text:
Jack Balkin:
jackbalkin at yahoo.com
Bruce Ackerman
bruce.ackerman at yale.edu
Ian Ayres
ian.ayres at yale.edu
Corey Brettschneider
corey_brettschneider at brown.edu
Mary Dudziak
mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu
Joey Fishkin
joey.fishkin at gmail.com
Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu
Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu
Mark Graber
mgraber at law.umaryland.edu
Stephen Griffin
sgriffin at tulane.edu
Jonathan Hafetz
jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu
Jeremy Kessler
jkessler at law.columbia.edu
Andrew Koppelman
akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu
Marty Lederman
msl46 at law.georgetown.edu
Sanford Levinson
slevinson at law.utexas.edu
David Luban
david.luban at gmail.com
Gerard Magliocca
gmaglioc at iupui.edu
Jason Mazzone
mazzonej at illinois.edu
Linda McClain
lmcclain at bu.edu
John Mikhail
mikhail at law.georgetown.edu
Frank Pasquale
pasquale.frank at gmail.com
Nate Persily
npersily at gmail.com
Michael Stokes Paulsen
michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com
Deborah Pearlstein
dpearlst at yu.edu
Rick Pildes
rick.pildes at nyu.edu
David Pozen
dpozen at law.columbia.edu
Richard Primus
raprimus at umich.edu
K. Sabeel Rahmansabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu
Alice Ristroph
alice.ristroph at shu.edu
Neil Siegel
siegel at law.duke.edu
David Super
david.super at law.georgetown.edu
Brian Tamanaha
btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu
Nelson Tebbe
nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu
Mark Tushnet
mtushnet at law.harvard.edu
Adam Winkler
winkler at ucla.edu
Compendium of posts on Hobby Lobby and related cases
The Anti-Torture Memos: Balkinization Posts on Torture, Interrogation, Detention, War Powers, and OLC
The Anti-Torture Memos (arranged by topic)
Recent Posts
"new paradigm" or new Constituiton?
Sunday, December 16, 2012
"new paradigm" or new Constituiton?
Sandy Levinson
I'm confused as to why you think the so-called defective constitution has anything to do with the absence of federal gun-control regulation. Even if the Democrats had the House, it's far from clear that they, or the Senate, would pull the trigger on such legislation, given what happened in 1994, when the Democrats likewise controlled all branches of government and were then severely punished in the next election for the assault-weapons ban.
It's not as if Obama was elected on a mandate to regulate guns. To the contrary, as you yourself say, he was conspicuously silent about the issue. Had he made it an electoral issue in either election, it probably would have cost him votes (though probably not the election, I'll admit).
Ultimately, the NRA is powerful, not because of checks-and-balances, but because it has significant public support and we have elected officials. So, unless you're replacement for the so-called defective Constitution is an unelected monarch, I'm not quite sure what your point is.
His point is that opinions and priorities can change, sometimes substantially in a short amount of time and the current structures inhibit versatile adaptability. It has less to do with one issue and more to do with possible policies advanced by legislators or the executive.
H, you rely on the idea that supposed public opinion generalizations (using such close correlations as trends in 1994) are the determining factor in determining public policy and that is the exact point SL is making: the antiquated structures make any type of significant change--from either party, or branch--almost impossible.
I also like your nod toward Obama's lack of a mandate for gun control because it wasn't a campaign staple, yet you rely on the legitimacy of a lobbying group like the NRA. What do you call this dynamic: purchased populism?
T. Roosevelt had threats made against his life for having Booker T. Washington to the White House for dinner. Sometimes public opinion is ill-conceived; sometimes changing hearts and minds is less important than changing policies. Regardless, policies require proper structures in place to function and thus our current dilemma.
Sandy, what's blocking the passage of "sensible" gun control legislation is the fact that our legislatures are democratically accountable, and that a hell of a lot of people disagree with you about what's "sensible".
"I don't get my way" does not equal "The system is broken." Sometimes it equals "The system isn't broken".
I'll get to your essay when it's not time to rush off to work.
I'm not sure I agree. A horrible event can galvanize public opinion and overwhelm ordinary political expectations.
Given the extent of gerrymandering, it's pretty hard to argue that legislatures are "democratically accountable".
"A horrible event can galvanize public opinion and overwhelm ordinary political expectations."
Yes: see 9/11. However, the American system is designed to prevent that from happening, so it's a question whether even something as horrifying as Newtown would overcome that.
The Supreme Court is a political institution, because people are people and language is language.
We argue over the meaning of words and we argue from preference and preferences change.
The shootings will have an effect. It's another straw on the camel's back.
"I am particularly uninterested in getting into a debate whether events like Newtown would be less likely if every single person were armed"
Better to say you don't want to get into an argument over the importance of peer review.
Growing up as I did during the long period when the "Washington Consensus" was ascendant, I am struck by how much easier it used to be to have discussions about constitutional change -- we enacted seven constitutional amendments in the 40-odd years between 1932 and 1971, and none in the 40-odd years since (the 27th doesn't really count, given that Congress voted on it in 1789).
The Constitution was no less of a creaky 18th century instrument in 1932 as it is today, but the politics of the Washington Consensus permitted the transformation of government to address the challenges of a modern industrial (and post-industrial) state that became a Superpower in international relations. It is no mere coincidence that we continue to act as a Superpower (some might say hyperactively) because the Washington Consensus on international affairs has not fallen apart – both Congress and the Supreme Court display little willingness to challenge the Executive in its wide-ranging exercise of war powers notwithstanding reasonably express limitations on Executive powers in the Constitution.
It's difficult for me to see how we can bring about meaningful constitutional change in the absence of political consensus. In particular, there appears to be an increasing divergence of views between the opinion elite (including the remnants of the Washington Consensus) and the public at-large – unsurprisingly, the opinion elite has a much stronger vested interest in the constitutional status quo than does the public, which understandably would prefer to have a government more responsive to the wishes of the public and more accountable for failures of policies or their execution.
Change did occur in the 1930s when a sufficient cohort of the opinion elite joined forces with the public to take concerted action to combat the Great Depression domestically and totalitarian regimes internationally. The vilification of FDR by the forces of the status quo ante is sufficient evidence that the transition was by no means easy or even somehow pre-ordained by the seriousness of the challenges at hand. I still see very little sign, however, that today's opinion elite think institutional change is necessary, much less constitutional change – a succession of failures of their policies (impeachment of a popular president, inability of the national security community to prevent the September 11 attacks, botched execution of the war in Afghanistan, improvident invasion and disastrous occupation of Iraq, infrastructure design and execution failure in New Orleans and botched emergency relief for Katrina, and near-collapse of the worldwide financial system and ongoing worldwide economic slump) has scarcely troubled them, much less caused them to question in any material way our institutional governance arrangements. And indeed, why should they? The existing institutional arrangements strongly favor the opinion elite, and have enriched them, in no small degree at the expense of the rest of us. Unlike the 1930s, they are not yet afraid that either the American people or some outside power will rise up to wrest away the levers of control and confiscate their wealth, so unlike FDR and his elite backers, they are not yet willing to become "class traitors", or more accurately they are not yet willing to forego some short-term economic and political interest to accommodate changes that are in their long-term interest. I suspect that this purblind stupidity of the baby boomer generation elites will be marveled at by historians of the future, as we'll be seen as the Bourbons of a meritocracy of well-credentialed fools.
Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV), who has earned an "A" rating from the National Rifle Associaton, said Monday that he wants to bring the powerful pro-gun lobby into the imminent discussion on gun control, indicating that he would be receptive to an assault weapons ban that Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) said she would introduce.
This would be one of those who would usually be there to block legislation that gets 57 votes or such.
Anyway, I don't think "our Constitution" dooms us. I think our constitution, that is, how it is currently applied. The gerrymandering Mark Field cited in the House is not mandated, e.g., it is allowed. "Gun devotees" could hinder things in a better system too.
You said you don't want to talk about gun control but then you end with what is "less likely" and make a claim involving ... gun control. I'd just note there that a supermajority opposes banning "all private possession," and that includes me.
Also, like Chris Hayes last weekend, I oppose MORE strict criminal mandatory policies. That is often the NRA solution -- more imprisonment of the bad sort. We know how that usually goes in the real world.
Anyway, 9/11 did change some things, often to the worse (Iraq, anyone?), so maybe killing twenty or so children will. I simply don't see any easy solution here & think ultimately -- like slavery and other big things -- it won't start in Congress anyhow.
I don't agree with your prognosis for legislation (and also unilateral executive actions). The failure of pro-gun GOP legislators to appear on TV is good evidence of the point opposite yours. There is a groundswell of opinion that they do not wish to publicly oppose. I agree with Magliocca. Obama has an historical moment that provides a strategic opportunity. Judging from the caliber of his speech, he is seizing it.
I don't really see how the Constitution is to blame for this one.
Absent considerable further decisions from the Court it isn't at all clear that national gun control could be as tight as it ever was consistent with the second amendment. A nationwide regime equivilent to that in place in DC post-Heller (and approved by the DC Circuit) would put us somewhere near Canada.
As for the House Republicans, the House is the part of Congress that would look most like a post-reform legislature. It's the Senate that would be gone.
Certainly there would be some differences, on the margins, from fixing redistricting but not enough to make a difference on this issue, I would think.
We could conceivably go to a parliamentary party list system, but it seems like those systems have even more opportunities for blocking single-issue minorities due to the coalition negotiation process.
As a gun owner and a taxpayer who puts me in the sights of the "fair share" rhetoric I see a connecting thread here. One group, I will call liberals, have strong ideas about what they want to do with my earnings and now what is a prudent thing to do with my guns. The targets of those ideas disagree, both because it's there stuff being talked about and because they reject the idea they are part of the problem. Of course guns kill, but not my guns, is the reasoning. Very hard to get past that, especially with the Constitution in the way.
There seems to be quite a bit wrong with your comments. First, most 'liberals' who talk about 'fair share' are also taxpayers, so they are talking about their money as well as yours. Secondly, the nature of any law is to tell some people what they can or cannot do; this is not some exclusive province of liberals. For example, pro-lifers are very keen on telling people what to do with their bodies, and pro-gun folks often argue to control what people do with their stuff (look at the recent laws prohibiting employers from barring guns on their property such as employee parking lots).
