text:
Honest Graft
The promise and puzzles of American politics
The "Republican Party" Doesn't Make Strategic Decisions—Individual Republicans Do
The 2016 election is still two weeks away, and yet the likely outcome is sufficiently apparent that news media post-mortems are already beginning to appear. Though the Democratic Party is poised to win the presidency for the third consecutive election, elevating the first woman in history to the office in the process, it is the Republican opposition that is gaining most of the attention these days—and will surely continue to do so once the votes have all been counted. Fascination with what appears to be the picturesque final days of the Donald Trump campaign has expanded to the question of what effect Trump's candidacy will have on his party, both in the short and long term, and what steps Republicans will take to address the internal problems of which Trump is arguably more a symptom than a cause.
It's easy to discuss what "the Republican Party" will, or should, do. But no single authority atop the GOP holds the power to make and enforce strategic decisions on its behalf. There are only an array of individual Republicans, from congressional officers and national committeemembers to interest group leaders and media personalities, who may have plenty of good ideas about the proper direction for the party as a whole but who also have their own constituencies to satisfy and their own careers to advance.
Social scientists use the term "collective action problem" to refer to a situation in which a contradiction exists between the aggregate interests of a group of actors and the personal interest of each individual actor. Just as the mice are collectively safer if they can hear the house cat coming but no single mouse is willing to take the risk necessary to bell it, the current Republican Party is awash in tensions between individual and collective political incentives. Here are three recommendations or predictions that media commentators have frequently advanced for the post-election GOP, which are all probably smart in a general strategic sense but don't always recognize the contradictory interests of key individual actors within the party:
1. The Republican Party should "modernize" in order to expand its electoral appeal. If Hillary Clinton defeats Trump in November, giving the Democratic Party its fifth victory in the past seven presidential elections, many Republican political consultants and outside observers will argue that the GOP will need to take visible steps to increase its popular appeal among key demographic subgroups such as racial minorities, single women, and millennial-generation voters. Because the term "moderate" is often anathema to a party that views itself as the vehicle of conservative ideology, these calls for reform are usually promoted as "modernization" or "reinvention" initiatives.
But individual Republican politicians must still worry about winning primary elections dominated by current, not hypothetical, party supporters, while congressional leaders must similarly satisfy their own rank and file before they consider expanding the party's reach to new constituencies. The post-2012 "autopsy report" commissioned by the Republican National Committee was largely ignored by Republican elected officials in part because its recommendations departed sharply from their own individual political incentives—and this divide has only widened further in the ensuing four years. If Republican members of Congress were already reluctant to support comprehensive immigration reform legislation—one frequently-prescribed remedy for the GOP's dire current standing among Latinos—how many will be more enthusiastic to do so after Donald Trump rode deep anti-immigration sentiment to an upset victory in the 2016 Republican presidential primaries?
2. The Republican Party should push back against the conservative media. Trump's nomination represents undeniable evidence of the significant power of conservative media outlets within the party, from Fox News and talk radio to websites like Breitbart (which supplied Trump's current campaign chairman). Critics both within and outside the GOP charge the right-wing media universe with misinforming Republican voters and sowing popular anger against the party's traditional leadership, leaving the party uniquely vulnerable to a Trump takeover and its associated problems. "Want to Save the Republican Party?" asks one recent headline in the Washington Post. "Drain the Right-Wing Media Swamp."
Once again, this is easier said than done. Trump's nomination is not the first piece of evidence suggesting that the increasing influence of the conservative media universe is not always a positive good for the governing health of the Republican Party. But which individual Republican officials are willing to lead the charge against some of their own supporters' most trusted sources of information? Today, whenever a Republican member of Congress criticizes a major conservative media figure, it only takes a day or two before the member of Congress has apologized and pledged eternal devotion to the media personality's wisdom and moral leadership. It's hard to envision many Republican politicians sacrificing their own careers for the cause of putting Sean Hannity in his place.
3. The Republican Party should confirm Merrick Garland in the lame-duck session of Congress. If Clinton wins the presidency and Democrats gain control of the Senate, she will be in a position to fill the Supreme Court seat formerly held by the late Antonin Scalia—assuming that Senate Democrats would respond to any Republican filibuster by invoking the "nuclear option" to disallow filibusters of Supreme Court nominees. For this reason, some commentators have suggested—and even predicted—that the current Republican-controlled Senate should or would confirm Barack Obama's choice, Merrick Garland, rather than risk a less palatable nominee replacing Scalia once Clinton takes office.
It's easy to see the logic for this maneuver from the perspective of the Court's composition. Garland has a fairly moderate reputation as a jurist; he is also about to turn 64. If the Senate continues its blockade of Garland's nomination, a future President Clinton could withdraw it in favor of a younger and more left-wing justice, making Stephen Breyer rather than Garland the swing vote on the Court and increasing the probability of a long-term liberal majority.
But Republican senators are not worried about the Court as much as they are about themselves. Confirming Garland after the election would require majority leader Mitch McConnell and Judiciary Committee chair Chuck Grassley to schedule hearings and a vote on Garland. At least 14 Republican senators would need to vote for cloture (in order to defeat a certain filibuster that would likely represent the first phase of the 2020 Ted Cruz for President campaign) and at least 4 would need to vote in favor of Garland on the floor (or at least abstain from voting). And all of this behavior would be in service of elevating a left-of-center justice to the Court who was nominated by Obama, ending four decades of conservative judicial ascendancy.
Sophisticated conservative intellectuals might understand that such a move was motivated by the goal of avoiding the chance of an even less acceptable hypothetical outcome, but Republican senators would probably be much less confident that their party's primary voters would grasp the strategic calculation at work. For them, the easy choice is to keep Garland bottled up until January and let the Democrats do what they will in the new session of Congress, even if this inaction results in a more liberal Court. And this logic applies more broadly to nearly all of the considerations that arise when discussing the issue of "where the Republican Party goes from here." The Republican Party will collectively go wherever individual Republicans go—which is likely to be, for better or worse, wherever their own personal interests take them.
Posted by David A. Hopkins at 1:05 PM
Labels: Election 2016, Merrick Garland, Republican Party
Post-Debates Recap: Is 2016 An Exception Or the New Normal?
Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton engaged in the final scheduled debate last night, passing a milepost marking the home stretch of the campaign. The overall dynamics and candidate strategy on display last night closely resembled those of the first two debates. Clinton was once again well-prepped and bent on goading Trump into counterproductive responses on his main points of vulnerability. Trump was once again extemporaneous and free-associative, focusing on broad themes instead of policy details.
It's hard to avoid the conclusion that Trump has been badly hurt by the debates. On September 26, the day of the first debate, the FiveThirtyEight model estimated that Clinton was leading Trump by 46 percent to 45 percent in the national popular vote and by 278 to 260 in the electoral vote, with just a 55 percent projected chance of winning the election. Today, Clinton is estimated to hold a lead of 50 percent to 43 percent in the popular vote and 343 to 194 in the electoral vote, adding up to an 87 percent chance of victory on November 8.
This shift no doubt partially reflects other developments that have occurred over the period that the debates were held—especially the Billy Bush tape and subsequent accusations against Trump. And Clinton was already the favorite to win the race even before they occurred. But I think the bulk of the evidence points toward the debates having a significant independent effect on the relative standing of the candidates, especially because they generated negative news coverage of Trump that persisted for days after the events themselves. Trump's refusal last night to commit to respecting the outcome of the election is likewise poised to dominate this week's coverage—to his further disadvantage—which means that the debates may continue to hurt his chances further over the next several days.
If true, the power of the debates to shift public opinion is another way in which the 2016 election departs from the usual pattern. Though debates receive a lot of attention every year, and media figures always spend a lot of time explaining which candidate "won" each face-off, previous research had concluded that the effects of debate performances on the horse race tended to be quite temporary when they existed at all. If Clinton winds up winning the election by a margin comparable to her current lead, we may regard the debates in retrospect as significant events in the trajectory of the race.
Political scientists have taken our share of lumps this election from our critics, largely because most of us didn't expect the Republican Party to nominate Trump (a conclusion which, to be fair, we were hardly alone in reaching). One recurrent point of difference between political science and popular media is that many journalists and pundits tend to interpret electoral outcomes as mostly reflecting the different personalities and strategies of the candidates, while political scientists more commonly emphasize the role of fundamental factors like partisanship and economic performance in shaping the choices of voters. (This view is sometimes caricatured as a belief that "campaigns don't matter," which no political scientist I know has ever claimed.)
If the debates are revealed to be a major factor in determining the vote margin in the 2016 election, however, it's fair to point out that campaign effects turned out to be bigger than some of us assumed. When analysis built on investigation of previous elections fails to hold in a new case, there are three possible explanations:
