text:
VA Issues Final Animal Access Rules for Facilities; Allows Service Dogs for PTSD but Bans Miniature Horses; Rejects Push for Service Dog Training Monopoly
The Department of Veterans Affairs has issued final rules regarding animals, including service and therapy animals, on VA property. 80 Fed. Reg. 49157 (August 17, 2015). The proposed rules were discussed here in a prior blog, and nearly 100 comments were submitted on various aspects of the rules. Fortunately, much of what the service dog community said was heard by the VA reg writers, and many veterans whose service dogs for PTSD were being excluded from VA facilities have reason to rejoice. The final rules, 38 CFR 1.218(a)(11), effective September 16, 2015, are reproduced in an appendix at the end of this blog.
The preamble to the final rules states that their purpose is to establish "a set of standardized criteria that can be uniformly enforced on VA property, and removes variation amongst individual facilities that existed prior to this final rule." The reg writers are to be praised for acknowledging that there has been confusion, particularly with some facilities using the funding rules of 38 CFR 17.148 as access rules as well, while others were using the rules of the Department of Justice as a default.
Definition of Service Animal: Work or Tasks
The final rules define "service animal" identically to the definition given in the VA's 2014 proposal, with the exception of one word:
A service animal means any dog that is individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability, including a physical, sensory, psychiatric, intellectual, or other mental disability…. The work or tasks performed by a service animal must be directly related to the individual's disability.
The proposal had used the conjunction "and" instead of "or," creating the possibility that a dog could not solely "do work," as is allowed under the rules promulgated by the Department of Justice in 2010. The distinction between work and tasks is perhaps one of the most complicated, if not muddled, issues in the terminology of service animal law. For an insightful analysis of this issue, see the online article by Bradley Morris, Toward Clarity and Utility in Work vs. Task Distinctions.
Some commenters, including me, had suggested that examples be provided of what the VA considers to be work or tasks, particularly as to service animals that might assist an individual with a mental disability or illness. The VA has declined to do this, but specifically adds a reference in the preamble to ADA guidance provided by the Department of Justice (75 Fed. Reg. 56236, scroll down to p. 56266 et seq.). Thus, the VA seems to be incorporating by reference the following passages:
The work or tasks performed by a service animal must be directly related to the handler's disability. Examples of work or tasks include, but are not limited to, assisting individuals who are blind or have low vision with navigation and other tasks, alerting individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing to the presence of people or sounds, providing non-violent protection or rescue work, pulling a wheelchair, assisting an individual during a seizure, alerting individuals to the presence of allergens, retrieving items such as medicine or the telephone, providing physical support and assistance with balance and stability to individuals with mobility disabilities, and helping persons with psychiatric and neurological disabilities by preventing or interrupting impulsive or destructive behaviors.
Although the common definition of work includes the performance of tasks, the definition of work is somewhat broader, encompassing activities that do not appear to involve physical action.
A pet or support animal may be able to discern that the handler is in distress, but it is what the animal is trained to do in response to this awareness that distinguishes a service animal from an observant pet or support animal.
It is the Department's [i.e., DOJ's] view that an animal that is trained to "ground" a person with a psychiatric disorder does work or performs a task that would qualify it as a service animal as compared to an untrained emotional support animal whose presence affects a person's disability. It is the fact that the animal is trained to respond to the individual's needs that distinguishes an animal as a service animal. The process must have two steps: Recognition and response. For example, if a service animal senses that a person is about to have a psychiatric episode and it is trained to respond, for example, by nudging, barking, or removing the individual to a safe location until the episode subsides, then the animal has indeed performed a task or done work on behalf of the individual with the disability, as opposed to merely sensing an event.
It is to be hoped that training materials for security personnel and others in VA facilities will specifically include these examples, since the regulatory release provides only a reference.
No Change in Funding Rules
The preamble to the VA's final rules seems not to be wholeheartedly accepting of the DOJ's examples of work and tasks as the final sentence of the discussion states:
By providing this reference of examples of work and tasks in the context of public access, VA is not expressing a position on the efficacy of such dogs for the treatment of the disabilities of the individuals.
This statement initially struck me as out of place, as a vague if not pointless hedge on the cross-reference to DOJ's examples, until Veronica Morris pointed out that the VA had a history of questioning the value of service dogs for mental disabilities. I had forgotten that I had even blogged about this three years ago when the VA finalized 38 CFR 17.148, the VA's service dog funding rule. In explaining why it would not fund service dogs for mental disabilities, the VA had stated:
We are unaware of similarly vetted and accepted training protocols for mental health service dogs, or how assistance from such dogs could be consistently helpful for veterans to mitigate mental health impairments.
The preamble to the final funding rules had added that "if we ultimately determine that mental health dogs are appropriate treatment tools for mental health impairments, we will amend our regulations to authorize benefits for such dogs." Thus, it appears that the VA's reiteration of its doubt as to the value of service dogs for mental disabilities is a way of stating it has no current plans, despite allowing such dogs into facilities, to provide funds so that veterans without sufficient resources can purchase or maintain them.
I had argued in the prior blog that guide dogs do not cure blindness but do help people with vision impairments function in ways they would not be able to do otherwise. Similarly, a dog that is trained to sit behind a veteran having a panic attack in a movie line and give him some space may not reduce the number or severity of panic attacks (and thus may not "treat" them), but may allow the veteran to stay in the movie line and later enjoy the movie. The VA's argument that a medical benefit would have to be demonstrated before it would consider funding psychiatric service dogs is thus based on faulty logic.
It might also be worth noting that when it was revealed that the access rules were on a fast track for finalization, discussed in a blog posted here on June 1, the slides that revealed this priority referred to the internal process as a "concurrence process." The phrase struck me as odd at the time. I have been involved as the onetime chair of an ABA tax section committee (Banking and Savings Institutions) with a number of Treasury Department regulatory initiatives, yet have never seen any initiative referred to as a concurrence process, as if some set of officials held a veto power they would exercise if their opinions were not respected. My interpretation of the use of the phrase in the slide is that some faction (it could be a single individual but is more likely a group) inside the VA thinks service dogs for psychiatric conditions are bullshit and would not sign off on the publication of the final rules—"concur"—unless their objections were noted to make it clear that any move by others in the VA to allow funding for dogs used by veterans with PTSD would be met with forceful resistance.
There is one remote possibility for change in the VA's position, but this depends on research that seems to be making little progress. In 2011, the VA announced its intention to study the benefits of service dogs for veterans with PTSD. Clinical trials (NCT01329341) are supposedly being conducted at the James A. Haley Veterans' Hospital in Tampa, Florida, with a projected completion date (there have been several, with the first being almost two years ago) now set for October 2017. The success of the study will apparently be determined for participants by measures of their PTSD symptoms (PTSD Checklist-PCL), depression levels (Patient Health Questionnaire-9, or PHQ-9), and level of alcohol abuse (Audit-C). Presumably if the results under one or more of the measures in these tests indicate improvement of the experimental population, the VA will reconsider its resistance to providing funds for service dogs to veterans with PTSD.
Individually Trained, but No ADI/IGDF Requirement as to Access
Following the Department of Justice, the emphasis of the VA's definition of service animal is that it be individually trained, not that it be trained by a specific group. Some commenters had argued that dogs should be only allowed into VA facilities if trained by member organizations of Assistance Dogs International or the International Guide Dog Federation, as is still required under the funding rules of 38 CFR 17.148. The VA has conclusively rejected such a restrictive approach to service dog access:
VA's standard for service animal access is consistent with regulations that implement the ADA and is not dependent on how the service animal was trained or by whom, but instead depends on the service animal's ability to behave in accordance with typical public access standards for public settings.
Health Records Requirements for Service Dogs
The proposed rules appeared to require documentation requirements that might apply for access to VA property, which led to some objections from commenters. The health records requirement has been bifurcated into access for veterans who will receive treatment in a residential program, and those for general access to VA property, as follows.
1.218(a)(11)…
(vi) Unless paragraph (a)(11)(vii) of this section applies, an individual with a disability must not be required to provide documentation, such as proof that an animal has been certified, trained, or licensed as a service animal, to gain access to VA property accompanied by the service animal. However, an individual may be asked if the animal is required because of a disability, and what work or task the animal has been trained to perform.
(vii) An individual with a disability, if such individual will be accompanied by the service animal while receiving treatment in a VHA residential program, must provide VA with documentation that confirms the service animal has had a current rabies vaccine as determined by state and local public health requirements, and current core canine vaccines as dictated by local veterinary practice standards (e.g. distemper, parvovirus, and adenovirus-2).
The vaccination documentation requirement for residential treatment is necessary, according to the preamble, because in such a situation the "service animal will have routine and constant interaction with employees, veterans, patients, and visitors over the course of an extended period of time … so that VA may ensure patient care, patient safety, and infection control standards are met."
Emotional Support Animals Not Included
Some commenters had argued that the VA expand its rules to include emotional support animals, or animals that would fit under the definition of "assistance animal" sometimes applied in housing law, but the VA rejected these arguments, even as to VA residential programs:
Regarding VHA's residential treatment programs, these programs involve shared spaces amongst multiple veterans, where there is an active treatment component that involves the participation of not only the veterans but also treatment providers as well as other members of the public at times. Therefore, we interpret VHA residential programs to be public treatment spaces (just as the other areas of VHA property that are specified in this final rule), rather than a residential space analogous to the HUD public housing context.
Dogs in Training Are Not (Yet) Service Animals
The VA's definitional section specifies that "[s]ervice dogs in training are not considered service animals." In the preamble to the final rules, the VA acknowledges that some commenters had objected to this policy:
Some of these commenters reasoned that a service dog in training could be well trained enough to dependably behave safely in public settings, even without having fully completed their training. Other commenters expressed that VA properties could be used as training opportunities for service animals. VA seeks to maintain a safe and therapeutic environment at its properties. In a complex hospital environment, we believe that service animals should be fully trained and a ''service animal in training'' is not fully trained. We therefore do not revise § 1.218(a)(11)(viii) to permit service animals in training.
The Department of Justice does not have a similar sentence in the definitional section of its 2010 rules, though the use of the adjective "trained" could be interpreted as indicating that an animal in training is not a service dog. (As I also noted in the 2014 blog concerning the VA's proposed rules, the Department of Transportation, in its service animal regulations, allows airlines to choose their own policy on whether to admit service animals in training. 73 Fed. Reg. 27659, May 13, 2008.)
Dogs Only, Not Miniature Horses
As did the Department of Justice, so the VA has restricted service animals to dogs:
Other species of animals, whether wild or domestic, trained or untrained, are not service animals for the purposes of this definition.
The Department of Justice had created a sort of provisional category for miniature horses, which are being trained by certain groups to be guides for the visually impaired. The VA did not follow the DOJ in this regard, stating the following in the preamble to the final rules:
