text:
Slate wants to hear from you on whom Barack Obama should nominate to replace Supreme Court Justice David Souter, who will retire at the end of this year's term. Below is our handpicked list of leading candidates for the job, which you can further filter by age and gender using the buttons on the left. To cast your vote, click on the name and then click "Nominate" at the bottom of the candidate's profile to send us an e-mail. Please write a few words about why you're choosing your pick as well. (Comments may be quoted by name unless you specify otherwise.)
Click here to read Slate's writeups on the candidates and here to see how readers are voting.
Sonia Sotomayor, 54, is so far at the top of most shortlists, she is arguably a shortlist unto herself. A summa cum laude graduate of Princeton with a law degree from Yale, she'd be the first Hispanic justice (depending on how you count Benjamin Cardozo). She is reportedly Catholic (she went to Cardinal Spellman High School in the Bronx), which would make her the sixth Catholic on the Supreme Court. Sotomayor grew up in the Bronx in a housing project, and at age 8 she was diagnosed with diabetes. Her father, a manual laborer, died when she was 9. She was appointed to the U. S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in 1992 by President George H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton elevated her to the United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit in 1998. She is seen by most as a fairly moderate jurist, although Sotomayor is famous for being outspoken and quite brash on the bench, a quality for which she is now being criticized.
Notable cases: Sotomayor is responsible for the opinion that ended the Major League Baseball players strike when, in 1995, she issued an injunction against MLB owners and for an order allowing the Wall Street Journal to publish Vince Foster's suicide note. She ruled against the government in a case involving the Hells Angels. Last year, she was on a panel that ruled against a high-school student punished for posting an objectionable message on an Internet site. One of her more controversial moves was a ruling last year in a New Haven, Conn., affirmative action case that allowed the city to scuttle the results of a firefighter promotions test because no African-Americans could pass the test. Not only was the opinion controversial on its face, but it was less than one page long and seemed to duck the hard issues, prompting a strong call by 2nd Circuit Judge Jose Cabranes for the Supreme Court to hear the case—as the justices did at the end of April.
Jennifer Granholm, 50, the current governor of Michigan, has no experience on the bench—which, as the Detroit News noted, would make her the first nonjudge to reach the court since William Rehnquist and Lewis Powell in 1972. Since she was born in Vancouver, she would also be the first foreign-born justice since Felix Frankfurter, who joined the court in 1939.
Granholm does not have an extended record from which to draw conclusions about her judicial philosophy. After graduating from Harvard Law in 1987, Granholm clerked for 6th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Damon Keith, who is credited with desegregating Pontiac and pushing back against the Nixon administration on wiretapping. (Granholm still considers Keith a mentor.) Granholm served as an assistant U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Michigan for four years before being elected governor. She was re-elected governor in 2006 but is limited to two terms in office.
Notable cases: As a prosecutor, Granholm's most newsworthy case involved the theft of nearly 49,000 copies of the movie Fantasia. As attorney general, much of her focus was on consumer protection and high-tech crimes like identity theft. As governor, she has been preoccupied by budget fights with the state legislature because of Michigan's massive deficit.
Elena Kagan, 49, is also at the top of most shortlists, and we know she's confirmable because she was just confirmed as the first female solicitor general of the United States, the only federal official required by statute to be "learned in the law." Kagan has a J.D. from Harvard Law School, where she was supervising editor of the law review. While Kagan has never argued a case before the court—her lack of Supreme Court experience led to a tense confirmation on a 61-31 vote—she did serve as clerk to Thurgood Marshall and as associate counsel to President Bill Clinton. Kagan would become the third Jewish justice on the current court, joining Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. Her opponents on the right are already up in arms about her lack of judicial experience, though they might thank themselves for that, since Senate Republicans effectively blocked Kagan's nomination to a U.S. Court of Appeals seat in 1999.
While Kagan has no judicial record to scour, she has done enough academic writing to create a significant paper trail. Her specialty is First Amendment and administrative law; she has also done a good deal of thinking about the proper role of the executive branch, most notably in a 2001 law review article that rather presciently addressed the theory of a "unitary executive" initiated in some sense by the Clinton Justice Department and especially beloved by Bush lawyers like David Addington. Kagan concluded that "President Clinton's assertion of directive authority over administration, more than President Reagan's assertion of a general supervisory authority, raises serious constitutional questions."
Kagan is probably most famous for being a careful pragmatist who throws few ideological bombs. The New York Times has described her legal writings as "dense, hedged and moderate." She is also known as the woman who healed an ideological fracture that threatened to destroy Harvard Law School by recruiting prominent conservative faculty members and focusing attention on student needs. Conservative opponents have latched onto her opposition to on-campus military recruiting at Harvard because of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" stance toward gay soldiers. Liberals, for their part, have been disappointed by Kagan's stance on hotly contested terrorism questions, including her support for indefinite detention of prisoners without a trial.
Janet Napolitano, 51, has an extensive background in public and private law, but like Jennifer Granholm and Elena Kagan, Napolitano has never served as a judge. After clerking for a judge on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals after law school, she joined a local Phoenix firm, where she specialized in commercial and appellate work. She quickly made partner, eventually joining Supreme Court scholar John P. Frank in defending Anita Hill at the Clarence Thomas hearings. President Clinton appointed her U.S. attorney for Arizona shortly after taking office, though her confirmation was held up for nearly a year over lingering resentment in the Senate.
As the American Prospect's Dana Goldstein notes, Napolitano was quick to build up "law-and-order credibility" as a federal prosecutor and later as the state's attorney general. (In 2002, she won the conviction of Salvatore "Sammy the Bull" Gravano, the former Gambino family associate who testified against John Gotti.) She is alsoconsidered moderate on immigration and strongly in favor of the death penalty. She was a popular two-term governor.
Napolitano represented Anita Hill before the Senate judiciary committee during Thomas' confirmation hearing, an experience she says left her with a strong sense that "women really didn't have an avenue to be heard at that time." (Thomas, who would be one of Napolitano's colleagues if she became a justice, was narrowly confirmed.) As U.S. attorney, Napolitano supervised the investigation of Michael Fortier, an accomplice to the Oklahoma City bombers who later testified against them in court. In Ring v. Arizona, Napolitano unsuccessfully defended a state law before the Supreme Court that allowed a judge to determine whether aggravating factors in a case are sufficient to administer the death penalty. (The court ruled 7-2 against Arizona, finding that only a jury could make that decision.)
Diane Wood,58, has been on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit since Bill Clinton tapped her in 1995. She went to the University of Texas for college and law school and clerked on the Supreme Court for Justice Harry Blackmun. After she joined the faculty of the University of Chicago Law School, she became the first woman there to receive a named chair. She is one of the most respected voices on the 7th Circuit—a lawyer's court known for its high standards at oral argument. Judges Frank Easterbrook and Richard Posner, two conservative colleagues with giant intellects, send Wood their draft opinions for review.
Notable cases: The right is already targeting Wood for her 2001 ruling in NOW v. Scheidler, which allowed a lower-court judge to prevent anti-abortion protesters, nationwide, from blockading clinics. Wood's ruling approved a novel use of RICO, the federal anti-racketeering law. The Supreme Court overturned her in 2003; Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg concurred out of concern about extending the reach of RICO to political protests. In 2002, Wood dissented from a ruling by Easterbrook upholding an Indiana law that raised the cost of an abortion by requiring that a woman make a separate trip to her clinic to give informed consent before the procedure. On First Amendment grounds, in 2004 Wood ruled against a city's ban of a convicted sex offender from its parks, after he admitted to cruising for children there but left without molesting them. And when a condo owner sued to put up a mezuzah on his doorpost, challenging his condo association's rule against placing "objects of any sort" in the hallways, Wood dissented from another Easterbrook opinion deeming the rule neutral with respect to religion. "The condo association might as well hang a sign outside saying 'No Observant Jews Allowed,' " she wrote.
Cass Sunstein, 54, is a close confidante of Obama's whose résumé, up to a point, looks a lot like the president's: Harvard Law School and a professorship at the University of Chicago with a focus on constitutional law. He has spent most of his career in the academy after clerking for Thurgood Marshall and a short stint at the Office of Legal Counsel in the early '80s. Often described as a polymath, Sunstein is fluent in political science and churns out books. The latest is Nudge, about the power of gently guiding people toward the choices you want them to make.
Though he's willing to be called a liberal, Sunstein is not a stock liberal's dream candidate. He has a strong libertarian streak, though he promotes a theory of "libertarian paternalism" that finds some space for encouraging positive behavior. He also advocates judicial restraint, urging the court to limit the scope of its decisions—a "one case at a time" approach. He is cautious on domestic wiretapping, suggesting it may be legal under the president's various authorities, and mostly opposes the prosecution of Bush administration officials accused of illegal activity.
Sunstein has characterized the current court as being composed of "two different kinds of conservatives" and has argued that the court has drifted to the right over the last three decades. He is generally disdainful of ideology-driven jurisprudence. He supported John Roberts' nomination but told Slate in 2007 that he was "surprised that Roberts has shown no unpredictability at all" in his unwavering conservatism. If he makes it onto the court, Sunstein is unlikely to be so reliable for the left.
Leah Ward Sears, 53, has a string of firsts to her name—she's the first African-American woman to be a superior court judge in Georgia, the first appointed to the state Supreme Court, and the first to become the chief of that court, after then-Gov. Zell Miller appointed her to fill a vacancy. In 2004, conservatives waged a major campaign to unseat Sears by throwing money at her opponent. She prevailed with 62 percent of the vote.
Sears calls herself "a moderate with a progressive streak." She doesn't sound like a lefty when she campaigns for a pet cause: strengthening marriage. "As a judge I am often frustrated that I must work within a system designed only to pick up the pieces after families have already fallen apart or failed to come together," she wrote in a 2006 Washington Post op-ed. Sears, who is divorced herself and has two children, is thoughtful rather than pat on the topic: While she worries about kids who grow up in single-parent families, she said in a 2007 speech that "as a woman who came of age at the height of the feminist movement, I do not really hold naive notions about the so-called good old days, Ozzie and Harriet and that kind of thing." Twin fun facts from this 2005 profile: Sears annoyed some of her civil rights allies by inviting her old friend Justice Clarence Thomas to her inauguration, and she named her daughter Brennan, after one of the Supreme Court's liberal lions, former Justice William Brennan. She has said she plans to leave the Georgia Supreme Court in June to pursue other opportunities, rather than for health reasons. By leaving the court midterm, Sears will give Republican Gov. Sonny Perdue the chance to tilt the court to the right when he names her replacement—to the great frustration of those who fought for her election. "It is very disappointing," said Stephen Bright, president and senior counsel of the Southern Center for Human Rights.