1. The analysis was flawed even when applied to previous cases.
2. The analysis was sound in the past, but the current case doesn't fit because the world has changed—and future cases will resemble the current case more than past cases.
3. The analysis was sound in the past and will be again in the future, but the current case represents a temporary deviation from the long-term norm.
Our least charitable critics will probably argue that (1) is likely to be true—we just don't know what we're talking about and never did. But as even they must acknowledge, there's plenty of reason to believe that this particular election is just different from previous elections, with Trump's nomination either a cause or a symptom of this difference.
We can even come up with very plausible hypotheses about why the debates would matter more for a candidate like Trump than a candidate like Mitt Romney or John McCain: perhaps voters had less confidence in Trump's ability to do the job of president, rendering a substandard debate performance all the more damaging to his chances. Or maybe the press coverage of Trump has been much more negative than previous candidates over the same period. Alternatively, though it's tempting to rely on a Trump-centric explanation to account for everything that's distinctive about this election, maybe the debates mattered more because of something unique about Hillary Clinton. Perhaps her relatively strong debate performances helped her consolidate the support of younger voters and independents who never liked Trump but preferred Bernie Sanders to Clinton and were won over once the debates focused their attention on the choice before them this November.
The bigger challenge is to distinguish condition (2) from condition (3). In the heat of a campaign's final weeks, when it's very hard to step back and gain a broader perspective, we often assume that the current state of the world will pertain indefinitely into the future—for example, that Trump's particular brand of politics is here to stay in the Republican Party even if he loses the election. Sometimes that's right, but sometimes we're simply in the midst of a temporary departure from the usual order of things. Until we are able to gain the benefit of experience—or, as political scientists might put it, more data—we won't know for sure how much of what's extraordinary about the 2016 election is merely a product of the moment, and how much is a foreshadowing of the new normal.
Labels: Debates, Donald Trump, Election 2016, Hillary Clinton, Political Science
Paul Ryan's Job Just Keeps Getting Harder
The luck of the Irish is not smiling on Paul Ryan. Last week, I noted that the probable loss of Donald Trump in the presidential race has placed Ryan in an increasingly precarious position. If Hillary Clinton is the next president and the Democrats gain control of the Senate, responsibility for leading the partisan opposition will fall to Ryan (assuming that he remains speaker of the House). Ryan will then face the challenge of negotiating regular bipartisan agreements with Clinton and Senate Democrats to fund the government and increase the national debt ceiling while simultaneously avoiding threats to his leadership from the hard-liners in the House Freedom Caucus—a difficult task that his predecessor John Boehner ultimately found impossible to achieve.
Unfortunately for Ryan, things just keep getting worse by the day:
1. Trump's position in the polls continues to slide in the wake of the well-publicized assault charges against him. A few surveys released yesterday even suggested that the margin between Clinton and Trump in the national popular vote is flirting with double digits, while the Clinton campaign hinted at a tactical offensive into a few traditionally red states that amounts to a declaration of victory three weeks before Election Day. This decline doesn't have much of an effect on Trump's already-slim chances of winning, but it does increase the likelihood of significant Republican losses in House elections that could leave any future majority with a very narrow margin of control—further enhancing the leverage of the Freedom Caucus over Ryan's speakership.
2. Trump has taken to repeatedly attacking Ryan personally for distancing himself from the presidential ticket, even accusing Ryan of hoping for a Trump defeat so that he could run for president himself in 2020. Ryan might not care too much about what Trump personally thinks of him, but it doesn't help his own future standing in the Republican Party to be charged with disloyalty to the GOP's presidential standard-bearer.
3. Trump's increasingly vociferous claims that a "rigged" electoral system is poised to deny him the presidency suggest that he, or at the very least many of his supporters, will not accept the legitimacy of a Clinton victory in November—which would in turn lead to demands on Republican elected officials to demonstrate their own thorough rejection of the new president. With 84 percent of Trump supporters in Florida—presumably representative of the national party—agreeing that Clinton should be in jail, it's near-certain that some conservatives will pressure Ryan and other Republican congressional leaders to initiate impeachment proceedings against a future President Clinton just as they did for the last President Clinton. Ryan is unlikely to view impeachment as a smart political move, but resisting it may not be a costless act for him within the GOP.
The Republican base is poised for a volcanic eruption if Clinton wins this election, and it will be difficult for Ryan to avoid sustaining some of the damage. Ryan has already signaled that he will respond to a second Clinton presidency by attempting to recalibrate the grounds of Republican opposition, exchanging Trumpist ultra-nationalism for more intellectually-styled lines of attack that paint Clinton as a big-government leftist who is hostile to individual liberty. But it will be difficult for Ryan to lead any larger reform effort within the GOP that successfully marginalizes the party's rightmost fringe given his own growing political vulnerability. As things stand now, he'll need a little luck just to keep his current job for the next four years.
Posted by David A. Hopkins at 12:35 PM
Labels: Donald Trump, Election 2016, Hillary Clinton, House of Representatives, Paul Ryan, Republican Party
The Sky Is Blue, the Pope Is Catholic, and Evan McMullin Will Not Become President
The American founders' creation of the electoral college as our nation's unique mechanism of presidential selection offers the understandable temptation to cleverly game out odd little scenarios based on its various idiosyncrasies. Benjamin Morris of FiveThirtyEight proposes one today which, he says, could result in neither Hillary Clinton nor Donald Trump assuming the presidency next January, but instead a little-known candidate named Evan McMullin.
If you haven't heard of McMullin, he's a former Republican congressional aide who's running for president as an anti-Trump conservative. McMullin doesn't have much of a campaign—he's only listed on the ballot in 11 states worth a total of 84 electoral votes—but two new polls show him winning about 20 percent of the popular vote in Utah. (That Utah seems to be his best state by far is not a surprise; Trump is particularly unpopular among Mormons, who are usually staunch Republican voters, and McMullin is a Mormon himself.) In one of the polls, McMullin is actually running only four points behind both Clinton and Trump, who are tied with 26 percent apiece.
As Morris envisions it, the chain of events leading to a McMullin administration begin with our hero placing first in Utah and winning its 6 electoral votes. Then, the other 49 states (plus D.C.) would need to be divided closely enough between Clinton and Trump that neither major-party candidate collects the 270 votes necessary to win a national majority in the electoral college. The resolution of the election would then be thrown to the House of Representatives, as the Constitution provides in such circumstances; the House must choose from among the top three finishers, and each state delegation receives one collective vote regardless of size. Morris suggests that enough House Republicans would prefer McMullin to Trump that he could prevail over the GOP's official nominee in such an eventuality.
One problem with this analysis is that it's very hard to envision McMullin winning Utah under any circumstances that don't also provide Clinton with an overall majority in the electoral college. Trump would simultaneously need to collapse in Utah—where even the more McMullin-friendly poll shows him four points ahead of McMullin, and the other poll has him up by 14—while regaining his electoral standing in must-win states like Florida and North Carolina where he's currently trailing the Democratic ticket. It's hard to imagine what turn of events would produce such a strong geographic divergence in Trump's popular appeal between now and Election Day, especially since third-party candidates usually perform less well in the actual voting returns than they do in pre-election polls.
But the even more fanciful component of this scenario is the prospect of a Republican Congress blocking Trump from assuming the presidency in favor of McMullin. Such a decision would arguably represent the biggest partisan defection in the history of American politics. Given the palpable fear with which the vast majority of Republican politicians now regard their party's voters, such a revolt against the duly chosen nominee would be completely out of character for today's Republican leaders—and, in all probability, would constitute career suicide for all involved. (One can easily foresee the revenge that Trump himself would attempt to exert on House members who abandoned him in this way, with the likely support of conservative media figures and a Republican primary electorate irate about such an "undemocratic" maneuver.)
The Trump candidacy has evoked a very unusual, though understandable, response in many political analysts. Put simply, they still can't quite believe that Republicans really want Trump to be president of the United States, and therefore half-expect the party to grasp any opportunity to shove him aside. But any prediction requiring Republican politicians to nervily stand up to their own voters is especially unrealistic in the current political environment. Unless Hillary Clinton wins 270 electoral votes on November 8, expect President Trump to be sworn in on January 20.
Posted by David A. Hopkins at 1:33 AM
Labels: Donald Trump, Election 2016, Electoral College, Evan McMillan
Why Paul Ryan's In More Trouble Than Mitch McConnell
The events of the past two weeks have taken a lot of the suspense out of the outcome of the presidential race, unless you're the kind of person who is fascinated by the question of whether normally "red" states like Arizona and Georgia will actually flip into the Democratic column this year. (Full disclosure: I am that kind of person.) Comebacks are possible in politics, but the Trump campaign seems particularly ill-equipped to make one—especially with damaging revelations and counterproductive strategies emerging on what now seems like an hourly basis.
A decisive Republican loss in the presidential contest would probably be accompanied by a switch in party control of the Senate. All but one of the competitive Senate races this year are for seats now held by Republican incumbents, and a net change of four seats would be sufficient to produce a Democratic majority in the event of a Hillary Clinton victory (since the vice president would break a 50-50 tie). Most Republican Senate candidates are likely to outrun Donald Trump in their home states, but GOP nominees in electoral battlegrounds like Pennsylvania and New Hampshire will find it difficult to attract enough crossover support from Clinton voters to prevail over a national Democratic wave, should it appear. If Trump demoralizes enough of his own party's supporters that Republican turnout falls across the nation, Democrats could wind up winning a near-sweep of the key Senate races.