Several commenters wanted VA to permit miniature horses on VA properties. As discussed in the proposed rule, VA believes the presence of a miniature horse poses legitimate safety concerns, both to people on VA property and the miniature horse, especially on VA healthcare properties. This final rule reiterates VA's determination from the proposed rule, that, in light of a review of the multiple assessment factors, miniature horses are excluded from VA properties. We restate from the proposed rule that these assessment factors include the larger size of a miniature horse as well as their reduced predictability in behaving in accordance with typical standards of public access required of service animals. Additional factors from the proposed rule that VA considers to support the exclusion of miniature horses include elimination of horse waste, a heightened flee response of a miniature horse, the smooth flooring common to VA properties, and the likely disruptive attention a horse would receive.
Of all the comments received on the VA's proposal, only two mentioned miniature horses. One was a service dog user who made the offhand but correct observation that some service dogs are larger than some miniature horses, and another, an attorney with Disability Rights North Carolina, noted that the exclusion of miniature horses moves away form a general principle of inclusion. No guide miniature horse user or advocate submitted any comments. As I have said before, some vocal miniature horse user or organization needs to step up to the plate if this modality is to be taken seriously in government circles.
Access Applies to Service Animals of Veterans, but Also Visitors and Employees
Psychiatric Service Dog Partners in its comment had argued that the access rules should also apply to service dogs coming with visitors to see veterans in facilities. I had noted that some employees of VA facilities also use service dogs (and some patients and residents are also employees). The preamble states that "this VA regulation applies to everyone seeking access to VA property, to include employees,veterans, and visitors."
Harness or Leash Requirement Removed, Alternate Handler Allowed
The 2014 proposed rules had stated that a "service animal must be in a guiding harness or on a leash, under control of the individual with the disability at all times while on VA property." This was criticized by various commenters:
These commenters asserted that multiple disabilities might prevent an individual from physically controlling a service animal via a harness or leash, or that the service animal's presence on a leash or other tether at all times might prevent that service animal from completing work or tasks they are trained to perform. Further, some commenters urged VA to adopt a standard that mimics that of the regulations that implement the ADA, whereby control over the service animal by the handler can be in the form of voice control. VA agrees with these comments, and amends § 1.218(a)(11)(i) to incorporate comparable language to that used in the regulations that implement the ADA. Cf. 28 CFR 36.302(c)(4).
The final rules thus provide:
A service animal shall have a harness, leash, or other tether, unless either the handler is unable because of a disability to use a harness, leash, or other tether, or the use of a harness, leash, or other tether would interfere with the service animal's safe, effective performance of work or tasks, in which case the service animal must be otherwise under the handler's control (e.g., voice control, signals, or other effective means).
"Other effective means" can include an alternate handler, as indicated in the preamble and specified in 38 CFR 1.218(a)(11)(ii)(A), which provides that a service animal will be denied access to VA property or removed from VA property if it "is not under the control of the individual with a disability or an alternate handler…."
VA Employees Not Responsible for Cleaning Up or Temporary Control
The preamble to the final rules emphasizes that VA employees are never to be responsible for controlling a service animal, or for cleaning up after one that relieves "bowel or bladder on VA property." This is not stated in the rules themselves, but they do provide that a service animal "must be trained to eliminate its waste in an outdoor area." An animal can be denied access if it is not housebroken, though there would probably have to be an accident or two before a facility could make such a determination.
Area Exclusions inside Facilities
As discussed in the 2014 blog, the proposed rules had listed a number of areas in VA hospitals and facilities where service animals were not to be permitted, which I admit did not trouble me, but other commenters disagreed, and were apparently right:
[C]ommenters objected to the categorical exclusion of service animals from inpatient hospital settings to include locked mental health units … and from patient rooms or treatment areas where patients may have an animal allergy or phobia…. VA cited three examples of acute inpatient hospital settings … (intensive care units, stabilization units, and locked mental health units) in a representative but not exhaustive list of areas that could be covered by this exclusion. In light of the comments received, VA revises § 1.218(a)(11)(iii)(C) to remove these examples, and instead qualify the exclusion of service animals in acute inpatient settings to exclude such animals when their presence is not part of a documented treatment plan. VA agrees with the commenters that there are scenarios in which a service animal on any of the specific areas … may provide its services when the individual being treated or an alternate handler can control a service animal as part of a treatment plan established by the clinical care team.
Thus, if a veteran receiving treatment wishes to have his or her service animal in a particular location of a facility, he or she should inform members of the treatment team of this desire. Certain locations, "such as operating rooms, surgical suites, areas where invasive procedures are being performed, decontamination, sterile processing, sterile storage areas, food preparation areas (not to include public food service areas), and any areas where protective barrier measure are required," are still be off limits to service dogs.
The final rules removed a provision in the 2014 proposal that would have prohibited service dogs from being in patient rooms where a patient may have an animal allergy or phobia.
Animal Assisted Activities and Therapy (AAA and AAT)
The VA is to be particularly commended for being the first major federal agency to give a coherent perspective on the access that must be provided for therapy animals. In commenting on the rules I had said that "it would be advisable to indicate whether animals other than dogs are appropriate for AAT and AAA work, and under what circumstances they could be admitted." The preamble to the final rules states:
Unlike service animals under the proposed and final rules, there is no species restriction for AAA or AAT animals, and AAA or AAT animals are permitted on VHA property only at the discretion of the VA facility head or designee. Should an AAA or AAT animal that is not a dog meet the requirements in § 1.218(a)(11)(ix)(C) and (D), a VA facility head or designee may grant that animal access to VA property.
I had also suggested that the VA might want to assure that therapy animals have liability insurance. To this idea, the preamble replies:
We do not disagree that liability insurance would be a sensible requirement, particularly as AAA is often conducted in group settings. However, VA believes that any liability insurance would be better addressed outside of a regulatory requirement by the VA facility head or designee and the AAA or AAT handler or organization prior to establishing a particular program at a facility.
Animals may also be allowed to remain in Community Living Centers and Mental Health Residential Rehabilitation Programs "to create a more homelike environment."
The Department of Veterans Affairs has clarified that its definition of service animal, aside from not incorporating examples and the provisional status of miniature horses, is that of the Department of Justice in its 2010 regulations. The definition clearly allows for psychiatric service dogs that "do work" with regard to such conditions as PTSD without having to perform specific tasks. This is a welcome clarification, and a considerable departure from the restrictive funding regulations previously adopted in 38 CFR 17.148, as to which there appears to be little hope for early change. The modifications in the final rules as to a service dog's required health records, and the fact that the rules apply to visitors to VA facilities as well as employees, are welcome improvements, as is the general easing of the area restriction concept that was envisioned in the proposed rules.
Those of us who handle therapy dogs must thank the VA for carefully considering the position of such dogs in therapeutic activities and programs at VA facilities. In this instance, the Department of Justice could learn from the VA, and hopefully will.
For additional discussion of these final rules, see the discussion provided by Psychiatric Service Dog Partners.
Appendix: Final Rule: Animals on VA Property, 80 Fed. Reg. 49157 (August 17, 2015).
38 CFR 1.218(a)…
(11) Animals. (i) Service animals, as defined in paragraph (a)(11)(viii) of this section, are permitted on VA property when those animals accompany individuals with disabilities and are trained for that purpose. A service animal shall be under the control of the person with the disability or an alternate handler at all times while on VA property. A service animal shall have a harness, leash, or other tether, unless either the handler is unable because of a disability to use a harness, leash, or other tether, or the use of a harness, leash, or other tether would interfere with the service animal's safe, effective performance of work or tasks, in which case the service animal must be otherwise under the handler's control (e.g., voice control, signals, or other effective means). VA is not responsible for the care or supervision of a service animal. Service animal presence on VA property is subject to the same terms, conditions, and regulations as generally govern admission of the public to the property.
(ii) A service animal will be denied access to VA property or removed from VA property if:
(A) The animal is not under the control of the individual with a disability or an alternate handler;
(B) The animal is not housebroken. The animal must be trained to eliminate its waste in an outdoor area; or
(C) The animal otherwise poses a risk to the health or safety of people or other service animals. In determining whether an animal poses a risk to the health or safety of people or other service animals, VA will make an individualized assessment based on objective indications to ascertain the severity of the risk. Such indications include but are not limited to:
(1) External signs of aggression from the service animal, such as growling, biting or snapping, baring its teeth, lunging; or
(2) External signs of parasites on the service animal (e.g. fleas, ticks), or other external signs of disease or bad health (e.g. diarrhea or vomiting).
(iii) Service animals will be restricted from accessing certain areas of VA property under the control of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA properties) to ensure patient care, patient safety, or infection control standards are not compromised. Such areas include but are not limited to:
(A) Operating rooms and surgical suites;
(B) Areas where invasive procedures are being performed;
(C) Acute inpatient hospital settings when the presence of the service animal is not part of a documented treatment plan;
(D) Decontamination, sterile processing, and sterile storage areas;
(E) Food preparation areas (not to include public food service areas); and
(F) Any areas where personal protective clothing must be worn or barrier protective measures must be taken to enter.
(iv) Service animals will be restricted from accessing certain areas of VA property under the control of the National Cemetery Administration (NCA properties) to ensure that public safety, facilities and grounds care, and maintenance control are not compromised. Such areas include but are not limited to:
(A) Open interment areas, except as approved to observe an individual interment or inurnment.
(B) Construction or maintenance sites; and
(C) Grounds keeping and storage facilities.
(v) If a service animal is denied access to VA property or removed from VA property in accordance with (a)(11)(ii) of this section, or restricted from accessing certain VA property in accordance with paragraphs (a)(11)(iii)and (iv) of this section, then VA will give the individual with a disability the opportunity to obtain services without having the service animal on VA property.
(viii) A service animal means any dog that is individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability, including a physical, sensory, psychiatric, intellectual, or other mental disability. Other species of animals, whether wild or domestic, trained or untrained, are not service animals for the purposes of this definition. The work or tasks performed by a service animal must be directly related to the individual's disability. The crime deterrent effects of an animal's presence and the provision of emotional support, well-being, comfort, or companionship do not constitute work or tasks for the purposes of this definition. Service dogs in training are not considered service animals. This definition applies regardless of whether VA is providing benefits to support a service dog under 38 CFR 17.148.
(ix) Generally, animals other than service animals ("non-service animals") are not permitted to be present on VA property, and any individual with a non-service animal must remove it. However, a VA facility head or designee may permit certain non-service animals to be present on VA property for the following reasons:
(A) Animals may be permitted to be present on VA property for law enforcement purposes;
(B) Animals under the control of the VA Office of Research and Development may be permitted to be present on VA property;
(C) Animal-assisted therapy (AAT) animals may be permitted to be present on VHA property when the presence of such animals would not compromise patient care, patient safety, or infection control standards. AAT is a goal-directed clinical intervention, as provided or facilitated by a VA therapist or VA clinician, that incorporates the use of an animal into the treatment regimen of a patient. Any AAT animal present on VHA property must facilitate achievement of patient-specific treatment goals, as documented in the patient's treatment plan. AAT animals must be up to date with all core vaccinations or immunizations, prophylactic parasite control medications, and regular health screenings as determined necessary by a licensed veterinarian consistent with local veterinary practice standards. Proof of compliance with these requirements must be documented and accessible in the area(s) where patients receive AAT.
