text:
Jack Balkin:
jackbalkin at yahoo.com
Bruce Ackerman
bruce.ackerman at yale.edu
Ian Ayres
ian.ayres at yale.edu
Corey Brettschneider
corey_brettschneider at brown.edu
Mary Dudziak
mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu
Joey Fishkin
joey.fishkin at gmail.com
Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu
Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu
Mark Graber
mgraber at law.umaryland.edu
Stephen Griffin
sgriffin at tulane.edu
Jonathan Hafetz
jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu
Jeremy Kessler
jkessler at law.columbia.edu
Andrew Koppelman
akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu
Marty Lederman
msl46 at law.georgetown.edu
Sanford Levinson
slevinson at law.utexas.edu
David Luban
david.luban at gmail.com
Gerard Magliocca
gmaglioc at iupui.edu
Jason Mazzone
mazzonej at illinois.edu
Linda McClain
lmcclain at bu.edu
John Mikhail
mikhail at law.georgetown.edu
Frank Pasquale
pasquale.frank at gmail.com
Nate Persily
npersily at gmail.com
Michael Stokes Paulsen
michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com
Deborah Pearlstein
dpearlst at yu.edu
Rick Pildes
rick.pildes at nyu.edu
David Pozen
dpozen at law.columbia.edu
Richard Primus
raprimus at umich.edu
K. Sabeel Rahmansabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu
Alice Ristroph
alice.ristroph at shu.edu
Neil Siegel
siegel at law.duke.edu
David Super
david.super at law.georgetown.edu
Brian Tamanaha
btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu
Nelson Tebbe
nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu
Mark Tushnet
mtushnet at law.harvard.edu
Adam Winkler
winkler at ucla.edu
Compendium of posts on Hobby Lobby and related cases
The Anti-Torture Memos: Balkinization Posts on Torture, Interrogation, Detention, War Powers, and OLC
The Anti-Torture Memos (arranged by topic)
Recent Posts
DADT: Wait It Out
Friday, September 10, 2010
DADT: Wait It Out
Jason Mazzone
On Thursday, Judge Virginia A. Phillips (Central District of California) held that Don't Ask Don't Tell is facially unconstitutional. In a case brought by the Log Cabin Republicans, Judge Phillips found that DADT burdens the rights of gay and lesbian service members to same-sex intimacy recognized in Lawrence v. Texas; applying heightened scrutiny, Judge Phillips ruled that the government had failed to show that DADT significantly furthers the government's asserted interest in military readiness or unit cohesion (or any other interest). Judge Phillips further held that DADT is a content-based regulation of speech in violation of the First Amendment.
You make some interesting points, but you have left out an important element of this calculation. The executive branch has a constitutional obligation to defend the constitutionality of federal statutes under all but a very limited set of circumstances. I think that it would be very difficult for the administration to argue that those circumstances are present here. Moreover, it has a specific statutory obligation to notify the congressional leadership and House and Senate legal counsels should it decide not to defend a federal statute. One of the reasons for this is to give the Congress an opportunity to intervene to defend the statute if the executive decides not to.
So waiting until the last minute and letting the time for appealing expire would not just generate criticism, it would be improper. I expect that the administration will defend the law. If not, it will either file a protective appeal to preserve Congress's rights or, at a minimum, give Congress sufficient notice so that Congress can decide whether it wants to intervene in the case.
Second, the government has an interest in asserting deference to the military particularly in times of war.
But we're in a perpetual war. I think that that requires us to reassess the principle of deference to the military.
The executive branch has a constitutional obligation to defend the constitutionality of federal statutes under all but a very limited set of circumstances.
Where in the Constitution does it say that?
Instead of just asking a rhetorical question, let me add that separation of powers suggests that, just as the judicial branch may strike down legislation, the executive branch may decline to enforce it or to appeal a decision striking it down. A tradition of appealing does not equal a constitutional obligation.
The executive branch has a constitutional obligation to defend the constitutionality of federal statutes under all but a very limited set of circumstances.
Where in the Constitution does it say that?
Henry- a fair question. The basic answer is that the President's obligation to take care that the laws are faithfully executed implies some level of obligation to defend the constitutionality of federal statutes, even where the President personally thinks the law is unconstitutional. You can see how the contrary view, where the administration could take a dive in court whenever it thinks a law is unconstitutional, would create a problem.
More pertinent to my earlier comment, however, is the fact that every administration going back at least to the 1970s has acknowledged this obligation. There is a basic formulation of the rule which was first set forth by Carter's Attorney General and then repeated by Reagan's Attorney General which has been adhered to by subsequent administrations. It is pretty routine for AG and SG nominees to be asked during their confirmations to agree to follow this rule, and I would be surprised if Holder and Kagan did not say that they would during the confirmation process. I am also fairly certain that Holder is on record during the Clinton Administration as agreeing to this rule.
Henry- if you want to debate whether the Obama administration should repudiate the longstanding executive branch position on defending federal statutes, that's fine. As a practical matter, it is not going to do that. And even if you thought that it might, the fact that this position exists is relevant to the calculation set forth in Professor Mazzone's original post.
It is pretty routine for AG and SG nominees to be asked during their confirmations to agree to follow this rule
One might view this as an unenforceable contract made under coercion. The legislative branch is saying to the executive branch, "if you don't waive your right to assess the constitutionality of our statutes, we won't confirm." In response, one might say that the executive branch nominee made his or her promise under oath. But, at least at confirmation hearings, Congress hasn't cared about that for years, from Clarence Thomas' multiple perjuries to Roberts' and Sotomayer's promising that they would not make law.
There is a very disturbing anti-democratic trend in progressivism today.
Here, we have what may soon be known as the California Way where interest groups find a judge to thwart the will of the voters and overturn a law they dislike followed by the government declining to appeal to shut off any possibility of remedy. First, there was Prop 187 stopping public services for illegal immigrants, then there was Prop 8 reversing a judicial redefinition of marriage and now there is this thread's suggestion of the same for DADT.
I would not put it past the politicized Obama Justice Department to decline to appeal the decision and then use the case as an excuse not to enforce the law. This morning, USA Today is reporting that the Obama ICE has declared an unofficial amnesty for illegal aliens who have not been convicted of a crime. They are dropping current deportation cases and will no longer accept referrals based on traffic stops (screw you AZ and any other state who follows your lead).
Progressives are playing with fire. It is just this sort of outlaw behavior which is fueling the electoral tsunami building towards November.
This post is unfortunately incomplete. A reader would get the idea that Judge Phillips was acting on her own here. But, as a local WA paper noteda few weeks ago:
Next month – more than four years after Maj. Margaret Witt was discharged from the Air Force for being gay – she may finally get the justice due her in a Tacoma courtroom.
Next month – more than four years after Maj. Margaret Witt was discharged from the Air Force for being gay – she may finally get the justice due her in a Tacoma courtroom.
A federal judge, in a trial set to begin Sept. 13, will apply a new standard to the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy. This time, the burden will be on the military to prove not that Witt is a lesbian – her sexual orientation is not in dispute – but that her homosexuality is harmful to her unit's cohesiveness.
Judge Phillips applied the Witt standard, adding a First Amendment claim as well. The 9th Cir. handed that down over a year ago (resisting en banc review in Dec. 2008) and the Obama Administration is mostly ignoring it. Waiting things out, basically, while still defending DADT as a whole.
The 9CA is the one who cited Lawrence and put the government to heightened scrutiny. True that it was remanded for a district judge to apply the new standard (making this separate case and a step further), but it's pretty useful to know this.
I also find the last paragraph a bit confusing. The heightened scrutiny required means even if the government has "some" reason to defend the policy, it might not be enough. Also, citing Obama on one point while rejected the government on other points is a problem how? The opinion cites about five reasons why DADT is actually counterproductive.
It would be logical to delay though push comes to show "deference" doesn't mean "continuing indefinitely a policy you and various of your top military commanders oppose, that is in fact counterproductive to military needs." Of course, if it's unconstitutional, he has no duty to appeal. An independent judgment can be made on that, as it could be on DOMA (or some aspect of DOMA).
I won't try to make any conclusions on the facial challenge point though I'm not sure how that is too helpful for the government, especially with the 1A claim. A sodomy ban can have legitimate applications. What legitimate application is present for DADT? But, again, there are technical questions best left alone by me.
I look forward to see what happens to Margaret Witt.
I apologize for the multiple posts; for some reason, it didn't process at first and then they all came up.
An excellent summary of the Executive Branch's so-called duty to defend federal statutes is set forth in this 2005 post from Marty Lederman, which discusses John Roberts' role in the Solicitor General's decision not to defend a minority preference statute.
Although Marty's post speaks for itself, I think it's fair to say that he doesn't claim the "duty to defend" is somehow of Constitutional origin. Rather, it's a recognition of the fact that in the typical case, for the DOJ to say "that statute is unconstitutional, we won't defend it" amounts to overruling the constitutional judgment of not only Congress but also the President who signed the law. Of course, some cases are different, which is why it's a guideline and not a hard-and-fast rule.
First, I think that there is some kind of constitutional origin to the government's role in defending duly-passed, at least facially and plausibly constitutional legislation - that doesn't seem to be so hard to get out of the Take Care Clause. The problem comes though, from the fact that any such duty generated by the Take Care Clause would naturally have to apply, via the Supremacy Clause, to the Constitution itself. The traditions and practice of the SG's office, and of the Executive Branch more generally, regarding somewhat routine defense of federal statutes, I think can be better understood as a judgment that in its good faith carrying out of such duty, there's no serious breach of duty in accepting the constitutional judgment of the Congress at least absent unusual reason not to. That is to say, it's a form of deference in judgment.
Nevertheless, I don't think there's a plausible case that such deference is constitutionally required in a strict or hard sense. For one, the veto ability clearly implies a sphere of independent constitutional judgment for the President; and for two, such deference could clearly create self-referential circles where, e.g. Congress says that a practice is constitutional because the Court says so, and the Court says so because it's deferring to Congress's judgment. (Which is the trend in, e.g. Commerce Clause cases, though rarely so visibly and explicitly).
What Marty's post also overlooks, is the - I think - profound difference between a President offering contradictory judgments in bad faith (i.e. failing to defend a law he/she signed into law), and a successive President having a different constitutional judgment than a previous one. The latter, it seems to me, would be a healthy (if hopefully not frequent) part of constitutional practice. Elections, at least in part, could be predicated on conflicting constitutional philosophy (if not put exactly in that way), and it would seem legitimate for a successor to question his predecessor's judgment.
Incidentally, any time a subsequent Congress repeals a law, it's doing precisely that - refusing to defer to the judgment of a previous Congress.
One of the peculiar things about DADT is that Judge Phillips (et al.) want the military to defend it using military memes... but the military neither asked for nor established the policy.* The policy was written and passed by Congressional aides/apparatchiks with no command experience — that is, precisely the people one would expect to screw things up. (Sorry, guys: Being a lawyer doesn't mean one has any understanding whatsoever of context.)
I'm against DADT, and most other restrictions on command authority involving personal concensual "orientation" (and even conduct), for a very simple reason: These policies, which are always established by people who are far to the rear of the REMFs**, are almost always about the "image" of the armed forces... and that brings back some bad memories about integrating the military but nonetheless ensuring that the front rank of any formation would have pale skin. It brings back bad memories about the "appearances" of officers going to church regularly. It brings back bad memories about how local communities around bases mistreated "Other" military members from different regions. And, amusingly, it brings back memories of a military recruiting poster from the mid-1980s showing a (known-to-everyone-in-the-unit) gay man... that didn't get pulled for three years after he left the service.
In short, if Judge Phillips wants the military to defend the policy, she's going to have to find some military personnel who were involved in formulating it... and there really weren't any who put it forth as anything more than a third-best choice. The Congressional findings of fact, however, do not — and cannot, by their very nature — provide proper findings of fact regarding the detailed workings of an exclusively executive-branch function.
* NB I was a sitting commanding officer at the time the allegedly-then-"harsher" policy first came up for review, and I'm thoroughly familiar with the "as applied" aspect. For the record, my "as applied" was "not": I refused to apply a policy to consensual relations that had no visible effect on my unit or the Air Force in general, in the face of institutional refusal to deal with nonconsensual sexual harassment — and worse (according to my successors, things haven't gotten much, if any, better). Does the word "Tailhook" mean anything to you? It should; and that was the tip of the iceberg, and it was just because a particularly stupid and drunk subset of miscreants got caught.
** The irony that I was formally a REMF is well appreciated.
A question for C.E. Petit -- in respect to what the military wanted, the opinion noted "General Powell expressed his general support for the
Policy as then proposed by President Clinton." [he has changed his opinion since then]
Does this mean anything?
Overall, I welcome your perspective. What did the military support in respect to rules regarding homosexuals at that time? Was it the general opinion of the military at that time that consensual homosexual conduct among service members should be allowed, on equal basis as heterosexual conduct?
I also am not sure (perhaps a cite) that the judge necessarily wants the military itself to justify the policy. The ultimate justification in this country rests in civilian leadership. The rule would seem to be that they have to justify it, perhaps using military rationales.
The executive branch is perfectly capable of pointing out unconstitutional statutes and refusing to execute them in whole or in part. One need not look beyond the War Powers Act and the recent addiction to signing statements to see that.
That's hardly "defending the constitutionality of federal statutes." How is a refusal to appeal any different in effect from refusing to execute?
Note that refusing to appeal isn't a tactic that belongs to progressives; this "outlaw behavior" was used by conservatives in the Bush administration to undermine laws they found distasteful. Of course, the usual suspect wasn't up in arms about that at the time, and those actions don't fit the "progressives are anti-constitutional" narrative that is currently popular among the very people who were cheerleaders for ignoring that "piece of paper" in favor of their own ends.
First of all, I know it's hard for people in other states to see it, but Schwarzenegger is considered a conservative here.
Secondly, one prime example is the Roadless Rule. When courts ruled against its implementation, the Bush administration refused to appeal the decision, but other agencies were able to intervene.
Arnold has been nothing approaching a moderate, nevertheless a conservative, for years now. He likes being in power more than being right.
The legal wrangling over the roadless rule continued all the way through the Bush and into the Obama Administrations.
This wrangling is not at all analogous to the California Way of seeking judges to reverse democratically enacted laws and then declining to appeal them so there is no democratic or judicial remedy.
Responding to Joe:
General Powell's statement was truncated for public consumption; what he "really meant" was something more like this:
"Given the choices presented to us by the civilian leadership, we dislike DADT less than we dislike any of the other policy choices."
Neither I, nor my contemporaries in the USAF, agreed with General Powell's position. However, it was his right and authority (under the way the military works) to present his opinion as "the military's opinion" — and it was our responsibility to appropriately implement that position once it went through the proper chain of command. (The Chairman is not always in the chain of command... particularly for administrative details of personnel policy in the individual services.)
In a more legal context, what General Powell said has much the same authority as a public statement (not in an opinion) by Chief Justice Roberts imploring US District Judges to interpret Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 as broadly as possible. Such a statement can only guide trial judges — not bind them on the particular circumstances before them in specific cases. Only if that statement had appeared in an opinion that was at least analogous, and perhaps on point, could it be interpreted as the equivalent of a lawful order requiring that trial judge (squadron/battalion commander) to make the obey/resign decision.
As far as "general support in the military," there was none. For any policy. The services were fragmented both against each other and within generations and cohorts/cliques in each service. Anyone who tries to pretend otherwise is working from warped data. It was General Powell's right to state the final conclusion as to policy, as the chief military advisor to the President; implementing such a general policy down to the squadron/battalion level, though, is another question entirely...
Again, the Governator's status as a conservative is only in question to those who don't have their paychecks regularly slashed because he refuses to compromise with the majority party's legislature citing "fiscal conservatism."
And yes, the decision to block the enforcement of Clinton's Roadless Rule by refusing to appeal an adverse decision is analogous, if not homologous, to the decision by the California executive to block the enforcement of Prop 8 by refusing to appeal an adverse decision. Both were attempts to let something wither and die.
On the environmental front, it was a favorite tool of the Bush administration to wait for a decision that favored business over environmental concerns, and then refuse to appeal. It worked for making salmon counts more favorable to business, allowing companies to pollute despite violations of EPA rules, permitting ski lodge expansions without necessary permits, preventing lease money slated for tribes to be collected from drillers, etc. etc. etc. All of which just conveniently seem to be positions that were more in line with the political views of the administration than the intent of the "democratically enacted laws" and rules that were being overturned.
I appreciate the reply. The reference to Powell in the ruling goes beyond my one quote and your analysis does not necessarily run counter to the summary in the ruling on his position at that time.
as applied vs facial challenge:
What's the legal basis, if any, for the govt's position that "on a facial challenge the only relevant evidence is the statute, legislative findings, and legislative history."
It's easy to think of statutes being overturned based, in part, on evidence external to the statute and legislative history. For example, in Brown v. Board of Ed the challengers used expert testimony to show that segregation could not, in fact, produce equal results.
Your Governantor is suggesting a slightly slower slide into progressive sovereign default in CA rather that the wholesale reforms which need to be implemented. The standard for conservative gubernatorial governance is Chris Christie and Tim Pawlenty.
As for Bush allowing a court to reverse the Clinton Roadless Rule, I am unsure to what you are referring. After Clinton imposed the rule at the end of his Administration, a lumber company used and obtained a temporary injunction. Then, it went back and forth in the courts as the Bushies tried to amend the rule administratively.
This is nothing like the California Way. The Clinton rule was not democratically enacted, was not reversed by a court on constitutional grounds and there was not a decision to forego appeals because the Administration opposed the rule.
The California Way is about abusing the courts and the executive to thwart the voters' will.
Progressives are playing with fire. It is just this sort of outlaw behavior which is fueling the electoral tsunami building towards November.
Bart, that electoral tsunami is about the economy. You may think the "California Way" is clever spin (hey, you CAPITALIZED it), but only a small portion of the electorate gives a shit about the issue of whether court decisions get appealed, and they were voting Republican anyway.
As for Bush allowing a court to reverse the Clinton Roadless Rule, I am unsure to what you are referring.
Remember that timeline you linked to? Try reading the entry for July 14:
"Judge Brimmer of the federal court in Wyoming found the rule illegal and issued an injunction that purported to cover the entire country. That ruling was appealed by intervenors represented by Earthjustice. It was not appealed by the government defendants."
No big deal for you perhaps, but environmentalists thought it was a fairly big deal, given the Bush Administration's expressed intent to leave that particular rule in place despite it being one of Clinton's last-minute rules. And yes, they worked on a new version of the rule that was better for business, but that's beside the point--they refused to appeal in order to kill the original rule they were supposedly obliged to enforce.
Don't forget, in the "California Way" you must also win a trial on the merits before a randomly-chosen judge. Oh, the procedural trickery!
Thanks you for finally identifying the action to which you were referring. The Bushies had already announced they were revising the rule before the court entered the injunction in that particular action. Why exactly would they appeal something that was already being changed? Your analogy to the California Way is inapt.
Steve M:
You offer a variation on the California Way - creating and relying upon a one sided and often completely speculative finding of facts to substitute for an actual legal basis to make a finding of constitutional law. Judge Walker's opinion is a prime example of this technique.
A bit more on the ruling. First, interesting interview on Rachel Maddow last night (9/10) with a witness from the case.
Also, the district court relied upon the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Witt v. Department of the Air Force, which in turn partially relied upon United States v. Marcum, a decision of the Court of Appeals for the Armed Services.
Marcum applied Lawrence v. Texas to the military context but there consent issues (sex between people of a different rank) made things different. But, it is notable that the Court of Appeals for the Armed Services applied the case all the same. Again, this is not just some crazy lib judge in the 9th Cir.
Here's our yodeler's obfuscating response to Steve M:
"You offer a variation on the California Way - creating and relying upon a one sided and often completely speculative finding of facts to substitute for an actual legal basis to make a finding of constitutional law. Judge Walker's opinion is a prime example of this technique."
What is the alternative to a "one sided ... finding of facts ..."? Two sided, three sided, ad nauseum? (Is there such a thing as a hydra-headed finding of facts?) Our yodeler has long offered up his "Colorado Way" which he self-creates, with completely speculative and one sided finding of (non) facts, with no actual legal bases in coming up with his view of constitutional law, all an example of his "Colorado Way" technique.
By the Bybee (who's for both tattoos and torture, the former via the First Amendment speech clause, the latter via Yoo-know-whom), we here in MA voted for McGovern in 1972, with the rest of the country reelecting Richard Nixon. We need not repeat the infamous history of Tricky Dick, except to mention the MA inspired bumper sticker: "DON'T BLAME ME, I'M FROM MASSACHUSETTS" when the s**t hit the fan post Watergate. So let's look at this the "MA WAY" with Goodridge. (Thank you, Paul Anka.) I don't have to ask or tell; besides, who cares?
You have my sympathy. This race between Nixon and McGovern had to be the worst choice for President in the 20th Century.
This yodelism:
"This race between Nixon and McGovern had to be the worst choice for President in the 20th Century."