Compared to the Senate, Republican prospects in the House look considerably brighter. It's difficult to know exactly how vulnerable the Republican House majority is in the wake of Trump's latest problems; we suffer from a lack of good survey data on congressional races (media polling budgets are getting tighter, and the presidential race has consumed virtually all of the attention this year). But Republicans have the twin advantages of a structural edge in the configuration of House districts and a superior crop of candidates compared to Democrats, who failed to recruit a large number of high-quality challengers. A pro-Democratic electoral tide would need to be quite massive indeed to flip the 30 seats necessary to shift party control of the House.
And yet Paul Ryan is in a much tougher position, politically speaking, than Mitch McConnell.
Even if the House GOP ultimately retains its majority, the party's likely margin of control narrows by the day with each new Trump mishap. Ryan is already operating with little room for error, as he is situated between the hard-line House Freedom Caucus on one side and the opposition Democrats on the other. A Democratic victory in the presidential race would mean that Ryan would, like his predecessor John Boehner, need to cut bipartisan deals in order to fund the government—which would inevitably leave him open, as Boehner was, to criticism from party purists that he did not sufficiently defend conservative principles. The fact that the new Democratic president would be a figure uniquely loathed on the popular right—especially after a presidential campaign in which the Republican opposition characterized her as a literal criminal—further threatens Ryan's ability to hold off such attacks.
Boehner's departure from the speakership last year was prompted by the unique constitutional requirement that the Speaker be elected by a majority vote of the full House, which gives any dissident faction of the majority party tremendous procedural leverage. Even if Ryan were able to win an initial vote for Speaker this coming January, he would serve under a constant threat of defenestration from an purist right motivated by fierce antipathy to Hillary Clinton and to any Republican who faces her with less than total opposition.
By comparison, McConnell has it easy. To be sure, he is more likely than Ryan to lose his governing majority in this election. But if the worst happens, he will slip smoothly back into his role as minority leader, leading filibusters against Democratic legislation and waiting for the 2018 midterms, which will provide Senate Republicans with a very favorable set of vulnerable Democratic seats.
Ryan was famously reluctant to seek the speakership upon Boehner's resignation. When he was finally prevailed upon to do so, he probably assumed that there was a fairly good chance of a Republican presidential victory in 2016—which would both hand him an opportunity to implement his national policy agenda and relieve him of responsibility for leading the opposition to a Democratic administration.
Today, those hopes have faded away entirely. Ryan as much as conceded the presidential race in a conference call with House Republicans earlier this week, telling them to do whatever they needed to do in order to save their own seats. Even that admission earned him some blowback from conservative purists within his own caucus—a preview of what may turn out to be an even uglier conflict within the Republican Party if Trump goes down to defeat. If Ryan is handed a narrow majority on November 8 along with four guaranteed years of a Democratic president, he will need to draw upon all his political acumen in order to prevent suffering the same fate as John Boehner.
Labels: Donald Trump, Election 2016, Hillary Clinton, House Freedom Caucus, House of Representatives, Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan, Republican Party
The Informational Divide in American Party Politics
Democrats and Republicans not only disagree about which public policies are desirable, but increasingly differ as well over which sources of information are reliable—and, therefore, which facts are really facts. It's hard to understand Donald Trump's rise without noting conservative citizens' increasing rejection of the power of scholarly experts and the "mainstream media" to determine what is and is not true. Today, Matt Grossmann and I write in Inside Higher Ed about "how information became ideological"—and the particular challenge that this trend poses to the traditional role of universities as intellectual authorities seeking to inform policy debates.
Labels: Asymmetric Politics, Party Asymmetry
2nd Debate Recap: Back to the Tape
I wrote earlier that Donald Trump's real audience tonight was the press and other Republican politicians more than the voters. On this score, Trump probably emerged from the debate having preserved, but not necessarily improved, his current standing. The general media consensus seems to be that Trump, even if he did not "win" the debate outright, performed better than he had last time. He at least avoided any kind of immediately embarrassing gaffe or line-crossing in the eyes of the press that would be a candidate for constant TV replay and/or viral video status over the next week.
At the same time, the debate failed to produce a sufficiently memorable positive story for Trump that would be likely to divert attention for very long from his remarks on the Access Hollywood bus, which will probably continue to dominate media coverage and political chatter over the following days. Most debates, despite their extensive advance hype, tend to soon fade into history without pushing the race very far in either direction, and the emergence of other, more fascinating developments over the weekend may hasten this pattern in the present case.
We can probably conclude from Hillary Clinton's fairly unmemorable performance that her campaign wouldn't mind if people spend the next week talking about the Trump tape rather than the debate. Clinton was well-drilled as always, but she lacked some of the prefabricated attack lines that she had brought to the first event. Even her response to the subject of the tape was less impassioned than it could have been, which suggests that she has adopted the front-runner's traditional strategy of staying out of the way of the opposition as the clock runs down.
Van Jones of CNN advanced the theory that Trump's good-enough performance was actually the worst-case scenario for Republicans, because a total meltdown would have prompted them to dump Trump from the ticket and replace him with a stronger candidate. But Trump can't actually be dumped—people are already voting in some states—and the Republicans are stuck with him as their official nominee for the duration. Whether or not Republican leaders renounce him or deny his campaign the resources of the Republican National Committee will not be affected by his debate performance Sunday night, but rather will be determined by the fallout of the Access Hollywood tape—and the natural question of whether any more damaging revelations still await us.
Labels: Debates, Donald Trump, Election 2016, Hillary Clinton
Trump's Audience Tonight: Other Republicans & the Media
Tonight's presidential debate employs a "town hall" format, in which candidates take questions from undecided voters in attendance as well as the moderators. But we shouldn't think of the most important audience as the mass public at large. For this debate, the people who will decide the winner are not the average citizens watching in the hall or at home but rather the partisan and media authorities who will determine in the wake of tonight's event whether Donald Trump's campaign is salvageable.
Trump is now in a precarious position. His problem is not only that he has become very likely to lose the presidential race to Clinton but that he is also being judged as toxic to the political fortunes of the larger Republican Party, both on the ballot this November and thereafter. Several Republican congressional candidates in highly competitive races have already distanced themselves from Trump this weekend. But many more party leaders are still nominally Trump supporters, even if they seldom spend much time talking about him.
If the news media collectively decide that Trump has had a poor debate tonight—especially if he is seen as failing to effectively address his Access Hollywood comments—Republican politicians won't wait around until all the polls are in before renouncing him. We can then expect even more denunciations and declarations of non-support in the hours and days after the debate, almost assuring that Trump is damaged further in the eyes of the public as open conflict erupts between the Trump campaign and a growing faction of Republican critics.
A normal presidential candidate would grasp this political reality. He or she would engage in extensive pre-debate preparations with an eye toward reassuring Republican leaders and ensuring that media expectations for a debate performance would be met or exceeded. But Trump is not a normal candidate with normal calculations, and we therefore do not have any particular reason to believe that his behavior tonight will have either the intention or the effect of impressing elite observers in the party or the press. We also have good reason to expect that Hillary Clinton will walk into the debate with the goal of further baiting Trump into sabotaging himself in front of this key audience, putting other Republicans in the awkward position of having to choose sides between Trump's strong supporters and the increasingly anti-Trump larger electorate.
Trump is a man who is capable of surprise, so it's possible that the debate will proceed in an unexpected direction. But regardless of what he says and does tonight, the people whom he needs to impress the most are not regular voters but rather the politicians and media figures who are currently preparing a death watch around his candidacy. We'll know by tomorrow how many defenders Trump has left within the ranks of his own party, and thus whether Trump still stands a chance of avoiding a disastrous final few weeks before the election.
Labels: Debates, Donald Trump, Election 2016, News Media, Republican Party
Trump: So Now What?
A few points on the unfolding drama:
1. The virtually unanimous opinion of the news media is that Trump has suffered catastrophic damage due to the release of the Access Hollywood tape. This may well be correct! But media interpretations of breaking news events like this are much more likely to overstate than understate their ultimate importance. Even Mitt Romney's "47 percent" comments in 2012 did not actually change many voters' minds, despite confident media assertions to the contrary. There's nothing wrong with waiting until we see some evidence of the electorate's response to this development before we draw conclusions about the extent of the damage done.
2. This doesn't mean that there won't be any damage. Trump was already losing the election, and in fact was already sliding in the polls relative to Hillary Clinton, before this story broke. Even if no current Trump supporters defect from his candidacy as a result of the latest revelations, he is in the position of needing to win over some voters who are currently undecided or supporting another candidate. That task becomes even harder now, and every day that passes without good news for Trump is itself bad news for Trump.