I'd invite ya'll to think out of the box on this issue. Most gun violence (suicides, mass murders) can be traced to mental illness. Universal, improved access to mental illness treatment. Moreover, if a family member is known to be mentally ill then gun owners should be obligated to secure the weapons under criminal penalty.
The assault weapons ban might be good politics, but ironically a lot of Republicans might go for it because it was pretty ineffective and manufacturers found loopholes. 20 kids getting killed is enough to provoke Congress to act on something. The question is, will it be something effective.
"Most gun violence" involves criminal use of guns by people who don't seem to be mentally ill.
Perhaps, we are talking about the mass murder type of things involved in Ct. There, perhaps that is true. On the securing the guns, do we know how the mother (RIP) secured her guns?
She could have done it under lock and key. Her son still might have known where the key was or (if we wish to assume) threatened her & she told him before killing her.
Storage method does not make a measureable difference. Surprising, perhaps; I was surprised; I would have predicted the opposite. I would have been wrong. That's why you do research.
Linda L. Dahlberg et al., Guns in the Home and Risk of a Violent Death in the Home: Findings from a National Study, 160 Am. J. Epidemiology 929, 929, 935 (2004).
That's an interesting study but it studied "Risk of a Violent Death in the Home" so how does it apply to violent death outside of the home by those who could illicitly take the guns outside the home such as thieves or (I'm thinking a small subset) family members of the sort here?
Sounds to me like somebody got tired of having an A rating. Maybe he feels like retiring. Well, there probably won't be a shortage of challengers, if he doesn't.
Having read your essay, it seems your fondest hope is that Obama, and the Democratic party, having gained office by vociferously denying any such intention, will use that power to attack a civil liberty you happen to dislike.
You might reflect on the virtue of a cause which can only succeed in a democracy by lying to the voters.
Your problem here isn't the Constitution. Given public opinion in the US, no even remotely representative system of government is going to be able to implement the policies you want. It's not some quirk of governmental structure that's getting in your way, it's public opinion, which has been getting progressively more hostile to your point of view, the longer our national conversation on this topic has gone on.
It's not that we need a conversation, it's that you need to realize we had it, and you lost the argument.
It would also be worth your while to consider a couple other matters:
Black markets represent a floor to how unavailable you can make guns. How's that war on drugs working out for you? I'd say based on that, it's a darned high floor, too.
Getting a momentary legislative majority to enact a law is NOT the same as it being complied with. Especially when a large fraction of the population consider the law an act of tyranny, and won't give up on thinking the policy unconstitutional just because one Justice croaked, and got replaced by exactly the sort of jurist the President had denied wanting to nominate.
I'd pause and reflect, were I you, what you might have expected if, a few years after Brown v Board of Education, the Supreme court had suddenly up and reversed itself, by one vote, and declared the 14th amendment meaningless again. I don't think it would have been pretty. I don't think it would be pretty if you got your way, either.
You're playing with dynamite here.
I would like to hear the story behind the fact that Prof. Levinson's op-ed appeared in the Toronto Globe and Mail rather than in a periodical in the United States.
After two centuries of neglect, court determination of the scope of the 2A right is very much in its formative stages like the 1A after WWI. Apart from finding a complete prohibition of firearms unconstitutional, I am unsure that the Supremes would do in the future until tested by legislation.
Politically, a supermajority of voters support the right of the law abiding and mentally competent to possess and to a lesser extent carry firearms. We are not a subset of the GOP and we punish elected representatives who attempt to abridge that right. That is why Democrats in Congress have stopped such attempts.
President Obama has no desire to engage in the work of building coalitions to enact legislation. Rather, Obama's MO is to sneak through secret bills and to impose regulatory decrees, neither of which are likely to impose the kind of firearm limits you and others on the left support.
That being said, if someone could figure out a way to keep the mentally ill from obtaining firearms without abridging the right of the law abiding and mentally competent, both a majority of voters and thus our elected representatives would likely support such legislation. The trick is coming up with that idea. Sometimes (actually, most of the time) the blunt tool of government cannot solve a social problem.
You're playing with dynamite here.
# posted by Brett : 8:22 PM
Brett, one of your fellow gun freaks just slaughtered 20 small children. This is going to be a tough one for you lunatics to shake off.
There are evil people in the world and your desire to disarm will not protect you.
One trained and armed teacher or safety officer from the local PD could have protected those children.
"Gun free zones" = kill zones.
There are evil people in the world and your desire to disarm will not protect you.
Of course it will. If that kid wasn't carrying guns a couple of 2nd graders could have stopped him.
One trained and armed teacher or safety officer from the local PD could have protected those children.
I suspect most Americans would prefer to get rid of the weapons before they would be willing to see their taxes go up so we can turn our schools into armed camps. However, I might be willing to go along if gun owners were forced to pay a yearly tax to finance that insanity.
"Storage method does not make a measureable difference. Surprising, perhaps; I was surprised;"
Perhaps even more surprising, the study does not actually reach that conclusion:
"Whether certain types of guns or storage practices confer greater or lesser risk, or reflect recall and reporting biases when studied, is unclear. Previous research suggests that proxy respondents and nonusers of firearms are not always knowledgeable about the number or types of guns in the household or the storage practice and may be inclined to give socially desirable responses (27–29).
the 95% confidence interval for the adjusted odds ratio for "all guns locked" in table 5 shows an interval of 2.0 to 30.4, which means there is not enough data to reach any conclusion about this from this study.
Other studies, some referred to there, show that safety works and that many people ignore it.
Brett's closing sentence in his last comment:
"You're playing with dynamite here."
has to be considered in context and not isolation. The penultimate [still my favorite word] paragraph of his last comment makes reference to Brown v. Board of Education perhaps suggesting that reaction to reversing that decision might be compared to reversing the decision in Heller (although Brett makes no reference to Heller by name). Brown v. Board of Education was a unanimous decision, whereas Heller was 5-4, reading out of the Second Amendment the introductory "Militia" clause. Perhaps one has to go deeper into what Brett has revealed of himself over the years at this Blog and at other blogs. Most recently with the 2012 elections, particularly Obama/Biden v. R-MONEY/R-AYN 2012, it seemed obvious to some of us that Brett was concerned (to put it mildly) with demographic changes that indeed may have been reflected in the results of Obam'as reelection. Post the election, we have a horrendous event in CT from which many of us not directly involved still grieve. Is the context of Brett's closing line in his comment somehow tying in Brown with its attack on discrimination against African American children in public schools and Heller's awakening of the Second Amendment at least for purposes of selfl-defense in the home? Is this part of Sen. Lindsey Grahams's (Cracker, GA) lament during the recent campaign of the lack of enough angry white men? Perhaps one might ask about how to harness these angry white men. Is Brett suggesting an answer?
Justice Scalia refers to the slippery slope in some of his decisions, but not in Heller. But Heller may turn out to be a landslide.
I don't know which stage of grief I am in. But time does heal many wounds. And humor helps the healing process. (See Norman Cousins, "Anatomy of an Illness," 1979.) Daily Kos [yes, I stop there frequently] recently provided a link to Sandy's fellow Texan Molly Ivins' "Taking A Stab At Our Infatuation With Guns" from the Seattle Times, published on the Ides of March, 1993. Perhaps this column of her's should have been filed as a brief in Heller. Molly left us too soon but she provided us over many years of her journalism with the ammunition of the First Amendment's Speech/Press Clauses that did not kill anyone. Who can forget her summation of George W. with the moniker "Shrub."
Context matters.
"14th amendment meaningless again"
Brett is back to the racial references. As Scalia noted during the McDonald orals (which I re-listened to last night), most states protect gun rights. CT protects gun rights.
Even if the 2A was repealed, guns rights would not be "meaningless." It would not be the same situation as the segregationist South. Even THEN the 14A wasn't "meaningless" before Brown.
BTW, the legalization of heroin isn't coming any time too. The war on drugs is bad but making heroin legal [or guns even the conservative senator from WVA is wary about] for regular access is not something people want either. So, if you want to use another comparison to wake up the liberals, that might not help THAT much in this context.
edit: "most people" don't want legalized heroin or would not be appalled or think (rightly so) that the 2A will be "meaningless" if certain guns are banned or rather only allowed in certain special cases like in hunting areas.
But, to recall, Brett thinks Heller is weak tea, so its allowance of many regulations is of only limited value. I would think that even now he thinks the 2A is woefully underprotected, even by Scalia, Alito and Thomas.
interesting take by krugman on the matter
Krugman knows even less about firearms and the people who own them than he does about macroeconomics. May all the congressional Dems running for reelection in 2014 follow his advice.
(Before bb or shag observe that Krugman is an economist, the man won his Nobel in international trade, has never worked in macroeconomics and regularly displays his comprehensive ignorance of the topic on TV and in the NYT.)
Blankshot, he's not commenting on firearms or economics. He commenting on polling data. Something about which he, and pretty much anyone on the planet who is not a regular viewer of Faux News, knows more about than you.
Let's observe that our yodeler is a DUI legal specialist in the Mile High State (of mind) and not an economist. But our yodeler qualifies for a "No-Balls" prize in Chutzpah. Perhaps in his idyllic lily white (mostly) mountain fortress-community his self-defense concern is with those in the CO urban areas that voted for Obama and carried CO into the blue. Alas, those dreadful demographics and how he might thin out those ranks.
Further with our yodeler's rant challenging Krugman's credentials, perhaps our yodeler is of the Mary Matalin School of Economics that advised Dick Cheney and the latter's sock puppet Shrub, that dynamic duo that in 8 years blew the Clinton surplus and ended with the Great Recession of 2008, with a couple of unpaid tax cuts and two wars in between.
What polling supports the amazingly ignorant Mr. Krugman's comment:
...the pro-gun fanatics are basically the kind of people who think that Obama is a Kenyan socialist atheistic Islamist, and the urban hordes are coming for their property any day now. People, in other words, who already vote 100 percent Republican — and lose elections.
Diarrhea of the mind and mouth.
Diarrhea of the mind and mouth.
# posted by Bart DePalma : 4:28 PM
Mitt Romney is going to win in a landslide!!!