is subject to several interpretations. I wonder which one our yodeler thinks was the "worser." But back in 1972 could so many Republicans have been so wrong about Tricky Dick? Or perhaps our yodeler thinks that Tricky Dick was in fact great and worthy of those who voted for him. But a side-by-side comparison of Nixon and McGovern going back to their military service during WW II and politically thereafter by any fair standard would put McGovern at the top. Remember how in 1968 Nixon as a candidate had a plan to end the Vietnam War that was still going on in 1972 in spades when McGovern challenged Nixon. And that's not Water(gate) under the bridge. So query, is our yodeler disowning Nixon as he seems to have recently "disowned" Bush/Cheney?
By the Bybee (imagine a tortured tattoo), my sympathies to our yodeler for Tom Tancredo.
Nixon was one of the worst Presidents in American history - putting the Great Society on steroids and implementing appeasement under the guise of detente. McGovern was openly worse in both categories.
The worst choice for President in my and I dare say your lifetime.
Our yodeler's selection of Nixon as:
"The worst choice for President in my and I dare say your lifetime."
displays his short term memory loss regarding George W. Bush, making Nixon the second worst in my lifetime (and, I dare say, his). The evidence was there for all to see except for those blindly in awe of all things Bush/Cheney for 8 years.
But what does it say about those who heavily reelected Nixon in 1972? Bush's reelection in 2004 might compare to Nixon's.
We've now got Tony "Poodle" Blair's memoirs on the bookshelves. Presumably Bush's memoirs should be interesting in contrast. What challenges for fact-checkers!
I am speaking of the worst choice of two candidates, not your personal pantheon of two term GOP Presidents you hated.
BTW, the second worst choice was in 2008 between Obama and McCain.
The Bushies had already announced they were revising the rule before the court entered the injunction in that particular action.
So what? It took them two years to actually implement the new rule, which was a stripped down version of the original rule. The whole point here is that they refused to appeal an adverse decision against a more stringent version of the rule in order to effect a more ideologically desirable outcome.
In short, industry lobbyists found a judge to thwart the will of the voters and overturn a democratically enacted rule that they disliked followed by the government declining to appeal to shut off any possibility of remedy.
And it wasn't just that one case, either, Mr. DePalma. The same tactic was used on a series of different cases to block environmental regulations that the Bush administration found unsavory to their backers, despite those regulations being the law of the land.
Tell me exactly how that differs from what you were speaking of during your first comment about the "California Way."
Regulations are not democratically enacted either through a direct referendum like the CA initiatives or by our elected officials. They are imposed by unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats.
Once again, the California Way is about thwarting democracy.
The lead post is a proposal to avoid democratic accountability after using the California Way.
"unaccountable bureaucrats" only exist when the elected representatives do not hold them accountable -- like in the Cheney/Bush administration or the Reagan administration.
If you had ever been on the receiving end of a Congressional investigation, you would know just how stupid your "unaccountable" is.
Speaking of which, one of the metaphorical bullets I dodged in order to be here today was as a result of a Congressional investigation by Senator McGovern.
The vast majority of the country had no understanding of McGovern's real politics, thanks to the GOP's standard methodology for driving elections (see: southern strategy, for example) through fear, innuendo, voter intimidation, and the like. That he didn't run a particularly good campaign hardly made him a bad choice as President. By that measure, the brilliant campaign run by Barack Obama in 2008 means he was a wonderful choice.
The attempt to pretend that obtaining political goals through the courts or any other method which isn't what you say it should be is simply dishonest. What, for example, do we call the use of the filibuster, much used by the GOP in recent years?
For that matter, what is the point of the teabagger protests other than to drive government through means other than elections?
C2H50H said...
"unaccountable bureaucrats" only exist when the elected representatives do not hold them accountable -- like in the Cheney/Bush administration or the Reagan administration.
Actually, the bureaucrats won nearly every time Bush's political appointees tries to change the regulations.
An unelected bureaucracy backed up by an unelected court is progressivism's most pernicious creation. The elected President cannot change the regulations and all it takes is a progressive minority in the Senate or a progressive President's veto to stop Congress from reversing the unelected bureaucracy. We will see an example of both of these tyrannies when the Obama EPA starts to run the carbon based economy next year with a GOP Congress.
If you had ever been on the receiving end of a Congressional investigation, you would know just how stupid your "unaccountable" is.
Congress can only give the political appointees a hard time. The bureaucrats are untouchable by Congress.
The attempt to pretend that obtaining political goals through the courts or any other method which isn't what you say it should be is simply dishonest. What, for example, do we call the use of the filibuster, much used by the GOP in recent years?
Elected representatives voting under rules established by representatives officials - just like the Dems did when the GOP was in charge.
For that matter, what is the point of the teabagger protests other than to drive government through means other than elections?
Our government is supposed to implement the will of the People. When it acts contrary to the will of the People and ignores the communications of the People at townhall meetings, mail, email and by telephone prior to an election, then protests are the only way left to get the message through.
Sorry, but "The elected President cannot change the regulations" -- is a blatant, obvious lie. The President can direct the civilian bureaucrats, and any civil servant caught violating a presidential directive will find their tenure is very short.
"The bureaucrats are untouchable by Congress." is another obvious lie, with certain exceptions. Sure, political appointees, once confirmed, are pretty secure -- but can always be impeached. I recall some conservatives putting impeachment forth as the palliative for an out-of-control executive branch only a few years ago. Now, suddenly, they're "untouchable".
As for civil servants, unless protected, ultimately by the President, they would find their employment rather brief if they make a habit of dissing Congress.
Claiming that the filibuster is somehow an "established rule" while the delegation of regulatory power to the bureaucracy isn't is the height of dishonesty.
What is left out in your little lecture on "the will of the people" is that the will of the people is determined by past elections. Live with it. Even if your wet dreams come true this November, it will still be January before the results take effect. Until then, we are -- and should be -- governed by the results of November, 2008 (and the special elections since).
Our government is supposed to implement the will of the People. W
# posted by Bart DePalma : 3:57 PM
That is what elections are for, you lying sack of shit.
C2H50H said...
Sorry, but "The elected President cannot change the regulations" -- is a blatant, obvious lie. The President can direct the civilian bureaucrats...
What on Earth are you talking about?
You review the history of the roadless rule litigation you raised earlier.
, and any civil servant caught violating a presidential directive will find their tenure is very short..."The bureaucrats are untouchable by Congress." is another obvious lie, with certain exceptions...As for civil servants, unless protected, ultimately by the President, they would find their employment rather brief if they make a habit of dissing Congress.
Next, review the civil service code. Show me a single example of a career bureaucrat fired for declining to follow presidential or congressional guidance to change a rule.
Sure, political appointees, once confirmed, are pretty secure -- but can always be impeached.
The political appointees are the ones chosen and confirmed by our elected representatives to guide the bureaucracies. Why would they be impeached?
What is left out in your little lecture on "the will of the people" is that the will of the people is determined by past elections. Live with it.
If Obama and the Dems ran on nationalizing the automakers, borrowing and spending three trillion dollars, Obamacare or Cap and Tax as they were written by Congress, then you might have a point about mandates. Because they did not, we are instead talking about something more akin to electoral fraud.
Even if your wet dreams come true this November, it will still be January before the results take effect. Until then, we are -- and should be -- governed by the results of November, 2008 (and the special elections since).
Progressives to the People: "Dumb asses, you were stupid enough to believe our campaigns and elect us. You deserve what is coming to you."
Blankshot, as someone who spent the last 8 years defending the Cheney/Bush disaster, it's funny as hell watching you whine like a little bitch about Obama.
You are massively confused. I did not raise the "roadless rule". Not that that has anything to do with the price of tea in Colorado.
As for reviewing records for why people were fired, you surely know that that is not a matter of public record, don't you?
Even if such records were public, they would seldom, if ever, reflect the truth. They'd instead show that the person left "to spend more time with their family".
When was the last time you ever saw a firing notice that actually reflected the real reason?
Asking why someone would be impeached after having been confirmed is simply more willful ignorance on your part.
If, as you imply, representatives should be restricted to only those things they ran on, then this country would be in even more trouble than it already is. That's so stupid I'm surprised you even brought it up.
As for the "you were stupid enough to believe our campaigns and elect us." -- both parties govern that way, but the GOP is far the more egregious in taking support from the population and then governing for the wealthy. But then, regarding the intelligence of their base, especially the teabaggers, their opinion is quite accurate.
Judicial review is part of our democratic process, and the initiative process in CA results in nearly half of our initiatives being overturned in state courts. Most, if not all, of our initiatives that have been challenged in federal courts have been overturned. This is not a new development or a new ploy by progressives to overturn democracy and replace it with--I dunno--killer zeppelins as our supreme gods of law (AKA "The Zeppelin Way").
To the contrary, this is the way the initiative process has worked in California for a long time--you Colorado types probably prefer no judicial review at all for your initiatives--understandable given your history.
But your characterization that the review process favors progressive ideas may not be far off. Reagan was elected our governor in 1966 at least partly on the outrage that Pat Brown supported the repeal of Proposition 14, which intended to permit discrimination in housing despite state laws to the contrary. Reagan famously said that "if an individual wants to discriminate against Negroes or others in selling or renting his house, it is his right to do so." Landslide victory in a state with 65% support for Prop 14.
Mr. DePalma, if that kind of populist discrimination is what you are favoring against the judicial review process, I have news for you: you shouldn't be calling it the "California Way"--you should be calling it the "American Way."
PMS_CC said...
Judicial review is part of our democratic process...
This is getting ridiculous now. Judicial review consists of applying the law as written to a claim. It has or should have nothing to do with either the differing policy preferences of the judge or the People.
Back during the 2008 presidential campaigns, when I recall our yodeler may have been burdened with his signature Backpack-of-Lies, I do not recall any commentary by him that the choice between McCain/Palin and Obama/Biden was, in his opinion, the second worst choice (first place going to the 1972 Nixon and McGovern race), faced by voters. Perhaps some commenters at this Blog with younger and sharper eyes can come up with something our yodeler said back then about this second worst choice. I predict the bottom line will be that our yodeler even with the benefit of hindsight lacks 20-20 vision. Our yodeler's lament seems to be with the choice that voters made. McCain had opposition; he was the creme de la crap. Which GOP candidate did our yodeler root for? And did he hold his nose? We do know he was against Obama in spades, the first African American to be elected President.
As to our yodeler's first place choice of the worst, I was 42 years old during the 1972. I don't know if our yodeler was quite weaned by then, so his memory is historical (hysterical?) at best. I don't recall back during that campaign that it was considered the worst choice presidential election of the 20th century. Considering that state-wise Nixon won 49-1, the voters' choice was strong. It took several years for the voters to accept that Nixon was indeed a crook. So instead of being the worst choice election, it was the worst result. A friend of mine even more liberal than I had cursed Nixon's victory in 1968 over Hubert. I tried to console him by saying that Nixon wouldn't ruin America; and he didn't, but he came close. In later years, Republicans tried to resurrect Nixon's image. Now, our yodeler says that the 1972 election choice was the worst in the 20th century. No, it the was choice made by an overwhelming (lemming?) number of voters who had "faith" in the Republican party with its Southern Strategy (that Republicans continue to rely upon, Nixon's legacy to the party that resurfaced in 2008) that was the worst. We of course don't know what would have been the course of history had McGovern won that election. But I doubt it would have been as bad as Nixon. Keep in mind Nixon's paranoia that led to Watergate as the 1972 election was approaching. And keep in mind the path of the Vietnam War that in the 1968 campaign Nixon said he had a plan. Query whether the subsequent course of the Vietnam War as it played out was his actual plan?
Our yodeler proves the adage that the memory is the second thing to go.
Judicial review consists of applying the law as written to a claim. It has or should have nothing to do with either the differing policy preferences of the judge or the People.
Agreed. When the law is unconstitutional, it should be overturned. Prop 8 is clearly unconstitutional, and it should be overturned just as Prop 14 was back in the day.
However, that check on legislative power--whether derived from the legislature or the initiative process--is fundamental to the American form of government, and so, yes, it is part of our democratic process.
A constitutional republic needs a neutral judiciary to enforce the constitution, but a democracy does not. See classical Greece.
A democracy simply requires a popular vote to choose policy or the government which implements the People's policy preferences.
See classical Greece.
See the graphe paranomon.
"Democratic process" can include epiphenomena like a judicial system with appointments made by elected officials, unless you adhere to a conceptualization of "democracy" so vulgar that you'd offend an instructor of high school social science.
Additionally, the justices on the CA supreme court that ruled that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry were both appointed by elected officials and then ratified by the electorate. They are subject to additional retention votes every twelve years.
Of course, all that doesn't fit very well with the "anti-democratic progressives are hijacking the courts and using unaccountable judges to defeat the people's will--and I think they have zeppelins" party line.
You make some interesting points, but you have left out an important element of this calculation. The executive branch has a constitutional obligation to defend the constitutionality of federal statutes under all but a very limited set of circumstances. I think that it would be very difficult for the administration to argue that those circumstances are present here. Moreover, it has a specific statutory obligation to notify the congressional leadership and House and Senate legal counsels should it decide not to defend a federal statute. One of the reasons for this is to give the Congress an opportunity to intervene to defend the statute if the executive decides not to.
So waiting until the last minute and letting the time for appealing expire would not just generate criticism, it would be improper. I expect that the administration will defend the law. If not, it will either file a protective appeal to preserve Congress's rights or, at a minimum, give Congress sufficient notice so that Congress can decide whether it wants to intervene in the case.
v302 obd2 scanner
HD kaliteli porno izle ve boşal.
Bayan porno izleme sitesi.
Bedava ve ücretsiz porno izle size gelsin.
Liseli kızların ve Türbanlı ateşli hatunların sikiş filmlerini izle.
Siyah karanlık odada porno yapan evli çift.
harika Duvar Kağıtları bunlar
tamamen ithal duvar kağıdı olanlar var
tiffany and co, polo ralph lauren outlet, louboutin shoes, louis vuitton outlet, louboutin outlet, kate spade handbags, air max, michael kors outlet, polo ralph lauren outlet, louis vuitton outlet stores, nike shoes, louboutin, michael kors outlet, oakley sunglasses cheap, longchamp handbags, chanel handbags, kate spade outlet, michael kors outlet, true religion jeans, oakley sunglasses, louis vuitton, coach factory outlet, michael kors outlet, nike free, christian louboutin shoes, prada outlet, michael kors outlet, burberry outlet, tiffany and co, coach purses, burberry outlet, true religion jeans, ray ban sunglasses, prada handbags, michael kors outlet, coach outlet store online, louis vuitton handbags, tory burch outlet, air max, gucci outlet, jordan shoes, longchamp outlet, louis vuitton outlet, coach outlet, ray ban sunglasses, oakley sunglasses, longchamp handbags
tiffany and co, polo ralph lauren outlet, louboutin shoes, louis vuitton outlet, louboutin outlet, kate spade handbags, air max, michael kors outlet, polo ralph lauren outlet, louis vuitton outlet stores, nike shoes, louboutin, michael kors outlet, oakley sunglasses cheap, longchamp handbags, chanel handbags, kate spade outlet, michael kors outlet, true religion jeans, oakley sunglasses, louis vuitton, coach factory outlet, michael kors outlet, nike free, christian louboutin shoes, prada outlet, michael kors outlet, burberry outlet, tiffany and co, coach purses, burberry outlet, true religion jeans, ray ban sunglasses, prada handbags, michael kors outlet, coach outlet store online, louis vuitton handbags, tory burch outlet, air max, gucci outlet, jordan shoes, longchamp outlet, louis vuitton outlet, coach outlet, ray ban sunglasses, oakley sunglasses, longchamp handbags
Very awesome post , i am really impressed with it a lot
فوائد الزنجبيل
فوائد الرمان فوائد الحلبة فوائد البصل فوائد الزعتر فوائد زيت السمسم علاج البواسير فوائد اليانسون فوائد الكركم قصص جحا صور يوم الجمعه علامات الحمل تعريف الحب حياة البرزخ فوائد الزبيب
thanks so much i like very so much your post
حلي الاوريو الفطر الهندي صور تورتة حلى قهوه طريقة عمل السينابون طريقة عمل بلح الشام بيتزا هت كيكة الزبادي حلا سهل صور كيك
عجينة العشر دقائق
طريقة عمل الدونات طريقة عمل البان كيك طريقة عمل الكنافة طريقة عمل البسبوسة طريقة عمل الكيك طريقة عمل عجينة البيتزا فوائد القرفه
Jordan Concords Low And High
coach outlet online
Christian Louboutin Outlet Sale Cheap Online
Cheap Ray Ban Wayfarer
Oakley Polarized Sunglasses Cheap Outlet Store
uggs sale
Louis Vuitton Purses For Cheap
Authentic Air Jordan 13 shoes for sale
canada goose sale
Nike Kobe Bryant Basketball Shoes
Authentic Louis Vuitton Bags Discount
Hollister Tees for Men
ralph lauren
hollister clothing
Jordan 8 Phoenix Suns
Outlet Michael Kors Handbags
Designer Louis Vuitton Bags Discount
michael kors bags
michael kors uk
Michael Kors Handbags Clearance Outlet
tory burch sale
Michael Kors Outlet Sale Handbags Discount
canada goose
michael kors uk
Louis Vuitton Outlet Stores Usa
fangyanting20151030Post a Comment
cyber monday deals
fitflop clearance
ugg outlet
replica watches
mcm outlet
winter jackets
jordan shoes
moncler coats
links of london
michael kors outlet
mulberry outlet
cheap jordans
cyber monday 2015
lebron james shoes
rolex watches
oakley sunglasses
oakley outlet
soccer jerseys
michael kors outlet
ugg boots
swarovski crystal
ralph lauren shirts
juicy couture outlet
hermes birkin
michael kors handbags
uggs outlet
canada goose outlet
tiffany outlet
hermes outlet
longchamp outlet
Books by Balkinization Bloggers
Sanford Levinson and Jack M. Balkin, Democracy and Dysfunction (University of Chicago Press, 2019)
Sanford Levinson, Written in Stone: Public Monuments in Changing Societies (Duke University Press 2018)
Mark A. Graber, Sanford Levinson, and Mark Tushnet, eds., Constitutional Democracy in Crisis? (Oxford University Press 2018)
Gerard Magliocca, The Heart of the Constitution: How the Bill of Rights became the Bill of Rights (Oxford University Press, 2018)
Cynthia Levinson and Sanford Levinson, Fault Lines in the Constitution: The Framers, Their Fights, and the Flaws that Affect Us Today (Peachtree Publishers, 2017)
Brian Z. Tamanaha, A Realistic Theory of Law (Cambridge University Press 2017)
Sanford Levinson, Nullification and Secession in Modern Constitutional Thought (University Press of Kansas 2016)
Sanford Levinson, An Argument Open to All: Reading The Federalist in the 21st Century (Yale University Press 2015)
Stephen M. Griffin, Broken Trust: Dysfunctional Government and Constitutional Reform (University Press of Kansas, 2015)
Frank Pasquale, The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information (Harvard University Press, 2015)
Bruce Ackerman, We the People, Volume 3: The Civil Rights Revolution (Harvard University Press, 2014)
Balkinization Symposium on We the People, Volume 3: The Civil Rights Revolution
Joseph Fishkin, Bottlenecks: A New Theory of Equal Opportunity (Oxford University Press, 2014)
Mark A. Graber, A New Introduction to American Constitutionalism (Oxford University Press, 2013)
John Mikhail, Elements of Moral Cognition: Rawls' Linguistic Analogy and the Cognitive Science of Moral and Legal Judgment (Cambridge University Press, 2013)
Gerard N. Magliocca, American Founding Son: John Bingham and the Invention of the Fourteenth Amendment (New York University Press, 2013)
Stephen M. Griffin, Long Wars and the Constitution (Harvard University Press, 2013)
Andrew Koppelman, The Tough Luck Constitution and the Assault on Health Care Reform (Oxford University Press, 2013)
James E. Fleming and Linda C. McClain, Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues (Harvard University Press, 2013)
Balkinization Symposium on Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues
Andrew Koppelman, Defending American Religious Neutrality (Harvard University Press, 2013)
Brian Z. Tamanaha, Failing Law Schools (University of Chicago Press, 2012)
Sanford Levinson, Framed: America's 51 Constitutions and the Crisis of Governance (Oxford University Press, 2012)
Linda C. McClain and Joanna L. Grossman, Gender Equality: Dimensions of Women's Equal Citizenship (Cambridge University Press, 2012)
Mary Dudziak, War Time: An Idea, Its History, Its Consequences (Oxford University Press, 2012)
Jack M. Balkin, Living Originalism (Harvard University Press, 2011)
Jason Mazzone, Copyfraud and Other Abuses of Intellectual Property Law (Stanford University Press, 2011)
Richard W. Garnett and Andrew Koppelman, First Amendment Stories, (Foundation Press 2011)
Jack M. Balkin, Constitutional Redemption: Political Faith in an Unjust World (Harvard University Press, 2011)
Gerard Magliocca, The Tragedy of William Jennings Bryan: Constitutional Law and the Politics of Backlash (Yale University Press, 2011)
Bernard Harcourt, The Illusion of Free Markets: Punishment and the Myth of Natural Order (Harvard University Press, 2010)
Bruce Ackerman, The Decline and Fall of the American Republic (Harvard University Press, 2010)
Balkinization Symposium on The Decline and Fall of the American Republic
Ian Ayres. Carrots and Sticks: Unlock the Power of Incentives to Get Things Done (Bantam Books, 2010)
Mark Tushnet, Why the Constitution Matters (Yale University Press 2010)
Ian Ayres and Barry Nalebuff: Lifecycle Investing: A New, Safe, and Audacious Way to Improve the Performance of Your Retirement Portfolio (Basic Books, 2010)
Jack M. Balkin, The Laws of Change: I Ching and the Philosophy of Life (2d Edition, Sybil Creek Press 2009)
Brian Z. Tamanaha, Beyond the Formalist-Realist Divide: The Role of Politics in Judging (Princeton University Press 2009)
Andrew Koppelman and Tobias Barrington Wolff, A Right to Discriminate?: How the Case of Boy Scouts of America v. James Dale Warped the Law of Free Association (Yale University Press 2009)
Jack M. Balkin and Reva B. Siegel, The Constitution in 2020 (Oxford University Press 2009)
Heather K. Gerken, The Democracy Index: Why Our Election System Is Failing and How to Fix It (Princeton University Press 2009)
Mary Dudziak, Exporting American Dreams: Thurgood Marshall's African Journey (Oxford University Press 2008)
David Luban, Legal Ethics and Human Dignity (Cambridge Univ. Press 2007)
Ian Ayres, Super Crunchers: Why Thinking-By-Numbers is the New Way to be Smart (Bantam 2007)
Jack M. Balkin, James Grimmelmann, Eddan Katz, Nimrod Kozlovski, Shlomit Wagman and Tal Zarsky, eds., Cybercrime: Digital Cops in a Networked Environment (N.Y.U. Press 2007)
Jack M. Balkin and Beth Simone Noveck, The State of Play: Law, Games, and Virtual Worlds (N.Y.U. Press 2006)
Andrew Koppelman, Same Sex, Different States: When Same-Sex Marriages Cross State Lines (Yale University Press 2006)
Brian Tamanaha, Law as a Means to an End (Cambridge University Press 2006)
Sanford Levinson, Our Undemocratic Constitution (Oxford University Press 2006)
Mark Graber, Dred Scott and the Problem of Constitutional Evil (Cambridge University Press 2006)
Jack M. Balkin, ed., What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said (N.Y.U. Press 2005)
Sanford Levinson, ed., Torture: A Collection (Oxford University Press 2004)
Balkin.com homepage
Cultural Software
The Information Society Project
Useful Links
Syllabi and Exams