Notable cases: As a state court judge, Sears hasn't built a long record interpreting federal law. She wrote the 2007 ruling that released Genarlow Wilson from prison, based on the theory that his 10-year sentence, for having sex with a 15-year-old girl when he was 17, was "grossly disproportionate to his crime." In 2008, she dissented from a ruling of her court upholding the death sentence of a man who killed an off-duty cop. Seven of the nine witnesses against the defendant had recanted, some of them saying their trial testimony had been coerced. Sears said the court was skirting the "fundamental question": whether an innocent man was being put to death. She also opposed, in 2004, the Georgia Supreme Court's decision to allow on the ballot an amendment to the constitution that succeeded in banning same-sex marriage.
Kim McLane Wardlaw, 54, has 16 years of private practice (at the firm O'Melveny & Myers) to back up her 14 years on the bench. She had a business litigation practice with a specialty in intellectual property and media defense. Bill Clinton appointed Wardlaw to the federal district court in California after she volunteered for his presidential campaign in the 1992 election and served on the Clinton-Gore transition team at the Justice Department. In 1998, Clinton elevated her to the 9th Circuit. She sailed through both her confirmations with bipartisan support. (Sen. Dianne Feinstein is one of her backers.)
Don't let the blond chignon fool you: Wardlaw is the first Latina to serve on a federal appeals court. She is truly of mixed heritage—in this 2009 interview, she writes, "My mother was Mexican, Catholic, and Republican, while my father was a Scottish-Irish Presbyterian and a loyal Democrat." She also says: "Women can have it all, but not all at the same time. … The real life consequences of my desire to make partner as a litigator in an international law firm were that I did not marry until I was 30; did not have my first child until I was 35; and found myself at age 41 with a six-month-old infant daughter starting a job as a U.S. District Court Judge."
Notable cases: Wardlaw wrote the 9th Circuit opinion, now on appeal to the Supreme Court, which found a violation of the Fourth Amendment in an Arizona school's strip-search of a 13-year-old girl wrongly suspected of hiding prescription-strength ibuprofen in her underwear. Wardlaw wrote that "a reasonable school official, seeking to protect the students in his charge, does not subject a 13-year-old girl to a traumatic search to 'protect' her from the danger of Advil." At oral argument, the Supreme Court seemed likely to overturn Wardlaw's ruling, to the apparent despair of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
In 2008, Wardlaw wrote the first appellate opinion giving Fourth Amendment protection to e-mail messages, in a case brought by government workers whose bosses wanted to search their e-mail accounts. The Electronic Frontier Foundation called the ruling "a tremendous victory for your online privacy." In another case on appeal to the Supreme Court this term, Wardlaw ruled that AT&T must give women who retired from the company credit, in calculating pension benefits, for work time lost decades ago for maternity leave. And in a 2004 ruling affirmed by the Supreme Court, Wardlaw strengthened the hand of the Environmental Protection Agency in enforcing the Clean Air Act, in a case about whether the EPA could stop a new pollution-spewing mine over the objections of the state of Alaska.
Pam Karlan, 50, teaches law at Stanford University. As founding director of the school's Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, she has helped represent dozens of defendants in criminal and civil rights matters, all free of charge. An expert on constitutional and election law, Karlan has served as assistant counsel at the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund. Karlan has authored three leading casebooks on constitutional law (one of which Obama taught from) and is co-author of a brand new book, Keeping Faith With the Constitution, which offers a progressive theory of jurisprudential interpretation. Karlan confirmed to Politico that she is "counted among the LGBT crowd." Karlan, whose legal writing is both trenchant and prolific, has become something of a rock star on the legal conference circuit.
Karlan has no judicial record to probe, but she has an immense collection of writings. She argued at the Supreme Court in defense of the Voting Rights Act and wrote an amicus brief on behalf of legal academics in the 2003 case Lawrence v. Texas, arguing that laws against consensual sodomy were unconstitutional. She has defended criminal defendants in police search cases at the high court and has been a strong advocate for gay marriage. (Disclosure: Karlan is an acquaintance of Dahlia Lithwick's.)
Merrick Garland, 56, has something in common with four of the current Supreme Court justices: Like Roberts, Thomas, Scalia, and Ginsburg, he comes from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which, as the National Law Journal notes, is considered the second-most important court and a breeding ground for Supreme Court justices. After he graduated from Harvard Law School, Garland clerked for Justice William Brennan Jr., worked for Jimmy Carter's Justice Department, spent time in private practice and as a federal prosecutor, and returned to the DoJ under Clinton, where he oversaw the investigation of the Oklahoma City bombings and prosecuted the Unabomber. For this Supreme Court nomination, he bears the obvious liability of being a white male at a time when Obama is facing pressure on many fronts to nominate someone who has at most one of those traits.
Garland is usually described as a moderate liberal, engaging on the bench and getting along with conservative colleagues on the D.C. Circuit. He has a background in both antitrust and administrative law as well.
Notable cases: Last June, Garland wrote the D.C. Circuit Court's decision that Guantanamo detainee Huzaifa Parhat was unfairly classified as an enemy combatant. When Roberts still sat on the D.C. Circuit, he and Garland concurred on an opinion that granted a former D.C. Metro employee the right to sue for disability discrimination. Unlike Roberts, he voted not to rehear a case against a California developer who was challenging the Endangered Species Act over a dispute with the Arroyo toad, and he has generally sided with environmentalists.
Kathleen Sullivan, 53, is the former dean of Stanford Law School, teaches constitutional law there, and has authored the nation's leading constitutional law casebook. She is chair of the National Appellate Practice at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges. A one-time Marshall scholar, Sullivan's constitutional knowledge is prodigious. Her former law professor Laurence Tribe once called Sullivan "the most extraordinary student I had ever had." The National Law Journal has twice named her one of the "100 Most Influential Lawyers in America" and has twice named her as one of the "50 Most Influential Women Lawyers in America." Today Politico reported that she was a lesbian; she did not comment.
Sullivan is a gifted oral advocate and has argued five cases at the Supreme Court, notably several important business cases in recent years, including an appeal representing wineries challenging bans on the direct shipment of wine to consumers living out of state. She was also a member of the legal team that challenged the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law. Sullivan has filed amicus briefs in two seminal gay rights cases at the Supreme Court, Lawrence v. Texas and Bowers v. Hardwick, and authored an amicus brief in a case involving the constitutionality of gay marriage in California. She is also well-known for her pro bono work in high-profile cases involving civil rights and civil liberties. In a brief she co-authored in a landmark case about warrantless NSA wiretapping, she wrote, "Whatever inherent powers the President might have under Article II, they do not include the power to conduct a warrantless domestic surveillance campaign, of indefinite duration and unlimited scope, where a duly enacted statute expressly prohibits such conduct." (Disclosure: Sullivan was a professor of Dahlia Lithwick's at law school.)
Margaret McKeown, who is about to turn 58, was the first woman partner at the Seattle law firm Perkins Coie, where her 23-year practice concentrated on antitrust and intellectual property law and her clients included Boeing and Citicorp. Bill Clinton nominated her to the 9th Circuit in 1996. After Republicans refused to bring the nomination to a vote, Clinton had to nominate her again in 1997. In the end, she was confirmed by a wide margin of 80-11.
McKeown's nomination ran into trouble, initially, because of her pro-bono legal work for the Washington Association of Churches. In 1994, she helped the mainstream church group work with the ACLU in trying to declare unconstitutional two citizen initiatives, written to deny gay people protection from discrimination based on sexual orientation.
McKeown also came under attack from conservatives for signing a resolution urging the American Bar Association to support Roe v. Wade.
Notable cases: In 2007, McKeown wrote the 9th Circuit opinion that barred an Islamic charity from showing, with a confidential government document, that the National Security Agency had wiretapped its offices without a warrant. McKeown accepted "the need to defer to the executive on matters of foreign and national security" and wrote that judges "surely cannot legitimately find ourselves second-guessing the executive in this arena." She rejected, however, the Justice Department's argument that "the very subject matter" of the litigation was a state secret—a position the Obama administration has continued to take.
In 2007, McKeown pushed the Bush EPA to update its water-pollution guidelines under the Clean Water Act, by recognizing the effect of new technology. The EPA position that it did not have to take new technology into account "strains credulity to the breaking point," McKeown wrote. In the famed challenge to the Pledge of Allegiance that came before the 9th Circuit, McKeown voted for a rehearing of the three-judge panel ruling that under God in the pledge violated the Constitution's separation of church and state. McKeown did not say that she thought the panel had gotten the case wrong but that it presented "a constitutional question of exceptional importance."
Hillary Clinton, 61, was active in law for two decades between graduating from Yale Law School in 1973 and moving to Washington as first lady in 1993. After a brief stint working for the House judiciary committee on the impeachment of President Richard Nixon, she moved to Arkansas to reunite with law school flame Bill Clinton, where she taught at the University of Arkansas law school and joined the Rose Law Firm. She became the first female partner there in 1979 and continued to practice during Bill Clinton's tenure as governor. She has remained in Washington for the last 16 years, including eight as the junior senator from New York and now as Obama's secretary of state.
Much of Clinton's early work was devoted to advocacy for children, including championing the Children's Defense Fund. She co-founded the Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families. Her first scholarly article, published in the Harvard Educational Review, was titled "Children Under the Law" and argued that children should not be categorically treated as incompetent to make legal decisions up until their 18th birthdays. (She elaborated on this topic in future articles, stating that courts should intervene in family cases only in extreme circumstances but that children in such cases should be treated as gradually more independent as they mature.)
At the Rose Law Firm, Clinton focused on intellectual property and patent infringement cases. She also worked in business litigation, including work for Wal-Mart and TCBY. (It was also at Rose that she billed 60 hours of work to Madison Guaranty, which later became a subject of intense scrutiny during the Whitewater investigation.) The National Law Journal twice named her one of the 100 most influential American lawyers. If Clinton were to get the nod, her pro-choice record would be scrutinized—along with plenty of other positions she has taken on the campaign trail.
