arbiter of planetary and satellite nomenclature since its inception in 1919. The world's astronomers, under the auspices of the IAU, have had official deliberations on a new definition for the word "planet" for nearly two years.
IAU's top, the so-called Executive Committee, led by Ekers, formed a Planet Definition Committee (PDC) comprised by seven persons who were astronomers, writers, and historians with broad international representation. This group of seven convened in Paris in late June and early July 2006. They culminated the two year process by reaching a unanimous consensus for a proposed new definition of the word "planet."
Owen Gingerich, the Chair of the Planet Definition Committee says: "In July we had vigorous discussions of both the scientific and the cultural/historical issues, and on the second morning several members admitted that they had not slept well, worrying that we would not be able to reach a consensus. But by the end of a long day, the miracle had happened: we had reached a unanimous agreement."
The part of "IAU Resolution 5 for GA-XXVI" that describes the planet definition, states "A planet is a celestial body that (a) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (b) is in orbit around a star, and is neither a star nor a satellite of a planet." Member of the Planet Definition Committee, Richard Binzel says: "Our goal was to find a scientific basis for a new definition of planet and we chose gravity as the determining factor. Nature decides whether or not an object is a planet."
According to the new draft definition, two conditions must be satisfied for an object to be called a "planet." First, the object must be in orbit around a star, while not being itself a star.
Second, the object must be large enough (or more technically correct, massive enough) for its own gravity to pull it into a nearly spherical shape. The shape of objects with mass above 5 x 1020 kg and diameter greater than 800 km would normally be determined by self-gravity, but all borderline cases would have to be established by observation.
If the proposed Resolution is passed, the 12 planets in our Solar System will be Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Ceres, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto, Charon and 2003 UB313. The name 2003 UB313 is provisional, as a "real" name has not yet been assigned to this object.
A decision and announcement of a new name are likely not to be made during the IAU General Assembly in Prague, but at a later time. The naming procedures depend on the outcome of the Resolution vote. There will most likely be more planets announced by the IAU in the future. Currently a dozen "candidate planets" are listed on IAU's "watchlist" which keeps changing as new objects are found and the physics of the existing candidates becomes better known.
The IAU draft Resolution also defines a new category of planet for official use: "pluton". Plutons are distinguished from classical planets in that they reside in orbits around the Sun that take longer than 200 years to complete (i.e. they orbit beyond Neptune). Plutons typically have orbits that are highly tilted with respect to the classical planets (technically referred to as a large orbital inclination).
Plutons also typically have orbits that are far from being perfectly circular (technically referred to as having a large orbital eccentricity). All of these distinguishing characteristics for plutons are scientifically interesting in that they suggest a different origin from the classical planets.
The draft "Planet Definition" Resolution will be discussed and refined during the General Assembly and then it (plus four other Resolutions) will be presented for voting at the 2nd session of the GA 24 August between 14:00 and 17:30 CEST.
Related Links
IAU General Assembly
Solar System May Soon Have 12 Planets, And Still Counting
Prague (AFP) Aug 16, 2006
The solar system may soon be home to a dozen planets, with three new additions to the club and more to come, if astronomers meeting in the Czech capital approve a new planetary definition, the conference organizer said Wednesday.
|The content herein, unless otherwise known to be public domain, are Copyright 1995-2006 - SpaceDaily.AFP and UPI Wire Stories are copyright Agence France-Presse and United Press International. ESA PortalReports are copyright European Space Agency. All NASA sourced material is public domain. Additionalcopyrights may apply in whole or part to other bona fide parties. Advertising does not imply endorsement,agreement or approval of any opinions, statements or information provided by SpaceDaily on any Web page published or hosted by SpaceDaily. Privacy Statement


text:
Towards the end of last year, an acquaintance of mine talked about her word for 2014. Apparently, each year she picks a word to keep in mind for the year ahead. The words just come to her. While the idea struck me as dangerously close to being a little too New Age for comfort, I have to admit I was intrigued. And when as she'd promised a word came to me out of nowhere, I decided what the heck.
Late in December, choose settled over me. It seemed so obvious. My skepticism evaporated. I could use this time saving device. For all those days that I waste time on deciding where to meet a friend for coffee. Just choose! Or for the times I can't figure out what book to read next. Pick one!
A few years earlier I'd made a New Years resolution to make decisions. Part of that resolution was to embrace the likelihood of making bad decisions. Knowing that the real success was in deciding and moving forward. Choosing seemed to fit in well here as well.