3. There's a lot of chatter about the possibility of Trump being replaced as the Republican candidate, perhaps with his running mate Mike Pence. Several Republican officeholders have expressed a preference for such a maneuver, while a friend told me last night that some of her liberal acquaintances were worried about a GOP switcheroo that could allow the party to escape its Trump problem unscathed. But this is a highly improbable scenario for a variety of reasons, and proposing it allows prominent Republicans to indulge in wishful thinking while sidestepping the question of whether they will in fact continue to back Trump against Hillary Clinton if he remains the party's nominee. (Given Pence's support of Trump, it's hard to argue that the party would be able to shed the Trump association even if Trump himself were to be jettisoned somehow.)
4. Most top Republicans will conclude this weekend that Trump himself is toast and that focus must shift to protecting the Republican majorities in Congress. But this is more complicated than it looks. In "blue" and "purple" states and congressional districts where Clinton is favored to win, individual Republican candidates are likely to renounce Trump (following the lead of New Hampshire senator Kelly Ayotte and Nevada senate candidate Joe Heck, who did so today). These candidates need some support from Clinton voters to be elected themselves, and they don't want to spend the final weeks of the campaign defending Trump's behavior.
But other Republican leaders may worry that a full-scale rejection of Trump by the national party will depress turnout across the board, bringing normally Republican-leaning constituencies into play. This would be a nightmare scenario for control of the House in particular, which Democrats can only win by making inroads into habitually "red" districts. For Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell, the solution may be to retain a degree of ambiguity on Trump himself while stressing the unacceptability of Hillary Clinton, especially a potential President Hillary Clinton who is unencumbered by a Republican Congress. It is quite possible that even reduced Republican enthusiasm for Trump himself will not translate into a significant dropoff in Republican turnout simply because party supporters can still be mobilized to vote against Clinton and the rest of the Democratic ticket.
5. It's also important to remember that the time horizons of Republican politicians extend beyond November 2016. The ascension of Hillary Clinton to the presidency, if it occurs, will spark a combustion on the American right that will probably exceed the conservative backlash against the elections of Obama in 2008 and Bill Clinton in 1992, which in both cases resulted in purges within the GOP. Republican leaders who already view their party's popular base with a mix of puzzlement and fear will very much wish to avoid attracting blame for perceived complicity in a Hillary Clinton election, which is why Ted Cruz gave in to conservative pressure and endorsed Trump in late September after months of holding out. As Republicans consider how best to handle the latest Trump news, they will seek to avoid leaving themselves vulnerable to charges from fellow partisans that they cared more about "political correctness" than the (supposed) looming national catastrophe of another Clinton in the White House.
Labels: Donald Trump, Election 2016, Republican Party
VP Debate Recap: Some Things We Learned Last Night
1. Pence's performance demonstrated that the Trump campaign is in fact capable of supplying adequate preparation for a candidate in advance of a debate. This suggests that Trump's more off-the-cuff style in the first presidential debate reflects his own strategic decisions more than the capacity of his campaign staff.
2. Tim Kaine walked into the debate with a well-rehearsed strategy to attack Donald Trump on three main points: his tax returns; his remarks about women, racial minorities, and immigrants; and his attitude towards Russia and Vladimir Putin. Over and over, Kaine attempted to return the discussion to one of these topics, repeating some of the same charges verbatim to Pence's growing exasperation (near the end of the debate, as Kaine mentioned Trump's negative characterization of Mexican immigrants for the nth time, Pence complained to Kaine that "you whipped out that Mexican thing again!"). Pence's equally clear and consistent strategy was to deflect attacks on Trump by flatly denying their validity and even truthfulness without litigating the point more extensively.
3. The result was a fairly unedifying event with an odd energy and rhythm to it. Kaine's hyper-aggressive demeanor seemed likely to play less well in the eyes of the news media—and, perhaps, the viewers—than Pence's cooler style. At the same time, Kaine succeeded in making Trump the major topic of discussion, repeatedly forcing Pence into the position of either defending Trump or letting Kaine's attacks go unanswered. If Pence had hoped to turn the debate into an extensive examination of Clinton's own political vulnerabilities, his opportunity to do so was limited by Kaine's approach, which seemed designed to motivate the party base, play for a tie, and avoid taking a big risk at this stage of the race.
4. At times, viewers could catch a glimpse of what the 2016 campaign might have looked like had someone other than Trump won the Republican nomination. Pence lobbed a few attacks in the direction of the Obama administration on the subjects of the economy, terrorism, the Iran nuclear deal, and the Affordable Care Act, attempting to frame the race as a familiar "change-versus-more-of-the-same" referendum on the incumbent presidency. One could have imagined a Democratic response that in turn attempted to turn the election into a proxy battle over whether Obama was, despite his failures, still a better president than his Republican predecessor George W. Bush. But Trump has a way of shifting attention in his direction, and even the positive media evaluations of Pence's performance have been accompanied by discussions of whether Trump will be satisfied with his running mate's efforts at defending him or even will resent being outperformed by his own vice presidential pick. For better or worse, Trump appears likely to once again dominate media coverage in the aftermath of a debate—even though he wasn't even present this time.
Labels: Debates, Donald Trump, Election 2016, Mike Pence, News Media, Tim Kane
It's Not Just Millennials: Third Party Candidates Always Do Better With Young Voters
Over the last few weeks, reporters have published a number of stories about the struggles that Hillary Clinton has faced in convincing millennial-generation voters to support her over third-party candidates Gary Johnson and Jill Stein. The Clinton campaign has recently taken steps to rectify this apparent problem, such as booking their candidate to appear on the Zach Galifianakis talk show parody "Between Two Ferns" while enlisting Bernie Sanders, who carried the under-30 vote in the Democratic primaries by a nearly 4-to-1 margin, to stump on her behalf.
Age-group differences in electoral preferences always invite analysis that generalizes about generations. These stories repeatedly portray millennials as distinctive in their political idealism, their dissatisfaction with the political system, and their view of the two major parties (and their leaders) as fatally compromised and corrupted. Older Americans who are already prone to view the millennial generation as uniquely naive, self-involved, and politically unsophisticated can find plenty of fodder for such negative impressions from anecdotal accounts of 20-somethings who speak of voting as an opportunity for personal performances of authenticity rather than as a means of influencing the policy direction of the government, and some Democratic supporters (a fairly panicky bunch by nature) seem poised to blame millennials for a Trump victory, if it occurs, lecturing voters who are too young to remember about Ralph Nader's role in spoiling Al Gore's 2000 presidential campaign.
Before we get carried away with chewing over the supposedly distinctive attributes of millennials (an exercise that has a 90% chance of ending up in a hazily-informed debate over the deficiencies of Snapchat and/or Lena Dunham), it's worth pointing out that third-party candidates always run better among younger voters, regardless of the era. Nader was more popular among the youngest cohort of voters in 2000 (today's 30- and 40-somethings), Ross Perot's candidacies in the 1990s drew especially well from the young of that time (today's 40- and 50-somethings), and John Anderson's independent campaign in 1980 was also more successful among the then-young (now deep into middle age) than the then-old (now mostly departed from the earthly realm).
George Wallace, the former Alabama governor who ran for president in 1968 on a racial segregationist platform, might seem like an unlikely candidate to inspire a youth brigade, but even Wallace ran a bit better among younger than older voters. The chart below compares the performance of major third-party candidates among young (under the age of 30) and old (over 50 for 1968 and 1980; over 60 otherwise) voters, based on exit polls (1992 and after) and pre-election Gallup surveys (for 1968 and 1980):
It is clear that candidates outside the two-party system enjoy a particular appeal among young voters regardless of their specific generation. Younger voters are consistently less invested in the two-party system, more open to large-scale political change, and less strategic in their political choices. They also frequently have yet to experience politics under the rule of both parties (at least as attentive adults) and, in part for this reason, tend not to perceive large differences between the major parties as reliably as older voters with longer memories (and more grievances).
Hillary Clinton does not inspire the same level of support among today's younger voters as Barack Obama did in 2008 and 2012, leaving open the possibility of large-scale third-party defection that could possibly endanger her chances. It's likely that the Clinton campaign will place a particular emphasis on young-voter outreach between now and November, hoping to convince skeptics among the rising generation that she is, if not a thoroughly inspiring choice, still preferable to the alternative. This message may ultimately find some resonance. The third-party vote usually declines in the final tally from its pre-election levels as voters return to the major party nominees—and while millennials don't particularly like Clinton, they really don't like Donald Trump.
Labels: Donald Trump, Election 2016, Hillary Clinton, Millennials, Third Parties
David A. Hopkins
I am a political scientist at Boston College who specializes in the study of American political parties, elections, Congress, and voting behavior. Email: david.hopkins {at} bc.edu. The name of this blog honors the notable political philosopher and practitioner George Washington Plunkitt.
Follow @DaveAHopkins
The "Republican Party" Doesn't Make Strategic Deci...
Post-Debates Recap: Is 2016 An Exception Or the Ne...
The Sky Is Blue, the Pope Is Catholic, and Evan Mc...
Why Paul Ryan's In More Trouble Than Mitch McConne...
The Informational Divide in American Party Politic...
Trump's Audience Tonight: Other Republicans & the ...
VP Debate Recap: Some Things We Learned Last Night...
It's Not Just Millennials: Third Party Candidates ...