Martha Minow, 54, is a star legal academic at Harvard Law School and a leading expert on family law, a field she entered in 1980 despite being told it would stereotype her. "She helped bring alive the field," former Stanford Law School Dean Kathleen Sullivan (a fellow short-lister) said in a 1997 profile in the Boston Globe. Minow's interest in making sure that kids grow up in stable families, she explained in a 2001 op-ed, led her to become a plaintiff in a suit that challenged the constitutionality of a voter initiative in Massachusetts that tried to ban same-sex marriage. "Research makes it irrefutable that a definition of family founded solely on an official marriage of a man and a woman is out of touch with how people actually live," she wrote.
Minow has also been active in human rights, serving on the Independent International Commission on Kosovo, which tried to understand whether the atrocities committed there in the 1990s could have been prevented, and helping to launch a program of the U.N. High Commission for Refugees called Imagine Coexistence, which assessed efforts to reintegrate refugees after violent ethnic conflict and produced a book.
Her latest book, Just Schools, is about how schools can pursue social equality and accommodate students from different racial, ethnic, and religious backgrounds. She talks about those themes here. As a teacher, she takes steps to make sure that all kinds of students speak up in class. "I am quite conscious to count seconds, usually 25 to 30, between raising a question and finding a volunteer," she told the New York Times in 2004. "Some people who take time to think might have better things to say. Women typically won't shoot up their hands first."
Minow is close to Obama, whom she mentored when he was a law student at Harvard. Her father, former FCC Commissioner Newton Minow, gave Obama his first legal job, hiring him as a Chicago law firm summer associate. She has been a strong backer of the president, but she also speaks with her own voice: In an op-ed in March, she warned the government to make sure it is strictly accountable for stimulus spending. She told Slate last year that she didn't think Obama would necessarily favor moderate judicial picks over strongly liberal ones. Her own motto, from Justice Thurgood Marshall, for whom she clerked, is "remember they're human beings," referring to the people who come before courts. It's akin to Obama's declaration that he is looking for a justice who thinks about "how our laws affect the daily realities of people's lives." (Disclosure: Minow also clerked for the late Judge David Bazelon, who was Emily's grandfather.)
Teresa Wynn Roseborough, 50, is chief litigation counsel at MetLife Inc., leading a department of 62 associates and supervising MetLife's litigation activities worldwide. Her specialties include constitutional law, class actions, telecommunications, and government regulation law, and she has argued before state and federal courts as well as at the Supreme Court. She graduated from UNC-Chapel Hill law school in 1986, where she edited the law review.
In addition to her solid footing in the outside-the-beltway business community, Roseborough also has strong D.C. connections. She worked as one of the principal attorneys for the Gore campaign during the 2000 presidential election and has served on the board directors of the American Constitution Society with now-Attorney General Eric Holder. Roseborough served as deputy assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel in the Justice Department from 1994-96 and as a law clerk for Justice John Paul Stevens in 1987. In 2003, she was named by American Lawyer magazine as one of the 45 highest-performing members of the private bar under the age of 45.
If President Obama means what he says about wanting Supreme Court justices with dramatically different work experiences and backgrounds, Roseborough's non-Ivy, nonjudicial background might be very compelling. That she is whip-smart and an African-American woman are icing on the cake.
David Tatel, 67, sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, long considered a sort of feeder court for the Supreme Court. Before joining the federal bench, Tatel worked in civil rights, including a stint as director of the National Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. He spearheaded programs to advance the rights of minorities and the poor through housing, voting rights, education, and employment litigation. He also served as director of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare's Office for Civil Rights in the Carter administration. At 67, Tatel is widely believed to be too old to be elevated to the high court, and the fact that he is a white male will hardly be an asset this time around. If tapped for a SCOTUS seat, Tatel would become the first blind justice.
Notable cases: Tatel has written several opinions that have gone on to become blockbusters at the Supreme Court, including an important test of the Voting Rights Act heard just last week. Tatel wrote 161 pages for a unanimous panel, upholding Section 5 of the act from a constitutional challenge. The Supreme Court has yet to decide that case. In 2005, he voted to uphold a lower court's contempt decision against New York Times reporter Judith Miller, finding the grand jury's need for Miller's testimony outweighed the burden of disclosure on newsgathering. He wrote, "[J]ust as attorney-client communications 'made for the purpose of getting advice for the commission of a fraud or crime' serve no public interest and receive no privilege … neither should courts protect sources whose leaks harm national security while providing minimal benefit to public debate." In a landmark environmental case from 2005, Tatel's dissent was vindicated when the Supreme Court found that the EPA had failed to comply with the mandate of the Clean Air Act when it refused to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. In 2003, Tatel also dissented in an important war on terror case when he sided with those seeking, though a FOIA request, the names of post-9/11 detainees and their attorneys. Tatel, dissenting from the majority's opinion denying the request, wrote that the "court's uncritical deference to the government's vague, poorly explained arguments for withholding [information] as well as its willingness to fill in the factual and logical gaps in the government's case, eviscerates both FOIA itself and the principles of openness in government that FOIA embodies." (Disclosure: Tatel is an acquaitance of Dahlia Lithwick's.)
Lisa Madigan, 42, is a rising star in Illinois politics, a friend and former colleague of Barack Obama's from the Illinois state Senate, and the current attorney general of the state. She is said to be considering a run for governor, and the New York Times named her among a roster of down-the-road candidates for the first female president.
Consider this for Madigan's column: She successfully argued a case before the Supreme Court, the first attorney general to personally do so in 25 years—while seven months pregnant. The case, Illinois v. Caballes, gave police the authority to use drug-sniffing dogs on the outside of a stopped vehicle without a warrant or reason to suspect possession.
As Law.com notes, Madigan has other serious law-and-order bona fides, such as advocating for stricter supervision and registration of sex offenders, stronger methamphetamine laws, and scrutiny of the state's gaming industry. Prior to joining the state senate, Madigan specialized in employment law at a Chicago firm and as attorney general filed an amicus brief in support of the University of Michigan's affirmative action policy in Grutter v. Bollinger. She also challenged former Illinois Gov. George Ryan's commutation of 32 death row inmates on legal grounds—and lost—and recently came under fire for not aggressively investigating 25 cases relating to a Chicago police commander accused of torture.
Like Obama, Madigan has a background in community organizing. She also taught young women in South Africa during apartheid.
Harold Koh, 54, was the dean of Yale Law School until March, when he stepped down after being tapped to serve as Hillary Clinton's chief legal adviser at the State Department, a position for which he has yet to be confirmed. He is a star human rights litigator who forced the federal courts to grant rights to Haitian refugees held at Guantanamo Bay in the mid-1990s, though the Supreme Court eventually backed the government's policy of returning the refugees to Haiti without asylum hearings. From 1998 to 2001, Koh served as President Bill Clinton's assistant secretary of state for human rights.
Before joining the faculty at Yale, in the 1980s Koh practiced law at Covington & Burling and worked in the Reagan Justice Department, in the Office of Legal Counsel. He clerked on the Supreme Court for Justice Harry Blackmun. His family came to the United States in the 1950s, when Koh's father was South Korea's minister to the United States, and chose to stay here after South Korea's 1961 coup.
As a pre-eminent scholar of international law, Koh is a leading proponent of the notion that the United States can learn from the laws and judicial precedents of other countries. He has written and spoken about the role of "transnational jurisprudence"—a body of law that spans different countries and international courts—and has shown that since the founding, the decisions of foreign courts have influenced the development of American law. The far right attacked Koh's views on international law after Obama tapped him for the State Department legal post, even though they largely match the positions taken by a majority of the Supreme Court in cases like Roper v. Simmons, which abolished the death penalty for defendants who commit crimes as juveniles. In a friend-of-the-court brief filed in that case, Koh attached the juvenile death penalty for clashing with American interests. We've weighed in about the Koh bashing on Slate here and here. If appointed, Koh would become the first Asian-American to sit on the Supreme Court. (Disclosure: Emily Bazelon is a fellow at Yale Law School.)
Leigh Ingalls Saufley, 54,is the chief justice of the Maine Supreme Judicial Court and the first woman and youngest member of the court ever to be appointed chief justice. A graduate of the University of Maine-Orono and the University of Maine School of Law, Saufley logged 10 years of service in the state's Attorney General Office. As chief justice, Saufley has spearheaded efforts to bring mental health courts to Maine, giving offenders the option of accepting mental health treatment in lieu of going to jail. She also supported a Maine law that would restrict how much information the public receives about a jury, if a judge deems the information should be kept secret.
Notable cases: In 2007, she voted to approve a state statute requiring drivers involved in fatal car crashes to submit to blood tests for alcohol and other drugs, finding the privacy interests of drivers did not outweigh the state's need to determine whether they were using alcohol or other drugs prior to fatal crashes. In 1999, she voted with a unanimous court to dismiss a sexual abuse suit against the Jehovah's Witnesses, because to hold the church responsible would require delving into matters of redemption and forgiveness, "an inquiry that would require secular investigation of matters that are almost entirely ecclesiastical in nature." In 1999, she also authored an opinion finding voucher funding of religious schools unconstitutional. If the president really wants a Supreme Court justice who is female, as an outsider with a dollop of David Souter's New England pragmatism, Saufley is an interesting choice.
Myron Thompson, 62, is a district judge in Alabama. President Carter chose him in 1980 at the age of 33 in an effort to put a black judge on Alabama's federal trial court. Thompson's opinions on voting rights and on who has standing to bring lawsuits are regularly invoked by other courts. He's also the judge who was undaunted by Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore when Moore insisted on displaying a massive granite Ten Commandments monument in the courthouse. Thompson ruled that effort a violation of the constitutionally required separation between church and state. The religious right called for Thompson's impeachment, but the 11th Circuit repeatedly upheld his rulings. Like the stone monument, Moore was finally removed from Alabama's court.
Based on e-mail nominations, here's how Slate readers are voting. To vote, click on the red "nominate" link in your choice's profile.