(D) Animal-assisted activity (AAA) animals may be permitted to be present on VHA property when the presence of such animals would not compromise patient care, patient safety, or infection control standards. AAA involves animals in activities to provide patients with casual opportunities for motivational, educational, recreational, and/or therapeutic benefits. AAA is not a goal-directed clinical intervention that must be provided or facilitated by a VA therapist or clinician, and therefore is not necessarily incorporated into the treatment regimen of a patient or documented in the patient's medical record as treatment. AAA animals must be up to date with all core vaccinations or immunizations, prophylactic parasite control medications, and regular health screenings as determined necessary by a licensed veterinarian consistent with local veterinary practice standards. Proof of compliance with these requirements must be documented and accessible in the area(s) where patients may participate in AAA.
(E) Animals participating in a VA Community Living Center (CLC) residential animal program or a Mental Health Residential Rehabilitation Treatment Program (MHRRTP) may be permitted to be present on VHA property, when the presence of such animals would not compromise patient care, patient safety, or infection control standards. A residential animal program in a VA CLC or a MHRRTP is a program that uses the presence of animals to create a more homelike environment to foster comfort for veterans, while also stimulating a sense of purpose, familiarity, and belonging. Any VA CLC or MHRRTP residential animal present on VHA property must facilitate achievement of therapeutic outcomes (such as described above), as documented in patient treatment plans. Residential animals in a VA CLC or MHRRTP must be up to date with all core vaccinations and immunizations, prophylactic parasite control medications, and regular health screenings as determined necessary by a licensed veterinarian consistent with local veterinary practice standards. Proof of compliance with these requirements must be documented and accessible in the VA CLC or MHRRTP.
(F) Animals may be present on NCA property for ceremonial purposes during committal services, interments, and other memorials, if the presence of such animals would not compromise public safety, facilities and grounds care, and maintenance control standards.
(x) For purposes of this section, a disability means, with respect to an individual, a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities of the individual; a record of such an impairment; or being regarded as having such an impairment.
In a webpage the Department of Justice has posted, Frequently Asked Questions about Service Animals and the ADA, one question and DOJ answer now read as follows:
Q31: Are stores required to allow service animals to be placed in a shopping cart?
A: Generally, the dog must stay on the floor, or the person must carry the dog. For example, if a person with diabetes has a glucose alert dog, he may carry the dog in a chest pack so it can be close to his face to allow the dog to smell his breath to alert him of a change in glucose levels.
Until last week, there was one additional word in the answer to the FAQ, which began with "No." Thus, the DOJ had been saying that a dog could not be put in a shopping cart, but generally it had to walk on the floor or be carried by the owner. Why the wording was changed in the last week may be due to a dispute that arose between a grocery story in California and a woman with a seizure alert dog.
FAQ 31 as downloaded by the author on July 20.
The Department's stance on shopping carts--specifically the No that has now been removed--had received the approval of some service dog users. An article in The Daily Courier of Prescott, Arizona, on July 17, entitled "No dogs in shopping carts: service dog owners hail clarification of ADA rules," by Nanci Hutson, quotes a service dog user as saying:
"My husband and I have experienced a lot of problems with fake service dogs in the area, usually in grocery stores…. They will start barking from the carts and distract my husband's service dog whose job is to provide a sense of protection and a bubble around my husband."
This undoubtedly reflects the experience of many service dog users whose legitimacy has been questioned by store owners who have encountered people trying to disguise their pets as service animals in order to gain access.
Butler v. WinCo Foods
In the California case between a shopper and WinCo Foods, LLC, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that WinCo Foods' "store-wide policy prohibiting service animals from riding in its grocery carts" was not moot merely because the grocery story had offered the plaintiff an exception to its no-dogs-including-service-dogs-in-shopping-carts policy. The exception was that Butler could put her dog in a grocery cart while she was shopping as long as the animal was in a carrier. Butler v. Winco Foods, LLC, No. 13-55862, 2015 U.S.App.LEXIS (9th Cir. May 8, 2015), on appeal from the Central District of Califoria (CV 12-980 PA).
A Seizure-Alert and Seizure-Response Dog
Lynda Butler, who sued WinCo Foods over its service animal policies, explained in a Declaration filed with the trial court what her dog does for her:
I have a service dog, Coco Beans, who is a Cairn Terrier and who weighs about 15 pounds. I bathe her every two weeks and she is always clean. She does not bark or misbehave in public. She alerts me to the onset of a seizure and she orients me as I am coming out of the seizure. She alerts me by staring at my face, whining and scratching at my arms or chest. She orients me by repeatedly licking both sides of my face. This assists me in understanding that I have had a seizure and allows me to come into focus because my seizures effect my consciousness.
Butler's Declaration says that the dog "never exhibited these behaviors before my seizures in 2006."
About a month or two after my hospitalization in 2006 I realized that Coco Beans scratched and whined at me only when I had a seizure. I realized that she would scratch and whine, I would lose consciousness and I would wake up to her licking my face repeatedly. I put two and two together and realized that she was letting me know I was having a seizure even before I knew it. I also realized that her repeated licking of my face helped bring me into focus and to understand what had happened to me. I then began training her to continue these behaviors by praising her when she performed them. Instead of giving her corrections or disciplining her to stop the behaviors as I had been doing, I let her know they were acceptable by giving her positive reinforcement.
Dog's Alerting Ability Allows Owner to Be in Public
Fearing she would have a seizure in public, Butler was largely housebound and got others to do her shopping for her but she began to trust that the dog could give her sufficient advance warning and she began to go out, including to shop. She describes an early incident where the dog's advance warning allowed her to sit down before a seizure struck:
I rely on Coco Beans' alerting function. She alerted me to a seizure when I was shopping at the Albertsons near my house. She was in the cart seat and she began whining and pawing at my arms. I took her from the cart seat, sat down and placed her on my lap. I awoke to her licking my face repeatedly and there were customers and a store employee around me. If I did not have Coco Beans alert me, I would have fallen to the floor and hurt myself. I told the people around me that I had had a seizure, that Coco let me know about it and I did not need medical help. Coco helped me avoid having to go the hospital, which the people likely would have made me do if I had been injured.
The dog must be close to Butler's upper body for the dog to alert or for it to be visible to Butler:
Coco Beans has only alerted me when she is in close proximity to my upper body, either when she is on my lap, next to me in a chair or in bed or is in a cart seat. I do not know how she knows to alert me. All I know is that when she is on the ground, she does not alert me or I do not understand the alert. I have fallen three times when Coco Beans did not alert me.
Most stores have not given Butler any difficulty about having the dog in a shopping cart, and neither did WinCo at first:
I shopped at Winco with Coco Beans in the cart seat without a problem until the summer of 2010. A female manager told me I had to remove Coco Beans from the cart seat. I told her that Coco needed to be in the cart seat to alert me to seizures. The female manager told me it was a "health and safety" violation. I did not believe that was true and I contacted the Health Department, which gave me a copy of Health and Safety Code 114259.5. I spoke with the Health Department official who was responsible for the Perris area and he told me that the Code only applied to food preparation workers, not to customers. I then discussed this with the female Winco manager who told me she would discuss it with Winco's food safety person. After that, I was allowed to continue shopping with Coco in the cart seat.
WinCo Reverses Earlier Position
In 2011, a new manager at the WinCo store reversed the decision of the prior manager and told Butler she could not have the dog in a shopping cart. This was an economic burden because Butler found WinCo's prices much lower than other grocery stores in the area. Alternatives to putting the dog in a shopping cart were not available to Butler:
I cannot carry Coco Beans while doing my month's shopping at Winco because of my back problems. I also cannot carry her while I shop because I have to hold onto her carrier's shoulder straps when we walk so that they do not fall off of my shoulder. I cannot hold onto the straps and push a grocery cart with one hand, particularly when it is loaded with groceries.
Thus, the chest pack option suggested by the Department of Justice in FAQ 31 is not available to Butler. Butler tried once to put the dog in the cart inside the carrier, but again the manager told her that this was unacceptable. It was not optimal to Butler either, as it left very little room for groceries.
Hanging Carrier Inadequate for Butler and Coco Beans
WinCo at some point began offering patrons a "hanging carrier" that it deemed acceptable for situations like that of Butler, but this was also inadequate:
I looked at the pictures of the hanging carrier offered now by Winco. I understand the carrier is 13.5 inches long. Coco's spine alone is 18.5 inches long, from the base of her neck to the base of her tail. Winco's carrier will not work for me because it is too small for my service dog. Even if I could get her to stay in that small space, she would not fit comfortably in it. She would have to sit up for the whole two hours or so that it would take me to shop. This would be very stressful for her. Also, on the box for the carrier, it says that it is made for dogs up to 14 pounds. Coco is already above that weight, so the carrier is not only too small, it is unsafe.
Using the carrier would also put Butler too far from the cart she was pushing, which she needs to be close to for her own support needs.
A witness retained by Butler, Dr. Adam Kirton, also submitted a Declaration on the motion for summary judgment in which he summarized the research on seizure alerting, including his own, and stated that Butler "describes seizure alerting behaviours that directly assist her in managing her seizures. The descriptions are consistent with those found in multiple published studies." Kirton expressed doubt regarding some of WinCo's reasons for refusing to allow the dog in a shopping cart:
Though I am not an expert in animal behaviour or infectious disease, I believe there is no evidence of anything greater than an extremely remote risk to the individual or public of having such an animal accompany their owner in a store with the service animal located in a cart seat on a blanket or in a carrier. Therefore, it is my opinion that the benefits of the seizure response behaviours offered by this dog clearly and substantially outweigh any risks posed by allowing Ms. Butler's dog in the Winco cart seat. The ability of her service dog to alert her to seizures not only gives Ms. Butler confidence to venture into public places like stores, it allows her to avoid serious injury that can result from a fall caused by a seizure.
Connecting these observations to the legal questions involved in the case, Kirton states: "Without her service animal, the unpredictability of the seizures makes plaintiff afraid to go into public, which substantially limits her ability to socialize, to shop and to lead a normal life."
Kirton notes that the "mechanism by which seizure alerting could occur remains speculative and further studies are required to confirm the possibility and understand the mechanism." I should note that I have written a chapter in a forthcoming book on canine olfaction that deals with the possibility that the mechanism may be olfactory (though behavioral and "sixth sense" explanations have also been offered).
Health Regulations Not Implicated
A Google search for "shopping carts + service dogs" turned up one discussion regarding the possible application of health regulations prohibiting putting dogs in shopping carts. This issue has, that I can find, not been raised in Butler v. WinCo, but if it were there would have to be an analysis similar to that in Johnson v. Gambrinus Company/Spoetzl Brewery, 116 F.3d 1052 (5th Cir. 1997), where a brewery sought to exclude a visitor with a guide dog from taking a tour of the brewery plant. The district court in the case, which was affirmed by the Fifth Circuit, had noted that the "marginal increase in contamination risk associated with over 5,000 annual human visitors to the Spoetzl Brewery is greater than the marginal increase in contamination risk associated with the maximum foreseeable number of annual guide dog visits by an order of magnitude." People put children with leaky diapers, colds and other contagious diseases in shopping carts, as well as coats, hats, handbags and countless other items, and the health risks from service dogs occasionally riding in carts would, I suspect, be substantially lower than might come from the mass of other items regularly pushed around in carts.
I agree with Veronica Morris of Psychiatric Service Dog Partners that in those rare cases where safety or disability mitigation requires a service dog to be in a shopping cart, the handler should, if possible, bring a towel or blanket so that the dog does not actually come in contact with the cart. Putting the animal inside its carrier into the cart, the exception WinCo offered Butler, creates a similar barrier, but as noted in Butler's Declaration, the dog was too large for that to be a practical solution.
The Ninth Circuit remanded Butler v. WinCo to the Central District of California for further proceedings and, as of this writing, there is no indication that the matter will be settled. At the very least, the facts of the case establish that there are instances where a simplistic statement that dogs do not belong in shopping carts cannot be supported within the framework of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