When I told my mother about my word, she asked, "which one?" I was confused for a second, but then realized that when I said choose she heard chews. It seemed even more appropriate now, and it was a good story--I trotted it out at dinners and coffee dates all through January and February.
And then I looked up the etymology of choose. From the Old English, ceosan, choose, seek out, ...taste. I was pleased to see the word also meant to taste. How can you taste without chewing? She who chews, chooses.
But it gets better. The etymology of ceosan stretches back to Old Saxon and Old Norse words and beyond to the Proto-Indo-European--the hypothetical reconstructed ancestral language. (A side note. Proto-Indo European is abbreviated as PIE. I just wish there were also a CAKE language.)
The PIE root is *geus, which means to taste, to relish. As in gusto. In German and Celtic languages that root came mainly to mean try or choose. But in Greek and Latin it formed the words for taste.
And how fun to follow the PIE root up other branches of the tree. Whereas *geus on the Germanic branches went on to mean test and decide, if I follow it up the Indo-Iranian branch I see in Sanskrit it evolved to jus, meaning enjoy, be pleased. And in Avestan zaosa meant pleasure.The Old Persian dauš meant enjoy.
I love the notion of linking choosing with pleasure (and taste and relish and gusto!). I know that's not exactly what all this means. But it's the way I'm choosing to think about it. I figure I have both of these language traditions in my makeup. So why not have them work together? Embrace the PIE?
I like the idea of taking the more analytical approach, choosing by evaluating and selecting. But all the while, I'm going to aim to do this with gusto--make those decisions with relish, pleasure, and enjoyment.
Whether it's the big decisions (what the heck should I be doing with my life?) or the seemingly small (Little T or Bakeshop? Extracto or Ristretto?), my goal is to enjoy the process, to take pleasure in being able to make free choices, and to enjoy the ride.
Above all, to remember to taste. The food and drink, of course. But everything else along the way too. Because isn't that really the point?
Sunday, April 13, 2014
Choose and Chews
Posted by Giovanna at 5:21 PM
1 comment:
- lshere said...
Don't they say "It's the journey, not the destination"?
- April 14, 2014 at 1:02 PM
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)


text:
Current Region: Global (EN)
This site uses some unobtrusive cookies to store information on your computer. By using the website, you hereby agree on cookies storage.
OK Cookie Policy
How can we help you?
Sensitive, high technology equipment is used to manufacture electronic components. This is a large capital investment for any operator and one that needs to be protected at all times.
Such equipment uses a large quantity of compressed air, for example, to convey components pneumatically or to operate sensitive valves. This air must be oil-free — no question.
Oil contamination in the compressed air can result in expensive maintenance costs and, in extreme cases, a complete production shutdown.
At CompAir, we understand that in business, you have enough to worry about already.
Compressed air quality is just something you need to take for granted.
All our oil-free compressors are engineered to ensure a totally clean, consistent air supply, leaving you to concentrate on your business performance.
Typical uses of compressed air in the electronics industry include:


text:
The Long Haul
- Matt Haviland Founder, A Father's Walk
- 2013 27 Jun
"To You, O Lord, I lift up my soul. O my God, I trust in You…Lead me in Your truth and teach me, for You are the God of my salvation; on You I wait all the day. –Psalm 25:1, 5 (NKJV)
By far, one of the greatest hardships we could ever endure as a parent is to be alienated from our children. If or when this does occur, the way we handle (and overcome) the battle will depend greatly on how grounded we are in our walk with the Lord. Parental alienation is a very real problem in our society these days, often the cause of a spiteful individual, the legal system, or our own choices. (For a very extreme example, please check out this link. Regardless of the how it was initiated, the fact is that the alienated parent is often horribly affected and the children may be caught in the middle as collateral damage. Can I say that I've been a victim of PAS (Parental Alienation Syndrome)? Not to the full extent, no. I have, however, been accused of false reports and had my own daughter withheld from me intentionally for short periods of time. I have also experienced several men in our single dad small group who have been separated without cause from their children for considerable lengths of time- sometimes weeks, months, or even longer. It is for this reason that I was inspired to write this article; not to bully my way into the legalities and politics of our legal system- but to give any single parent who is being alienated from their own kids right now hope that only comes in the Person of Jesus Christ.