text:
- Purpose of This Handbook
- Importance of Jury Service
- The Courts
- The Criminal Case
- The Civil Case
- The Voir Dire Examination
- The Jurors' Solemn Oath
- The Eight Stages of Trial
- The Arguments of Counsel
- The Charge to the Jury
- The Jury's Verdict
- Courtroom Etiquette
- Conduct of the Jury During the Trial
- In the Jury Room
- After the Trial
- Conclusion
Purpose of This Handbook
The purpose of this handbook is to acquaint trial jurors with the general nature and importance of their role as jurors. It explains some of the language and procedures used in court, and it offers some suggestions helpful to jurors in performing this important public service.
Nothing in this handbook is to be regarded by jurors as instructions of law to be applied by them in any case in which they serve. The judge will instruct the jury in each separate case as to the law of that case. For example, in each criminal case, the judge will tell the jury, among other things, that a defendant charged with a crime is presumed to be innocent and the burden of proving the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is upon the Government. Jurors must follow only the instructions of law given to them by the trial judge in each particular case.
Back To Top
Importance of Jury Service
Jurors perform a vital role in the American system of justice. The protection of our rights and liberties is largely achieved through the teamwork of judge and jury who, working together in a common effort, put into practice the principles of our great heritage of freedom. The judge determines the law to be applied in the case while the jury decides the facts. Thus, in a very important way, jurors become a part of the court itself.
Jurors must be men and women possessed of sound judgment, absolute honesty, and a complete sense of fairness. Jury service is a high duty of citizenship. Jurors aid in the maintenance of law and order and uphold justice among their fellow citizens. Their greatest reward is the knowledge that they have discharged this duty faithfully, honorably, and well. In addition to determining and adjusting property rights, jurors may also be asked to decide questions involving a crime for which a person may be fined, placed on probation, or confined in prison. In a very real sense, therefore, the people must rely upon jurors for the protection of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Back To Top
The Courts
In this country, there are two systems of courts. The courts of the individual 50 States and the District of Columbia and the courts of the Federal Government. This book is written for jurors selected to serve in the trial court of the Federal Government, the United States District Court. The types of cases which can be brought in this court have been fixed by the United States Congress according to our Federal Constitution.
Cases in the United States District Courts are divided into two general classes: criminal cases and civil cases.
Criminal cases are those in which individuals or organizations are charged with breaking the criminal laws. Typical criminal charges in a federal court are those involving violation of the federal income tax and narcotics laws, mail theft, and counterfeiting.
Civil cases are suits in which persons who disagree over their rights and duties come into court to settle the matter. A typical example of a civil case is one involving a broken contract. One party may claim that it should be paid under the terms of the contract, while the other side may assert a defense to the claim, such as the lack of a binding contract. The court is asked to decide who is right. This depends on the law as laid down by the judge and the facts as decided by the jury.
Back To Top
The Criminal Case
The person charged with a violation of the law is the defendant. The charge against the defendant may be brought in two ways. One way is by means of an indictment; the other is by an information.
An indictment is a written accusation by a grand jury that charges the defendant with committing an offense against the law. Each offense charged will usually be set forth in a separate count of the indictment.
An information is the name given to a written charge against the defendant filed by the United States Attorney and not by the grand jury. But even in cases where the defendant has the right to have a grand jury consider the charges presented, the defendant may agree to give up this right and consent to the filing of an information.
After the indictment or information is filed, the defendant appears in open court where the court advises the defendant of the charge and asks whether the defendant pleads "guilty" or "not guilty." This procedure is called the arraignment.
No trial is needed if the defendant pleads guilty and admits to committing the crime. But if the defendant pleads not guilty he or she will then be placed on trial.
The judge in a criminal case tells the jury what the law is. The jury must determine what the true facts are. On that basis, the jury has only to determine whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty as to each offense charged. What happens thereafter is not for the jury's consideration, but is the sole responsibility of the judge. In other words, the sentence is not to be considered in any way by the jury in arriving at an impartial verdict as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant.
The jury must consider separately each of the charges against the defendant, after which it may find the person: not guilty of any of the charges, guilty of all the charges, or guilty of some of the charges and not guilty of others.
Back To Top
The Civil Case
The following is an example of the kind of civil case jurors in a United States District Court will help decide.
Let us call the case John Smith v. XY Company. This means that John Smith has filed a claim against the XY Company. John Smith is called the plaintiff, the person who begins the case. The XY Company is the defendant. The plaintiff and the defendant are the parties.
The plaintiff, John Smith, states his claim in a paper called the complaint. The defendant, XY Company, replies to the complaint in a paper called the answer. The complaint and the answer are the main pleadings in the case. The points in the pleadings upon which the parties disagree make up the issues of fact and law. Sometimes these issues are set forth in a pre-trial order. This is an order drawn up by the judge after consulting with the attorneys for the parties.
Back To Top
The Voir Dire Examination
To begin a jury trial, a panel of prospective jurors is called into the courtroom. This panel will include a number of persons from which a jury will be selected to try the case. Alternate jurors may be chosen to take the place of jurors who become ill during the trial.
The panel members are sworn to answer questions about their qualifications to sit as jurors in the case. This questioning process is called the voir dire. This is an examination conducted by the judge and sometimes includes participation by counsel. A deliberately untruthful answer to any fair question could result in serious punishment to the person making it.
The voir dire examination opens with a short statement about the case. The purpose is to inform the jurors of what the case is about and to identify the parties and their lawyers.
Questions are then asked to find out whether any individuals on the panel have any personal interest in the case or know of any reason why they cannot render an impartial verdict. The court also wants to know whether any member of the panel is related to or personally acquainted with the parties, their lawyers, or the witnesses who will appear during trial. Other questions will determine whether any panel members have a prejudice or a feeling that might influence them in rendering a verdict. Any juror having knowledge of the case should explain this to the judge.
Parties on either side may ask that a member of the panel be excused or exempted from service on a particular jury. These requests, or demands, are called challenges.
A person may be challenged for cause if the examination shows he or she might be prejudiced. The judge will excuse an individual from the panel if the cause raised in the challenge is sufficient. There is no limit to the number of challenges for cause which either party may make.
The parties also have a right to a certain number of challenges for which no cause is necessary. The are called peremptory challenges. Each side usually has a predetermined number of peremptory challenges. The peremptory challenge is a legal right long recognized by law as a means of giving both sides some choice in the make-up of a jury. Jurors should clearly understand that being eliminated from the jury panel by a peremptory challenge is no reflection upon their ability or integrity. In some courts the peremptory challenges are made openly in the hearing of the jury. In others, they are made from the jury list out of the jury's sight.
Back To Top
The Jurors' Solemn Oath
After the voir dire is completed, the jurors selected to try the case will be sworn in. The judge or clerk will state to the jury: "Members of the Jury, you will rise, hold up your right hands, and be sworn to try this case."
The jurors then rise and hold up their right hands. The jurors face the judge or the clerk who is to administer the oath. That official slowly, solemnly, and clearly repeats the oath. The jurors indicate by their responses and upraised hands that they take this solemn oath.
Jurors not wishing to take an oath may request to affirm instead of swear. In some districts the jury is sworn upon the Bible and not by uplifted hand.
The Eight Stages of Trial
The trial proceeds when the jury has been sworn. There are usually eight stages of trial in civil cases. They are:
1. The lawyers present opening statements. Sometimes the opening statements on behalf of one or more parties are omitted.
2. Plaintiff calls witnesses and produces evidence to prove its case.
3. Defendant may call witnesses and produce evidence to disprove the plaintiff's case and to prove the defendant's claims.
4. Plaintiff may call rebuttal witnesses to disprove what was said by the defendant's witnesses.
5. Closing arguments are made by the lawyer on each side.
6. The judge instructs or charges the jury as to the law.
7. The jury retires to deliberate.
8. The jury reaches its verdict.
During the trial, witnesses called by either side may be cross-examined by the lawyers on the other side.
Throughout the trial, the judge may be asked in the presence of the jury to decide questions of law. Usually these questions concern objections to testimony that either side wants to present. Occasionally, the judge may ask jurors to leave the courtroom briefly while the lawyers present their legal arguments for and against such objections. The law requires that the judge decide such questions.
A ruling by the judge does not indicate that the judge is taking sides. He or she is merely saying, in effect, that the law does or does not, permit that question to be asked.
It is possible that the judge may decide every objection favorably to the plaintiff or the defendant. That does not mean the case should be decided by the jury for the plaintiff or the defendant. Even where the judge decides every objection favorably to the plaintiff or the defendant, the jury should maintain its objectivity and base its verdict strictly upon the testimony and exhibits received in evidence at trial.
The juror takes an oath to decide the case "upon the law and the evidence." The law is what the judge declares the law to be. The evidence which you will consider consists of the testimony of witnesses and the exhibits admitted in evidence. What evidence is proper for the jury to consider is based upon the law of evidence.
Back To Top
The Arguments of Counsel
After presentation of the evidence is completed, the lawyers have the opportunity to discuss the evidence in their closing arguments. This helps the jurors recall testimony that might have slipped their memory.
The chief purpose of the argument is to present the evidence in logical and comprehensible order. The lawyers fit the different parts of the testimony together and connect up the facts.
It must be remembered that each attorney presents the view of the case that is most favorable to his or her own client. Each lawyer's side appears to be right to that lawyer. Each lawyer's statement may be balanced by the statement of the lawyers on the other side.
Back To Top
The Charge to the Jury
The charge of a judge to a jury in a United States District Court frequently is much more than a statement of the rules of law. Sometimes it may contain a summary of the facts or some of the facts.
It is the jury's duty to reach its own conclusion based upon the evidence. The verdict is reached without regard to what may be the opinion of the judge as to the facts, though as to the law the judge's charge controls.
The judge may point out and may also explain what basic facts are in dispute, and what facts do not actually matter in the case. In other words, the judge may try to direct the jury's attention to the real merits of the case and impartially summarize the evidence bearing on the questions of fact. The judge will state the law related to the facts presented to the jury.
Back To Top
The Jury's Verdict
In both civil and criminal cases, it is the jury's duty to decide the facts in accordance with the principles of law laid down in the judge's charge to the jury. The decision is made on the evidence introduced, and the jury's decision on the facts is usually final.
Back To Top
Courtroom Etiquette
A court session begins when the court official raps for order. Everyone in the court rises. The judge takes his or her place on the bench, and the court official announces the opening of court. A similar procedure is used when court adjourns.
Common courtesy and politeness are safe guides as to the way jurors should act. Of course, no juror will be permitted to read a newspaper or magazine in the courtroom. Nor should a juror carry on a conversation with another juror in the courtroom during the trial.
Jurors will be treated with consideration. Their comfort and convenience will be served whenever possible. They should bring to the attention of the judge any matter affecting their service and should notify the court of any emergencies. In the event of a personal emergency, a juror may send word to the judge through any court personnel, or may ask to see the judge privately.
Back To Top
Conduct of the Jury During the Trial
Jurors should give close attention to the testimony. They are sworn to disregard their prejudices and follow the court's instructions. They must render a verdict according to their best judgment.
Each juror should keep an open mind. Human experience shows that, once persons come to a preliminary conclusion as to a set of facts, they hesitate to change their views. Therefore, it is wise for jurors not to even attempt to make up their mind on the facts of a case until all the evidence has been presented to them, and they have been instructed on the law applicable to the case. Similarly, jurors should not discuss the case, even among themselves, until it is finally concluded.
During the trial the jury may hear references to the rules of evidence. Some of these rules may appear strange to a person who is not a lawyer. However, each rule has a purpose. The rules have evolved from hundreds of years of experience in the trial of cases.
The mere fact that a lawsuit was begun is not evidence in a case. The opening and closing statements of the lawyers are not evidence. A juror should disregard any statements made by a lawyer in argument that have not been proved by the evidence. A juror should also disregard any statement by a lawyer as to the law of the case if it is not in accord with the judge's instructions.
Jurors are expected to use all the experience, common sense and common knowledge they possess. But they are not to rely on any private source of information. Thus they should be careful, during the trial, not to discuss the case at home or elsewhere. Information that a juror gets from a private source may be only half true, or biased or inaccurate. It may be irrelevant to the case at hand. At any rate, it is only fair that the parties have a chance to know and comment upon all the facts that matter in the case.
If it develops during the trial that a juror learns elsewhere of some fact about the case, he or she should inform the court. The juror should not mention any such matter in the jury room.
Individual jurors should never inspect the scene of an accident or any event in the case. If an inspection is necessary, the judge will have the jurors go as a group to the scene.
Jurors must not talk about the case with others not on the jury, even their spouses or families, and must not read about the case in the newspapers. They should avoid radio and television broadcasts that might mention the case. The Jury's verdict must be based on nothing else but the evidence and law presented to them in court. Breaking these rules is likely to confuse a juror. It may be hard to separate in one's mind the court testimony and reports coming from other sources.
Jurors should not loiter in the corridors or vestibules of the courthouse. Embarrassing contacts may occur there with persons interested in the case. If juror identification badges are provided, they should be worn in the courthouse at all times.
If any outsider attempts to talk with a juror about a case in which he or she is sitting, the juror should do the following:
1. Tell the person it is improper for a juror to discuss the case or receive any information except in the courtroom.
2. Refuse to listen if the outsider persists.
3. Report the incident at once to the judge.
Jurors have the duty to report to the judge any improper behavior by any juror. They also have the duty to inform the judge of any outside communication or improper conduct directed at the jury by any person.
Jurors on a case should refrain from talking on any subject--even if it is not related to the matter being tried--with any lawyer, witness, or party in the case. Such contact may make a new trial necessary. Some cases may arouse much public discussion. In that event, the jury may be kept together until the verdict is reached. This procedure is used to protect the jurors against outside influences.
Back To Top
In the Jury Room
In some districts the judge selects the foreperson of the jury. In other districts, the jurors elect their foreperson and in still other districts, the first juror to enter the jury box becomes the foreperson automatically.
The foreperson presides over the jury's deliberations and must give every juror a fair opportunity to express his or her views.
Jurors must enter the discussion with open minds. They should freely exchange views. They should not hesitate to change their opinions if the deliberations have convinced them they were wrong initially.
In a criminal case all jurors must agree on the verdict. This is also required in a civil case, unless the jury is otherwise instructed by the court.
The jurors have a duty to give full consideration to the opinion of their fellow jurors. They have an obligation to reach a verdict whenever possible. However, no juror is required to give up any opinion which he or she is convinced is correct.
It would be dishonest for a judge to decide a case by tossing a coin. It would be just as dishonest for a juror to do so.
The members of the jury are sworn to pass judgment on the facts in a particular case. They have no concern beyond that case. They violate their oath if they render their decision on the basis of the effect their verdict may have on other situations.
Back To Top
After The Trial
After the jurors return their verdict and are dismissed by the judge, they are free to go about their normal affairs, although in some districts, jurors must check with jury office personnel to see if their service is concluded. They are under no obligation to speak to any person about the case and may refuse all requests for interviews or comments. Nevertheless, the court may enter an order in a specific case that during any such interview, jurors may not give any information with respect to the vote of any other juror.
Back To Top
To decide cases correctly, jurors must be honest and intelligent. They must have both integrity and good judgment. The jury system is based on these attributes. The continued vitality of the jury system depends on them.
To meet their responsibility, jurors must decide the facts and apply the law impartially. They must not favor the rich or the poor. They must treat alike all men and women, corporations and individuals. Justice should be rendered to all persons without regard to race, color, religion or sex.
The performance of jury service is the fulfillment of a high civic obligation. Conscientious service brings its own reward in the satisfaction of an important task well done. There is no more valuable work that the average citizen can perform in support of our Government than the full and honest discharge of jury duty.
The effectiveness of the democratic system itself is largely measured by the integrity, the intelligence, and the general quality of citizenship of the jurors who serve in our courts.
[Prepared for the use of trial jurors serving in the United States District Courts under the supervision of the Judicial Conference of the United States. Published by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, Washington, DC 20544]