text:
/*
 * CS:APP Data Lab
 */

/* Declare different function types */
typedef int (*funct_t) (void);
typedef int (*funct1_t)(int);
typedef int (*funct2_t)(int, int);
typedef int (*funct3_t)(int, int, int);

/* Combine all the information about a function and its tests as structure */
typedef struct {
    char *name;             /* String name */
    funct_t solution_funct; /* Function */
    funct_t test_funct;     /* Test function */
    int args;               /* Number of function arguments */
    char *ops;              /* List of legal operators. Special case: "$" for floating point */
    int op_limit;           /* Max number of ops allowed in solution */
    int rating;             /* Problem rating (1 -- 4) */
    int arg_ranges[3][2];   /* Argument ranges. Always defined for 3 args, even if */
                            /* the function takes fewer. Special case: First arg */
			    /* must be set to {1,1} for f.p. puzzles */
} test_rec, *test_ptr;

extern test_rec test_set[];

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
Herbalife Announces CEO Transition, 6% Growth in Worldwide Volume
BY DSN Staff | December 01, 2016 | read / Daily News / Financial
Photo: Herbalife Nutrition's COO, Richard P. Goudis (right) will become CEO when Chairman and CEO Michael O. Johnson transitions to executive chairman in June 2017.
Click here to order the December 2016 issue in which this article appeared.
Herbalife's settlement with the Federal Trade Commission may have positively impacted its third quarter earnings.
That's according to a recent review of the nutrition products company from one analyst. Timothy Ramey, with Pivotal Research, suggested Herbalife Ltd. (HLF—NYSE) was incentivized to boost sales in the quarter before new FTC rules take effect.
The FTC and Herbalife reached a settlement in July after a 26-month probe and government investigation into the company's distribution model, which rewards independent resellers for recruiting new members. In the settlement, Herbalife agreed to pay $200 million in consumer relief and modify its business practices.
For the third quarter, Herbalife recorded adjusted earnings of $1.21 per share, beating the $1.09 a share predicted by analysts. Revenue was $1.12 billion, just missing analysts' estimates. Revenue was up 2 percent from a year ago.
Net income for the quarter was $87.7 million, down from $93.6 million in the third quarter 2015. Currency fluctuations took their toll, negatively impacting net income by $17.9 million and negatively impacting EPS by 21 cents a share.
Ramey expected earnings of $1.10 a share. He said Herbalife boosted its distributor engagement so much in the quarter that it "arguably could have some positive growth."
Michael O. Johnson, Chairman and CEO, said Herbalife, "delivered another strong quarter with 6% growth in worldwide volume and relentless management of expenses… exceeding the high end of third quarter EPS guidance."
Johnson will step down as CEO in June, taking on the role of executive chairman, where he will be active in guiding Herbalife's strategy.
During Johnson's tenure, the company quadrupled annual net sales from $1.1 billion to $4.5 billion, making it the No. 3 direct selling company in the world, as ranked on the DSN Global 100.
Rich Goudis, Herbalife's Chief Operations Officer and former Chief Financial Officer, will become the new CEO. Goudis became COO in 2010. In that time, Herbalife added five Herbalife Innovation and Manufacturing facilities and now manufactures more than 70 percent of its own products.
With Herbalife looking to refinance $1.1 billion of convertible bonds due in 2019, Ramey writes the company may execute such a move with more relaxed terms. He says this could allow Herbalife to buy back $1.2 billion to $1.5 billion of shares.
"Herbalife is delivering above expectations on powerful unit growth and strong constant-currency sales," Ramey wrote. "The tone of the business is solid. Powerful drivers such as a share buyback lie ahead."
Management guidance for full-year 2016 on diluted and adjusted diluted EPS ranges from $2.77 to $2.97 and $4.65 to $4.85, up from previous estimates.
For full-year 2017, the company is providing initial volume guidance in the range of 2 percent to 5 percent growth. Initial full-year 2017 GAAP diluted and adjusted diluted EPS guidance is in the range of $3.95 to $4.35 and $4.60 to $5.00, respectively. Each range includes a 15-cent headwind due to the expected unfavorable impact of currency fluctuations.
Posted in Daily News, Financial

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Gene Halavanau
Michelle Patroni
Practices Area
Can an undocumented immigrant recover damages in a personal injury action in California?
Home » Our Blog » Can an undocumented immigrant recover damages in a personal injury action in California?
Gene Halavanau2021-01-04T01:13:07-05:00
Yes. If you are here illegally and are injured as a result of someone's fault, you have similar rights as a United States citizen or a lawful resident to bring a personal injury action and seek damages under California law. While there were some limitations on recovery of damages by undocumented immigrants, both the courts and legislature recently removed those limitations.
A typical personal injury action in California includes several types of damages: 1) medical bills for past treatment; 2) medical bills for future expected treatment; 3) past lost wages; 4) future lost wages or loss of earning capacity; and 5) past and future pain and suffering.
Until recently, a jury could learn that a plaintiff in a personal injury action was an undocumented immigrant if that plaintiff was seeking damages for future lost earnings and lost earning capacity. The immigration status was not admissible into evidence if Plaintiff was only seeking damages for past medical bills or past and future pain and suffering. There was also a dispute as to whether an undocumented immigrant could seek damages for future treatment based on the costs of such treatment in the United States.
However, the courts and legislature recently removed these limitations. First, in Velasquez v. Centrome, Inc. (2015) 233 Cal. App. 4th 1191, the California Court of Appeal held that the plaintiff's immigration status was irrelevant to the issue of whether he would be eligible to receive future medical treatment. The Court of Appeal explained that where the plaintiff is seeking damages for a future medical procedure, and there is no evidence that the plaintiff's immigration status will be considered in determining eligibility for that procedure, the plaintiff's immigration status is inadmissible. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's decision and remanded the matter for a new trial directing the trial court to exclude the evidence of plaintiff's immigration status.
The Velasquez decision stood for the proposition that where the prejudicial effect resulting from the admission of a person's immigration status outweighs the probative value, such evidence should be excluded under Evidence Code section 352. The only exception was where the undocumented status would render an immigrant ineligible for future medical treatment not just in the United States, but in any other country.
Shortly after Velasquez, the California Legislature simplified the issue by enacting a law that bars evidence of a person's immigration status in personal injury actions regardless of whether such evidence is relevant to a determination of future medical eligibility. See Evid. Code § 351.2. On August 17, 2016, the California Legislature added Section 351.2 to the California Evidence Code. Subsection (a) of Section 351.2, which became effective on January 1, 2017, renders a person's immigration status inadmissible and undiscoverable in all civil actions for personal injury or wrongful death. Thus, because Section 351.2(a) broadly declares that immigration status is never admissible in a personal injury action, the California Legislature effectively extended the Velasquez rule to apply in all personal injury cases, even where the plaintiff is claiming future lost earnings and loss of earning capacity, or where the plaintiff's
eligibility for a future medical procedure will be impacted by the plaintiff's undocumented status.
In short, non-citizens and citizens alike can recover similar damages in personal injury actions. Undocumented immigrants can bring suit for injuries they have suffered without worrying that their immigration status will be revealed during the course of the lawsuit. Therefore, if you are an undocumented immigrant who has suffered personal injuries as a result of a car accident, dog bite, dangerous product, or other circumstances due to someone's fault, your alienage status should not deter you from seeking compensation for your injuries.
If You Are in a Car Accident and Do Not Have Insurance
WHAT IF THE OTHER DRIVER CAUSED THE ACCIDENT? I recently No_Insurancehad a few clients who were injured as a result... read more
Do you need an attorney after a car accident?
I am sometimes approached by my friends and clients with a question whether they really need to hire a... read more
GM Issues Another Recall for 5 Different Defects in 2,7 Million Vehicles
Detroit, MI: Another massive GM Recall has been announced by General Motors Co, this time involving almost 3 million... read more
What to do after a hit-and-run accident?
A hit-and-run accident is where a driver intentionally flees the scene whiteout providing contact information or rendering aid. If... read more
What to do if the homeowner insurance company denies or lowballs your claim?
When buying homeowner insurance, you are paying for peace of mind to protect yourself from a financial disaster. The... read more
Halavanau Law Office, P.C.
Address: 150 Post Street Suite 600 San Francisco, CA 94108
Email: gene@halavanau.com
Mon-Sun: 9am–6pm
Halavanau Law Office, P.C.© Copyright 2021. All Rights Reserved.


After a string of violent crimes shown live on social media, companies around the world are racing to improve artificial intelligence so software can automatically spot and block undesirable videos. Rosanna Philpott reports.
Grisly murders on Facebook Live. On Tuesday (April 25) in a deserted hotel in Thailand a self-shot video of a father killing his 11-month-old daughter by hanging her with a rope from a rooftop, lingered on the site for 24 hours. Barely two weeks ago in Cleveland a man bragging live about murdering a 74-year-old, before posting the video of the killing itself online. Just the latest in a string of violent crimes appearing on the social media site Now, competing to solve the policing problem: tech firms. From Singapore to Finland, racing to improve artificial intelligence so it can automatically spot and block content before it goes viral. (SOUNDBITE)(English) PRESIDENT AND CEO OF GRAYMATICS, ABHIJIT SHANBHAG, SAYING: "So it will detect 'there is a person', it will detect 'there is a baby', it will detect the activities that the person is involved with the baby, it will detect the emotions of the person, it will detect any, the screaming sound of the baby and various other clues that might be there. So if the baby has moved from one place to another place in an anomalous way that will be part of the data which it will extract." Graymatics is an AI company in Singapore using "deep learning": a type of AI that mimics the way neurones work and interact in the brain. The teaching system feeds images of what might be a violent scene. Anything from weapons to hacking movements and blood. But the software can only identify examples it's been taught to watch out for and before this someone hanging a child from a building may not have been one of them. As a dozen or more companies wrestle with the problem many are focusing on this method. Facebook under pressure over how it monitors content and live feeds and Google faces similar problems with its YouTube service. None, so far, claim to have cracked the problem completely.


Help your Ducati 750 Paso run better.
Find the right K&N motorcycle or ATV air filter for your Ducati using the application search. Upgrade your Ducati 750 Paso today with a K&N motorcycle or ATV air filter.


text:
.. _int: https://docs.python.org/2/library/stdtypes.html

.. _vim.host.DatastoreBrowser.FileInfo: ../../../vim/host/DatastoreBrowser/FileInfo.rst

vim.host.DatastoreBrowser.VmConfigInfo
======================================
  This data object type describes a virtual machine configuration file.
:extends: vim.host.DatastoreBrowser.FileInfo_

Attributes:
    configVersion (`int`_, optional):