text:
Gems & Masterpieces Opening Preview
Sanyok Gallery is proud to present Gems and Masterpieces, a collection of favorite paintings by Jenny Belotserkovsky and Michal Tavrovsky, highlighting their most intriguing works from the past 5 years in a variety of genres and media.
Michal Tavrovsky and Jenny Belotserkovsky, two artists with different view on art, paintings, and world, decided to collaborate together and open a new gallery in 2008. Their decision was based on mutual intention: To plunge into the process of creating the Art, while directly connecting and communicating with the people.
Their constant search for pure and emotionally charged ways of expressing their notion of art enabled them to create one of the most prominent art galleries in Bay Area, California.
Every exhibition that they organized over the past 5 years became the symbol of a new transformation they experienced in their life. Each painting is created specifically for the exhibition, expressing their idea of transforming their keen perception of the world into colorful, energy-joy-love dispersing images.
The goal of the two artists is to share their limitless perception of creativity and life with the people without imposing on them any didactic or eclectic notion.
Their art is so stylistically different that fusion of their feelings would enable them to bring the essence of the art to its highest level of purity and expressionism. Their collaborative works became their most outstanding paintings. Their works in 4-D and in Symbolic Kinetic Realism broaden and renew our vision of the world.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Log Out
Our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy have changed. We think you'll like them better this way.
0:00 - 31:00 Reviewing USMNT vs Panama in the Gold Cup. Why couldn't the US connect passes? We have a few theories for you.
31:00 - 43:20 Talking Raheem Sterling to Manchester City, Schweini to Manchester United and Morgan Schneiderlin to Manchester United. So lots of people moving to Manchester then.
43:20 - 51:00 Answering listener questions: Why are Premier League coaches fired so quickly? Should you refer to soccer teams as "we" or "they?"
51:00 - 1:00:00 Total Soccer Show scouting network, including a Bundesliga star on the comeback trail, a young American about to sign for an EPL team, and the Boca wonderkid who just signed for Juventus on layaway.