subset: commoncrawl


text:
If Japanese companies are going to use English, "dick" might be a good word to give the shaft.
Especially, if it's written as "Dickinin"—which, you know, looks like "dickin' in" or "dick in in." Not exactly the imagery you want to evoke for sore throat medicine.
The medicine's commercials features Kill Bill star Chiaki Kuriyama and began last fall in Japan. A new ad aired recently, and Twitter user @JohnnyTheFuture pointed out the medicine's odd English nomenclature.
Sigh. Yes, I know Japan's native language is not English. It's Japanese. And I know some people in Japan have trouble with English. This is more about a truly unfortunate choice!
Why? Because in Japanese the medicine is written as ジキニン or "Jikinin." For decades, the medicine, which launched in 1958, has been branded with its native Japanese language, instead of the truly awkward "Dickinin."
It's even odder when you realize that Jikinin is apparently a shortening of the Japanese "jiki ni naru" (じきに治る) or "cure immediately."
No idea why the pharmaceutical company decided to use the "dick" spelling. The word "dick" isn't as well known as the word "penis" (ペニス or penisu), but the term does find its way into adult videos. You'd think enough people would know the word to prevent a cock up like this from happening!
How do you spell your product's name in English? [@JohnnyTheFuture]
Photos: 全薬工業株式会社
To contact the author of this post, write to bashcraftATkotaku.com or find him on Twitter @Brian_Ashcraft.
Kotaku East is your slice of Asian internet culture, bringing you the latest talking points from Japan, Korea, China and beyond. Tune in every morning from 4am to 8am.