When Trouble Arises
I can still recall the moment my door buzzer rang a few years ago. I peeked down the apartment building hallway and saw a woman standing with a police officer at the front door. I buzzed them in and invited them into my apartment. He was local law enforcement; she was from Child Protective Services. I was given information that there was a case pending against me, but they could not tell me why. All I was told was that I was not able to see my daughter the next day and that I would be contacted by a detective very soon. I was able to calmly thank them for their time and escort them out, but was literally about to explode internally. The moment they left my house I cried out loud and ran to my room where I threw myself on the floor before God and poured my heart out. After a several minute complaint filing with Him I gathered myself enough to call my mentor and tell him what had just happened.
"Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine and acts on them, may be compared to a wise man who built his house on the rock. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and yet it did not fall, for it had been founded on the rock. Everyone who hears these words of Mine and does not act on them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. The rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and it fell—and great was its fall." –Matt 7:24-27 (NASB)
I was fortunate enough that by this point I had a firm enough foundation in my walk that I did not retaliate and sought out help immediately. Thank the Lord that I was able to speak with a detective a day or two later and the case was dropped on the spot. Although I have an extremely strong idea why this happened and who initiated it, I never even brought it up again because God had shown up and handled the problem. Also, I did not want to cause any further confusion to my daughter and there was no need for added conflict between me and the other party. The point is here that trials and tests will arise, but as followers of Christ we DO have the ability to make it through - no matter how impossible it may seem (John 16:33). Here are a couple quick, yet vital, steps that will help you persevere through tests and trials in life, no matter how difficult they may be.
1. Personal quiet time with the Lord
I emphasize this over and over with everyone I know, simply because it is true. There is no way we can grow as disciples and be prepared to handle life if we are not giving Him sufficient time through prayer and the reading of Scripture. Colossians 1:10 is a great memory verse regarding this.
2. Apply God's Word to your trials
That is how we grow. We take our circumstances, whatever they may be, and apply them to His truth. I am very big on Scripture memorization (or at least knowing where certain verses are located) for this reason - to be armed and ready for when the battle begins.
In the Battle
Paul tells us in Romans 5:3-5 that our struggles will lead to perseverance, character, and ultimately hope. Now, I'm sure when we're in the middle of a fire, "hope" isn't exactly the first thing on our mind. However, as believers we also need to understand that faith and hope are two of the main foundational points in our walk with Christ. Going back to some of the guys I've witnessed experience parental alienation, I can tell you that although it may seem like an impossible situation at the time, the majority of the time things have worked out in the long run. I have also noticed that it is those individuals that are strong in their own personal relationship with God that were able to endure.
That's not to say that the battle isn't uphill usually, because it is. There are often lawyers, counseling, and lonely times of despair along the way. One of the key points to remember is staying calm and not getting vengeful. In fact, this is an excellent time to draw even closer to God and exercise His Word in your life. Paul gives us later on in Romans 12:9-21 some amazing principles to not only apply when severe times arise- but for life in general. It is in our intimate time with our Father that we can lay out all of our deepest fears, concerns, and petitions at His feet; trusting the promises He has given us through His Son. It is also a time when we need to pray for our children and their physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual protection. Although parental alienation cases vary in so many ways, it is easy to envision how children and teens can find this an extremely upsetting time. The alienating parent may think they are doing what is in the best interest of their sons or daughters (or it may be pure spite and they're not thinking at all), but if it is for any reason other than the kids are in imminent danger, the whole thing could blow up. I can tell you of several adult friends I have that were withheld intentionally by one parent to the other. All it ended up doing was creating resentment on the children's part toward the initiating parent or guardian. If the mom or dad who is being alienated is not serving jail time (and even then there are some options), then the sooner the better to get a foundation of help and prayer in place.
1. Surround yourself with other mature believers
I cannot put enough importance regarding a strong support system for the victim parent during this time, and prayer changes everything. Ecclesiastes 4:9-12 reminds us of how we can hold each other up and Ezekiel 22:30 encourages us to "stand in the gap" on behalf of others. This is not only for the alienated parent, but especially for the children during this time too.
2. Keep your eyes on Him
David is a prime example of how our faithfulness to God in times of adversity is the only way to fight and to conquer. Whether he was standing toe to toe with Goliath, or running for his life and hiding out in the strongholds of En Gedi, David kept his heart steadfast in the gravest of situations and kept praising the Lord all along (Psalm 57:7).