It appears to this observer that the Department of Justice may have changed the wording to its shopping cart FAQ so as to avoid becoming an unwitting proponent of the store's side in the California case. It would be good if the Department would go the next step and add a sentence to FAQ 31 acknowledging that service dogs sometimes do belong in shopping carts. In any case, the FAQ now only provides a partial answer so without some additional rewording neither stores nor service dog users will know what to do.
Thanks to Veronica and Brad Morris and Leigh Anne Novak for reviewing and providing comments that vastly improved this blog.
Posted by John Ensminger at 6:35 AM 17 comments:
All Major U.S. Airport Terminals Will Soon Have Service Animal Relief Areas
All but the smallest airports will soon have one service animal relief area in each terminal, and most will be inside the secured sections of the airport so that service animal users who have already gone through security will not have to do so a second time just to take a dog to a relief area. The placement of relief areas will also benefit passengers flying with pets that can be taken into cabins, i.e., generally dogs less than 20 pounds, and will also make life easier for the handlers of TSA bomb dogs who work at the airports. The final rules do not, however, require that airports provide escorts for passengers who need assistance in taking animals to and from relief areas, and do not impose website notice or signage requirements. (As discussed below, there is already an escort requirement, but it applies only to the airlines.)
It has taken four years for the Department of Transportation to get to this point. On September 29, 2011, the Department proposed rules on service animal relief areas at airports. On August 5, 2015, final rules were at last published in the Federal Register with significant changes from the earlier proposal. (I had predicted in a 2011 blog that the rules would be fast-tracked. Obviously I was mistaken.) Part of the reason for the delay was likely due to the fact that there are already service animal relief area requirements that apply to airlines and the rules to be applied to airports had to take into account the existing rules for airlines. Something had to be done, however, as the rules for airlines were not resulting in enough relief areas, and such as were being created were often very difficult for passengers with service animals to reach. Fortunately, that will now change.
The final rules are effective October 15, 2015, but airports have a year, until August 4, 2016, to meet the new relief area requirements. The final rules are reproduced in an Appendix at the end of this blog. Additional guidance issued in May 2016 is the subject of an additional blog on this site.
Airports and Service Animal Users Disagree over Location of Relief Areas
In 2011, the Department of Transportation asked for comments on how large service animal relief areas in airports should be, what surface materials would be optimal, the maximum distance service animal users should be expected to have to go to get a dog to a relief area, and what sort of maintenance of the areas should be required. Commenters who were service animal users and disability organizations favored non-cement surfaces and suggested that outdoors relief areas should have overhangs. As to where relief areas should be located, most such commenters said there should be "at least one relief area in each airport terminal." Some suggested that there should be one service animal relief area for every 15 gates or at every quarter of a mile throughout an airport.
As to whether relief areas had to be available in sterile areas of the airport—i.e., after passengers with service animals had gone through security checkpoints—the Department states the following:
"There is overwhelming support by individual commenters and disability organizations that at least one relief area should be located in the sterile area of each airport terminal. Airports and airport associations, however, advocate that the rule not specifically mandate that service animal relief areas be located in the sterile area of an airport."
The Department notes that some passengers with service animals had commented that "they were often forced to create itineraries with longer layover times because of the amount of time it takes for passengers with a disability to locate service animal relief areas and the amount of time it takes to exit the sterile area, relieve a service animal, and pass through security again."
In general, commenters representing airports and airport organizations wanted the rules to be unspecific as to such details and generally follow the relief-area rules that apply to airlines in 14 CFR 382.51(a)(5), which state only that:
"In cooperation with the airport operator and in consultation with local service animal training organization(s), you must provide animal relief areas for service animals that accompany passengers departing, connecting, or arriving at an airport on your flights."
In other words, the airports and their business associations wanted to be able to decide for themselves where the relief areas should be, what they should look like, and how easy they should be to get to. Although consultation with a local service animal training organization would be required if the airport rules followed the airline rules, the airports wanted the involvement of service dog organizations to be no more than advisory.
Website Information and Signage
Service dog users want airports to indicate where relief areas are on their websites, make braille maps available to individuals with visual impairments, and perhaps develop a universal symbol for service animal relief areas, similar to the symbols for men's and women's bathrooms. The Airports Council International argued, in contrast, that additional signage of this sort would overload passengers with information most do not need. The Council argued that providing escorts for passengers with service animals to get to a relief area, already required of airlines under 14 CFR 382.91(c), should be sufficient. (I had argued in my 2011 blog that there should be signage requirements and that, in any case, "it is difficult to imagine that airports will have any resistance to such requirements." I said that "airports will not want service animal users constantly asking personnel and other airport users where a relief area is located." As already noted, my crystal ball malfunctioned on this and other matters.)
What the Department of Transportation Has Now Decided
The Department of Transportation has decided not to require specific dimensions, designs, materials, or maintenance requirements for relief areas, though it has determined that they must be wheelchair accessible. Fortunately, the Department said that this does not mean that airports can do whatever they wanted with respect to relief areas because they must consult with service animal training organizations regarding the designs. The preamble to the final rules states:
"We expect that most airports will likely choose to work with local chapters of national service animal training organizations to comply with this requirement as those organizations may be better suited to make specific suggestions that are tailored to individual airports…."
One Relief Area per Terminal
Under the new rules, there must be at least one relief area for each terminal in an airport. The Department decided that this requirement was better than setting a maximum amount of time that it would take to get to a relief area from a gate. A requirement to provide escort services for service animal users was not imposed on the airports because, as noted above, under 14 CFR 382.91(c) this is already required of U.S. and foreign air carriers. Thus, this remains a responsibility of the carriers, but not of the airports themselves, although the latter are to be consulted.
(I had argued in my 2011 blog on the proposed rules that there should be an escort requirement imposed on the airports as well as the airlines and still believe this would be preferable. Airlines have varying degrees of presence in different airports, with ticket counters and boarding gates not always staffed when a service animal user might need assistance. It will be important for service animal organizations to monitor whether the effectiveness of escort systems changes as the new relief areas are constructed. With the increased number of relief areas, presumably the costs to the airlines of paying staff to provide escort to and from the areas will be reduced.)
Generally Must Be in Sterile Sections
Generally the airports must also assure that, where possible, relief areas are to be in sterile sections of airports. Acknowledging, however, that the Transportation Security Administration may, on occasion, prohibit a relief area in the sterile section of a particular terminal, the Department states the following:
"Recognizing that the TSA may prohibit a particular airport from locating a relief area in the sterile area of a terminal, the rule provides airports with an exception to this requirement if TSA prohibits a particular airport from locating a relief area in the sterile area of a terminal for security-related reasons. The Department also realizes that, based on an airport's configuration, a relief area in the non-sterile area of an airport may be more desirable to relief area users. As such, the Department is allowing airports the option of placing a relief area in a location other than the sterile area of a terminal if a service animal training organization, the airport, and the carriers in the terminal in which the relief area will be located agree that a relief area would be better placed outside the terminal's sterile area instead of inside the sterile area. The airport must, however, document and retain a record of this agreement."
Thus, a relief area must be inside the sterile area of the terminal unless either (1) the TSA says it cannot be, or (2) a service animal training organization agrees that it would be better located outside the sterile area. If the latter is the reason for putting it outside the sterile area, the airport must keep documentation of the service animal organization's agreement to such a placement.
How Many New Relief Areas Will Be Coming?
The number of relief areas at an airport will vary depending on the number of terminals at the airport. Large hubs, according to the Department, average about seven terminals, medium hubs about five, small hubs about three, and non-hubs usually one. Of the 387 airports in the U.S., 29 are large hubs, 35 are medium hubs, 74 are small hubs, and 249 are non-hubs that still have more than 10,000 passenger enplanements per year. A total of about 849 terminals will have to have service animal relief areas under the new rule, though some already have relief areas that will satisfy the requirements. The rest have one year to comply. The Department estimates the overall cost for compliance will be about $88.1 million over 20 years, which includes the cost of construction and maintenance as well as the rent foregone for spaces that might otherwise hold stores and restaurants. Airports will obviously look for ways to keep relief areas away from businesses that might be affected by the smells, or the thought, of a nearby relief area.
The Department decided not to require relief area information on airport websites, airport maps, or signage throughout the airport. These decisions are somewhat mystifying since it is easy to bury information in a website, airport maps have lots of other information, and it is not clear how people with service animals will find the relief areas without the signage. Hopefully most airports will want service animal users to find relief areas as quickly as possible, particularly after long flights, and will put signs up in any case. The most the Department is willing to say at the moment is that if "there is confusion about the location of service animal relief areas at U.S. airports," the issue will be revisited.
The Department is to be commended for not backing down on the issues of relief areas in each terminal, and putting them inside sterile areas wherever possible. The willingness of the Department not to issue rules on website and signage could lead to problems, but given the interest the airports will have in getting passengers with animals to relief areas as efficiently as possible, there will hopefully be no need for such requirements. (I personally expect there will be problems, but hope my defective crystal ball will once again be wrong.) The major guide and service dog organizations will be involved when airports seek to put relief areas outside of sterile areas and will have ample occasion to represent their members on such issues.
Thanks to Leigh Anne Novak, Veronica Morris, and Brad Morris, for reviewing a draft of this blog.
Appendix: Final Regulation
The final rule on service animal relief areas reads as follows:
49 CFR 27.71. Airport Facilities.
(h) Service animal relief areas. Each airport with 10,000 or more annual enplanements shall cooperate with airlines that own, lease, or control terminal facilities at that airport to provide wheelchair accessible animal relief areas for service animals that accompany passengers departing, connecting, or arriving at the airport subject to the following requirements:
(1) Airports must consult with one or more service animal training organizations regarding the design, dimensions, materials and maintenance of service animal relief areas;
(2) Airports must establish at least one relief area in each airport terminal;
(3) Airports must establish the relief area required by paragrah (h)(2) of this section in the sterile area of each airport terminal unless:
(i) The Transportation Security Administration prohibits the airport from locating a relief area in the sterile area, or
(ii) A service animal training organization, the airport, and the carriers in the terminal in which the relief area will be located agree that a relief area would be better placed outside the terminal's sterile area. In that event, the airport must retain documentation evidencing the recommendation that the relief area be located outside of the sterile area; and
(4) To the extent airports have established service animal relief areas prior to the effective date of this paragraph:
(i) Airports that have not consulted with a service animal training organization shall consult with one or more such organizations regarding the sufficiency of all existing service animal relief areas,
(ii) Airports shall meet the requirements of this section August 4, 2016.
Department of Transportation, RIN 2105-AD91, Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance (U.S. Airports). Final Rule. 80 Fed. Reg. 46508 (August 5, 2015).
Posted by John Ensminger at 10:29 AM No comments:
VA Issues Final Animal Access Rules for Facilities...
Service Dogs Sometimes Belong in Shopping Carts: J...
All Major U.S. Airport Terminals Will Soon Have Se...