text:
LivingSocial is going high-class.
The Groupon competitor announced a new feature called Living Social Room Service that is designed to allow users to experience some of Washington D.C.'s best restaurants in their homes.
Every Thursday and Friday night, Room Service will offer a new prix fixe menu from one of the top establishments in downtown D.C. The company will bring "high-quality tableware, dining accessories, top-shelf presentation of food and a special after-dinner treat" into a diner's home, according to a release.
LivingSocial will take care of delivering the food via vans and will also pick up the plates the next day, All Things D reports.
KUSHI restaurant is the launch partner, and the meal costs $66 (about what it would cost at the restaurant).
Additionally, LivingSocial is creating an instant ordering option that lets customers order from 70 local restaurants through one service. (It sounds a lot like a Seamless competitor.)
Vendors can link their vouchers to the instant ordering as well.


text:
Please Note: These top mounts can only be fitted alongside KW Automotive coilover suspension kits.
KW top mounts allow you to adjust the camber and castor angles on your vehicle (most applications) keeping the suspension geometry optimised for supreme handling.
A special KW sealing system avoids an intrusion of dirt and water into the free of play and preloaded unibal bearings. Axial bearings also allow rotation of springs at Macpherson struts.
- Kit - KW Clubsport Top Mount Front
- Part Number - 19000748
- Car Make - Chrysler
- Car Model - 300C
- Car notes -
- Model Year - 09/04-
- Engine Power(KW) - 155-317
- Max Weight - F: -1275 R: -1275
- Lowering Front(mm) - 20-50
- Lowering Rear(mm) - 25-55
- Top Mount Adjustment - camber
Height adjustable front and rear axles (front axle threaded strut housings, rear axle adjustable springs + dampers)
Without German homologation certificate, optional with stability confirmation for individual registration according to §21 German law, clubsport top mounts generally without homologation certificate.
Product Features:
- Scaled camber adjustment (optional caster adjustment)
- Sealed and preloaded spherical bearing
- Axial bearings allow rotation of springs at Macpherson struts
- Made of tool steel (100Cr6): 58 to 64 HRC – hard chrome plated
- PTFE surface inlay, stainless steel outer ring (X20Cr13)
- Manufactured in Germany
Note: The product images shown are for illustration purposes only and may not be an exact representation of the product.


text:
Talk to our representative directly
Call us
We'll get back to you as soon as we can!
Contact us
Acredius AG Company Identification Number: CHE-443.581.719 © 2018-2022 Acredius AG. All rights reserved.
¹ Terms & Conditions Apply
Acredius AG Company Identification Number: CHE-443.581.719 © 2021 Acredius AG. All rights reserved.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. These cookies ensure basic functionalities and security features of the website, anonymously.
Functional cookies help to perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collect feedbacks, and other third-party features.
Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.
Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.
Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with relevant ads and marketing campaigns. These cookies track visitors across websites and collect information to provide customized ads.
Other uncategorized cookies are those that are being analyzed and have not been classified into a category as yet.


text:
25,800 jobs added in May, but unemployment rate rises
(Reuters) — Downbeat Canadian jobs and productivity data released on Friday showed the economy is still struggling to recover fully despite a strengthening U.S. recovery.
Although Statistics Canada said the economy created a net 25,800 jobs in May, all of them were part-time. Full-time jobs dropped by 29,100, bringing the two-month loss to a round 60,000 positions.
Market analysts on average had forecast a gain of 25,000 jobs. The unemployment rate edged up to seven per cent from 6.9 per cent in April as more people sought work.
The data confirm the Canadian jobs market has effectively slowed to a crawl over the last nine months.
"It's a labor market that's struggling under mounting fatigue," said David Tulk, chief Canada macro strategist at TD Securities, who noted "a lot of weakness in fulltime" jobs.
Part-time jobs rose by 54,900 in May.
The six-month moving average for employment growth edged up to 3,000 in May from 2,300 in April.
In the 12 months through May, only 85,500 jobs were created, the lowest year-over-year gain since the 75,700 increase in positions recorded in February 2010, when Canada was still mired in the fallout of the financial crisis.
"Certainly the headline number came basically right on expectations. However, one doesn't have to dig too far beneath the surface to discover that this report isn't all the headline is cracked up to be," said Doug Porter, chief economist at BMO Capital Market. "It's a bit soft under the surface."
The Bank of Canada, which has kept interest rates at a near record low 1.0 percent since September 2010, says it will not raise them until inflation recovers and the economy sheds some of the slack which built up during and after the recession.
The central bank is likely to defer any interest rate rise until the second half of next year, a Reuters poll showed on May 29.
Separately, Statscan said the labor productivity of Canadian businesses unexpectedly dropped by 0.1 per cent in the first quarter of 2014, the first decline for 18 months.
Market analysts had on average expected productivity to remain unchanged from the fourth quarter of 2013. The last drop in productivity was the 0.4 per cent decline seen in the third quarter of 2012.
The overall decline was caused by falling productivity in service-producing businesses, which dropped by 0.4 per cent from the fourth quarter. This more than offset the 0.8 percent increase recorded by goods-producing businesses.


text:
A. Craig Troxel
New Horizons: June 2005
Also in this issue
Proclaiming the Lord's Death: The Evangelistic Value of the Lord's Supper
by Eric B. Watkins
by Larry Wilson
Turning Points in American Presbyterian History
Part 6: Old School Presbyterianism, 1838
by D. G. Hart and John R. Muether
by David J. Stevenson
Seventy Years in the Making: The OPC's Confession of Faith and Catechisms with Proof Texts
by James W. Scott
In 1 Corinthians 11:17-22, Paul rebukes the Corinthians for setting up a distinction that God had removed among the people of God. That is why Paul cannot commend the Corinthians in their observance of the Lord's Supper (vss. 17, 22), as he can in general (11:2). In his reprimand, Paul tells this congregation that it would be better if they did not meet at all. When they gather together, "it is not for the better but for the worse" (vs. 17).
Paul says this because their observance of the sacrament bore little or no semblance to the Lord's Supper. What fed this mockery of the Lord's Supper were the distinctions ("divisions") that they were making in their midst. In chapter 1, Paul addressed the Corinthians' party spirit, their false allegiance to particular preachers. But here he directs his rebuke toward their dividing along economic lines, their allegiance to economic status and social class. Paul says that such divisions serve a purpose (vs. 19): they have a way of distinguishing the false from the genuine believer. Such divisions reveal who in the church is "approved" by God, because they show who authentically and truly believe.
Paul charges the Corinthians with sacrilege-that is, profaning the sacrament. The travesty of their practice was such a mockery of the Supper that Paul cannot bring himself even to call it the "Lord's Supper" (vs. 20).
The Lord's Supper was wrapped around a common meal, and for good reason. The Lord Jesus Christ based his sacramental meal on the Passover, the meal that honored and memorialized Israel's exodus out of Egypt. Just as the Passover meal would begin with thanksgiving pronounced over the first cup of wine, so the Lord Jesus took the cup and gave thanks (Luke 22:17). The Passover meal would proceed with grace being spoken over bread, the eating of the lamb, bread, and herbs, and a prayer spoken over an additional cup of wine. Similarly, we read how the Lord took the bread and gave thanks (vs. 19), and then, after supper, took the cup and proclaimed its meaning as the new covenant in his blood (vs. 20). Last of all, as in the Passover, a hymn was sung (Mark 14:26). In this way, the holy meal and the common meal became connected and linked in early church practice. Nevertheless, the problem at the Corinthian church does not emerge from the combining of the two meals.
The first problem with this church stems from the manner in which they ate their common meal. They ate their own food, and they ate it individually-each of them went "ahead with his own meal" (1 Cor. 11:21). In other words, they were not combining their food, and problems arose from that. First, it was supposed to be a common meal. Second, and more importantly, what if you were poor and could not bring much, if any, food? The point is that those who had an abundance of food were not sharing it, and the result was that this was not a family meal-not when fellow church members went away hungry.
But what were the poor and destitute supposed to do? On the one hand, they could not stay at home and abstain from the meal, because it included the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, which they were commanded to observe. On the other hand, if the poor did come to church to partake of the meal, it only served to remind them that they were not really part of this church family. They were "second class citizens," just as they were in wider Roman culture.
What the Corinthians were observing was not the Lord's Supper; it was the Corinthians' supper. Their meal did not speak of the cross or the way of the cross. It did not suggest self-sacrifice, giving, sharing, and unity. Instead, it represented selfishness, class distinctions, and disunity. Here was a great opportunity for the wealthy to exhibit Christian love, hospitality, and unity, but they turned it into the exact opposite.
In the Lord's Supper, Jesus says, "This is for you." The Corinthians' supper said, "This is for me."
Contemporary societies are no different from that distant Roman society in Corinth. We still struggle with favoring the "haves." We still struggle with indifference to the "have-nots." But when such things get into the church, it is disastrous.
As a church and as individual Christians, we must beware of becoming like the world. Anything that sends a message that some in our midst are privileged members, while others are not, discredits and counters the gospel message. In fact, it makes a mockery of what the church proclaims.
The gospel unites people of different socioeconomic strata, ethnic backgrounds, ages, and genders. The gospel counters the prejudice and favoritism that the world practices. If our message or practice is the same as the world's, then we have not understood the full significance of the cross. Wealthier Christians are obligated to share and be "rich in good works" (1 Tim. 6:17-18), and all church members must look to the needs of others (1 John 3:17). Our attitude toward fellow believers is not to withhold, but to share. Selfishness and hoarding contradict the cross and the meaning of family, sacrifice, love, and being a disciple of Christ.
These verses speak to us where we live. They address our weaknesses and our tendency to sin through pride, greed, materialism, worldliness, selfishness, and indifference. This passage underscores our responsibility to provide for each other's needs. We are bound together as one family. Our burdens and joys are shared. And when some in our midst are unemployed, uninsured, or have some other pressing need, it presents an opportunity to show that we understand what it means to give ourselves to one another. What does it say about our Christian fellowship when we do not ask about or even notice the needs of others around us? Our brothers and sisters need to know that the household of faith is concerned for their welfare. This world needs to see consistency between our preaching that Christ gave himself and our practice of giving ourselves. It is not just that we must imitate Christ in the grace of giving, as we give from our wealth to help those with less. We must also reflect with humility upon the gospel itself, and how it addresses our own impoverishment.
When exhorting the Corinthians about the grace of giving, Paul states, "You know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that you by his poverty might become rich" (2 Cor. 8:9). Christ did not become poor by ceasing to be God. As John Murray has said, Christ became poor by addition, not by subtraction. It is also true that Christ lived in material poverty throughout his earthly ministry and life. He owned nothing, was usually empty-handed, and had no place to lay his head. Yet this is not what Scripture means when it says that Christ became poor.
The Son of God impoverished himself by becoming a man. He took to himself a body that could be bruised and damaged, that could bleed and die. But his impoverishment involved more than his taking on our nature; it also meant suffering in our nature. Christ shouldered the weight and penalty of our sin. He endured God's wrath. He bore the curse of our sin, and a portion of that curse was feeling the forsakenness of his Father, as he cried, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" Here is where Christ became the poorest, because here is where he was the richest.
This is how we became rich. Christ impoverished himself for our sakes. He won our truest treasure through the riches of his grace. Yet this happened only because he gave of himself and shared his blessings and the merit of his redemption. It meant that he had to undergo the separation that our sin deserves. He who was the light of the world had to dwell in darkness for those agonizing hours at Golgotha because he bore our sin. Not even the Son of God could fellowship with the Father of lights (James 1:17), when he was fellowshiping with the darkness of our sin (1 John 1:5).
Through his humiliation, suffering, and death we have wealth as new people. We are new, redeemed creatures, the new Israel, the temple of the Holy Spirit, adopted as sons of God. Ours are the endless benefits in Christ, the gifts and fruit of the Holy Spirit. As coheirs with Christ, we look forward to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading. But surely where we are most rich is in our fellowship with the living God. Our former enmity toward God has been put away, and we are at peace with him. We commune with our Father through the Holy Spirit and have access to the throne of grace. In this life, we already enjoy the sweetest company known to man in God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and we will enjoy that company for all eternity in the life to come. Here is where we are, and will be, the richest. No people on earth are as rich as we are. We are rich because the Son of God became poor for our sakes.
Let us show one another and prove to the world that we understand the implications of the gospel: in our unity as brothers and sisters, as we encourage and strengthen each other as one family, as we share from our fatness, as we give, as we love, as we demonstrate that we follow the way of the cross and truly are disciples of the one who gave himself for our sakes.
The author is the pastor of Calvary OPC in Glenside, Pa. Reprinted from New Horizons, June 2005.
New Horizons: June 2005
Also in this issue
Proclaiming the Lord's Death: The Evangelistic Value of the Lord's Supper
by Eric B. Watkins
by Larry Wilson
Turning Points in American Presbyterian History
Part 6: Old School Presbyterianism, 1838
by D. G. Hart and John R. Muether
by David J. Stevenson
Seventy Years in the Making: The OPC's Confession of Faith and Catechisms with Proof Texts
by James W. Scott
© 2023 The Orthodox Presbyterian Church