text:
Bonifaci ~ Thompson
- Written by Woodinville Weekly Staff
Emily Ann Bonifaci and Steve Thompson of Minneapolis, Minn., have recently announced their engagement to be married on October 15, 2011. Emily and Steve met a number of years ago when Emily was working for a non-profit AIDS housing agency in Washington, D.C. They will be married in downtown Seattle, Wash. Steve proposed to Emily at the historic Biltmore Estate while vacationing near Asheville, North Carolina.
Emily is the daughter of Judith and Paul Bonifaci of Woodinville, Wash.
Steve's parents, Linda and George Thompson, currently reside in Durham, North Carolina.
Emily is a 1999 graduate of Woodinville High School and a 2003 graduate of Willamette University in design. In 2010, Emily graduated with a master's degree in landscape architecture from Harvard University in Boston. She is currently employed in Minneapolis as a landscape architect with Cohen and Partners.
Steve graduated with a degree from George Mason University in Virginia. He has worked for many years as a subcontractor for U.S. Army database support while in the Washington, D.C., area. He recently moved to Minneapolis and is currently working as an IT specialist and web designer for a local office of a European firm.


text:
Exif: F Number: 5.6, Exposure Bias Value: 0.00, ExposureTime: 1/125 seconds, Flash: did not fire, compulsory flash mode, ISO: 100, White balance: Manual white balance, FocalLength: 100.00 mm, Model: Canon EOS 40D
Uploaded on May 11, 2008
Copyright for this gallery photo belongs solely to MICHELLE POCHA. Images may not be copied, downloaded, or used in any way without the expressed, written permission of the photographer.
Log in to follow or message this photographer or report this photo.