text:
, originally spelled in kanji as  with his original full name being unknown, is a fictional character in Capcom's Street Fighter series. Ken is the best friend and rival of Ryu, who has also appeared in all Street Fighter games. Ken's goal is to test his power against many different fighters, as he strives to become stronger. He uses improved Shoryuken (dragon punch) techniques.

Ken's physical appearance and biographical traits were inspired by American martial artist Joe Lewis. He  appeared in other game franchises, such as Namco × Capcom, Project X Zone, Project X Zone 2, and Super Smash Bros., and also appeared in films such as Street Fighter: Legacy, Street Fighter: Assassin's Fist, Street Fighter: Resurrection, Street Fighter: World Warrior, Wreck-It Ralph and Goosebumps 2: Haunted Halloween.

Character design
Starting from the original Street Fighter, Ken has been consistently depicted with neck-length blond hair (actually dyed blond), black or dark brown eyebrows and wears a red sleeveless keikogi with a black belt.  In the original Street Fighter, Ken fought barefoot and wore yellow arm bands without gloves (unlike his rival Ryu, who originally wore red slippers with sparring gloves, and began fighting barefooted in subsequent games). For Street Fighter III, Ken was supposed to be given new techniques but the staff refrained from it as they found him overpowered.

By the time of Street Fighter V, Ken's appearance has undergone the first major design change in the character's history. Ken's gi top now hangs around his waist and he wears a black v-neck training shirt with several red linings in its place. He sports black sparring gloves and has his hair tied back in a topknot instead of hanging loose which it was grown into medium length after the events of Street Fighter III series and now wears black ankle wraps with red linings instead of barefoot. For this game, Capcom wanted to differentiate these two characters' moves since they have been seen as "clones". He added "Ken's more of the hothead. He's the one that's gonna rush you down and be in your face, so his V-Skill is a run move that can be used to constantly pressure your opponent."

Appearances

In video games

Street Fighter games
Ken made his first appearance in 1987 in the original Street Fighter and is the only other playable character in the game aside from Ryu. He is characterized as the best friend, and rival of the main character, Ryu, who trained under the same master (a character whose identity would later be fleshed out as Gouken). The single-player tournament can only be played with Ken after the second player defeats the first player in a two-player match. Ken was also named one of the best fighters in the game.