No, Baghdad, the polling is pretty clear. Gun nuts vote exclusively for people who lose elections. And the polling is only going to get worse for you now that a fellow gun nut has slaughtered a bunch of small children.
Connecticut has, relatively speaking, strong gun regulations. It outlaws "assault" weapons, whatever those are, and requires registration to have handguns. The Newtown shooter's guns were lawfully owned and registered to his mother. He tried to buy his own guns but could not because he couldn't satisfy the Conn. legal requirements. So what additional or different regulations is the author here talking about? What reforms are those really mean Republicans (and rural Democrats) blocking that would make a difference?
Megan McCardle made the excellent point the other day that the only conceivable gun "regulation" that would have prevented the Newton killings and would prevent another event like that would be the complete prohibition of private guns. Of course, that would require (a) repealing the 2nd Amendment and (b) confiscating the 300 million private guns in the US. Neither seems remotely likely, for a variety of reasons.
As far as I can see, all the talk about more or different gun "regulation" is just talk intended to make the talker feel better about himself.
Megan McCardle made the excellent point the other day that the only conceivable gun "regulation" that would have prevented the Newton killings and would prevent another event like that would be the complete prohibition of private guns.
That is not true. He could not have butchered all those children with a musket. At most he only gets 1 or 2.
We have A rated NRA senators talking about possible legislation that is not a "complete prohibition of private guns" and the realization that any legislation is not a panacea is more common sense than "excellent point."
Connecticut has a middle of the road system of laws. As to handguns, curiously the NRA-ILA page says handguns don't need to be registered (permit is needed to purchase).
As to assault weapons, those possessed before 10/93 are allowed. Also, the particular weapons used here were "purchased the weapons legally over a three-year period," so I guess the law doesn't apply there.
As to muskets, no need to go back to 18th Century firearms. Any number of weapons wouldn't have been as lethal. Numerous gun owners have ridiculed the need to have all the guns she owned. No need to ban all private gun ownership there.
The article cited noted:
"Federal agents have been examining records at the ranges to see if Adam Lanza had been practicing his marksmanship in the months leading up to the attack, which could indicate that he had planned the massacre well in advance of carrying it out."
This and other details might help determine if there was something more that could have been done. Again, any use of the law in this context can only do so much, but can be of some value, like any laws against illicit conduct.
That's an interesting study but it studied "Risk of a Violent Death in the Home" so how does it apply to violent death outside of the home
Good question! Exercise for the student: find the existing research, see to what extent we can answer such a question, where we can reasonably extrapolate, and summarize.
Or you could just carp, and demonstrate how little you care about the facts.
The choice is yours.
No need to ban all private gun ownership there.
# posted by Joe : 12:52 AM
I wouldn't ban all private guns. You could have a musket. You could use it for self defense, and it's appropriately Constitutionally approved.
jpk, you cited a study to address something, made a big deal about how you did the research & it wasn't really on point. With respect, own up to it. The "exercise" is yours. You brought it up. :)
Talking about muskets while using the Internet is a bit ironic.
# posted by Joe : 10:08 AM
Because I have about the same chance of killing a classroom full of children with a musket as I do if I post about it on the internet?
"Connecticut has, relatively speaking, strong gun regulations. It outlaws "assault" weapons, whatever those are, and requires registration to have handguns. The Newtown shooter's guns were lawfully owned and registered to his mother."
Your third sentence contradicts the first.
"Megan McCardle made the excellent point"
This phrase is oxymoronic.
Essentially no one is calling for a ban on all guns. The demand is mostly for restrictions on the capacity of the magazines and clips. AFAIC, you can have all the single shot, bolt action rifles you wish to own.
Scalia says the Constitution refers to muskets but not modern weapons. By that language the press means print and paper.
"Scalia says the Constitution refers to muskets but not modern weapons. By that language the press means print and paper."
Where does he say this? He does say:
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
BB, just as the complications of modern day communication doesn't warrant limiting use to a quill pen, we don't use merely 18th Century weapons in this country.
As Mark Field notes, no need to ban all guns, or even limiting things to muskets, which is not actually a serious thing. It "essentially" would in the real world amount to a gun ban.
Justice Scalia's dictum seems to allow the personal ownership of Stinger SAMs, RPGs, hand grenades and fully automatic H&K rifles, all individually carried weapons in modern armies. They are not of course allowed to civilians in the USA or anywhere else.
BB, just as the complications of modern day communication doesn't warrant limiting use to a quill pen, we don't use merely 18th Century weapons in this country.
# posted by Joe : 1:57 PM
No shit. 20 small children would still be alive today if we did. And you can't provide a single good reason why we should not limit access to the same "arms" that were in use at the time the Constitution was written.
James Wimberley, the opinion separately says that particularly dangerous guns of various types can be banned even if such guns would in some fashion be useful for militia use. It is unfortunate, imho, that people don't actually use Heller against "no limit" gun advocates, since it supports lots of regulation.
BB, I'm not Bart, so you can tone it down a tad. If we only allowed single shot handguns or the sort of rifles used to hunt squirrels, to exaggerate a tad, we wouldn't have the heavy firepower weapons available that killed the children.
Since we are not only going to allow muskets, it is actually a bit offensive (it's time for reality here) to pretend we will only allow muskets. Muskets were badly crafted unwieldy guns using 18th Century technology. There is a middle path between them and the assault weapons that Feinstein wishes to ban.
[BTW, good piece by Laurence O'Donnell on how Ronald Reagan supported the assault weapon ban.]
Joe, the technology of the "arms" is completely irrelevant. The Constitution says "arms". Muskets were the "arms" at that time.
By the way, if you think that restricting access to muskets is the same as a "real world" gun ban, it means that you think the founders did not believe we should all be carrying guns. Muskets would be just as effective for hunting and self defense today as they were in the 1700s.
you cited a study...it wasn't really on point
You know, you're absolutely right, except you're wrong.
I couldn't cite a research study on whether dropping an object in your back yard would cause it to fall to the ground. That is because there is no research study that dropped an object in your back yard.
I could cite some research on the behavior of other dropped objects in other locations. If you prefer to call that "not on target" be my guest. However your carping does not put me on the hook to find a closer study.
That would be up to you. Or you can just complain; that's an option, just not an impressive one.
One reason the exact study you're looking for may not exist:
because some folks fear the facts
Joe, the technology of the "arms" is completely irrelevant. The Constitution says "arms". Muskets were the "arms" at that time.
The 1A says "speech" and "press." We don't just limit those things to the technology at the time even though changing technology seriously altered how they work in practice. This includes regulating "true treats" like want ads for abortion providers w/o banning the Internet as a whole.
It is very well relevant. The idea is honor right in question & we don't do that by only using 18th Century technology. We factor in changing technology, including how squirrel shooters using better technology than muskets are okay.
jpk, not only did the person you directly responded to point out the limits, the study involved home use of weapons. The concern here is use outside of the home, in particular. There very well are studies that study use of guns outside the home. Not doing the research, not sure if any covered storage issues.
But, before being holier-than-thou about doing research, which was gratuitous, you really should find a study more germane. Again, the study is of limited value, but doesn't actually refute the person. Putting aside one study alone is only a single data point.
You too are absolutely right, except you're wrong.
Neither you nor he have cited research. You get no complaint on other's citations.
One study is not one data point; you will find most studies including this one collect more data than one point.
The person was not refuted; the point was.
The "limits" in question simply support my assertion: the study found no measureable difference.
Your opinions on gratuity are duly noted and are no substitute for facts.
The 1A says "speech" and "press." We don't just limit those things to the technology at the time even though changing technology seriously altered how they work in practice. This includes regulating "true treats" like want ads for abortion providers w/o banning the Internet as a whole.
Joe, it's all about intent. According to every gun nut I've heard the intent was to allow for self defense and hunting. You can hunt and self defend with a musket just as effectively today as you could in the 1700s. The idea that "it's 2012 so we have the right to carry more modern weapons" is complete bullshit.
Lesley Stahl: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.
Killing civilians, killing children.
The US is the largest arms exporter in the world. We have the largest military in the world.
An empire of military bases
The Secret Building Boom of the Obama Years
Liberal American howling over guns on American soil is like American howling over torture of American citizens while ignoring the torture by Americans of foreigners. The history of The School of the Americas is not news and it was not news when Abu Ghraib was.
"Kill em all let god sort em out"
Support the troops
US laws refer to US citizens because states exist and need to function. But the blind moralizing of American liberals is just appalling. That's stupidity, the banality, of Erik Loomis's rants is that to be anything but a moral relativist he should be screaming for the head of every president that ever was, and for every graduate of West Point. Valerie Plame is a liberal hero, but if you want to play the priest every employee of the CIA should be in jail.
"it's 2012 so we have the right to more modern rights is bullshit"
You're making Scalia's argument about everything but guns. That was DeLong's point in his satire.
And gun rights activists (now SCOTUS) make reference to self-defense in the context of the Framers. There's no record of self-defense being discussed at that time.
I'll repeat:
Sep. 30, 2009 — In a first-of its-kind study, epidemiologists at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine found that, on average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. The study estimated that people with a gun were 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not possessing a gun.
The study was released online this month in the American Journal of Public Health, in advance of print publication in November 2009.
"This study helps resolve the long-standing debate about whether guns are protective or perilous," notes study author Charles C. Branas, PhD, Associate Professor of Epidemiology. "Will possessing a firearm always safeguard against harm or will it promote a false sense of security?"
I miss the old days when the ACLU had no position on gun rights. It's a political fight how we interpret a vague text.
"The "limits" in question simply support my assertion: the study found no measureable difference."
no, it did not and if you read the paper the conclusion is: ""Whether certain types of guns or storage practices confer greater or lesser risk, or reflect recall and reporting biases when studied, is unclear. Previous research suggests that proxy respondents and nonusers of firearms are not always knowledgeable about the number or types of guns in the household or the storage practice and may be inclined to give socially desirable responses"
"unclear:" There is insufficient evidence from that study data to conclude anything.
D. Ghirlandaio: In a first-of its-kind study...
Can you say junk science?
The study authors do not distinguish between situations like being ambushed in a drive by shooting while carrying a gun in your waistband and home defense.
Maybee it's because I'm from Europe and therefore don't know that much about the US, or maybee I just have the outside observers insight.