text:
Updated 2:26 p.m.
• 99% of Android phones leak secret account credentials – It's apparently easy to "impersonate" a client in a secure session and gain access to calendar, contacts and other information. This builds on work done by a Rice University researcher.
• Netflix Now The Largest Single Source of Internet Traffic In North America – It accounts for nearly 30 percent of peak downstream traffic.
• HP Picks USB 3.0 Over Intel's Thunderbolt for Desktops – HP says USB 3.0 has broader support.
• Microsoft customer satisfaction hits new high as Windows 7 takes hold – It's up since 2008.
• Customer satisfaction with AT&T, T-Mobile drops
• Verizon: Sony Ericsson Xperia PLAY pre-orders begin May 19th, in stores May 26th for $199.99 – This is the PlayStation phone.
Original post
• Apple planning major product launch for 10th retail anniversary? – Staff of retails stores have secret marching orders for May 19 or 22.
• What the App Store Future Means for Developers and Users – "Walled garden" distribution of software is the future of the business.
• Amazon prepping dual-core 'Coyote' and quad-core 'Hollywood' tablets for 2011 – More rumors of multiple Amazon tablets by the end of the year. Quad-core processors?
• HP to pull trigger early on results after CEO memo – HP will release quarterly results a day early after the leak of an internal memo warning of tough times ahead.
• Chrome OS 12 — AKA: The Shipping Version — Hits Beta – Google's Chromebook operating system is almost done.
• Eldar Murtazin: Microsoft will enter negotiations to buy Nokia's mobile division next week – The companies' big partnership may only have been the beginning.
• Microsoft Tries To Get An Edge In Search By Including More Facebook Data – "Likes" are now showing up in Bing search results.
• Winklevii Go for Gold, Say They'll Take Facebook Case to the Supreme Court – After losing yet another appeal.
• Look Out Blogs: Google News Gains Options To Drop Blogs & Press Releases – You can now hide blogs and press releases in Google News (though in doing so, you'll miss a lot of news!).
• Sprint's Most Likely Buyer May Be CenturyLink – It's the largest telecommunications company without a wireless division.
• Toshiba enters pixel density fray with 367ppi LCDs for cellphones
• Samsung postpones May 24th New York City press event – It's unclear just what the announcement was going to be. Galaxy S II? Galaxy Tab 10.1 carriers?


text:
Miley Cyrus' fiance Liam Hemsworth beat up some guy in the middle of the street and, of course, TMZ has the footage to prove it.
Hemsworth just left a bar early Sunday morning in Philadelphia when he confronted a guy he thought threw a rock at him and his friend.
The video shows the alleged rock-thrower on the ground, clinging to Hemsworth's leg, just before the "The Hunger Games" actor cracked him in the face, then pushed his head down toward the ground. Hemsworth's friend helped hold the guy down.
I'm sure Hemsworth needed the help.
Police arrived and dispersed the crowd, but didn't arrest anyone. Hemsworth and his brave buddy took off.
Philadelphia police told TMZ no report has been filed. A source on the scene told TMZ they didn't see anyone throwing rocks. The website said Hemsworth has not commented on the beat-down.
Contact Tony Hicks at firstname.lastname@example.com or on Facebook at www.facebook.com/BayAreaNewsGroup.TonyHicks.