text:
WASHINGTON — In a major step toward opening U.S. skies to thousands of unmanned drones, federal officials Thursday solicited proposals to create six drone test sites around the country.
The Federal Aviation Administration also posted online a draft plan for protecting people's privacy from the eyes in the sky. The plan would require each test site to follow federal and state laws and make a privacy policy publicly available.
Privacy advocates worry that a proliferation of drones will lead to a "surveillance society" in which the movements of Americans are routinely monitored, tracked, recorded and scrutinized by the authorities.
The military has come to rely heavily on drones overseas. Now there is tremendous demand to use drones in the U.S. for all kinds of tasks that are too dirty, dull or dangerous for manned aircraft. Drones, which range from the size of a hummingbird to the high-flying Globalhawks that weigh about 15,000 pounds without fuel, also are often cheaper than manned aircraft. The biggest market is expected to be state and local police departments.
The FAA is required by a law enacted a year ago to develop sites where civilian and military drones can be tested in preparation for integration into U.S. airspace that's currently limited to manned aircraft.
The law also requires that the FAA allow drones wide access to U.S. airspace by 2015, but the agency is behind schedule, and it's doubtful it will meet the deadline, the Transportation Department's inspector general said in a report last year.
The test sites are planned to evaluate what requirements are needed to ensure the drones don't collide with planes or endanger people or property on the ground. Remotely controlled drones don't have a pilot who can see other aircraft the way an onboard plane or helicopter pilot can.
There's also concern that links between drones and their on-the-ground operators can be broken or hacked, causing the operator to lose control of the drone. Military drones use encrypted GPS signals for navigation, which protects them from hacking, but the GPS signals used by civilian drones don't have that protection.
"Our focus is on maintaining and improving the safety and efficiency of the world's largest aviation system," Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said in a statement. "This research will give us valuable information about how best to ensure the safe introduction of this advanced technology into our nation's skies."
The test sites are also expected to boost the local economy of the communities where they are located. About two dozen government-industry partnerships have been formed over the past year to compete for the sites.
"Today's announcement by the FAA is an important milestone on the path toward unlocking the potential of unmanned aircraft and creating thousands of American jobs," said Michael Toscano, president and CEO of the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International.
"States across the country have been eager to receive this FAA designation because they recognize the incredible economic and job creation potential it would bring with it," he said in a statement.
Industry experts predict the takeoff of a multibillion-dollar market for civilian drones as soon as the FAA completes regulations to make sure they don't pose a safety hazard to other aircraft. Potential civilian users are as varied as the drones themselves. Power companies want them to monitor transmission lines. Farmers want to fly them over fields to detect which crops need water. Ranchers want them to count cows. Film companies want to use drones to help make movies. Journalists are exploring drones' newsgathering potential.
The FAA plans to begin integrating drones starting with small aircraft weighing less than about 55 pounds. The agency forecasts an estimated 10,000 civilian drones will be in use in the U.S. within five years.
The Defense Department says the demand for drones and their expanding missions requires routine and unfettered access to domestic airspace, including around airports and cities, for military testing and training. Currently, the military tests drones in specially designated swaths of airspace in mostly remote parts of the country where they are likely to encounter relatively few other aircraft.
The Customs and Border Patrol uses drones along the U.S.-Mexico border. And the FAA has granted several hundred permits to universities, police departments and other government agencies to use small, low-flying drones. For example, the sheriff's department in Montgomery County, Texas, has a 50-pound ShadowHawk helicopter drone intended to supplement its SWAT team.
The sheriff's department hasn't armed its drone, although the ShadowHawk can be equipped with a 40 mm grenade launcher and a 12-guage shotgun. The prospect of armed drones patrolling U.S. skies has alarmed some lawmakers and their constituents. More than a dozen bills have been introduced in Congress and state legislatures to curb drone use and protect privacy.
President Barack Obama was asked Thursday about concerns that the administration believes it's legal to strike American citizens abroad with drones and whether that's allowed against citizens in the U.S. If not, how would he create a legal framework to help citizens know drone strikes can't be used against them?
"There's never been a drone used on an American citizen on American soil," the president said, speaking during an online chat sponsored by Google in which he was promoting his policy initiatives.
"We respect and have a whole bunch of safeguards in terms of how we conduct counterterrorism operations outside of the United States. The rules outside of the United States are going to be different than the rules inside the United States, in part because our capacity, for example, to capture terrorists in the United States are very different than in the foothills or mountains of Afghanistan or Pakistan."
He said he would work with Congress to make sure the American public understands "what the constraints are, what the legal parameters are, and that's something that I take very seriously."
Earlier this week, an FAA official told a meeting of potential test site bidders that aviation regulations prohibit dropping anything from aircraft, which could be interpreted to bar arming civilian drones, according to an industry official present at the meeting who requested anonymity because he wasn't authorized to speak publicly.
Follow Joan Lowy on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/AP–Joan–Lowy