Either way, I fail to see why the US is considered a "Democracy". To me, a two party state isn't that much different from a one party state.
How can a mere two parties possibly represent 300 million people? Whereas in any other democracy on the planet you usually have at least half-a-dozen parties (the British being the only other exception that comes to mind).
I don't think it's possible.
I think that political power is so far removed from ordinary people that it is basically a nation of the elite, by the elite and for the elite. The "elite" in this case being the usual suspects - people with money and power.
Ordinary people don't seem to count for much. As evidence I submit the CIA world fact book. Compare the US to western european countries like France or Germany and the US looks like some Banana Republic in comparison.
Infant mortality and similar basic indicators are just utterly nuts for what is supposed to be a developed country.
The US is the only nation I know of that does not have a national health care system - despite the existence of what I understand is overwhelming public support for it. All this private crap is just that, crap. And it shows in the statistics.
Also, that constitution of yours was a fine document - when it was written. I think it holds alot of things that are still relevant today. However, the fetishistic reverence it is held in, bordering on religious fanaticism is frankly disturbing.
Nothing made by man is perfect, certainly no political document that is inevitably the result of endless compromise. It has served well for many years, but for the sake of the american people and the well being of the entire nation - and not just america - but the well being of the entire world - it is time to move on and either replace it or improve it.
America needs actual democracy.
Everything I've seen coming from across the Atlantic so far indicates that all this stuff about guns, gays and what not is just a smoke screen for the real issue. The fact that what little democracy there was has been undermined and power has been concentrated into the hands of a unelected powerful few.
The entire nation has regressed politically to the days when the aristocracy ruled and the serfs suffered and nobody cared because they didn't matter.
I can't emphasize enough how important it is that you fight for true democracy. Everything is at stake and you don't even realize it. Good luck! You are going to need it...
HD kaliteli porno izle ve boşal.
Bayan porno izleme sitesi.
Bedava ve ücretsiz porno izle size gelsin.
Liseli kızların ve Türbanlı ateşli hatunların sikiş filmlerini izle.
Siyah karanlık odada porno yapan evli çift.
harika Duvar Kağıtları bunlar
tamamen ithal duvar kağıdı olanlar var
think that political power is so far removed from ordinary people that it is basically a nation of the elite, by the elite and for the elite. The "elite" in this case being the usual suspects - people with money and power.Post a Comment
Ordinary people don't seem to count for much. As evidence I submit the CIA world fact book. Compare the US to western european countries like France or Germany and the US looks like some Banana Republic in comparison. 英雄联盟美服代练 buy lol boosting Buy Cheap Fifa 15 Coins LOL elo boost
Books by Balkinization Bloggers
Gerard N. Magliocca, Washington's Heir: The Life of Justice Bushrod Washington (Oxford University Press, 2022)
Joseph Fishkin and William E. Forbath, The Anti-Oligarchy Constitution: Reconstructing the Economic Foundations of American Democracy (Harvard University Press, 2022)
Mark Tushnet and Bojan Bugaric, Power to the People: Constitutionalism in the Age of Populism (Oxford University Press 2021).
Jack M. Balkin, What Obergefell v. Hodges Should Have Said: The Nation's Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Same-Sex Marriage Decision (Yale University Press, 2020)
Frank Pasquale, New Laws of Robotics: Defending Human Expertise in the Age of AI (Belknap Press, 2020)
Jack M. Balkin, The Cycles of Constitutional Time (Oxford University Press, 2020)
Mark Tushnet, Taking Back the Constitution: Activist Judges and the Next Age of American Law (Yale University Press 2020).
Andrew Koppelman, Gay Rights vs. Religious Liberty?: The Unnecessary Conflict (Oxford University Press, 2020)
Ezekiel J Emanuel and Abbe R. Gluck, The Trillion Dollar Revolution: How the Affordable Care Act Transformed Politics, Law, and Health Care in America (PublicAffairs, 2020)
Linda C. McClain, Who's the Bigot?: Learning from Conflicts over Marriage and Civil Rights Law (Oxford University Press, 2020)
Sanford Levinson and Jack M. Balkin, Democracy and Dysfunction (University of Chicago Press, 2019)
Sanford Levinson, Written in Stone: Public Monuments in Changing Societies (Duke University Press 2018)
Mark A. Graber, Sanford Levinson, and Mark Tushnet, eds., Constitutional Democracy in Crisis? (Oxford University Press 2018)
Gerard Magliocca, The Heart of the Constitution: How the Bill of Rights became the Bill of Rights (Oxford University Press, 2018)
Cynthia Levinson and Sanford Levinson, Fault Lines in the Constitution: The Framers, Their Fights, and the Flaws that Affect Us Today (Peachtree Publishers, 2017)
Brian Z. Tamanaha, A Realistic Theory of Law (Cambridge University Press 2017)
Sanford Levinson, Nullification and Secession in Modern Constitutional Thought (University Press of Kansas 2016)
Sanford Levinson, An Argument Open to All: Reading The Federalist in the 21st Century (Yale University Press 2015)
Stephen M. Griffin, Broken Trust: Dysfunctional Government and Constitutional Reform (University Press of Kansas, 2015)
Frank Pasquale, The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information (Harvard University Press, 2015)
Bruce Ackerman, We the People, Volume 3: The Civil Rights Revolution (Harvard University Press, 2014)
Balkinization Symposium on We the People, Volume 3: The Civil Rights Revolution
Joseph Fishkin, Bottlenecks: A New Theory of Equal Opportunity (Oxford University Press, 2014)
Mark A. Graber, A New Introduction to American Constitutionalism (Oxford University Press, 2013)
John Mikhail, Elements of Moral Cognition: Rawls' Linguistic Analogy and the Cognitive Science of Moral and Legal Judgment (Cambridge University Press, 2013)
Gerard N. Magliocca, American Founding Son: John Bingham and the Invention of the Fourteenth Amendment (New York University Press, 2013)
Stephen M. Griffin, Long Wars and the Constitution (Harvard University Press, 2013)
Andrew Koppelman, The Tough Luck Constitution and the Assault on Health Care Reform (Oxford University Press, 2013)
James E. Fleming and Linda C. McClain, Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues (Harvard University Press, 2013)
Balkinization Symposium on Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues
Andrew Koppelman, Defending American Religious Neutrality (Harvard University Press, 2013)
Brian Z. Tamanaha, Failing Law Schools (University of Chicago Press, 2012)
Sanford Levinson, Framed: America's 51 Constitutions and the Crisis of Governance (Oxford University Press, 2012)
Linda C. McClain and Joanna L. Grossman, Gender Equality: Dimensions of Women's Equal Citizenship (Cambridge University Press, 2012)
Mary Dudziak, War Time: An Idea, Its History, Its Consequences (Oxford University Press, 2012)
Jack M. Balkin, Living Originalism (Harvard University Press, 2011)
Jason Mazzone, Copyfraud and Other Abuses of Intellectual Property Law (Stanford University Press, 2011)
Richard W. Garnett and Andrew Koppelman, First Amendment Stories, (Foundation Press 2011)
Jack M. Balkin, Constitutional Redemption: Political Faith in an Unjust World (Harvard University Press, 2011)
Gerard Magliocca, The Tragedy of William Jennings Bryan: Constitutional Law and the Politics of Backlash (Yale University Press, 2011)
Bernard Harcourt, The Illusion of Free Markets: Punishment and the Myth of Natural Order (Harvard University Press, 2010)
Bruce Ackerman, The Decline and Fall of the American Republic (Harvard University Press, 2010)
Balkinization Symposium on The Decline and Fall of the American Republic
Ian Ayres. Carrots and Sticks: Unlock the Power of Incentives to Get Things Done (Bantam Books, 2010)
Mark Tushnet, Why the Constitution Matters (Yale University Press 2010)
Ian Ayres and Barry Nalebuff: Lifecycle Investing: A New, Safe, and Audacious Way to Improve the Performance of Your Retirement Portfolio (Basic Books, 2010)
Jack M. Balkin, The Laws of Change: I Ching and the Philosophy of Life (2d Edition, Sybil Creek Press 2009)
Brian Z. Tamanaha, Beyond the Formalist-Realist Divide: The Role of Politics in Judging (Princeton University Press 2009)
Andrew Koppelman and Tobias Barrington Wolff, A Right to Discriminate?: How the Case of Boy Scouts of America v. James Dale Warped the Law of Free Association (Yale University Press 2009)
Jack M. Balkin and Reva B. Siegel, The Constitution in 2020 (Oxford University Press 2009)
Heather K. Gerken, The Democracy Index: Why Our Election System Is Failing and How to Fix It (Princeton University Press 2009)
Mary Dudziak, Exporting American Dreams: Thurgood Marshall's African Journey (Oxford University Press 2008)
David Luban, Legal Ethics and Human Dignity (Cambridge Univ. Press 2007)
Ian Ayres, Super Crunchers: Why Thinking-By-Numbers is the New Way to be Smart (Bantam 2007)
Jack M. Balkin, James Grimmelmann, Eddan Katz, Nimrod Kozlovski, Shlomit Wagman and Tal Zarsky, eds., Cybercrime: Digital Cops in a Networked Environment (N.Y.U. Press 2007)
Jack M. Balkin and Beth Simone Noveck, The State of Play: Law, Games, and Virtual Worlds (N.Y.U. Press 2006)
Andrew Koppelman, Same Sex, Different States: When Same-Sex Marriages Cross State Lines (Yale University Press 2006)
Brian Tamanaha, Law as a Means to an End (Cambridge University Press 2006)
Sanford Levinson, Our Undemocratic Constitution (Oxford University Press 2006)
Mark Graber, Dred Scott and the Problem of Constitutional Evil (Cambridge University Press 2006)
Jack M. Balkin, ed., What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said (N.Y.U. Press 2005)
Sanford Levinson, ed., Torture: A Collection (Oxford University Press 2004)
Balkin.com homepage
Cultural Software
The Information Society Project
Useful Links
Syllabi and Exams


text:
Police & Fire: December 13, 2012
Retail fraud
Sault Police were called to ma grocery store in the 900 block of Ashmun Wednesday evening after a woman failed in her bid to conceal food products in a purse.