Ken and Ryu, along with former final boss Sagat, were the only characters from the original game to return in the game's true sequel, Street Fighter II, in 1991 - here, Ken is invited to participate in the World Warrior tournament by Ryu, having already moved away from Japan to live in America. In Ken's ending, he ends up marrying his girlfriend Eliza. Street Fighter II was a breakaway hit for Capcom, leading to the production of revised editions of the same game which included Champion Edition and Hyper Fighting in 1992, Super Street Fighter II in 1993 and Super Turbo in 1994, which all follow the same plot. Numerous spinoff products were made as well during the game's popularity: when Capcom licensed Hasbro to produce a line of action figures, Ken was given the surname "Masters". The full name Ken Masters was used in the animated Street Fighter II movie and in the Street Fighter II V series before being canonized in the video games with Street Fighter Alpha 2.

No new Street Fighter game was released until 1995's Street Fighter Alpha. Street Fighter Alpha was a prequel to the Street Fighter II series, and it fleshed out the established Street Fighter II characters as well as reintroducing characters from the original Street Fighter and the beat-em-up game Final Fight. Alpha features a younger Ken who is searching for Ryu, having recently won the first "World Warrior" tournament in the events of the original Street Fighter. In Ken's ending in the original Alpha, he defeats Ryu and heads back to America, where he meets Eliza. Alpha was followed by its own line of sequels: Alpha 2, which follows the same plot as in the original Alpha (with a revised ending for Ken) and Alpha 3, which takes place after the events in the first two games. In Alpha 3, Ken is featured in the numerous characters' storylines within the game.

Ken's following appearance is in Street Fighter III, in which he has a son (Mel) and his own student (Sean). In Street Fighter IV, Ken enters into the world tournament while waiting for the birth of Mel. Ken also appears in Street Fighter V, when he take parts of a final raid on Shadaloo's main base, when Mel was two years old. In Street Fighter 6, set after the events of III, Ken is framed for criminal conspiracy, forcing him to go into hiding to protect his family until he can find those responsible.

Other games
In 1990, Capcom produced an action game for the Nintendo Entertainment System titled Street Fighter 2010: The Final Fight. The Japanese version of the game starred an original character named Kevin Straker, a cyborg policeman who fought against alien creatures in the future. When Capcom released 2010 in North America, the main character's identity was changed from Kevin to Ken, with the game's story rewritten to imply that he was the same Ken from the original Street Fighter. Other than that, the game has little or no plot ties to the original Street Fighter and its part in the canonical Street Fighter series is disputed.

Outside the mainstream Street Fighter games, Ken appears in the Street Fighter EX games and in the mobile game Street Fighter: Puzzle Spirits. He also appears in crossover titles like X-Men vs. Street Fighter, Marvel Super Heroes vs. Street Fighter, Marvel vs Capcom 2: New Age of Heroes, the Capcom vs. SNK series, and Street Fighter X Tekken. (In the game Marvel vs. Capcom, Ryu is able to access Ken's moveset when the player enters a certain command.) He also appears in the Street Fighter II: The Animated Movie and arcade versions of Street Fighter: The Movie. In SNK Playmore's fighting game SNK vs. Capcom: SVC Chaos he has an alter-ego named , who later made his full Street Fighter debut in Ultra Street Fighter II: The Final Challengers. Ken is featured in the tactical role-playing games Namco × Capcom, Project X Zone, and Project X Zone 2. Ken also makes a cameo as a Trophy in Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS and Wii U, as part of the Ryu DLC. He is playable in Super Smash Bros. Ultimate as an "echo fighter" or clone of Ryu.

In other media
He was voiced by Scott McNeil in the Street Fighter animated series.  In Street Fighter II V, he was voiced by Jimmy Theodore in the Animaze dub and Jason Douglas in the ADV Films dub and in Street Fighter II: The Movie, he was voiced by Eddie Frierson.  He was voiced by Kazuya Ichijo in Japanese and Steven Blum in the dub for the Street Fighter Alpha movie. In Street Fighter II V and the Street Fighter II animated movie, Ken is depicted with reddish hair.

Damian Chapa portrayed Ken in the 1994 Street Fighter movie, where he and Ryu (played by Byron Mann) are traveling con artists who steal money from wealthy crime bosses/lords and drug kingpins though various schemes such as selling modified toy guns. After the two unsuccessfully try to scam Shadaloo Tong leader Sagat, they are arrested by Allied Nations forces. Guile offers them their freedom in exchange for infiltrating Bison's base (whom Sagat works for as an arms supplier) and revealing its location so that the AN can make a military strike and free the hostages captured earlier in the film. When Guile eventually infiltrates Bison's base and chaos ensues, Ryu and Ken try to help free the hostages but split up when the AN forces arrive, Ken opting to flee for their lives while Ryu desires to stay behind and fight. Ken later comes to Ryu's aid when he is ambushed by Vega and Sagat. While Ryu defeats Vega, Ken defeats Sagat. In the aftermath, though Guile intends to free Ryu and Ken, they decide to stay in Shadaloo to help the AN clear up what Bison has left in his wake.

Reuben Langdon provides Ken's voice in the Street Fighter IV series, V, and Super Smash Bros. Ultimate, and plays him in the live-action short film Street Fighter x Tekken: The Devil Within.

British actor Christian Howard portrayed Ken in the live-action short film Street Fighter: Legacy, and reprised his role in the follow-up series Street Fighter: Assassin's Fist, Street Fighter: Resurrection and Street Fighter: World Warrior. Taking place to a time similar to Street Fighter Alpha, the younger Ken is shown to be arrogant and impatient, and was brought to Japan at a young age by his father (a friend of Gouken's) to Gouken's dojo following the death of his mother. He finds a book showing the techniques of the Satsui no Hado and is warned by Gouken not to use them. During a bout with Ryu, Ryu is taken over by the Satsui No Hado, forcing Ken to nearly kill him with a flaming Shoryuken. As Gouken sends his two students off, he trusts Ken to look after Ryu.

Ken made a cameo appearance in the Disney film Wreck-It Ralph, with Langdon reprising his role.

In the 2018 film Goosebumps 2: Haunted Halloween, Slappy the Dummy uses magic to bring actions figures of Ryu and Ken to life.

Promotion and reception
Ken artwork was featured on an officially licensed Nubytech/UDON joypad for the PlayStation 2, and a Mad Catz joypad for the PlayStation 3.

Ken has often been recognized as one of the best Street Fighter characters. IGN ranked Ken at number six in their "Top 25 Street Fighter Characters" article, noting his contrast to Ryu while subsequently questioning his lesser appeal, and stating "he's just as indispensable to the series as Ryu is. After all, could you imagine a Street Fighter game without him? Perhaps, but it probably still wouldn't be the same." GameDaily listed him at number six on their "Top 20 Street Fighter Characters of All Time" article, noting the contrast between himself and Ryu. The same site ranked him sixth along with Ryu in the Top 25 Capcom Characters of All Time with editor Robert Workman saying "It was just impossible to choose between one of these world warriors". Another feature, "Top 25 Gaming Hunks", situated Ken eighteenth, stating it was hard deciding between him and Ryu. In Gamest magazine in Japan, Ken ranked at ninth along with Blanka as "Best Characters of 1991" and at number 49 in "Top 50 Characters of 1996". In 2009 GamePro ranked Ryu and Ken as number nine in their list of the best palette-swapped video game characters, adding: "While some may have argued that Street Fighter 2's depiction of Ryu and Ken utilized palette swapping, a true palette swapping aficionado would know that only the original Street Fighter exploited the swapping of palettes." GamesRadar writer Tyler Wilde published an article focusing on Ken's and Ryu's development across the franchise under the title of "The evolution of Ken and Ryu." While comparing these two characters, IGN's Jesse Schedeen stated that Ken could "easily suffer from Luigi Syndrome" for his resemblance with Ryu, but thanks to the sequels, Ken gained his own fighting style separated from Ryu's.

Some sites have commented on Ken's techniques due to being relatively overpowered. The Guardian recommended Ken alongside Ryu for beginners in Street Fighter IV with Ken being better at close-up fights as a result of his powerful uppercuts. In a humor article by GameSpy, the Super Street Fighter II Turbo version of Ken was mentioned to have become unbalanced to the point he was the strongest character from the cast. In Street Fighter III: Third Strike, Ken was also noted to be one of the three more powerful characters from the game alongside Chun-Li and Yun. Similarly, Dave Cook from Now Gamer called him and Tekkens Eddy Gordo one of the most hated characters from their franchises due to their overpowered moves. In another article, Cook listed a fight between Ken and Eddy Gordo as one of the fights he wished to see in Street Fighter X Tekken calling it the "ultimate battle of super cheapness." UGO Networks placed Ken at #4 on their list of "Top 50 Street Fighter Characters", stating "If you're a fan of dragon punches, you play Ken.". Jeremy Parish of Polygon ranked 73 fighters from Super Smash Bros. Ultimate "from garbage to glorious", listing Ken as 62nd.

Legacy
Ken has also been popular thanks to the Evo Moment 37. With 26 seconds remaining, Wong had the option to run out the clock, but he was eager to end the match. To win the round, Wong attempted to hit Umehara's Ken with Chun-Li's multihit Super Art II move; the Houyoku-sen (, "fanning phoenix-wing"). However, instead of avoiding it, Umehara chose to "Parry", a high-risk, high-reward technique which allows the defender to block an incoming attack without losing any health, but requires moving toward the opponent's direction in the same time a hit lands, within six of sixty frames of the impact animation – about a tenth of a second. Umehara had to predict when his opponent would start his Super Art Move, essentially making the first parry before the move even started, and then perform the same split-second timing on all 14 of the remaining hits. Umehara did so, and went on to counter a final kick of Chun-Li in mid-air before launching a 12-hit combo, capped by Ken's Super Art III; Shippuu Jinraikyaku (, "hurricane thunderclap leg"), winning the match. Evo Moment #37 is frequently described as the most iconic and memorable moment in the history of competitive video gaming. Being at one point the most-watched competitive gaming moment of all time, Kotaku compared it to sports moments such as Babe Ruth's called shot and the Miracle on Ice. The downloadable online version of 3rd Strike, Street Fighter III: 3rd Strike Online Edition, features a challenge where players need to pull off the Daigo Parry.