text:
There is currently a lot of debate happening on how the government's demonetization move will impact the real estate sector. The NIFTY Realty Index fell by almost 12% yesterday, purely on sentiment. While bellwethers are hinting at dark days ahead, these fears can at best be called unfounded when it comes to the Indian real estate business within the country. Let's look at how the major real estate segments will fare:
Residential real estate: The primary sales segment is largely influenced by home finance players, and deals tend to be facilitated in a transparent manner. This segment will, therefore, see at best a limited impact in the larger cities, though some tier 2 and tier 3 cities where cash components have been a factor even in primary sales will see a business crunch. The secondary or resale market will, however, certainly be impacted, given the fact that this segment does see the involvement of cash component.
Commercial real estate: There will be a minimum impact on office / industrial leasing and transactions business, given that cash components do not play a significant role in such transactions.
Real estate investment markets: Projects could get stretched as informal sources of capital may not be available. This, in fact, spells more opportunities for institutional capital. FDI, private equity and debt players will suddenly find the market even more transparent and attractive. Moreover, banks could start funding land transactions, thereby decelerating land prices.
Retail real estate: Retailers could see some impact on their business in the short-to-medium term due to reduced cash transactions. The luxury segment is likely to be hit because of the historically high incidence of black money acceptance in this segment. However, credit / debit cards and e-Wallets should come to the rescue. Overall, the domestic consumption story remains intact, with no threat to the overall strength and growth of the Indian retail industry.
Land sales and leasing: Where land transactions have been happening in the realm of joint ventures, joint development or facilitating corporate divestments, will see very little impact of the demonetization move. This is because JVs, JDs and corporate divestments are all quite institutionalized, with little or no cash involvement. However, those carrying out direct land deals will doubtlessly suffer – especially when it comes to agricultural land transactions, which tend to involve significant cash involvement.
Developers: There will be minimal impact on large institutionalized players with a solid brand and governance framework. Sales largely driven by the salaried class or investors with limited cash involvement would not suffer. Smaller developers are understandably very concerned right now because many of them have depended on cash transactions. We are very likely to see a clean-up of non-serious players due to this 'surgical strike' on the parallel economy. The impact of RERA will further discipline the industry, which will be good for its health in the long term.
Hotels and hospitality-related real estate in the organized sector will see a very negligible impact by the demonetization.
Impact of Trump's Triumph
It is a bit early to make any accurate predictions on the full impact of Trump's victory in the US presidential election on Indian real estate. I agree with Megan Walters, Head of JLL's Asia Pacific Research, when she says that we may see some volatility in currencies within the APAC region as the news is digested and risks are assessed. At present, the US dollar is down and we can expect the Indian rupee to see some volatility too.
For real estate investors, currency gains might be sufficient enough to prompt global investors to execute exit strategies on cross-border investments. In fact, large institutional investors would be well-advised to implement investment strategies now, before the market picks up again. Asia Pacific, and to some extent India, could stand to gain if investments pick up.
On the larger front of Trump's victory, the overall sentiment implied by statements that he has made so far with regards to India can have some positive political implications. That said, there are definitely concerns in terms of how Trump's win can affect outsourcing to countries like India. The country's real estate sector does depend a lot on the commercial real estate demand generated by this sector. Likewise, the entire IT/ITeS sector has had a direct correlation to residential demand in the country.
What can be said with any degree of certainty is that there are some very interesting times ahead.


text:
This page contains brief information about the drug combination called ABVE-PC. The drugs in the combination are listed, and links to individual drug summaries are included.
|= Doxorubicin Hydrochloride (Adriamycin)
|= Bleomycin
|= Vincristine Sulfate
|= Etoposide Phosphate
|= Prednisone
|= Cyclophosphamide
Chemotherapy is often given as a combination of drugs. Combinations usually work better than single drugs because different drugs kill cancer cells in different ways.
Each of the drugs in this combination is approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to treat cancer or conditions related to cancer.
Use in Cancer
ABVE-PC is used to treat:
- Hodgkin lymphoma in children.
This combination may also be used with other drugs or treatments or to treat other types of cancer.


text:
Haakon County Jail, SD Inmate Search, Visitation Hours
140 South Howard PO Box 249, Philip, SD, 57567-0249
Quick Links
Haakon County Jail offender search: Booking Date, Jail Roster, Sentence Information, DOB, Bookings, Who's in jail, Degree Level, Degree, Appeals Court, Arrests, Bond, Status, Release Date, Mugshots, Complaint, Authority, Alias.
10The Haakon County Jail is operated and managed by the Haakon County Sheriff's Department.
The Haakon County Jail is home to inmates who have been arrested throughout the county. However, the Haakon County Jail does not only house inmates who have been arrested and are currently going through the judicial system, but they also house inmates who have already been sentenced and serving out their time.
The Haakon County Jail houses both adult male and adult female offenders. All offenders in the Haakon County Jail are over the age of 18.
Haakon County Jail — General Information
140 South Howard PO Box 249, Philip, SD, 57567-0249
Haakon County Sheriffs Office
Address: 140 Howard Avenue, Philip, South Dakota, 57567
Phone: 605-859-2741
Fax: 605-859-2730
How to Find Someone in Haakon County Jail
Locating an inmate in the Haakon County Jail is no easy feat. The agency responsible for keeping records of all inmates in the Haakon County Jail is the Haakon County Sheriff's Department.
However, unlike other sheriff's departments, the Haakon County Sheriff's Department does not have their inmate roster available on the web.
If you need information on an inmate who is currently sitting in the Haakon County Jail, you will need to contact the Haakon County Jail directly or you can also get in touch with the Haakon County Sheriff's Office as well. Please have the inmate full name along with their date of birth prior to calling.
Sending a Mail/Care Package
Nationwide Inmate Records Online Check
Inmates love receiving letters from their family and friends. You are permitted to send an inmate in the Haakon County Jail a letter.
You should keep in mind that all letters will be thoroughly searched prior to being given to the inmate.
Your letter should never contain any of the following:
Usage of Crayons
Added stamps, paper, or envelopes
Perfume or Cologne
You should also put your return address on every piece of mail that you send to an inmate in the Haakon County Jail.
Sending Money
Inmates in the Haakon County Jail will need funds to purchase items from the commissary. In order to deliver funds to an inmate, you can bring a money order directly down to the Haakon County Jail lobby.
You will need to ensure on the money order you have the inmates full name on it as well.
The staff member will collect the money order from you and the funds will be deposited into the inmates account within one to three days.
If you do not live close to the Haakon County Jail, you can always send the money order in the mail.
Phone calls
If you are having withdrawals from not talking to an inmate, you will continue the waiting game. Inmates cannot receive calls and/or messages from their loved ones back home.
You will be required to wait for the inmate to contact you. Inmates will have use of the phone daily if they display good behavior and the facility is not in lockdown.
All calls coming from the Haakon County Jail will be collect calls. To ensure you will receive these collect calls, you will need to have a landline.
Visitation at the Haakon County Jail is held Monday through Friday between the hours of 9 am to 6 pm.
All visits will be no-contact visits. You and your visitor party will not be permitted to touch the inmates. The inmate will be on the opposite side of a glass partition.
To visit an inmate, you will need to present your government-issued identification card such as a driver's license. Juveniles under the age of 16 will always be required to be accompanied by an adult. They will not be permitted to visit an inmate alone.
Visiting Hours
Refer the map below to find the driving directions.
Nearby Jail/Prison
- Hernando County Detention Center
- Sante Fe City Jail
- Pleasant Hill Jail
- Lochbuie City Jail
- St. Robert City Jail
- Louis C. Powledge Unit B2
- La Crescent City Jail
- Alex City Work Release
- Victoria City Jail
- Brighton City Jail
- Sussex County Jail
- West Dover City Jail
- Washington County Jail
- England Jail
- New Castle City Jail
Other Types of Correctional Facilities in South Dakota
- City Jail 58
- State Prison 13


text:
That is I've been incorporated into a demotivational poster! It seems someone (picardo85?) over in the atheist section of reddit snagged my picture from the title explanation page of this blog along with an unattributed version of Scott Weitzenhoffer's pigeonchess quote and combined them into a demotivational against Christians:
I have mixed feelings about this. While I have opinions about religion I tend to stay out of that debate and focus on issues involving science and attacks on science (creationism/antievolutionism), so having my image used (without my permission btw), as part of an attack Christians as a whole is a bit disconcerting.
On the other hand, having my image become part of a larger internet meme is somewhat amusing. Another funny thing came in the comment thread for the image on reddit:
If the pigeon represents the christians, why's it playing chess with Jesus?
To which someone else responded:
It looks like Alan Moore to me…
Ha! Inserted into an internet meme, thought to look like the Messiah and/or the author of Watchmen and V for Vendetta all in one thread? Nice!
Seriously though, do I really look that much like Moore?
[I swear I already had this picture on my hard drive before I saw the one of Moore above.]


text:
Kathleens Country House Kerry
It is always with Great pleasure that we welcome you to Kathleens Country House where Traditional hospitality combined with courteous personal attention are a way of life.
Our 4 star Residence with its 17 Charming Guest bedrooms is surrounded by lush countryside at the edge Killarney National Park and only one mile to the hustle and bustle of Killarney town. We offer you comfort, safety with free personalised itineraries and priority tee time reservations to ensure you experience an enjoyable memorable stay.
Our unique location just around the corner from the traditional start The Ring of Kerry and Dingle Peninsula provides you with the Ideal base for Touring and Golfing the entire South West of Ireland enjoying our Wild Atlantic coast.
Killarney is Ireland's Gourmet Capitol with restaurants to suit every taste bud and budget.
You may shop 'til you drop in our beautiful town in the evenings and enjoy Traditional music flowing from the numerous local pubs nightly.


text:
Book Title: Biblia, die Ganze Heilige Schrift Alten und Neuen Testaments, / verteutschet durch Doctor Martin Luther ...
Author: Luther, Martin, 1483-1546
Image Title: Lamb and Angels
Scripture Reference:
Description: The three angels are unleashed upon the earth, as the 144,000 worship the lamb.
Click here for additional images available from this book.
Request a high-resolution file (fees apply)
Rights Statement: The online edition of this work in the public domain, i.e., not protected by copyright, has been produced by Pitts Theology Library, Emory University.
Rights Status: No Copyright - United States
Pitts Theology Library provides copyright information as a courtesy and makes no representation about copyright or other legal status of materials in the Digital Image Archive.


text:
NEW YORK » Strong third-quarter results have sent Google shares past the $1,000 mark for the first time.
Shortly after the markets opened today, Google Inc. shares jumped more than 12 percent to $1,002. The stock had never before surpassed $928 in regular market trading since Google went public at $85 per share nine years ago.
Late Thursday, Google reported better-than-expected third-quarter results. The numbers showed that while the company's advertising prices continue to decline, that's being offset by a larger number of people clicking on ads.
Google shares have climbed steadily for much of the past five years, more than doubling in value. But the stock has slipped slightly in recent months, while the overall market has risen, amid worries about deteriorating ad prices.