According to reports, the woman was observed hiding pork chops, tuna fish, peanut butter and a red pepper before purchasing other products. She was attempting to exit without providing reimbursement for the aforementioned items when she was detained by store personnel.
Stacey Storey, 45, of the Sault was arrested for retail fraud. Police also noted she was wanted on an outstanding retail fraud warrant stemming from a previous complaint.
Storey was booked into the Chippewa County Jail.
Minor mishaps
City police also report investigating a pair of recent minor traffic accidents.
The first took place at approximately 10 a.m. Tuesday when a vehicle accelerated while departing the intersection of Prospect and Ryan, lost control and struck a nearby traffic control device. There were no injuries and damage to the vehicle was minimal. No citations were issued.
The second accident took place shortly after 4 p.m. Wednesday when a vehicle stopped for a traffic light at the intersection of the I-75 Business Spur and Mackinac Trail was clipped from behind by a second. One of the involved parties complained of a sore back in the wake of the accident, but declined medical treatment at the scene. There were no citations associated with the mishap.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
To get access to TP-Link TL-WA7210N router, you need the login IP address of your router, the username, and password.
You can find these info in TP-Link TL-WA7210N router manual. But if you lost it, then you can use the quick guide below.
Login to the TP-Link TL-WA7210N Router
The TP-Link TL-WA7210N has a web interface for configuration. You can use any web browser to log in to the TP-Link TL-WA7210N router.
Put the Internal IP Address of your TP-Link TL-WA7210N in the Address Bar of your web browser. Then press the Enter key on your keyboard. You should see a dialog box pop up asking you for your TP-Link TL-WA7210N login infomation.
Default login data for TP-Link TL-WA7210N
You need to know the username and password to log in to your TP-Link TL-WA7210N router. We listed below.
|Username & Password
|TP-Link TL-WA7210N
|Username:admin/ Password:admin
Note: If you are using the default settings you should change them to increase security and prevent unauthorized access to your network.
Other TP-Link TL-WA7210N Login Problems
If you can't get a login to your router, here are a few possible solutions you can try.
The Password of TP-Link TL-WA7210N Doesn't Work
It would be best if you tried the other same brands' passwords.
Perhaps your router's default password is differs from what we have listed here.
Some Brands will set a different Complex password that is difficult to remember, and then printed on the label of the router.
What if forgot password to TP-Link TL-WA7210N router?
If your Internet Service Provider supplied you with your router then you might want to try giving them a call, and see if they either know what your router's login information are, or maybe they can reset it for you.
How to Reset the TP-Link TL-WA7210N Router To Default Settings?
If you can't access the router's setup page, then you are probably going to reset your router to its default settings.
To do this, press and hold the Reset button for 5 seconds. It may be an aperture or a button and will be clearly marked.
Change TP-Link TL-WA7210N Default Wifi Name (SSID)
By default, some TP-Link TL-WA7210N routers have network names (with the manufacturer name). We recommend using a different name because a default name unnecessarily identifies your router's brand, which makes it easier for hackers.
Configure Wireless MAC address filter for TP-Link TL-WA7210N
MAC filtering allows you to restrict access to your TP-Link TL-WA7210N router. To enable this feature, enter the 12 digit MAC ID of each computer connected to your network into your TP-Link TL-WA7210N router. Be sure to update this information when removing devices.
How to configure:
- Open the web browser and type the 192.168.0.254 on the address.
- Enter the username and password for TP-Link TL-WA7210N router.
- Go to the MAC List page, you can find the MAC address of all the devices which are connected to the router.
- Go to Wireless->Wireless MAC Filtering page, click the Add New button.
- Type in the MAC address you want to allow or deny to access the router, and give a description for this item.
- The status should be Enabled and at last, click the Save button.


text:
Trojans top Harper
The Sturgis swimming team held off a Harper Creek bunch Thursday night in the pool.
Andy Feyes' team picked up a 111-72 victory over the Beavers on senior night.
The Trojans took first place in six events on the night.
"It was a total team win tonight," Feyes said. "I was really pleased with the way the entire team swam tonight, not to mention sending the seniors off with a win at their last meet was a great feeling."
Nathan Stemen won two events — the 200 freestyle race (1:59.34) and the 500 freestyle race, with a time of 5:25.17.
Arnie Flowers was first overall in the 50 free race with a time of 24.55 seconds while David Polzin wa third in that race at 25.12 seconds and Cobi Metzger was fifth with a time of 27.31 seconds.
In the 200 medley relay, Sturgis team of Thomas Tetzloff, Hunter Stanke, Flowers and Tyler Crone had a time of 1:51.49 to take first place. Tyler Cain, Polzin, Metzger and Michael Clark had a time of 2:00.94 to take third.
Brandon Jones was second in the 200 free race at 2:02.61 while Maynard was fifth at 2:11.80.
The 200 individual medley saw Grant Brown take second place. He had a time of 2:16.73 in the event, which was just shy of Jeff Mann's (Harper Creek) time of 2:16.58. Crone was fourth in the event at 2:29.51.
In diving, Dylan DeYoung placed first with 158.25 points. Kris Gibbs was second at 155.85 and Grant Lancaster came in third at 129.70 points.
Stanke placed second in the 100 butterfly race (1:01.95) while Adam Barkley was fourth at 1:09.60 and Clark took fifth at 1:13.32.
Brown took second in the 100 free race at 52.73 seconds, Flowers was third at 55.83 seconds and Tetzloff was fifth at 56.43 seconds.
Jones also placed second overall in the 500 free race at 5:33.12 while Maynard was fourth at 6:09.00 in the same event.
Brown, Flowers, Stanke and Stemen placed third in the 200 free relay at 1:37.88.
The 100 backstroke saw Crone place second with a time of 1:05.07, Tetzloff take third at 1:06.20 and Cain finish with a time of 1:08.61 to take fourth.
Stanke won the 100 breaststroke. His time of 1:10.60 was just a shade faster than Harper Creek's Mann at 1:10.75.
Polzin took third at 1:15.30 and Grant Little was fourth at 1:17.84.
The final race of the night, the 400 free relay, saw Sturgis' team of Stemen, Crone, Brown and Tetzloff take first at 3:50.97.
Cain, Barkley, Polzin and Maynard placed third at 4:09.82 in the same race.
The Trojans are back in action next Thursday, traveling to Marshall.
Follow Brandon Watson on Twitter, @BwatsonSJ.


text:
This Windows RT tablet will sport a 10.1-inch screen, NFC capabilities, and a 5-megapixel camera.
While Samsung is one of the most prolific manufacturers of Android tablets, the company has no intention on sleeping on the opportunities afforded by the Windows RT and Windows 8 operating systems.
Samsung is currently planning three different Windows tablets: the Windows RT, Wi-Fi-only, Ativ Tab; and two full Windows 8 devices: the Ativ Smart PC and Ativ Smart PC Pro. The latter two will be 4G LTE compatible; however, only the Ativ Smart PC (not the Pro) has been confirmed for use on AT&T's 4G LTE network.
Look for the RT-based Ativ Tab to compete with the also RT-only Microsoft Surface, which is scheduled to go on sale later this month. The Surface Pro will run the full version of Windows 8, but isn't scheduled for release until next year.
Let's take a brief look at what the Ativ Tab has to offer.
The Ativ Tab measures 6.61 inches tall, 10.46 inches wide, and 0.35 inches thick. It also weighs 1.2 pounds, putting it on par with other Android tablets of similar size.
The device boasts a 10.1-inch high-definition LCD display and a unique slate grey backing.
Like all Windows RT tablets, the Samsung Ativ Tab cannot run Legacy Windows software, only apps designed for the new "Metro" interface. Despite this, Samsung claims that the Ativ Smart PC tablet provides the full Windows 8-based experience.
In addition, the Wi-Fi-only device sports USB and Micro-HDMI ports, a microSD card slot, NFC, an 8,200mAh battery, and Bluetooth 4.0 capabilities.
It also has an Qualcomm Snapdragon S4 (APQ8060A)l 1.5GHz dual-core processor and up to 64GB of internal storage. The tablet has both a rear 5-megapixel camera with LED flash and a front-facing 1.9-megapixel camera.
As for software, the Ativ Tab comes with a trial version of Microsoft Office 2013, and a few Samsung services including its ChatOn mobile communication service, its music portal, and a photo editor.
Of the many Windows tablets that have rolled out this season, the Ativ Tab looks very promising. Its build and design aesthetics are attractive, and we're excited to see what sort of features will come in conjunction with the device's NFC capabilities.
Look for the two Ativ Smart PCs to take advantage of AT&T's family data plans when they're rolled out sometime during the holidays. The Ativ Tab will be out before the end of the year as well.
Pricing on the tablets is still unknown and we'll have to wait until we receive review units, before giving out our final judgements. Keep watching CNET for continued coverage of the tablet scene.


text:
1/4 cup sugar
1 tsp. salt
2 eggs
500 gr. flour
2 tsp. dry yeast
50 gr. melted butter
extra melted butter for shaping the rolls
In a stand mixer fitted with the dough hook attachment, combine the flour, eggs, remaining sugar, melted butter. Turn the mixer on slow and slowly pour in the yeast mixture. Let the dough come together and continue the kneading either by hand or with the mixture for a good 5-8 minutes.
Put the dough into an oiled bowl and let rise for 1 hour or until doubled in size.
Once the dough has risen, divide it into 16 equal portions. Roll each portion out into a circle or oval. Take one piece, brush with melted butter, stack another piece on it, brush with melted butter again and repeat with 2 other portions. You are actually making 4 stacks of 4 portions each. Roll each stack tightly. Cut each into 4 triangular pieces. Position the rolls in a 10 inch round pan, with pointy ends facing toward the center.
Let rise for another 45 minutes. Preheat the oven to 375. Once the dough has risen, brush with an egg wash (egg beaten with some milk) and bake for 30 minutes.


text:
With a funeral home and cemetery at one location, your entire planning process becomes much easier. Plus there is no need for a long procession between facilities, so your family and guests have more quality time to connect with their memories and with one another.
Glen Lawn Funeral Home & Cemetery can help you design personalized ceremonies and receptions, and choose the ideal features in our tranquil gardens to ensure the memory of your loved one will last for generations to come. Our specialists will provide all the options and information you need to make confident decisions on every aspect of final planning.