The Long Haul
I titled this article the way I did for two specific reasons. First, all too often cases involving parental alienation are in fact a "long haul" - dragging out considerable lengths of time. Court systems can seem to move at a ridiculous, almost frozen pace; and the opposition isn't always a one-time offensive. These are the times when we must hold fast to Jesus and allow Him to stay centered in our life. If we begin to give place to anything else in our heart (1 John 5:21), then we are handing ourselves, our role as a parent, and the hope we have in Him straight into the hands of the enemy. Yes, you may be in the right; and no - it more than likely is not fair. Keep in mind that if there is anyone who knows about first-hand false accusations and "not fair" trials, it's our Lord!
The writer of Hebrews tells us that our High Priest has suffered in so many ways that we have too, which is why He understands. Still, as His followers we often do not realize the price that comes with our faith until reality hits. The problem is we are faced with an enemy that has dominion over this world and anyone who is not a true believer in Jesus Christ. The second reason for the title is because as parents, we are committed to our children FOR LIFE- not just until they reach eighteen. I can only imagine what Kevin from the article above went through every single day for fifteen years. The hurt, anger, and complete emptiness and loss of identity he must have faced are almost beyond comprehension. Now, as a free man and father restored to his children, he has the opportunity to pick up the pieces and pour back into his relationship with them the way he was always meant to as their dad. I mentioned in my book that Jesus commissions us to go and make disciples, which begins with our own children. Discipleship is a life-long process and if we are to model true Christianity to our kids, then it will only be a result of our growth, faith, and obedience from the years prior.
1. Have these foundations set in place BEFORE the attacks come
The Bible is our guide or "playbook" for life. I mean, professional athletes don't win championships just by walking onto the field one day and never practicing, right? Or, would our military even think of planning an offensive (or defensive) without skilled and highly-trained plans first? We have to be ready BEFORE a storm hits!
2. Pray
Again, prayer changes everything and is the life line between us and God. Once Jesus took His last breath, we were fully restored to our original relationship with our Father as believers (Matt 27:51, Romans 5:1 . Keep the prayer lines open- always!
I do not know what the future holds in regards to not only Kevin's life, but for any of you who have faced similar times. What I do know, though, is that our God is unchangeable and still sitting on the Throne. With that, we find the faith we need to grow; the hope we need to endure; and the love our children so desperately need from us - for life.
Matt Haviland is the founder of "A Father's Walk" single dad ministry and the author of the book, A Father's Walk: A Christian-Based Resources for Single Fathers. He currently lives in his hometown of Grand Rapids, MI, is the co-founder of the Grand Rapids Single Parenting Expo, and is a single dad to a beautiful little girl himself. For more information on the ministry, please visit www.afatherswalk.org.
Publication date: June 27, 2013


text:
This project has been made possible by the
Multiple addresses maybe seperated by semicolons.
Publisher: ArtScroll Mesorah Publications
Published: August 2000
Publisher: ArtScroll / Mesorah
Published: November 2007
You have made the Stone Edition of the Chumash, by Rabbi Nosson Scherman, the standard English-language translation and commentary throughout the world. Countless people have requested a similar work on the Prophets and Writings. We have heard you!
Thanks to the brilliance of the ArtScroll/Mesorah team of scholars and writers ù led by Rabbi Nosson Scherman ù the tradition continues, with The Rubin Edition ù a translation and commentary of the Prophets that will sweep the English-speaking world, providing new dimensions of understanding and beauty.
There is a new degree of education and sophistication among English-speaking Jews, and this is a work that speaks to them.
This brilliant new work has an unprecedented array of feature:
For most people, Tanach is something they studied a smattering of when they were too young to understand it. The result is that we have vague recollections of some of the narratives, and even less comprehension of its messages. But the Talmud tells us that the Books of the Prophets contain only prophecies that were needed by future generations. This new commentary not only brings the verses alive, it does so in such a way that they are actually speaking to us ù in language, in outlook, in aspiration for spiritual growth.
The Rubin Edition's inclusion of the major Hebrew commentaries gives this work a high degree of versatility, so that it can be studied on many levels.
What the Schottenstein Edition does for the study of Talmud, and the Stone Edition does for the study of Chumash, the Rubin Edition will do for the study of Tanach. For multitudes of people, it has been a closed book. No more.
This first volume in the Rubin Edition of the Prophets is THE BOOK OF JOSHUA AND JUDGES
Gift Card will be sent To:
Your Electronic Gift Certificate From
and receive a free coupon for your first order!