text: Conference calling contains the traditional, regular and habitual existence in the corporate world when people trying connecting to each other throughout the globe at the same time at the very sec/ very min. The reason behind the conference call can be emergency requirement for a project from a business perspective or for planning a meeting from an ordinary view. Let us take a look at some of the business communication apps that serve the purpose for conference calling.


text:
John Patterson's putter had been failing him all day, but all he could do was stay patient.
The Bluffton resident didn't take any extra time to look over his putts or make major adjustments Thursday at Belfair Plantation, even when he found himself in an extended playoff at the 62nd Carolinas PGA South Carolina Open.
Patterson's persistence paid off when he sank a pair of clutch putts and eventually beat Patrick Rada of Wilmington, N.C., on the third sudden-death playoff hole.
"You try to stay in your routine: Look at it from both sides, two practice putts and go," said Patterson, the marketing and sales director at Chechessee Creek Club.
Patterson, 42, shot even-par 72 in Thursday's final round. He struck the ball well throughout, but he didn't sink a birdie putt until the 14th hole.
Three-putt bogeys on 16 and 17 left Patterson a shot behind Rada at the final tee. He made his 14th par of the day on 18 to stay at 4 under overall and got into a playoff when Rada bogeyed to card a 1-over 73.
On the first playoff hole, Patterson had a 10-foot birdie putt to win but saw it miss left.
Patterson and Rada returned to the 18th tee for a second sudden-death hole and both players missed the green on their approaches. Rada made a long putt to get up-and-down for par, putting all the pressure on Patterson. The former touring pro promptly sank a par putt to force a third playoff hole.
Rada's second shot went right of the green again and he could not chip out for birdie, giving Patterson another chance to win it. Facing 20-foot putt, he put it right down the middle of the cup.
Patterson held his putter high in his left hand, saluting the gallery with the club that had frustrated him for most of the round.
"I just kept at it," Patterson said. "I tried to be patient all day. I hit a lot of good shots today and nothing went in (during regulation)."
Inconsistency for Rada
Rada, an assistant professional at Eagle Point Golf Club in Wilmington, held one-shot leads after the first and second rounds. But the University of South Carolina product acknowledged he made too many mistakes Thursday.
Rada's five-birdie round was marred by six bogeys, including two on Nos. 17 and 18.
"It definitely was up and down," Rada said. "I'd make a couple birdies, then a couple mistakes, then a couple birdies."
University of North Carolina sophomore Robert Register and Charlotte, N.C., professional Aaron Black tied for third at 3-under par.
Bluffton residents Ben Dietrich, a South Carolina signee, and David Rogers, a professional at Secession Golf Club, tied for seventh at 1 under. Hilton Head Amateur winner J.D. Hoft of Bluffton finished even to tie for 10th.
Patterson started the final round one shot behind Rada, who was 5 under. He missed several short birdie putts on the front nine and hit the flagstick on the par-3 eighth from 208 yards. His ball stayed within seven feet, but Patterson missed the putt and Rada birdied for a two-stroke lead.
Patterson changed his fortunes on 14 and 15 by giving himself two tap-ins for birdie. He hit his first shot within five feet on the par-3 14th. On 15, faced a 228-yard approach from the mulch left of the fairway and placed it within two feet to tie for the lead.
The bogeys on 16 and 17 put him back in second, however, and he needed Rada's closing bogey to have a chance.
"My speed was off all day," Patterson said.
Amateur success
A former Buy.com and Canadian tour player, Patterson returned to the amateur ranks in 2009 and is playing more tournaments every year. The Cincinnati native made the round of 16 at last year's U.S. Mid-Amateur Championship and he hopes Thursday's victory is the first step toward playing in more national amateur tournaments next summer.
Patterson said this was his first South Carolina Open since he was a Colleton River Plantation Club professional from 1993-98.
Five days removed from a trip to Scotland with Chechessee Creek members, Patterson got his busy late-summer schedule off to an ideal start. He will play in the South Carolina Amateur in Elgin next weekend and try to make the U.S. Mid-Am in a qualifier Sept. 9 at Chechessee.
"That'll be a fun one," he said.


text:
A few months ago, iMore reported that the iPhone 5 would have a smaller dock connector, which was in turn backed up by leaked parts. Now, TechCrunch claims three sources in the manufacturing chain are anticipating a 19-pin port on the next iOS smartphone.
Of course, even if Apple includes an adaptor like they did with the recent MacBook Retina MagSafe, that could means headaches for accessory makers. But the old 30-pin dock has been around for awhile, and whenever Apple makes a jump to the next generation, it usually involves a clean break from the past.
Aside from the metric tonne of new features in iOS 6, there's really nothing official about the next-gen iPhone that we're expecting to see in the fall. With everything still under wraps and in pre-production, there's a lot that can change in the next couple of months. That said, I would be hesitant to call anything at this point "confirmed" -- the best we have a safe bet.
With a bit more room inside, what could Apple be including on the next iPhone? LTE? NFC? More battery to power the bigger screen? What would you guys like to see the extra room being used for?
Source: TechCrunch


text:
He is best known for his Academy Award® Nominated performance as Jack Lipnick, the Louis B. Mayer infused character in the Coen Brothers film Barton Fink.
But Michael Lerner has been entertaining us on stage and screen since the late 1960's. He has made guest appearances on classic television shows like the Brady Brunch, The Odd Couple and M*A*S*H and has also appeared as a guest star on an episode of the popular HBO series Entourage. His movie resume is just as impressive. From roles in Godzilla to Eight Men Out, from Elf to The Mod Squad, and from The Postman Always Rings Twice to Harlem Nights.
To coincide with the release of his latest film Mirror, Mirror and the New York Antiquarian Book Fair Lerner's library will be auctioned off at Bonhams on April 16th. Highlights include an exquisite set
of rare illustrated books with hand-colored plates, a selection of
natural history volumes featuring works from the Duke of Gloucester's
personal collection and a comprehensive group of Aesop's Fables from
across the centuries.
I had a chance to catch up via phone with Lerner to talk books and the upcoming auction.
First, why now? Parting with any collection is a feat in and of itself but for Lerner the decision was easy. Turning 70, the desire to simplify his life and his wish to spend more time living in his "favorite city in the world," London.
Lerner is not only a graduate of the London Academy of Music and Dramatic Art, but his first film appearance was in a film by one of his roommates at the Academy. Her name was Yoko Ono and the movie was Film No. 5 ("The Smile") starring John Lennon!
With a major portion of his collection dedicated to Aesop's Fables, the release of his latest film Mirror Mirror, "a fresh and funny retelling of the Snow White legend," seemed like the perfect time to let go.
What is it about books that attracts him; the "feeling, the smell…Every penny I ever made I spent on books and art, I never owned a stock" says Lerner.
He then went on to talk about an experience he had outside a local coffee shop earlier in the week. He was outside reading a book when he glanced over at a man about his age who was reading on a Kindle. "I got angry" said Lerner who has no desire to add a digital component to his reading life.
When asked to recount a favorite book anecdote from his years on stage and screen and in pursuit of books Lerner flashed back to 2002 when he appeared in the play "Up for Grabs" at the Wyndham Theater in London's West End that starred Madonna. Upon learning that Madonna had an interest in books he proceeded to take her on a scouting trip through London where they stopped at the venerable bookshop Maggs and then visited the shops along Charing Cross Road.
Lerner will hold onto to a few of his favorites, like his favorite Audubon print, the Pelican, and a few pieces and illustrated books by Francis Barlow but he hopes that by distributing his library among the public as opposed to a library's Special Collections people will have an interest in owning an item from his library so they can experience the same "feeling and smell" that has fueled his passion for books for over 50 years.
Previously on book patrol:
Yoko Ono Collects Rare Books: The Book Patrol Interview


text:
CBS adopted Bush admin's "personal accounts" rhetoric on Social Security
Research ››› ››› JEREMY CLUCHEY
On February 2, all three network morning shows reported on Social Security as an issue President Bush will likely target in his State of the Union address, but only CBS adopted the misleading White House-approved term "personal accounts" to describe the administration's plan to partially privatize Social Security. While NBC News' Norah O'Donnell discussed "private retirement accounts" on Today and ABC News' Terry Moran referred to "private accounts" on Good Morning America, CBS News' Bill Plante used "personal accounts" twice as a graphic reading "personal accounts" appeared on the screen.
From the February 2 edition of CBS' The Early Show:
PLANTE: In the speech which he's been rehearsing now for the last couple of days, the president will try to reassure the public and nervous lawmakers -- Republicans as well as Democrats -- by saying that the personal accounts he wants will be voluntary and limited to conservative investments. But he'll offer no details on the size, or on how much those who use personal accounts will have to have their regular benefits cut.
This graphic appeared during Plante's report:
As Media Matters for America has noted, the Bush administration is pressuring reporters to refer to Bush's plans as "personal accounts," not "private accounts"; as the Columbia Journalism Review's CJR Daily observed on January 25, "both Republicans and Democrats are aware that the phrase 'personal accounts' polls better than the phrase 'private accounts.'"
But, as Washington Post staff writers Michael A. Fletcher and Jim VandeHei reminded Bush in a January 15 interview, he too has previously referred to his administration's Social Security plans as "partial privatization." And "privatize" was also the word of choice for the Cato Institute, one of the leading advocates of privatization, when it launched its "Project on Social Security Privatization" in 1995 (though Cato has since changed the name to the "Project on Social Security Choice").
- Posted In
- Economy, Social Security
Instructions for signing up and claiming your comment history are located here.
Updated rules for commenting are here.