Today, through pre-planning, you can make decisions ahead of time. Design your own unique statement, save money, and reduce the burden on your family.
As a member of the Arbor Memorial family, we share a proud heritage providing funeral, cremation and interment rights to families in Winnipeg and across Canada. You can feel confident putting your trust in our compassionate professionals, whether planning ahead or at a time of need.
Key Features of Glen Lawn Funeral Home & Cemetery
- Traditional burial gardens & cremation gardens
- Funeral Home conveniently located on the cemetery property
- Indoor and outdoor receptions space for funeral receptions, memorials & Celebration of Life events
- Funeral home chapel seats 225 guests
- Indoor glass-front columbarium niches for comfortable year-round visitation
- Plenty of parking
The Benefits of Planning Ahead
- Savings: Planning early offers cost savings of up to thousands of dollars.
- Reduce the burden on your family: Planning your final arrangements ahead of time reduces the responsibilities on your family at their time of distress.
- Peace of mind: Gain comfort in knowing your plans are ready.
The legacy you leave behind is as important as the life you live today. Pre-planning gives your family comfort, knowing everything has been arranged in advance and according to your wishes. It's not just about taking care of the finances, it's about choosing how you want to be remembered.
We know it can be difficult making important decisions without professional advice, especially when it comes to something as emotional as deciding between burial, cremation or a specific type of memorial. Our pre-planning specialists can guide you through every step, ensuring you have a plan that fits your needs.


text:
Researchers have discovered a Java flaw that would let hackers bypass critical security measures in all recent versions of the software. The flaw was announced today by Security Explorations, the same team that recently found a security hole in Java SE 7 letting attackers take complete control of PCs. But this latest exploit affects Java SE 5, 6, and 7—the last eight years worth of Java software.
"The impact of this issue is critical—we were able to successfully exploit it and achieve a complete Java security sandbox bypass in the environment of Java SE 5, 6, and 7," Adam Gowdiak of Security Explorations wrote, claiming the hole puts "one billion users" at risk.
Gowdiak wrote that Security Explorations successfully pulled off the exploit on a fully patched Windows 7 32-bit computer in Firefox, Chrome, Internet Explorer, Opera, and Safari. Although testing was limited to Windows 7 32-bit, Gowdiak told Computerworld that the flaw would be exploitable on any machine with Java 5, 6, or 7 enabled (whether it's Windows 7 64-bit, Mac OS X, Linux, or Solaris).
The bug lets attackers violate the "type safety" security system in the Java Virtual Machine. "A malicious Java applet or application exploiting this new issue could run unrestricted in the context of a target Java process such as a Web browser application," Gowdiak told Computerworld. "An attacker could then install programs, view, change, or delete data with the privileges of a logged-on user."
Gowdiak and his team have found a total of 50 Java flaws. While this latest one apparently isn't being exploited in the wild yet, another that was being exploited was patched by Oracle last month, reportedly four months after Oracle learned of the vulnerability.
Gowdiak reported today that he provided Oracle with a technical description of the latest flaw, as well as "source and binary codes of our Proof of Concept code demonstrating a complete Java security sandbox bypass in the environment of Java SE 5, 6, and 7."
We asked Oracle for comment this afternoon and have not heard back yet.


text:
Chronicle of Higher Ed to Its Bloggers: Feel Free to Disparage Climate Science but not Black Studies
Yesterday, I wrote about the inappropriate blog post by Peter Wood appearing under the banner of The Chronicle of Higher Education. Woods' post equated the Jerry Sandusky child sex scandal to the email investigation of noted climate scientist Dr. Michael E. Mann conducted by Penn State. I asked my readers to send letters to CHE requesting a retraction and public apology. Here is the message sent by Chronicle President and Editor-in-Chief Philip Semas to some who sent letters:
Thank you for your message. As we clearly state on every blog post, posting on a blog does imply any endorsement of these views by The Chronicle. We publish a wide range of views in a wide range of formats, from opinion articles in print to blog posts to comments from readers. We couldn't possible agree with or endorse all of them.
We also offer ample opportunity for readers to respond to and criticize opinion articles and blog posts (and indeed almost anything we publish). Indeed, Peter Wood's post has, at last count, drawn 71 comments, many of which are critical of what he said about Michael Mann. Some make many of the same points you make in your message.
In other words, I think your quarrel is with Mr. Wood, not The Chronicle.
Well, there are two problems with his claims.
- The CHE banner waves proudly above his post and on the bottom of page of Wood's post we see the CHE copyright both of which certainly give the appearance that CHE owns and endorses this piece.
- In May 2012, The Chronicle fired Naomi Riley for writing The Most Persuasive Case for Eliminating Black Studies? Just Read the Dissertations so apparently CHE does not tolerate attacks on some disciplines but does with others. Why the double standard?
With regard to point #2, The Chronicle posted A Note to Readers to apologize stating:
When we published Naomi Schaefer Riley's blog posting on Brainstorm last week ("The Most Persuasive Case for Eliminating Black Studies? Just Read the Dissertations"), several thousand of you spoke out in outrage and disappointment that The Chronicle had published an article that did not conform to the journalistic standards and civil tone that you expect from us.
We've heard you, and we have taken to heart what you said.
We now agree that Ms. Riley's blog posting did not meet The Chronicle's basic editorial standards for reporting and fairness in opinion articles. As a result, we have asked Ms. Riley to leave the Brainstorm blog. Since Brainstorm was created five years ago, we have sought out bloggers representing a range of intellectual and political views, and we have allowed them broad freedom in topics and approach. As part of that freedom, Brainstorm writers were able to post independently; Ms. Riley's post was not reviewed until after it was posted.
Scientists, health officials, military and intelligence experts, and the insurance industry keep warning us about the coming crisis that is climate change. Increased droughts, heat waves, fires, floods, famine, rising sea levels, and ocean acidification, all of which have been predicted for many years are now happening and many are suffering – particularly those in poorer nations who did little to create the crisis.
One must feel sad that The Chronicle of Higher Education has handed a megaphone to a factually challenged ideologue who, like many others, is obstructing scientific progress by attacking our experts. I again encourage you to send a letter to Philip Semas (contact page) asking him to uphold the mission of The Chronicle as a source of informed information.
5 Responses
We went through this last year with Peter Wood and CHE.
See Guest Post: Bottling Nonsense, Misusing a Civil Platform.
I have sent the following letter to C.H.E.:
ATTN: Phil Semas, President and Editor-in-Chief, the Chronicle of Higher Education
I write regarding Peter Woods' "A culture of evasion" as it appeared at http://chronicle.com/blogs/innovations/a-culture-of-evasion/33485.
Whatever Woods' purpose, surely the whitewashing of the horrific Sandusky criminal behavior was sufficient to prove his case regarding the malfeasance of the administration of the Pennsylvania State University. I do not know much about the Spanier's failure to disclose salaries of public employees, but tossing the disproven inquisition of the noble Professor Michael Mann onto the pyre is nothing less than character smearing and assassination, as well as endorsing horrible logic. Doing so strips the Chronicle of any pretense of representing "Higher Education".
There are at least two fallacies in Woods' piece: Administrative accusations are not the same as guilt, especially ones determined by process to be rejected. And that Professor Mann was exonerated by a tainted administration does not make his being cleared of administrative charges false. The Chronicle should be capable of basic reasoning, whatever its poor status in our enfeebled polity.
Also, the charges brought against Professor Mann can, in retrospect, be surely seen as an inquisition and ill-motivated, whether considering the findings of subsequent criminal investigations judging their basic evidence (the professional hacking of the Climatic Research Unit emails), or the highly successful results of projections and a line of climate research Professor Mann and others pioneered.
By failing to be a proper Editor, you implicitly endorsed this bad logic and form. It is not simply someone's free expression that you allowed, but gross, harmful error, damaging to the principles for which higher education exists.
You owe your readership a retraction, an apology to Professor Mann, and an admission that your publication of this piece endorses bad logic, bad form, and unreasoned, populist attack. You have done so in the past. You owe the readership and Professor Mann one this time.
– Jan Galkowski, Class of 1976G, MIT,
Westwood, MA.
Mandia: Thank you!
[…] Mandia accuses Chronicle of Higher Ed to Its Bloggers: Feel Free to Disparage Climate Science but not Black Studies. This is in reference to Mann suing the National Review for libel (see, e.g. DA or BA). The Chron […]


text:
|Navman Wireless delivers real-time vehicle tracking solutions that can help raise productivity and streamline your operations. Discover how our GPS Vehicle Tracking and Fleet Management Solutions can help your business... With Navman Wireless's market leading solutions, you can have full visibility and control in real time, 24/7, over your vehicles and mobile workforce. See how your business would benefit, whether you have one, eight or hundreds of vehicles.
Copyright © 2008 Navman Wireless


text:
Apply for this job now
Assistant Store Manager
Conyers, Georgia
Job Type
7 Sep 2022
As a Family Dollar Assistant Store Manager you will responsible for providing exceptional service to our customers. A key priority includes assisting the Store Manager in the daily operation of the store. Under the direction of the Store Manager, you will also be responsible for maintaining inventories, store appearance and completing daily paperwork. Principal Duties & Responsibilities : Greets and assists customers in a positive, approachable manner. Answers questions and resolves customer inquiries and concerns. Maintains a presence in the store by providing excellent customer service. Ensures a clean, well-stocked store for customers. At the direction of the Store Manager, supervises, trains, and develops Store Associates on Family Dollar operating practices and procedures. Assists in unloading all merchandise from delivery truck, organizes merchandise, and transfers merchandise from stockroom to store. Assists Store Manager in ordering merchandise and record keeping to include payroll, scheduling and cash register deposits and receipts. Supports Store Manager in loss prevention efforts. Assumes certain management responsibilities in absence of Store Manager. Follows all Company policies and procedures. Position Requirements : Education : Prefer completion of high school or equivalent. Ability to read, interpret and explain to other's operational directives (e.g., merchandise schematics, etc). Experience : Prefer store management experience in retail, grocery, or drug store environments. Physical Requirements: Ability to regularly lift up to 40 lbs. (and occasionally, up to 55 lbs.) from floor level to above shoulder height; must be able to meet demands of frequent walking, standing, stooping, kneeling, climbing, pushing, pulling, and repetitive lifting, with or without reasonable accommodation. Availability : Ability to work flexible, full-time schedule to include days, evenings, weekends and holidays. Skills & Competencies: Customer Focus, Developing Potential, Results Driven, Strong Organizational Skills, Communication Skills, Problem Solving/Decision Making, Job Knowledge and Relationship Management.