At the conclusion of the 2015 Rugby World Cup, four All Black greats - Richie McCaw, Keven Mealamu, Dan Carter and Ma'a Nonu - are expected to follow Tony Woodcock's lead and retire from international rugby.
I handed all five players their Test debuts when I was coaching the All Blacks. McCaw debuted against Ireland in Dublin in November 2001, Mealamu and Woodcock both against Wales in Cardiff in November 2002, Carter against Wales in Hamilton in June 2003, and Nonu against England in Wellington in June 2003. That famous five have all represented New Zealand for over a decade and have amassed a combined tally of 609 Test caps, with a world record 147 Test caps held by McCaw.
I decided to select McCaw as a young pup after watching him excel in a match for Canterbury against Otago. He famously knocked on with his first touch in Test rugby, but went on to win the man of the match award. McCaw suffered disappointment at both the 2003 and 2007 World Cups, but was able to bounce back up from the canvas and channel that experience and knowledge to help the All Blacks win the 2011 tournament. And on Saturday at Twickenham in front of 82,000 spectators, McCaw could become the first ever captain to lift the Webb Ellis Cup for a second consecutive time.
Mealamu made the All Blacks squad after enjoying a superb National Rugby Championship final against Waikato. However, the then 23-year-old had to wait three weeks on tour before earning his Test debut. I remember telling him afterwards that he could go on to become a great All Black, which he has since achieved. Woodcock also made his Test bow in that match. The man, who hails from Helensville, possessed an impressive skill-set and his body profile was perfectly suited to prop.
Meanwhile, Carter had class written all over him from the outset. It was just a matter of managing him in his first year of Test rugby. He was athletic and lean, boasted a superb skill-set and his ability to read the game was outstanding. The highest points-scorer in Test rugby - 1579 - was fortunate to have Carlos Spencer and Aaron Mauger around in 2003 to glean from their experience. He learned a lot from them, and it was no surprise that DC went on to become the premier fly-half in world rugby.
In Nonu's case, the centurion faced a few challenges before earning his first Test cap - he was moved around a lot in the backline. However, the All Blacks environment seemed to bring the best out of him. He morphed into a player and leader whom his teammates looked up to, especially other Pacific Islanders in the side. Moreover, to offer an example of the quality of the individual outside the four white lines, when Hurricanes assistant coach John Plumtree had a back operation earlier this year, Nonu picked him up early in the morning after the team had just returned from Brisbane, and transported him from a public hospital to a private one. Nonu is a class act on and off the field.
The aforementioned five players are great blokes and are very humble. They've played a significant leadership role. They have been with the team for such a long period of time and are therefore acutely aware of what behaviour is acceptable and unacceptable. They, along with Steve Hansen, have returned to the tradition of visiting the opposition changing room post-match and sharing a beer.
Players are inspired by the All Blacks culture and it permeates their soul. Once you play for the All Blacks, you are always an All Black. I was fortunate to enjoy a short time as an All Black player and then a longer period as a coach. I wish I could go back and experience it again or make another contribution to All Blacks rugby. It's such a wonderful environment. I think of the All Blacks' set-up as a well-sized tree, whose roots keep growing deeper - allowing the tree to grow bigger and stronger.
The All Blacks' new triangular haka formation is not indicative of their leadership structure, which appears to be non-hierarchical. Their leadership is very much a shared process, involving players and management, which allows everyone to feel as though they are contributing to the cause. Players develop in that kind of environment regardless of how long their Test careers span because it gives them so much belief. You feel like you can't fail, but when you do fail you know why you have failed.
There is no doubt that the All Blacks will have a leadership succession plan in place following the departures of McCaw, Mealamu, Woodcock, Carter and Nonu, with the likes of Conrad Smith, Kieran Read, Brodie Retallick, Sam Cane and Dane Coles set to take over those roles. They would have learned so much from the five players in question, and will ensure that the All Blacks continue to reach the benchmark that this team has set, while at the same time attempting to raise it themselves. Crucially, the All Blacks' leadership role is passed on through behaviours rather than words.


text:
Ästhetik pur beim Genfer Autosalon
Was wäre eine Automesse ohne ihre Hostessen? Sicherlich um einiges unattraktiver.
© Bild: EPA
The high heeled shoes of a hostess are seen next to a the Chevrolet car during the press day at the 82nd Geneva International Motor Show in Geneva, Switzerland, 06 March 2012. The Motor Show will open its gates to the public from 8th to 18th March present
© Bild: 2012 Gérard Chardonnens
Hostessen beim Genfer Autosalon.
© Bild: photopress.at
Eine Hostesse beim Genfer Autosalon.
EPAepa03135004 The high heeled shoes of a hostess are seen next to a the Infiniti Emerg-e car during the press day at the 82nd Geneva International Motor Show in Geneva, Switzerland, 07 March 2012. The Motor Show will open its gates to the public from 8th
The New Kia Ceed car during the press day at the 82nd Geneva International Motor Show in Geneva, Switzerland, 06 March 2012. The Motor Show will open its gates to the public from 8th to 18th March presenting more than 260 exhibitors and more than 180 worl
© Bild: Deleted - 1872388
APThe Alfa Romeo Giulietta is on display on Wednesday, March 7, 2012 during the press preview days at the 82nd Geneva International Motor Show in Geneva, Switzerland. The Motor Show will open its doors to public from March 8 to 18, presenting more than 2
EPAepa03133810 The new Seat Ibiza SC Style car during the press day at the 82nd Geneva International Motor Show in Geneva, Switzerland, 06 March 2012. The Motor Show will open its gates to the public from 8th to 18th March presenting more than 260 exhibit
EPAepa03135320 A hostess and Journalists in front of a TV screen showing the car Lancia during the press day at the 82nd Geneva International Motor Show in Geneva, Switzerland, 07 March 2012. The Motor Show will open its gates to the public from 8th to 18
EPAepa03135127 The new Volkswagen eco up car during the press day at the 82nd Geneva International Motor Show, in Geneva, Switzerland, 07 March 2012. The Motor Show will open its gates to the public from 8th to 18th March presenting more than 260 exhibito
EPAepa03135202 A hostess on the Lancia stand looks at the driving mirror during the press day at the 82nd Geneva International Motor Show, in Geneva, Switzerland, 07 March 2012. The Motor Show will open its gates to the public from 8th to 18th March prese
| Stand: 03/14/2012, 17:21


text:
Donald Glover reveals Childish Gambino 'will be back,' teases new music
Despite previous comments that Donald Glover would "retire" his beloved alter-ego Childish Gambino, it seems that the Atlanta star is prepping a comeback to music.
Just after winning a Grammy Award for Awaken, My Love! in 2018, Glover first announced he wouldn't be going by Gambino for much longer. "I'm really appreciative of [Gambino]. I'm making another project right now," he said. "But I like endings, I think they're important to progress."
His conversation with E!'s Laverne Cox at the Golden Globe Awards on Tuesday (Jan. 10) changed that perspective, as Glover revealed he's been "making music right now, I love it."
"I'm actually working, I'm in the studio. I've been bringing people in, like secret people, working on little things," he said. "I just been making it for fun right now. But soon something will happen, I promise. Something will happen." Most importantly, he clarified Gambino isn't going anywhere. "You don't have to worry about that… He'll be back," he revealed.
It's been nearly three years since Glover shared his surprise LP 3.15.20 — which is now revered as a classic in his discography. The energy surrounding the album bled into his immaculate four-season run of his FX original series, Atlanta, which wrapped its final season in 2022.
His efforts as an actor — appearing as Lando Calrissian in Solo: A Star Wars Story, the voice of Simba in The Lion King and upcoming work as Hypno-Hustler in a Spider-Man spin-off film — were jumpstarted by his role on NBC's classic sit-com Community.
A post shared by Donald Glover (@donaldglover)
Now inching his way back into music, his eclectic, left-of-center interview (conducted by himself) with Interview Magazine last April initially shed light on Glover's desire to make music again. "I've been rapping a lot. Producing. It's fun again. Doing features… I did one that I don't think is gonna come out. I think the artist, or the artist's management, thinks the verse is too controversial."
While he continues teasing new work, it's exciting to know that Gambino's return to the rap game isn't a myth any longer.
Watch his E! Interview below!


text:
New Video: The 7 Steps to Coffee Shop Success
To celebrate our 30th anniversary, we put together a new video! "The 7 Steps to Coffee Shop Success" offers a quick and easy introduction to the tools and benefits of our 7 Steps to Success program.
"With 30-plus years of specialty coffee experience and award-winning coffee to open your coffee shop, we support independent coffee shop owners every step of the way," said Crimson Cup Founder and President Greg Ubert.
Developed to Maximize Profits for Successful Independent Coffee Shops
The 7 Steps program got its start in the 1990s. As a coffee roaster, Greg noticed some of his coffee shop customers struggling to make a profit. He worked with them to create a business model that would deliver consistent results.
In 2002, Greg packed lessons learned into a book, "Seven Steps to Success: a Commonsense Guide to Succeed in Specialty Coffee."
Now in its second printing, Greg's book has guided over 200 small business owners in 30 states to create unique independent coffee shops serving their local communities.
For two decades, the 7 Steps have helped independent coffee shops thrive. In fact, 19 new business owners followed the 7 Steps to open their first coffee shops in 2020 during the midst of a global pandemic. At least another 20 plan to open in 2021.
All the Tools You Need to Achieve Your Dream of Owning a Coffee Shop
Following this proven program, our 7 Steps consultants and trainers teach entrepreneurs to succeed using tools including:
• Coffee shop business plans and projected cash flow analysis
• Coffee bar design and layout, including detailed electronic drawings
• Four to five days of onsite training for the owner and staff
• Grand opening marketing and onsite assistance
• Support in choosing the right equipment
• Quick and easy ordering of coffee and coffee-shop supplies
• Marketing and business support from the Crimson Cup team
"We provide you with the tools to help you succeed because we want you to not just be a customer, but a partner," Greg said. "When our customers succeed, we succeed."
More than a Coffee Shop Franchise, Our Proven Program Offers Unique Benefits
The video also outlines benefits of the 7 Steps program, including:
• No franchise fees, royalties or hidden costs
• Business insights from coffee industry experts
• Featured promotions and marketing support to increase sales
• Menu and recipes for the best-tasting coffee drinks in the industry
• A full line of coffee shop products
• The best equipment in the industry
• And connections with over 200 independent coffee shop owners across the country.
The Importance of Coffee+Community
Greg noted that part of the program's success is its emphasis on creating unique coffee shops that cater to the needs of local communities.
"Our motto is Coffee+Community," he said. "Coffee is a terrific way to bring local communities together.
"The best coffee shops become community gathering places where people meet to chat, study and do business."
Our 7 Steps consultants have helped establish hundreds of coffee shops in 30 states, Guam and Bangladesh. Let's talk about how we can help you!
You can start by buying Greg's book on the 7 Steps to Coffee Shop Success. It comes with proven guidance on running a coffee shop, a risk-free guarantee, samples of our award-winning coffee and a complimentary initial consulting call.
Or, just call 888-800-9224 or fill out this form, and we'll get right back to you! The sooner we begin the conversation, the faster you can be on the road to realizing your dream of owning your own coffee shop.
Categories Coffee+Community | Independent Coffee Shops | Running a Coffee Shop | What's New at Crimson Cup
Sweet Aroma Coffeehouse & Bakery Brings Our Award-winning Specialty Coffee to Colchester, CT
5 More Years of Success for The Coffee Attic & Book Cellar