Notes

References

Bibliography

Action film characters
Ansatsuken
Capcom protagonists
Fictional American people in video games
Fictional businesspeople in video games
Fictional Japanese American people
Fictional judoka
Fictional kenpō practitioners
Fictional kyokushin kaikan practitioners
Fictional male martial artists
Fictional martial artists in video games
Fictional shotokan practitioners
Fictional socialites
Fictional taekwondo practitioners
Male characters in video games
Street Fighter characters
Super Smash Bros. fighters
Video game characters introduced in 1987
Video game characters with fire or heat abilities
Video game mascots

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


This issue's theme is do-it-yourself in marketing, business, retail and how to make money. Enjoy stories about the ideal shotgun, military spouses and lady cops. Check out new products and ideas. Spring is here!


When i try use the XSplit Program, he say "Duo to limitations on AMD Graphic Card, we cant use the AMD driver. Change the program to Power Saver"
What is this limitation??? Why my AMD graphic Card have that limitation??


The lay-bye period falls over three (3) months. EXCLUDES ANY PROMOTIONAL ITEMS/SALE ITEMS.
Side Step will accept returns within sixty (60) days of purchase. The goods must be in their original shop purchased condition with swing tags attached along with the till slip indicating proof of purchase.


text:
Contract call 'costly'
February 25th, 2014, 12:00AM Guardian Express
Pictured is John Giorgi
He said the decision was not logical and predicted council would have to pay out Mr Giorgi's full contract.
Mr Catania, who served as mayor from 2001 to 2011, said he expected Mr Giorgi would leave before this date.
'What is the use of having him stay until the end of December when halfway through next year, Vincent is going to be dismantled?' he said.
'Council is going to have to pay him out, which I think could cost the City half a million dollars.
'They are then going to have to pay a new chief executive to do a year-and-a-half of work.'
Mayor John Carey said council was required to make a decision on Mr Giorgi's contract by June 30, which was brought forward to this month at the chief executive's request.
Mr Carey said Mr Giorgi remained an employee of the City and council would continue to work with him in regards to his contract.
He said he could not comment on the reasons why Mr Giorgi's contract was not renewed because it was a confidential matter.
At this year's first council meeting, Mr Giorgi spoke out about councillors putting 'significant stress' on him in requesting more work be done for its local government reform campaign.
'You're putting so much work and pressure on me,' he said.
'I am at absolute capacity.'
In response, Mr Carey said the amalgamation process was stressful for everyone.
'We are all under enormous pressure to deliver for our community,' Mr Carey said.
Perth MP and former Vincent Mayor Alannah MacTiernan said it was the right time for a change in leadership at Vincent.
'They are going through a change process and, as I understand from what I have heard, council is looking for a chief executive who is able to manage that change and ensure that the structures of the new entity are those that will properly deal with the issues of the community,' she said.
'I think in any organisation, it is very unusual to have a single person at the helm for 20 years.'

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Looking for some inspiration and ideas? Here are eight things you can do to continue developing your teaching skills this year.
There might be several facets to this one: evaluating your communication skills, your modeling skills, your organizational practices, your leadership abilities, your musicianship.
All of these things are important to your work as a teacher and it's important to take some time to reflect on those things a few times a year and look for places where there is potential room to grow and improve.
The best way to get an objective view of your teaching? Record a video of one of your rehearsals. Set up a small video camera in the back of the room, focused on you. Run the camera from beginning to end so you can observe and evaluate your interactions with children as they come in and when they leave.
Did the choir sing without accompaniment, at times?
Did you call children by their names?
Did you encourage them by smiling and making eye contact?
Did you use a variety of different kinds and styles of accompaniments?
Did you highlight appropriate behavior more than negative behavior?
Did you speak with engagement, varying your inflection and dynamic level?
Did your body language/conducting gestures communicate the mood and style of the music?
Did you know the music well before presenting it to the children?
Did you transition smoothly from song to song?
Did you hear individual children sing alone, at times?
Did you give mostly positive feedback?
Plus, one question I always ask myself: How much time did you spend giving spoken directions or introductions?
Spend some time honestly evaluating yourself and your teaching skills and identify things you'd like to improve in the coming year (be specific!).
Another great way to continue developing your teaching skills is by reading - books, blogs, articles, etc. Look for content on working with choirs, conducting, music theory, inspiring young singers, different learning styles, aural skills and musicianship, and leadership.
If you're not already a member, you might consider joining an organization like Choristers Guild or a music organization specific to your denomination for more helpful reading material, teaching tips, etc.
There's something to be said about staying connected to the art of music-making yourself. As teachers, practicing is often low on our list of to-dos, but this is an important (and vital) part of keeping up our own skillset and giving our best to those we teach on a weekly basis.
Whether it's the piano or another instrument, singing, or conducting, schedule some time in your week to connect with your instrument and practice for yourself. Put it on your calendar to help you stay accountable.
This one is so important.
Reaching out to other musicians and teachers gives you an opportunity to not only encourage one another and share ideas and resources, but also talk through challenges or stumbling blocks that might be holding you back and bounce ideas off each other for new creative projects or strategies.
Don't have musician and teacher friends you can connect with in your town? Look for ways to connect with like-minded people online. Join a Facebook group or reach out to people on Instagram. Connect with a regional or national organization and participate in online forums.
Sometimes the best people to connect with are those doing something different from you. Look for people who challenge you, motivate you, and encourage you to continue innovating, experimenting, learning, and growing as a musician, teacher, artist, leader, etc.
We're never done learning, right? One of the best ways to continue developing your teaching skills this year is to seek out professional development opportunities in your field. Register for a local workshop, sign up for an online course, attend a regional or national conference.
Professional development opportunities give you a chance to learn from leaders and teachers in the field who can relate to where you are and what you're doing; get some practical ideas, helpful teaching strategies, and personalized feedback; connect with others who are there to learn; and leave feeling inspired, encouraged, and motivated to do your best work.
Lead, teach, and inspire with creativity and confidence.
Directing a Church Children's Choir 101 is a 4-week online training course designed for children's choir directors in church settings.
Packed with practical tips and teaching strategies I've gleaned from 15+ years of church music experience, I'll walk you through the fundamentals of leading and directing a children's choir, including repertoire guidelines and suggestions, planning and sequencing materials, developing musicianship, fostering spiritual growth, and more. I'd love to have you join me!
Trying to teach from an empty well can feel frustrating and uninspired. So, make sure you take time this year to do things that fill you up and inspire you as a musician and artist.
Going to concerts is one of those things, for me.
Stay connected to the local music scene in your town and make a point to go out and enjoy some concerts as an audience member. Listen closely, observe, evaluate, and be inspired.
Technology is an integral part of education in our modern world and staying connected to it and seeking out new ways to incorporate it into your rehearsals and lessons and other teaching is a great way to stay fresh and creative.
And goodness knows, there's always new technology to learn!
From apps to recording software, video-editing tools and interactive websites, challenge yourself to find a few new forms of technology to learn about, master, and incorporate into your teaching this year.
Creativity is a way of thinking, more than anything else. Developing this mindset takes time and space, but the best way is to just dive in and do it.
1. Start with a problem and give yourself 10-15 minutes to sit down with a blank piece of paper and brainstorm.
2. Write down everything you think of that's related to your problem, including aspects of it, related challenges, skills needed to overcome it, possible teaching strategies or approaches, etc. Don't edit just yet - focus on getting as many thoughts down on paper as you can.
3. Narrow it down. Refine your ideas and processes, combine ones that are similar, and scratch ones that are unrealistic or not as relevant.
4. Create a flow chart, think through a logical progression of steps - a sequence - and how much time each step will take.
Perhaps the biggest obstacle we face as teachers is time: time to plan, time to prepare, time to research, time to teach, time to evaluate, time to organize, time to learn.
We've all been given the same number of hours in each day; the key is being intentional about how we spend it.
Look ahead at your year and map out things you want to do on your calendar: conferences you want to attend, courses you want to take, time off to read and learn and be inspired. Then, look at your weekly schedule and carve out 30-60 minutes for professional development work, skill development, practicing, or reading.
Start tracking your time (I use Toggl*) and challenging yourself to stay extra-focused during working hours so you can reward yourself later with something that encourages, inspires, and motivates you.
*For an in-depth look at how Toggl works, see this helpful review.
How will you continue developing your teaching skills this year? I'd love to hear!