Apply for this job now
Job Reference:
Date Posted:
7 September 2022
Family Dollar
Conyers, Georgia
On Application
Retail & Consumer Products
Job Type:
WSAV Jobs
software by
Privacy Policy
Terms of Use


text:
Eclipse IDE
1503 Solutions and counting.
Jspresso Developer Studio Colors 'n Fonts helps you to edit Colors and Fonts simply from within your java editor !
Just select any java string literal and right click on it to open the contextua...
End Of Life Notice
This plug-in is no longer in development.
Eclipse 2020-06 and prior - Fully compatible
Eclipse 2020-09 thru 2021-09 - Compatible with modifications
The Equo Editor can be used and embedded in any Eclipse based application. It also works as a drop-in replacement for the Eclipse Generic Editor. It's based on the Monaco web editor...
This plugin is an editor for windows batch files (*.bat, *.cmd)
Syntax highlighting
Quick-Outline (CTRL + o)
Open referenced labels by hyperlink
Simple code comple...
Syntax-directed Eclipse editor for StringTemplate v4 singleton and group template files.
A java hex editor. Standalone application (SWT widgets) and Eclipse plugin. Support for very large files. Hex, Ascii and Unicode find. Overwrite/insert modes. Binary and text cut/copy/paste. Undo/r...
https://github.com/Nodeclipse/GradleEditor Minimalist Gradle Editor for build.gradle files with highlight for keywords, strings and matching brackets and android support (by taking some additional ...
NomDT is a syntax-directed Eclipse editor and builder for the Nominal meta-HTML DSL.
Nominal, bundled as a core part of the NomDT builder, is a meta-HTML compiler, capable of outputting fully HT...
Eclipse Color Theme makes it possible to switch color themes conveniently and without side effects.
After the installation, go to Window→Preferences→General→Appereance->Color Them...
IDE, Editor, UI
Last Updated on Monday, February 4, 2019 - 13:52 by Felix H. Dahlke
Enables Enterprise Java Bean, Java Enterprise Application, Fragments, and Connector, Java Web Application, JavaServer Faces (JSF), Java Server Pages (JSP), Java Servlet, Java Web Services, and Tag ...
IDE, Editor, Web, XML, Java EE and OSGi Enterprise Development, Web, Programming Languages
Last Updated on Friday, October 7, 2022 - 09:57 by Nitin Dahyabhai
Includes the HTML, CSS, and JSON Editors, and JavaScript Development Tools from the Eclipse Web Tools Platform project, aimed at supporting client-side web development and node.js applications. Als...
Editor, Web, XML, Java EE and OSGi Enterprise Development, Programming Languages, IDE, Tools
Editor, Programming Languages, Web, Languages
Last Updated on Wednesday, March 30, 2022 - 12:03 by Tim Webb
Update March 2019:
be sure to use https://nodeclipse.github.io/updates/gradle-ide-pack/
not nodeclipse.org
Install Pivotal Gradle IDE & Enide Gradle for Eclipse & EGradle Edi...
IDE, Editor, Tools, Build and Deploy
Last Updated on Friday, January 15, 2021 - 10:11 by Paul Verest
YEdit is an Eclipse editor for editing YAML files. It has the following features: * Syntax highlighting * Syntax checking * Content outline * Templates * Various text editing support like auto-inde...
Last Updated on Wednesday, January 30, 2019 - 07:58 by Øystein Torget
The JSON Editor is a simple plugin for the Eclipse IDE that
Supports every eclipse flavor (JavaEE, CDT, RCP, you name it!)
Supports eclipse version 3.7 - 4.11.0 and most probably later...
Last Updated on Thursday, March 17, 2022 - 02:45 by Boothen Technology
This plugin is a bash script editor
Integrated bash debugger
Run bash scripts from IDE by configurable parameters, environment variables etc.
Adds a configurable "Open p...
Tools, Editor
Last Updated on Friday, October 7, 2022 - 09:55 by Albert Tregnaghi
This is quick way to install HTML Editor from Web Tools Platform project.
Currently Eclipse IDE for Java Developers is promoted download pinned to position #1.
A lot of Eclipse new users can f...
Editor, Web, Tools
Last Updated on Friday, January 15, 2021 - 10:09 by Paul Verest
This is just a SQL editor. It is NOT a full database tool but just an editor for SQL files.
Syntax highlighting
(Customizable colors, defaults for dark theme, keyword styles ca...
Last Updated on Friday, January 15, 2021 - 10:12 by Paul Verest
The AspectJ Development Tools (AJDT) project provides Eclipse platform based tool support for AspectJ. Our goal is to deliver a user experience that is consistent with the Java Development Tools (J...
IDE, Languages, Editor
Last Updated on Friday, January 15, 2021 - 10:13 by Andrew Clement
Eclipse plug-in for editing Java properties files, automatically converts non-ASCII characters to unicode escape sequences.
Last Updated on Monday, February 4, 2019 - 13:52 by Piotr Wolny
RED Robot Editor is Eclipse based editor for RobotFramework test cases. It provides text and table based editor with code coloring, code assistance, realtime validation, testsuite debugger. More in...
IDE, Editor
Last Updated on Friday, January 15, 2021 - 10:15 by Krzysztof Jozefowicz
EGradle is a lightweight, fast and comfortable gradle integration for eclipse
Features overview
Console and Eclipse can be used parallel without conflicts
New Project...
Editor, Build and Deploy, IDE, Tools
This is refresh build of CSV Edit v1.2 fork by Mathieu Savy at https://github.com/Mathieuu/CsvEdit
CSV Edit v1.1 was available before at https://marketplace.eclipse.org/content/csv-edit
Editor, Tools
EGradle Editor as standalone plugin, so other IDEs can use the editor implementation as well or users just install the editor.
The EGradle IDE does contain this editor which has much features:
Build and Deploy, Editor, Tools
EntireJ is a Rapid Application Development (RAD) environment for building highly scalable, enterprise-class applications in RAP/JavaFX. EntireJ uses powerful declarative features so that business d...
Rich Client Applications, Application Development Frameworks, SOA Development, Database Development, IDE
Last Updated on Friday, January 15, 2021 - 10:13 by Paul Harrison
Enide - Eclipse Node.js IDE (based on Nodeclipse 0.17) Eclipse Node.JS IDE (Enide) is basically one configuration file (*.p2f) that lets you quick start with Node.js development. Link to file: htt...
Tools, IDE, Languages, Application Development Frameworks, Editor
Last Updated on Friday, January 15, 2021 - 10:10 by Paul Verest


text:
Whether you consider it to be a fully fledged genre or more of a style or movement, Film Noir is unquestionably one of the most popular and certainly one of most discussed modes in cinema.
The traditional view locates the classic film noir period between the release of John Huston's 1941 version of The Maltese Falcon and Orson Welles' Touch of Evil in 1958. In between come several hundred moody crime movies, virtually all of them in black and white – the best-known exceptions being the breathtakingly TechniColored Leave Her to Heaven (1945) and the more muted Slightly Scarlet (1956), courtesy of chiaroscuro maestro John Alton – and usually renowned for their downbeat stories of lost souls facing annihilation in a brutally deterministic universe, one governed by a seemingly implacable and Darwinian set of principles in which the strong attempt to exploit and destroy the week. Quite often this is aligned with images of urban desolation filmed in an expressionistic style, one that favours low angles and chiaroscuro cinematography, to evoke an atmosphere of unease and instability.
In Film Noir men are often depicted as weak and obsessive, unable to resist their urges for money, power and sex while women are often depicted as murderous and double-crossing 'femme fatales', embodying what many now see as an anxiety about female empowerment and independence, reflecting accelerated changes in the domestic sphere during the Second World War. The classic examples of this, all of which helped jump-start Film Noir's popularity, include Mary Astor as the two-timing Brigid O'Shaughnessy in The Maltese Falcon,Claire Trevor as the sexy blonde with a deadly past in Murder, My Sweet (1943) and Barbara Stanwyck as the manipulative, anklet wearing Phyllis Dietrichson in Double Indemnity (1944). You can get a flavour of film noir, and what aspects of it that so many people respond to, in this loving mashup:
The Endless Night: A Valentine to Film Noir
The huge success of Double Indemnity probably did more than anything to bring Noir to the fore as a commercially viable approach to storytelling, one that would be increasingly combined with a darker worldview, one informed by a post-war mood that questioned the established order as men and women found it increasingly difficult to fall back into the lives they had led before the conflict. In addition, advances in filmmaking techniques made shooting out of the studio and on location easier and cheaper and helped give audiences something different and more realistic even as the stylization of the monochromatic cinematography was becoming ever-more elaborate, helping to project a more in-depth approach to character's psychology and motivation. The style was also used for biopics and westerns and of course is also to be found in films made outside of the USA – the focus here though is on those made by Hollywood companies, whether set in LA, New York or anywhere in between
So, in strict chronological order, here begins the list of my 10 favourite examples of the classical Hollywood Noir. In putting together this list I've tried to adhere to the one director one film rule just in an attempt to keep things manageable.:
Adapted from the pulp novella by James M. Cain, this was a re-write of his earlier success The Postman Always Rings Twice, a cleverly plotted mixture of crime and sex that was considered fairly shocking in its day. The scrip was written by Raymond Chandler and Billy Wilder, a fraught, combustible collaboration that none the less improved on its source in practically every way, not least because it came up with a much more concise finale, even though this was a replacement for the original gas chamber conclusion that was considered too downbeat, even for this film.
Fred MacMurray probably gives a career best as the weak (even seedy) insurance agent Walter Neff who falls head over heels for Barbara Stanwyck's bewitching sexual charm (who wouldn't). A true classic of its kind, even if the flashback structure, voice over narration, blonde femme fatale and wise cracking dialogue were already in place in the previous year's Murder, My Sweet (1943), adapted by screenwriter John Paxton and director Edward Dmytryk from Chandler's second Philip Marlowe novel, Farewell My Lovely.