Juventus coach Massimiliano Allegri has revealed why he opted to drop striker Gonzalo Higuain for Saturday's 4-0 Serie A win over Torino.
The Argentine forward has scored just twice in all competitions so far this season, and was replaced by Mario Mandzukic in the starting lineup for the Derby della Mole.
But Allegri has stressed that Higuain was left out simply to provide him with a 'rest' as he looks to get back to the form that saw him score 24 league goals last campaign.
"Higuain was on the bench because there are many games and I preferred to give him a rest," Allegri told Mediaset Premium, via Goal.
"He's an important player for us, there are moments when things work better at one time than another. There will be times when everyone gets time out, otherwise we won't be able to maintain our consistency.
"I preferred to leave him out, he has already scored two goals this season and will score many more. He just needs to rediscover – or perhaps he never lost it – the calm of not feeling the need to score at all costs.
"I thank Mandzukic for his performance. I'm sure he could happily play in midfield too, he's got physicality and technique, so can do a job anywhere."
Juventus general manager Giuseppe Marotta, meanwhile, said prior to the game: "It is absolutely a technical decision, you can call it squad rotation, as the coach is aware of the capabilities of these players and chose this XI without Higuain.
"Last season Juventus had 57 competitive games, so there has to be some rotation. Higuain is not in ideal form right now, so it's only right that he is allowed to rest and recuperate, while others are given a chance."
The Bianconeri have not missed Higuain's goals, however, thanks largely to the prolific form of Paulo Dybala, who scored a brace against Torino to take his tally for the season to ten in just six league games.


Are you facing trouble while solving assignments related to aeronautics engineering? Are you not getting complicated and complex terms and concepts? Are you really looking for professional guidance? Is your assignment submission date extends most of the time due to the lack of sufficient knowledge and time? We know answer to your every question is yes. So keeping all the essential and necessary points in mind, aeronautics engineering homework help is a right podium to offer you every possible help linked to your assignments and learning. Our online working team has years of experience, extremely talented and well educated. They are known for fulfilling all their commitments they generally made on the grounds of academics and during teaching session. They belong to reputed colleges and obtained first class position during their studies in the given field. Professional's best quality is they are very prompt in solving all the queries and problems related to the respective domain. Aeronautic engineering is not a new field of study but still it demands for patience and intense concentration because without these two achieving the target seems difficult. Students too have to devote their 100% and pure devotion in learning the new concepts and techniques used in aeronautics engineering. Students and experts must work in the same direction to get the desired success. Our experts' have a quality to match their teaching level with students comprehensive and learning capabilities. Lets us now know about aeronautics engineering in detail.
In simple words, aeronautics means navigation or to indicate the right direction in the air. Aeronautics engineering is known as a science or art to study, architect and manufacture air flight supportable machinery and methods of accessing rockets and aircrafts. The division of dynamics is an important part of aeronautical science is called aerodynamics. Aeronautics engineering homework help offers best assistance to the students in aeronautics and guide them to learn the concepts systematically and as per curriculum for easy understanding and that would be beneficial for them to obtain unbeatable grades in an examination.
Aeronautics engineering homework help is a service provider who will assist you throughout your course completion and describe you in details about main domain of aeronautic engineering.
Why Aeronautics Engineering Homework Help is best?
On the grounds of trust and reliability aeronautic engineering homework help known for providing all the top quality services at very low prices. We accept on time assignments without any additional charges. We promise you to deliver assignment work without error and grammatical mistakes. Our readily available online professionals are working day and night to help you out. If you have any doubt you can mail or call us all the queries.


text:
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq;
using System.Text;
using UnityEngine;
using KSP;
using Strategies;

namespace Strategia
{
    public class AstronautTrainingProgram1 : UpgradeableStrategy { }
    public class AstronautTrainingProgram2 : UpgradeableStrategy { }
    public class AstronautTrainingProgram3 : UpgradeableStrategy { }
    public class SlotMachine1 : UpgradeableStrategy { }
    public class SlotMachine2 : UpgradeableStrategy { }
    public class SlotMachine3 : UpgradeableStrategy { }
    public class TechStagnation1 : UpgradeableStrategy { }
    public class TechStagnation2 : UpgradeableStrategy { }
    public class TechStagnation3 : UpgradeableStrategy { }
    public class EngineerFocus1 : UpgradeableStrategy { }
    public class EngineerFocus2 : UpgradeableStrategy { }
    public class EngineerFocus3 : UpgradeableStrategy { }
    public class PilotFocus1 : UpgradeableStrategy { }
    public class PilotFocus2 : UpgradeableStrategy { }
    public class PilotFocus3 : UpgradeableStrategy { }
    public class ScientistFocus1 : UpgradeableStrategy { }
    public class ScientistFocus2 : UpgradeableStrategy { }
    public class ScientistFocus3 : UpgradeableStrategy { }
    public class ImpactorProbes : UpgradeableStrategy { }
    public class FlyByProbes : UpgradeableStrategy { }
    public class BoldlyGo1 : UpgradeableStrategy { }
    public class BoldlyGo2 : UpgradeableStrategy { }
    public class BoldlyGo3 : UpgradeableStrategy { }
    public class ProbeFrenzy1 : UpgradeableStrategy { }
    public class ProbeFrenzy2 : UpgradeableStrategy { }
    public class ProbeFrenzy3 : UpgradeableStrategy { }
    public class MediaCircus1 : UpgradeableStrategy { }
    public class MediaCircus2 : UpgradeableStrategy { }
    public class MediaCircus3 : UpgradeableStrategy { }
    public class MassiveLaunches1 : UpgradeableStrategy { }
    public class MassiveLaunches2 : UpgradeableStrategy { }
    public class MassiveLaunches3 : UpgradeableStrategy { }
    public class LocalScience1 : UpgradeableStrategy { }
    public class LocalScience2 : UpgradeableStrategy { }
    public class LocalScience3 : UpgradeableStrategy { }
    public class FreeIceCream1 : UpgradeableStrategy { }
    public class FreeIceCream2 : UpgradeableStrategy { }
    public class FreeIceCream3 : UpgradeableStrategy { }
}


Happy 1st of January everyone! For the New Year, we have made a YouTube Channel to post video for your enjoyment. Our first series "Inside the Psyche" will be releasing January 4th. "Inside the Psyche" is a series of short videos with the goal of exploring the psyche through philosophical exploration. For more details, below is the trailer for the channel. Hope to see you on the 4th.


text:
Action on Management Issues
Home»Reports of the...»Reports of the...»Chief Executives Board...»Second Regular Session...»Action on Management...
Action source
Agenda Item
Administrative relationships
International Civil Service Commission (ICSC)
Compensation Review
The Chair of the High-level Committee on Management, Francis Gurry, introduced the report of the Committee on its twenty-sixth session, held on 10 and 11 October at the United Nations Office at Geneva. The twenty-sixth session of the Committee was primarily focused on how the Committee is translating into action the strategic priorities included in its strategic plan for 2013-2016, which the Committee adopted and the Board endorsed at their first regular sessions in 2013.
The Chair of the Committee focused his briefing on the work of the Committee in the area of human resources management. Among the current top priorities for the Committee, one key priority is to engage in a dialogue with the International Civil Service Commission (ICSC) in the context of its review of the conditions of service for United Nations system staff, with the aim of developing a proposal for a competitive and simplified compensation package that enables organizations to attract and retain staff of the highest calibre and reduces transaction costs.
In the ensuing discussion, Jose Graziano da Silva stressed the vital need for containment of staff costs, which represent 75 per cent of the regular programme of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). He also emphasized the need for more flexibility and discretion for executive heads to tailor the compensation package for specific purposes, especially to encourage staff mobility, and to maintain staff in the most difficult field duty stations. Finally, he expressed the wish that the current compensation package review would lead to a system that is extensively simplified and less expensive to administer.
The Secretary-General thanked the Chair of the Committee for his briefing, noted that the concerns expressed by the Director-General of FAO were fully shared and acknowledged the letter received from the Geneva group, noting the words of appreciation by the Member States towards the work of the Committee in promoting a more joined-up approach to change across the United Nations system and in finding efficiency savings while improving delivery.
The Board took note of progress and endorsed the conclusions of the High-level Committee on Management at its twenty-sixth session (CEB/2013/5), and adopted the CEB statement on the ICSC review of the common system compensation package (see annex II).
Annual Overview Report (June 2003, Geneva)
Annual Overview Report (June 2004, New York)
CEB: Agreement - 19 December 1946 - English
CEB: Annual Overview Report (July 1999, Geneva)
CEB: Annual Overview Report (July 2000, New York)
Navigate content related to Action on Management Issues:
CEB: ACC Statement on the Implementation of General Assembly Resolution 53/192 (12 March 1999)
CEB: Action from dialogue with ICSC and staff representatives
HLCP: Action on Enhancing the contribution of the UN System to ECOSOC
CEB: Action on Follow-up to the report of the High-level Panel on the Strengthening of the International Civil Service
HLCM: Action on New UN System Compensation Package & MAS65: conclusions of the intergovernmental discussion, implementation plans, and launch of the new phase of the review – for National Professional Officer and the General Service and related categories