text:
Congress trying to score political mileage over my statement: Oram
January 3, 2016 Politics
BHUBANESWAR: As politics over the statement of Union Tribal Affairs Minister refused to die down following fresh salvo by opposition Congress, Oram on Sunday said the Congress party has tried to score a political mileage on the statement made by him.
"The Congress leaders seem not to have carefully examined what I have said and also what I later clarified. My contention was that the BJD should have thanked BJP because it did not use CBI the way Congress was using it for political gain," said Oram in a statement.
"Had BJP misused the CBI the way Congress-led UPA had done in the past, there is no doubt the CBI would have finished the BJD government already," the minister added.
He was referring to the press conference of senior Congress leader Jairam Ramesh and Odisha Congress president Prasad Harichandan at New Delhi, where they attacked the Narendra Modi for using CBI for political gain in Odisha.
"I also said even though a section of people are under the impression that the probe into these scams by the CBI is slow, the NDA government has never interfered with the activities of the CBI," said Oram.
The minister said that he never questioned the integrity of the CBI.
The statement made by Jairam Ramesh, and Prasad Harichandan is false, politically motivated and based on distorted facts, he added.
He said the entire country knows the corruption was synonymous with the Congress party, whether in power or otherwise.
He said the Congress party should know that NDA government led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi has zero tolerance against corruption, and the government has already initiated several steps in this regards.
Illegal mining: Supreme Court asks to collect fine with interest from leaseholders
Supreme Court imposes 100% fine on illegal mining in Odisha
Jairam demands SC monitored probe into chit fund, mining scams in Odisha


text:
A Collection of 20 Best Country Gospel Songs of All Time
Country gospel or often called "Christian gospel" had its share of unique tune that never failed to amaze many of its fans. Guided by faith, several country music artists embarked on creating songs depicting their spiritual experiences and transformation. Here's a list of 20 best country gospel songs that fans of this genre come to love time and again.
20. Louvin Brothers: 'The Christian Life'
Contrary to the album's title track, this country gospel song by the Louvin Brothers is not about the threat of hell or damnation. Instead, it is centered on how we can morally lead a "Christian Life" The Byrds came up with a modern version of the song in 1968 with their "Sweethearts of the Rodeo" turning into a country-rock breakthrough at that time.
19. Merle Haggard: 'Pray'
Without quoting the scripture, Merle Haggard mainly pleads everyone in his song "Pray" to contemplate more on others' difficulties and less of their own daily concerns. With the singer-songwriter Greg Brown's fascination of the song's message, he had it covered in concerts.
18. Tammy Wynette: 'Precious Memories'
The gospel standard "Precious Memories" was given an ultimate account by Tammy Wynette. At the background was the Masters V gospel group backing Wynette's winning vocals up.
17. Billy Joe Shaver: 'If I Give My Soul'
Shaver's "If I Give My Soul" comprises of a line meant to break every father's heart. The song perchance was more recognized in Billy Joe Shaver's 1998 collection of religious songs called "Victory." Though, he had it recorded prior to his guitarist son Eddy Shaver for "Tramp on Your Street".
16. Emmylou Harris, Dolly Parton & Linda Ronstadt: 'Farther Along'
Despite having the song recorded by various renowned country stars like Brad Paisley, Jonny Cash, and others, Trio's version of "Farther Along" is extraordinary. A fusion of powerful voices Dolly Parton, Emmylou Harris and Linda Ronstadt results in a sparkling rendition of the song.
15. Willie Nelson: 'Uncloudy Day'
Sounding like a gospel standard, "Uncloudy Day" was originally written by William Nelson and was recorded in 1973 for the album "The Troublemaker." Release of the song didn't materialize until 1976 due to doubts concerning its commercial prospects. But with Nelson's persistence, both "The Troublemaker" and "Uncloudy Day" topped the charts in that same year. This made Nelson proved otherwise the wrong notions about this song.
14. Johnny Russell: 'The Baptism of Jesse Taylor'
This Johnny Russell's 1973 song has inspired a town hell-raiser. The feeling of restoration conveyed in this song, as the narrator projected Jesse's certainty in changing his ways, made it land a No. 14 spot on the country charts. The Oak Ridge Boys and Tanya Tucker had it recorded on a later date.
13. Red Foley: '(There'll Be) Peace in the Valley (for Me)'
Red Foley's remarkable performance of this song made it an unmatched hit in 1951, with over a million copies sold. Elvis Presley's more popular version of the song, which was recorded later, owed much of its success to Foley's cover of "(There'll Be) Peace in the Valley (for Me)".
12. Garth Brooks: 'Unanswered Prayers'
Garth Brooks wanted to convey a very important message derived from his song "Unanswered Prayers" – Sometimes prayers that appear to have been unanswered really aren't. Regardless of its quite trivial element, the song rocketed to No. 1 on the country charts. Furthermore, the song gained a lifetime adaption into a Lifetime TV movie in 2010.
11. Gerlin Husky: 'Wings of a Dove'
Using a dove to symbolize hope, Ferlin Husky managed to take his "Wings of Dove" to the top of the country charts holding such spot for 10 weeks. Meanwhile, the crossover hit ranked at No. 12 on the pop charts making it Husky's best-known song.
The continuation of the list is coming up in the second part of this article.
christian, country song, God, gospel songs
Bart Millard and Jason Ingram Win Songwriters of The Year says:
[…] Dove Awards is a prestigious award by the Gospel Music Association (GMA) that recognizes those who have had outstanding achievements in the Christian […]
The Story Behind Kitty Wells' "It Wasn't God Who Made Honky Tonk Angels"
"All I Have to Offer You (Is Me):" Charley Pride's 1st No. 1 Song
Start Your Day with Statler Brothers song, "Feeling Mighty Fine"
Jordan Davis Announces Exciting 2020 "Trouble Town Tour"
Country Stars Saddened by Rock Icon Tom Petty's Death
Neil Young's Stunning First Live Performance for 2017


Klebsiella pneumoniae causes serious epidemic and endemic nosocomial infections. We conducted a literature review to characterize the epidemiology of epidemic K. pneumoniae outbreaks. Eighty percent of the outbreaks (20/25) involved infections of the bloodstream or urinary tract. Person-to-person spread was the most common mode of transmission, and nearly 50% of the outbreaks occurred in neonatal intensive care units. No one serotype predominated, and no association was found between serotype and either the site of infection or antimicrobial susceptibility pattern. We used data reported to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) by hospitals participating in the National Nosocomial Infections Study (NNIS) to describe the epidemiology of endemic K. pneumoniae infections. In the 8-year period from 1975 through 1982 the nosocomial K. pneumoniae infection rate was 16.7 infections per 10,000 patients discharged. The rate of infection at medical school-affiliated hospitals was significantly greater than at nonaffiliated hospitals; furthermore, the rate of infection at large affiliated hospitals was greater than at small affiliated hospitals. The rate of infection varied by service, with the highest rate found on the medicine service. During the 8-year period, 184 deaths were caused by nosocomial K. pneumoniae infections (184 deaths/16,969 infections, case-fatality ratio 1.1%), with higher ratios in pediatrics (5%) where there was a 12% mortality in children infected with an aminoglycoside-resistant strain.


I have to admit that lining soap molds is not my favorite thing to do in the soap making process, but I do it because I love the end results. My soap comes right out of my mold with little or no effort. The liner paper is easily peeled away revealing beautiful smooth soap!
Lining my soap molds used to be a very frustrating task until started planning ahead. Using a quality liner paper, I pre-cut several sheets at a time to fit my molds. Then I pre-fold them so that I can just place them in the mold. I store them for future use so they stay nice and neat - like under a large book. Then when I make soap, I just put a light coating of shortening on the inside of the mold and place the liner paper right in. I smooth it just a little with my hands and then take a plastic spatula along the bottom and sides to remove any bumps and bubbles. There you have it… A perfectly lined mold without any frustration.
Most of the time I use a single loaf mold, but there are times when I use a larger block mold or manual cutter mold. I remember the first time I had to do this, I thought it was going to be a daunting task, but it was even easier to line than a small mold! And of course the tube molds have a cool Teflon liner that just slides right in!
For more information on Soap Molds and Liners visit our Soap Molds Question and Answer Page.


text:
Kirsten Swenson
Tropical Fantasies, Dark Histories
Ward's repurposed objects report on loss, while his meticulous repetitive processes, applied to materials that seem valueless, offer a kind of recuperation. Broiler pans panel the wall in Iron…
Fred Eversley
When I visited this exhibition of thirteen works by Fred Eversley, the black, white, and gray polyester resin and acrylic sculptures that serve as the show's focus reflected the New England winter sun…
Edgar Arceneaux
Arceneaux's immersive, theatrical works reveal complex, lost storylines of the post–civil rights era United States and cast us as witnesses to the lies, redactions, iconizing, and forgetting that has…
In 1970, Robert Irwin gave up his studio and sold his art supplies. The midcareer painter and sculptor "simply stopped being an artist in those senses," as he told Lawrence Weschler for the classic bi…
At the time, it seemed unremarkable to walk onto the Harvard campus to view "Lorraine O'Grady: Where Margins Become Centers," tucked inside the Carpenter Center, America's sole Le Corbusier-designed b…
Leap Before You Look: Black Mountain College 1933-1957
The deeply researched exhibition "Leap Before You Look: Black Mountain College 1933-1957" at the Institute of Contemporary Art, co-organized by Helen Molesworth and Ruth Erickson, gives a measure…
Smashing an animal skull with a femur bone, an ape in Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey enacts a critical moment in human evolution: the discovery of a tool instantly giving way to a deadly wi…
M.K. Guth
Among the megaresorts that line the Las Vegas strip, gambling is increasingly being recast as just one of a dozen forms of entertainment and culture. Now, slot machines and blackjack tables are some…
Geoffrey Farmer's recent exhibition at REDCAT evoked some of the messier, more perverse doings of the 1960s and '70s. The title, "Let's Make the Water Turn Black" (perhaps a reference to excretion o…
David Hammons finds art where it lives and inserts himself as participant and provocateur. In 2007, that happened to be at L&M Arts, a gallery specializing in secondary market sales of 20th-century…