text:
This week's 3 Chord Club features the King of Bluegrass, as we learn three songs from Jimmy Martin.
Each Friday we choose three songs from a specific artist, label or genre of music that we'll learn by ear. All the songs will contain three chords or less (with the exception of Bonus Chord songs)! You'll find links to the lyrics but not the chords. That's where your ears come in. Since you know the song has only one to three chords, try to figure out the changes, or chord progression by ear while watching the YouTube video. Here's a hint, most of the time the chords will be the I-IV & V or V7 chords. In the Key of C, that's C-F-G or G7. Remember, the sound examples may be in various keys. As an added bonus, try to figure out the key of the recording. If you can't figure out the original key of a song or songs refer to the Extra Credit Hints at the bottom of the post.
Freeborn Man
(Hint: I-IV-I-V7-I)
Sunny Side Of The Mountain
(Hint: I-IV-V-I)
Honey, You Don't Know My Mind
(Hint: I-IV-V-I)
Extra Credit Hints
Freeborn Man: Key Bb (Chords: Bb-Eb-F7)
Sunny Side Of The Mountain: Key A (Chords: A-D-E)
Honey, You Don't Know My Mind: Key A (Chords: A-D-E)


text:
aaggarwa necesitaba un nuevo diseño de logotipo y lanzó un concurso de diseño en 99designs.
Un ganador ha sido elegido entre 292 diseños de 57 diseñadores freelance.
FadMashion is a shopping and social site specifically for consumers interested in shopping high quality independent designers (as opposed to big brands on one end of the spectrum or handcrafts on the other). View the screenshot for the type of fashion we are talking about.
Demographics: 18-35; Female; Mostly urban
Psychographics: Higher end hipster urban chic. Think super hip Williamsburg, Brooklyn or Lower East Side / East Village boutiques.
Slogan: Choose Independent Fashion
Brand Keywords:
Fashion forward
Smart - in the English sense
Less is more
I've attached a screenshot of our latest splash page. Your job is to replace the logo. Here's the deal. This is our big middle finger to Gilt Group (overstock of big brands) and Etsy (way too many amateurs and way too much crap to sift through). We aim to offer another direction focusing on incredibly talented independent designers from around the world, and we need a logo that immediately says we are independent, high quality, and rebellious but in a graceful way. Almost passive aggressive. Less is more. The logo should just be the word, no image, and should match the photo's feel but be versatile enough to work on different photographic backdrops. Bring your best because we've too far to settle for a second rate logo. Win this and we'll be sure to recommend you to any of our startup friends in Silicon alley and valley looking for designers.
The logo you come up with will conjure images of a headline on techcrunch stating "Vogue partners with FadMashion to increase foothold in high quality independent design sales".. and our logo represents exactly that. You look at it and its ultra hip and chic without being corporate and is clearly the go to feel for high quality independent designers.
Forget other logos. We're done sending examples. Come up with something from your gut that clearly states the above and we'll love you for ever.
Descubre cómo funciona un concurso de diseño u obtén más información sobre nuestros servicios de diseño de logo.


text:
Beti Abel
Jean Nelson
Helen H Trachy
Jean Nelson
"Dream and Wishes" by Dana Marie
Happy Painting!
Have Fun! I look forward to your rendition!
You may view EBSQ's 2011 Ripped Off entries here: Art Entries.
More great entries, these are from the 9th Annual Ripped Off Exhibit.
8th Annual Ripped Off Exhibit - Enjoy!
Here is a beautiful art challenge rendition by EBSQ Artist, Sandra Willard:
*******NOTE: I have lifted the date in which entries needed to be sent in to be added to the blog. You may still enter your artwork for any 2012 and/or 2013 art challenge. Simply
email me your piece(s) with the name of the challenge, your name, and your blog address (if you have one).********
Dana Marie


text:
Sunday, August 26, 2012
The Best!!!
11 comments:
He sounds like an amazing guy, love the hat :oDReplyDelete
What a heart warming story!! If Sophie's great grandpa ever needs a box of fabric sent his way...let me know!!!ReplyDelete
Awe how sweet is that! What a special memoryReplyDelete
I really love this story! What a great man.ReplyDelete
Oh, that's so sweet! It's wonderful that Sophie can spend time with her talented, compassionate great grandpa!ReplyDelete
This made me feel very nostalgic and a little sad for my two grandpas, who left only last year and 4 years ago respectively. Knowing a great grandparent is a truly special opportunity for any child! Thanks for telling us about him.ReplyDelete
What wonderful memories. Sophia is very blessed. My grandsons will not know their great-grandfathers, my dad passed away a month before OG was born and my FIL passed away when OG was 14 moths old, two months before YG was born.ReplyDelete
Great man, grandpa!ReplyDelete
He sounds like so much fun, now and in his younger days. :-)ReplyDelete
This is so great.... You are blessed with this man. groeten uit Nederland.ReplyDelete
This post was such a blessing!ReplyDelete
Thank you for stopping by. I appreciate that you took a minute to read my post.
Please share what you thought about it with a comment.


text:
Saturday, October 6, 2007
Hibiki 30 years
Update: Winner of the best blended whisky in the world award at the World Whisky Awards 2008. This, of course, puts my scepticism below in some sort of perspective. Perhaps it is worth all that money after all!
I liked the Hibiki 17 but will have to save quite a few more pennies to afford this most prestigious of Japanese blends. At 100,000 yen (ie £400/$800), I could buy a computer for the same price as one bottle!
I am not sure about prices when they get to this sort of altitude. Sure, if the whisky has some kind of real rarity but this is really part of Suntory's standard range. You get the feeling someone is sitting with a supply and demand chart and figuring that some people will just buy things because they are expensive. It seems to be aimed at the market for leaving presents for top executives or for toasts for sealing big business deals, rather than at individuals who like good whisky.
Most of the people who get to drink this are probably either non-whisky drinkers who have to say thank you politely or red faced suits, smashed after multiple rounds of celebratory sake. This is a pity because, as Serge tells us, it is a stonking blend.Review by Nonjatta contributor - Serge Valentin
Visit Serge`s website, the definitive Whiskyfun.com.
"Hibiki 30yo (43%, OB, Suntory, Blend, circa 2000)
This one has already been coined 'the best blend in the world' by some Maniacs so we're very curious now.
Colour: Dark gold.
Nose: Absolutely stunning. Very complex right at first nosing, starting on a very wide array of various aromas such as marzipan, orange marmalade, nutmeg (a lot, really), apricot jam, quinces (lots), chamomile and many others... The oakiness is just perfect. Then gets quite spicy, with still a lot of nutmeg but also ginger, juniper berries, saffron... Also old Sauterne of the highest grade, vanilla crème, bergamot... Exceptional, certainly the most beautiful blend I have ever nosed, although I must confess I haven't tried many.
Mouth: A little less classic and surprisingly sweetish for a short while (marshmallows and bubblegum) but it's soon to get back on track, with an excellent oak up front and a spicy cortege progressively joining in (some nutmeg albeit less than on the nose... white pepper, very sweet curry, something like satay...) Also, some spearmint. Gets maybe just a tad drying at the 'end of the middle'.
Finish: Long, certainly oaky but nicely so, still spicy, even a little mustardy (wasabi, of course). Anyway, certainly a blend that will keep most single malts at bay, Scotch included. 91 points (and thanks, Ho-cheng)."
43 per cent (abv)
Price700 ml - c. 100,000 yen
No comments:
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)


text:
In Arts & Social Science forum, you can discuss about career options, courses, colleges, institutes, entrance exams and results.
Find out various types of courses in the field of arts, available in India. You may share your thoughts about the eligibility, admission procedure and the launch of new arts courses by different universities too, in this sub forum.
In this sub-forum, you may post threads and reply to discussions on the career options and prospects after completing courses in the field of arts and social sciences.
Here, you may discuss about entrance exams conducted for arts courses. You may post threads and reply to the same, regarding the eligibility, exam pattern, syllabus, admission procedure etc. of various entrance tests conducted for humanities courses.


text:
Teacher resources and professional development across the curriculum
Teacher professional development and classroom resources across the curriculum
Coding is a response-based strategy that requires students to mark down their reactions to reading. This can be done very simply. For example, a check mark might denote important information, while a question mark might call attention to confusing or difficult passages. When these codes are used to organize multiple, lengthy, or difficult texts, they help students to organize the full range of their reactions, and to focus on the key issues and questions in their reading.
To use coding effectively, teachers should request that students read through the text several times. As they read, ask them to put a check mark next to information that interests them, a plus sign next to information that is new to them, and a question mark next to information that is confusing or unclear for them. Then, ask students to go back and look for all of their code notes, so that they can organize the text through these codes. By doing this, students can draw together all the aspects of a text that are most interesting to them, as well as those that are new and those that they do not yet understand.
Since coding is a response-based strategy, it helps students to organize and reflect on their reactions to texts. Instead of becoming overwhelmed by the new information, for example, students are able to label and lay aside the more confusing pieces for later consideration. Once students have finished reading, the codes left in their texts provide an invaluable map to their own interests and concerns; students will begin to see what questions regularly engage them, and what issues often confuse them.
© Annenberg Foundation 2017. All rights reserved. Legal Policy


text:
Everything can change in an instant
The most amazing thing about life is how normal it can become.
One minute, I was driving home, thinking about the sectional baseball game I'd just witnessed. Opening lines to the eventual story were running through the mind as my car was rolling down that Bascom road. It was just another day, another game, another story.
A normal evening in a normal life.
And then it wasn't.
First came the noise, then the impact.
Then I blacked out for a few minutes. I only know this because it seemed like the ambulance was there to get me 20 seconds later.
In the ambulance, answering questions about who I was, where I was going, who the President was.
Suddenly, the story I had in my head didn't seem so important.
It was a while before a medic clued me into what had happened. I had run a stop sign, and my car was plowed into by a semi truck. My vehicle was hit on the passenger side, and was all but destroyed.
Due to luck (though some callers have attributed it to a higher power looking out for me), I'm still here. Because the impact was on the passenger side, I got almost none of the blow, and my injuries were relatively minor. I walked out of the hospital four hours later.
It didn't sink in until a day later just how bad the accident was. For the first time in my nine years as a writer here, I made the front page of The Advertiser-Tribune. I'll be fine with staying on the sports page from now on.
It's been 10 days, but I'm still angry with myself. I'd prided myself on not texting while driving, but what I was doing – not putting the road first – was just as bad. No matter how many times I'd driven that road, I was still in danger because my mind wasn't where it should have been.
Lucky for me, or by the grace of God, I didn't pay for my carelessness with my life.
But I easily could have. So, for that matter, could someone else.
If there's a positive to this whole thing, perhaps it's a renewed appreciation for the people around me. The people at The A-T have been very supportive, encouraging me – hell, forcing me – to put my recovery first. A special thanks goes out to co-workers Tony Maluso, Rob Weaver and Jill Gosche, who were all with me in the hospital. Jill especially has my gratitude both for her help, and her insistence I not return to work after leaving the hospital.
To my friends and readers who contacted me after the accident, thank you too. My cynical nature has been severely tested by all the people who sent me a note, or called, or tweeted, just to let me know they were in my corner.
And to my family and my best friend, well, there are no words for what you've done for me.
As for the future, I don't know.
I started working here in 2004. It's been like riding a train. As I've gotten more and more into things, the train has started to go faster.
Stories. Deadlines. Pages. Columns.
I love riding the train. I always have, and the faster it goes, the more I enjoy it.
But a few days ago, my train went off the tracks.
It didn't take me with it, though.
There's a lesson here.
Life may seem normal, but it isn't. Go too fast, and you may not only miss it, you may lose it.
After the last 10 days, I'm certain of one thing:
It's worth slowing down for.