This is the film that effectively launched and forever fixed the image of Hollywood beauty Gene Tierney, pretty much in the same way that Rita Hayworth would remain forever identified with her performance in Gilda (see below) – the difference though is that Tierney was more or less starting out here while Hayworth already had a dozen or so decent movies to her credit already after a decade working in the movie capital. It also defined the career of composer David Raksin, who came up with a classic tune despite being asked to come up with a song that was only similar enough to 'Sophisticated Lady' as to not get sued when the Duke Ellington standard became too expensive to licence. It was also the Hollywood directing debut of Otto Preminger who would make several fine Noirs in the following few years before becoming Tinseltown's resident badboy.
This poverty row suspense drama by bargain basement studio Monogram, allegedly shot in under 2 weeks on a budget of under $100,000, this succinct and very compact little movie (it runs 67 minutes) is an endlessly surprising and engrossing movie. Ann savage is wonderful as an entrancing and very evil fatal woman and Tom Neal makes for a perfect patsy, although one that as a narrator may not be quite as innocent as he want to make out. But this is also a great director's movie and Edgar G Ulmer, master of the low-budget movie, is here probably at the top of his form, making the most of exceptionally reduced circumstances to make true cinematic gold.
A TechniColor film noir? Starring two actors who would become closely associated with Noir – Cornel Wilde and Gene Tierney, this story of a murderous woman, while shot in colour and largely set outdoors, has all the psychological menace and darkness one is accustomed to in this type of film and the marvellous cinematography has all the spidery impressionism that one would require. Like Laura, Mildred Pierce and Gilda these are also seen as examples of 'women's picture' or melodramas but also seem to fall well within the look and feel of Noir.
With its strong sense of aberrant sexuality, sumptuous design and cinematography, celebrated 'Put the Blame on Mame' musical number and a frankly cuckoo plot that makes no sense at all, this is more peculiar than Leave Her To Heaven in the Noir stakes. And yet, with Rita Hayworth and Glenn Ford as its frankly gorgeous leads and the scarred George Macready as their nemesis, this shouldn't work but it really does. The plot, despite stories of heavy post production tinkering to try to make it more sensible, is frankly all over the place in this home-erotic love triangle but the lush look and willful artificiality manage to keep it all ticking over. Perhaps more of a pervy romantic melodrama than Noir? Unforgettable, either way.
With Double Indemnity, this is the film that best seems to exemplify what people imagine when they think of Film Noir. it has a doomed hero who by the end seemed to not so much welcome as invite his end, a femme fatale as its protagonist, a complex crime plot, shimmering and moody cinematography, a strong sense of characters and places in which people pay for playing outside of societal's accepted boundaries – and lots of double crosses and dead bodies. Jane Greer, Robert Mitchum and Kirk Douglas make for a great triumvirate in another dark romantic triangle that ends in death and destruction. And its all filmed with the greatest possible taste with exquisite flair by Jacques Tourner, here simultaneously making the transition to the big time and peaking in a career that already included Cat People and I Walked with a Zombie for the Val Lewton unit. Subsequently remade as Against All Odds (1984).
Superficially about illegal gambling, this dark and obscurely-plotted movie (it was largely re-edited by its studio) was adapted from Ira Wolfert's Tucker's People about the numbers racket – but it's really a mytho-poetic examination of the struggle between two brothers, beautifully played by John Garfield and Thomas Gomez. The fact that the plot is really hard to follow at some points weirdly makes it even more powerful.
In many ways this is an anti-Noir in the sense that it seems to fly in the face of every conceivable convention – even the opening titles scroll in the wrong direction! It takes Mickey Spillaine's eponymous Mike Hammer potboiler and then undercuts it – Ralph Meeker plays Hammer as a truly sleazy sociopath with a callous disregard for friends and foes alike. This proved to be enormously influential, the climactic sequence with the opening of the 'Pandora's Box' directly referenced at the climax of Raiders of the Lost Ark, even to the extent of re-using the same sound effects, as well as Tarantino's Pulp Fiction and David Lynch's Lost Highway. A horrible story full of awful people, brilliantly and cynically realised.
This is the film in which Stanley Kubrick really came into his own. A cool thriller about a heist that goes wrong, it proved to be a huge influence on Quentin Tarantino, not just for Reservoir Dogs but also in Jackie Brown two, especially in its still powerful use of discontinuous narrative as the story goes backwards and forwards in time. Sterling Hayden makes for a compelling protagonist, building on the doomed criminal he played in 1950 for John Huston in The Asphalt Jungle while that Noir perennial Elisha Cook Jr probably gets his best ever role as the worm that turns sharing some great moments with that great B movie siren, Marie Windsor.
The classic noir period as most understand it ended with the 1950s with the release of Robert Wise's brilliantly but incredibly bleak Odds Against Tomorrow (1959) and this, Orson Welles last American movie. A fascinating look at literal and metaphorical border crossing, it is a visually stunning, morally troubling and truly Gothic piece of noir. Available now in three versions, none completed by Welles himself, the most preferable is probably the one supervised by Rick Schmidlin and Walter Murch which removed the titles and Henry Mancini's memorable theme music from the opening credits. It's a great movie no matter which iteration you get your hands on.


text:
Dieters who drink more water have greater weight loss, according to a new review of several prior studies. In one study that asked dieters to drink water before a meal, for instance, "the water enhanced the weight loss," said Brenda Davy, a professor at Virginia Tech who led some of the work included in the review. Researchers said there is not yet enough evidence, however, to say for sure that drinking more water will help people shed the pounds.
Rebecca Muckelbauer, a researcher at the Berlin School of Public Health, Charit? University Medical Center Berlin in Germany, led the new review of the water studies. She said that, as a nutrition researcher, people had often asked her about whether they should drink water to lose weight, and she didn't know the answer. She and her colleagues decided to examine all of the studies on weight and water consumption. Eleven studies fit their criteria.
Three of them showed that increased water intake among dieters was tied to greater weight loss. a study by Davy's group found that middle aged and older adults who drank two cups before a meal lost about four pounds more than a group that didn't drink the extra water.
Yet another study found that women who increased their water consumption while they dieted lost more weight than those who kept it below one liter a day. It's not clear how water might help people shed pounds.One possibility, said Davy, is that water could squelch feelings of hunger."This may have helped them reduce their calorie intake," she told Reuters Health. Muckelbauer agreed that increased fullness is the most likely explanation, but another possibility is something called "water-induced thermogenesis."The idea is that drinking water itself increases energy expenditure of your body. It has an energy consuming effect, this is not very well studied," Muckelbauer told Reuters Health.
No conclusive evidence
The Institute of Medicine recommends that adults consume between 91 ounces of water for women and 125 ounces for men (2.7 - 3.7 liters) each day, but this total can come through food, plain water or other beverages. While the experimental studies suggest that drinking water may aid in weight loss, the surveys Muckelbauer examined don't always show that people who drink more water are slimmer.
In fact, some found that obese or overweight adults drank more water than people of normal size, while others did not find such a link, Muckelbauer's team reports in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition."We don't have conclusive evidence that increasing water intake reduces weight, but there are certainly other benefits to increasing our intake," said Davy.
She said people in the US typically drink about 400 to 500 calories a day from other beverages, and replacing them with water is not a bad idea.
One study found that women who drink water, rather than sweet drinks, had a slightly lower chance of developing diabetes (see Reuters Health story of May 31, 2012 here: And women who don't drink plenty of water have greater odds of getting kidney stones (see Reuters Health report of March 29, 2012 here: "There's not a lot of risk for recommending (increased water intake) for individuals," Davy said.
Muckelbauer said it will be helpful to have larger experiments looking at the potential weight loss benefits of adding more water to the diet.


text:
Roomscapes Clear Panels by Community Playthings
How secure is my online order?
Any information submitted through the web store is safe and secure. We use state-of-the-art security encryption methods to ensure the highest standards of security for our online customers.
What payment methods are accepted?
We accept Visa and MasterCard for online orders. We do not accept Visa Debit cards.
How do I know if you have received my order?
When your order has been completed, you will receive a confirmation e-mail that will be sent to the e-mail address that you entered in the "Registration" page before checkout.
Order Form
Get our interactive order form here.
TermsCredit terms, extended on approved accounts, are NET 30 days. Overdue accounts will be charged 1.5% per month (18% per annum) on amounts past due. Personal orders must be prepaid with VISA, MASTERCARD or personal cheques for order total, including shipping and applicable taxes.
PLEASE NOTE that the COVID-19 crisis is impacting delivery times. Couriers and shippers are experiencing reduced capacity due to new hygiene procedures, increased volumes and/or emergency conditions. Your patience and understanding is greatly appreciated.
Is your school or centre limited as to when it can receive goods? When you place your order, in the comments area, please let us know if you cannot receive your order during regular business hours to avoid additional shipping charges. We will make every attempt to accommodate you, but we cannot guarantee that this will be possible.
Within Toronto, Durham, Peel and York, all orders will be charged 12% of the product total for freight. Orders to all other destinations will be billed at 15%. For orders less than $300, a $15 Shipping & Handling charge will be added to your invoice. All orders under $100 will be quoted freight and handling charges before shipping.
For orders over $3,000 please call our customer service department for a freight quote, which may be less than our advertised rate.
Freight carriers deliver only to the front or back door of your institution. If you require goods delivered to a classroom, or if your destination is difficult to access, such as on the second floor, please notify Customer Service at the time you place the order. There may be a small surcharge levied by the carrier, particularly if the shipment contains furniture or equipment. We will be glad to provide a quote for your approval.
All freight charges beyond Provincial forwarding points are the responsibility of the customer. Please call for a freight quote.
From time to time, we may ship an item directly from the manufacturer. Freight will be billed at the normal rate in this event.
When gas prices rise some carriers levee a "gas surcharge". We reserve the right to add this cost to your invoice, but will only do so if it is absolutely necessary.
In the event that you receive a product that does not meet your needs, we are pleased to accept a return on ANY product from our current catalogue within 30 days of receipt. Just call our Customer Service Department to obtain a Return Authorization Number and mail the item back to us. In some cases, for example items ordered in error, you will be responsible for a restocking fee.