text:
The Texas House adopted the conference committee report for SB 1747 about 11 p.m. in a 133-10 vote. About an hour earlier, the measure was unanimously adopted by the Texas Senate. Sen. Carlos Uresti, D-San Antonio, said the bill now helps counties fund fixes to local roads both in the short term and long term.
Help could be on the way for oil-impacted Texas counties, if both the Texas House and Senate adopt a conference committee report that would give Permian Basin and Eagle Ford Shale counties up to $225 million to fix local roads.
Money for the counties would be funneled from the state's budget – the House late Sunday approved the conference committee report for House Bill 1025, the budget bill – into the Texas Department of Transportation, which would administer a grant program, said Sen. Carlos Uresti, D-San Antonio.
Uresti authored Senate Bill 1747, which would create a transportation infrastructure fund and allows counties in the Eagle Ford Shale and Permian Basis to reinvest tax dollars into road maintenance programs. Once counties set up the Transportation Reinvestment Zone, they could be eligible to apply for a grant from TxDOT and would have to pony up 10 to 20 percent of the grant from local coffers.
"Help is on the way for these counties," Uresti said. "Working in a bipartisan fashion, the Legislature has recognized that county roads are the gateway to the oil patch and must be maintained for the state's oil boom to continue. With this bill, we are saving the goose that laid the golden egg."
Another $225 million has been designated for TxDOT to use to fix its own oil-impacted roads, but the state typically only funds state highways and farm-to-market roads.
"It's never been done before where the state appropriates money for county roads," Uresti said, and he added that the grant program would last for two years.
According to a news release, county roads used for drilling an oil and gas well sustains the traffic equal to 8 million passenger vehicles. "Some 5,400 wells have been permitted in the Eagle Ford Shale region alone, and it's projected that 24,000 wells will be operating by 2022," Uresti's release states.


text:
Go through the forum to post new threads and answer the queries. Know everything related to courses, preparations, guidance, institutes, and exams and much more about mass communication career in India, in this forum.
Partake in dialogues on journalism as a career option and also take part in mutual discussions about the various entrance exams for it and preparation tips in this forum for journalism. Posts relevant posts and threads and get the dialogues rolling between you and other aspiring journalists.


text:
Shop Leather
Shop Baer's Best
Shop New Arrivals
Take our BedMatch quiz to find the support that's right for you
Sleep health and habits
Adjustable base buying guide
Mattress size guide
Shop Tommy Bahama
Insider Tips For Outdoor Living
Outdoor Chaise Lounges
Contact your local store for price and lead time on this item.
Color, pattern, texture. Whatever your preferences and room design needs, we've got an upholstery fabric that works for you. Come into the store to see and touch the hundreds of fabric options in person before you make your final decision on your custom sofa or chair covering. Hand-picked by you, custom made for you.
Curate a stunning dining set by adding this upholstered chair alongside your wood dining set. This traditionally-styled Parsons chair looks impeccably chic when used as a host chair at the head of the table, or order a full set for your round dining table to create a dining set for a more modestly sized space.
The Chairs - Dining Hazel Skirted Dining Chair by Best Home Furnishings at Baer's Furniture in the Ft. Lauderdale, Ft. Myers, Orlando, Naples, Miami, Florida area. Product availability may vary. Contact us for the most current availability on this product.
Enjoy a relaxing evening in these fabulous upholstered dining chairs. These decorative chairs are upholstered in the finest fabrics. Shaped with smooth curves and elegant appeal. Accompany these chairs with a variety of dining tables, ottomans and stools. These accessories are just right for enjoying pleasant conversation and a delicious meal. For extra strength sinuous wire springs are cross-wired to prevent sagging. Spring clips are coated with polypropylene to prevent squeaks. Customize your home by choosing from hundreds of different fabric colors and pattern styles to liven up your dining room seating.
The Chairs - Dining collection is a great option if you are looking for Casual furniture in the Ft. Lauderdale, Ft. Myers, Orlando, Naples, Miami, Florida area.
These images are representative of this group as a whole and may differ from this item.
Browse other items in the Chairs - Dining collection from Baer's Furniture in the Ft. Lauderdale, Ft. Myers, Orlando, Naples, Miami, Florida area.
This item has been tagged as: Dining Chair, Dining Room Chairs, Arm Chair, Dining Arm Chair, Side Chair, Dining Side Chair, Dining Room Set, Dining Table and Chair Set, Kitchen Chair, Kitchen Dining Chair, Dining Room Furniture
Nothing on this page may be copied or reproduced without explicit permission.


text:
Written by:
0 comment(s) so far...
North Carolina now has a parcel data set that includes all 100 counties and areas comprising the Eastern Band of the Cherokee Indians.
36 counties have recently been added to NC Parcels.
The 2014 orthoimagery is now available from the NC OneMap GeoSpatial Portal. Read on for all of the details.
Help? Problems? --> Email <-- Comments? Questions?


text:
Microsoft Slams Google in EU Privacy Comments
Microsoft objects to Google's search-related business practices because Google locks in publishers and makes it hard for competing search engines to gain market share, not because of its popularity and competitive power, Microsoft said Friday.
Dave Heiner, vice president and deputy general counsel at Microsoft, released a blog post this afternoon in which he discussed the EU's decision to look into Google's search result rankings. He slammed Google for what he considered to be finger pointing at Microsoft over the investigation.
"Google's public response to this growing regulatory concern has been to point elsewhere--at Microsoft," Heiner wrote. "Google is telling reporters that antitrust concerns about search are not real because some of the complaints come from one of its last remaining search competitors."
On Tuesday night, Google announced that European antitrust regulators are investigating whether Google intentionally buries search results that might promote its competitors. Three companies - Foundem, ejustice.fr, and Ciao from Bing - filed complaints with the EU over Google's rankings, said Julia Holtz, Google's senior competition counsel.
Foundem, which Google said is partly funded by Microsoft, and ejustice.fr are arguing that Google's algorithms demote their search results because they are a vertical search engine and, therefore, competitive with Google, Holtz said.
In regards to the third company, Ciao, Google suggested that the problems with them started after Microsoft acquired the company in 2008. Prior to that, Ciao was "a long-time AdSense partner of Google's, with whom we always had a good relationship," Holtz said. After Microsoft bought Ciao and re-branded it Ciao from Bing, Google "started receiving complaints about our standard terms and conditions."
In his blog post, Heiner did not address Microsoft's connection to the three companies, referring to them only as "upstart innovators."
UPDATE: A Microsoft spokesman e-mailed to say that the company does not directly fund Foundem. Microsoft partly funds the Initiative for a Competitive Online Marketplace (ICOMP), of which Foundem is a member, Microsoft said.
The real issue, Heiner said, is "whether Google's response really addresses the concerns that have been raised [because] complaints in competition law cases usually come from competitors."
Microsoft did not admit to being directly involved in filing the complaints against Google. Microsoft has heard complaints about Google over the years, Heiner said, and when those "antitrust concerns appear to be substantial, we suggest that firms talk to the competition law agencies."
Heiner acknowledged that Microsoft has talked with European investigators and the Department of Justice about Google, but only in the context of Microsoft's recently approved search deal with Yahoo.
"We told them what we know about how Google is doing business," Heiner wrote. "A lot of that entails explaining the search advertising business, which is complex. Some of that inevitably gets into Google practices that may be harming publishers, advertisers and competition in search and online advertising."
Specifically, Microsoft is concerned that "search and online advertising are increasingly controlled by a single firm, Google," Heiner said. "These and other network effects make it hard for competing search engines to catch up."
This is why Microsoft and Yahoo are combining their efforts, Heiner said. "And that is why we are concerned about Google business practices that tend to lock in publishers and advertisers and make it harder for Microsoft to gain search volume."
Heiner concluded by saying that "leading firms should not be punished for their success [or] because a particular business practice may harm a rival." They should face scrutiny, however, for practices that "exclude competitors, thereby undermining competition more broadly," he said.Originally posted to AppScout.


text:
Douglas Stratton Fine Art Travel Photographer 609-675-8498Email: email@example.com
As a Fine Art Travel Photographer that explores the locations his heart desires and to seek out different environments. My passion for Photography stems from a deep desire to capture the world around me and depict it the way it is seen by the human eye. Through grasping the right levels of light you can transport the viewer to the moment in the photograph, evoking wonderment through capturing the language of the particular space.I compile these experiences to embrace the magic of the environment and capture the essence of each setting. The finished product evokes not just inspiring images but a deep feeling of reverence for the world around us. He publishes a free newsletter that goes out to anyone that wants to keep connected to new exhibitions, up and coming Photography shoots, and new photographs from his adventures.
If you would like to stay connected subscribe by adding your email or follow him on social media.


text:
9 Edward St, Te Aro, Wellington
Meow is a relaxed fully licensed cafe and restaurant located in central Wellington. We are open for breakfast, lunch, light snacks and dinner as well as presenting live music. We have a strong focus on organic, wild and free range ingredients and make all of our food on site from scratch. We also cater to gluten free diners with a wide array of menu items and cabinet food available.
Before you go, would you like to subscribe to our free weekly newsletter with events happening in your area, competitions for free tickets and CD giveaways?
No thanks - I'm already an Eventfinda member (or I don't want to join)
Enter your email below, click on the Sign Up button and we'll send you on your way
Continuing confirms your acceptance of our terms of service.