text:
Getting hit for six.
Lao Tzu	2021, Abstract, Creative, Life, Poetry/Prose, Sort By Year	 Jan 7, 2021 1 Minute
Have you ever just been hit for six? You know, like in cricket… but not in cricket? Like your life force just left your body and went walkabout; like your chin snapped around and right back: knock out. The most ordinary of circumstances, energised with something. That something that really leaves you feeling hit for 6, like you just scored the game winning goal, like you've just saved the day. That overwhelming feeling, the sense that you did good, or that good did something to you.
Shieeeet. It's just like that, huh? Gut punch, feels like a gutter-stomp: that's the rollercoaster of emotions, baby. And yet, nothing material has come to be. It's all in your head, or heart; nonetheless, you're making no sense. Present tense, gotta stay here and now, but. But, you feel yourself being whisked away, caught off guard.
Scramble thoughts, scrambled eggs… is there really a difference? Action no action, Wu Wei, just like Lao Tzu said. Presence in the present tense: a present for a reason. Breathe.
off guard
Published by Lao Tzu
I'm a man who is trying to improve the world. I know this is an arduous task, however, broken down logically it isn't so complicated. The world is made up of individual humans. Change a human, change a part of the world. Start with yourself.	View all posts by Lao Tzu
Previous Post Becoming pregnant.
Next Post To live, is to die.


text:
Community Response to COVID-19
Healthy Brown
Visitor and Guest Vaccination Requirement FAQ
Healthy Brown Home
Campus Activity Status
Messages to the Community
Brown is providing regular updates to questions about the COVID-19 vaccination requirements for visitors and guests arriving at Brown.
COVID-19 Vaccination FAQ for Visitors and Guests
What type of visitors and guests are required by Brown to be up to date with COVID-19 vaccinations?
Long-term and short-term visitors are required to provide documentation or attest to being up to date with COVID-19 vaccinations; limited-duration visitors are not.
Who is a long-term visitor?
Long-term visitors (e.g., researchers, visiting faculty) are on campus usually for a semester or more, although sometimes for shorter periods of time, and typically have an appointment in Workday. These visitors are required to upload documentation of being up to date with COVID-19 vaccinations into Workday prior to beginning work at Brown, in a similar manner to faculty and staff. Requests for exemption from the up to date vaccination requirement from long-term visitors will not be considered; if these visitors are not up to date with their vaccinations against COVID-19, they must engage with the University virtually. However, if the visitor is an individual with a disability, the individual may seek a reasonable accommodation by contacting Broadspire. See the Employee Accommodation Services webpage for more information.
Who is a short-term visitor?
Short-term visitors are those who visit campus four full days or more over the course of a month. They are required to sign an on-line University up to date vaccination attestation form that will be provided to visitors after their host department initiates the attestation form process by entering the visitor's information via this form (login required). Requests for exemption from the vaccination requirement from short-term visitors will not be considered; if these visitors are not up to date with their vaccinations against COVID-19, they must engage with the University virtually. However, if the visitor is an individual with a disability, the individual may seek a reasonable accommodation by contacting Broadspire. See the Employee Accommodation Services webpage for more information.
Short-term visitors must abide by the COVID-19 Campus Safety Policy and any requirements specific to the facility or program they are visiting (e.g., health care or medical research settings with indoor mask requirements). Examples of short-term visitors include:
regular external users of core research facilities;
skills-based practitioners (e.g., visiting artists working with students and others for limited periods of time);
prospective students (and family members) and prospective faculty or staff visiting the campus for tours, interviews or recruiting visits lasting more than three days;
participants attending day and residential summer Sports Camps;
RISD faculty and staff who wish to access the Brown University Library or Brown Athletic Facilities and Programs regardless of the number of times they access those facilities;
consultants on long-term sustained engagements.
Who is a limited-duration visitor?
Limited-duration visitors are those who visit campus three days per month or less. Limited-duration visitors are generally not required to sign an up to date vaccination attestation form; they must abide by the COVID-19 Campus Safety Policy and any requirements specific to the facility or program they are visiting (e.g., health care or medical research settings with indoor mask requirements). Limited-duration visitors must comply with current University policy regarding face masks and coverings (see the University's COVID-19 Campus Activity Status page for the current policy for both vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals). Examples of limited-duration visitors include:
guests attending a lecture, performance, conference, event, campus tour or athletic competition;
prospective students (and family members) and prospective faculty and staff visiting the campus for less than three days;
all human subject research participants coming to campus for research participation regardless of the duration of their interaction with the Brown community;
visitors consulting library, art and material culture collections, or viewing exhibitions, gallery displays and cultural points of interest on campus.
What type of a visitor is a human subject participant whose participation involves coming to campus?
Human subject participants who are required to come to campus for their participation are always considered limited-duration visitors regardless of whether they fall within the short-term or limited-duration categories. (Research participants engaging with the Brown community solely for research participation should not be long-term visitors.) Therefore, they are not required to prove or attest to up to date vaccination status. Participation in such programs is typically for limited periods of time in highly structured and supervised environments. These participants must abide by the COVID-19 Campus Safety Policy and any requirements specific to the facility or program they are visiting (e.g., health care or medical research settings with indoor mask requirements), in addition to current University policy regarding face masks and coverings (see the University's COVID-19 Campus Activity Status page for the current policy for both vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals). Researchers who have questions about requirements relevant to participants should email visitors@brown.edu.
What if I don't know how to categorize my visitor's duration?
Please read the descriptions in the questions above. If you still have questions regarding whether a visitor is long-term, short-term or limited-duration, those questions can be directed to visitors@brown.edu.
For long-term and short-term visitors, what vaccinations are accepted by Brown?
The University accepts FDA and WHO recognized COVID-19 vaccines and boosters. Three COVID-19 vaccinations have been granted Emergency Use Authorization by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA): Moderna, Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson. Any of the three are acceptable for long-term and short-term visitors to satisfy the up to date with COVID-19 vaccination requirement. In addition, for those who may be receiving vaccinations outside of the U.S., the University will accept COVID-19 vaccines for which the World Health Organization has issued an Emergency Use Listing (WHO EUL).
What does being up to date with COVID-19 vaccinations mean?
An individual is up to date with the vaccinations against COVID-19 when they have received all recommended COVID-19 vaccines, including any booster dose(s) when eligible. For example, an individual is up to date when they have received a full course of a U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or World Health Organization (WHO) authorized COVID-19 vaccine, and any booster dose(s) when eligible.
Are campus tour participants required to show proof of vaccination?
No, campus tour participants are limited-duration visitors and are not required to submit proof of or attest to vaccination status. They must comply with all guidance and direction from tour guides, including mask wearing protocols and policies in effect at the time of the tour (see the University's COVID-19 Campus Activity Status page for the current policy for both vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals).
Are guest lecturers, performers or athletes and/or audience members and spectators at a lecture, performance, athletic competition or similar event required to show proof of or attest to vaccination?
No, guest lecturers, performers and audience members visiting for a single lecture, performance, event or similar activity are limited-duration visitors and are not required to show proof of or attest to vaccination status. They must comply with all guidance and direction from event hosts, including mask wearing protocols and policies in effect at the time of the event.
Are vendors and contractors working at Brown required to be up to date with their COVID-19 vaccinations?
The University's COVID-19 policies and protocols for vendors and contractors are available on the Strategic Purchasing, Contracts and Insurance website: Conducting Business with Brown University page. Similar to long-term and short-term visitors, vendors whose level of engagement with the Brown campus require being up to date with their COVID-19 vaccinations (e.g., sustained and consistent in-person contact) must attest that their employees are up to date. Vendors and contractors in this category will be notified by the University about the process. Questions regarding these requirements should be directed to Purchasing@Brown.edu.
Are RISD students, faculty and staff allowed on the Brown campus?
RISD students are required to be vaccinated against COVID-19 and may access as normally allowed facilities and programs on both campuses with their Brown or RISD identification card and without further documentation or proof of vaccination.
RISD faculty and staff are strongly encouraged but not required to be vaccinated against COVID-19. Brown and RISD have entered into an agreement for the Fall 2021 semester to govern RISD faculty and staff access to Brown facilities and programs following the policy in place for Brown visitors and guests. RISD faculty and staff who qualify as short term visitors (four or more days a month) must complete a vaccination attestation form initiated by the Brown department serving as their host. RISD faculty and staff who are limited-duration visitors do not have to complete the form. RISD faculty and staff who wish to access the Brown University Library or Brown Athletic Facilities and Programs are considered short-term visitors regardless of the number of times they access those facilities and are required to complete a vaccination attestation form (and be 14 days past their final dose) prior to the first visit and before an access card will be issued.
What are the responsibilities of host departments for visitors and guests?
Host departments are responsible for their visitors and guests, including ensuring that they are aware of and comply with the University's COVID-19 Campus Safety Policy and all relevant health and safety protocols.
The requirement in the COVID-19 Campus Safety Policy that visitors who are engaged in any sustained and consistent in-person contact with other Brown employees, students or visitors are required to be up to date with COVID-19 vaccines will remain in place through the 2022-23 academic year; however, the centralized visitor and guest vaccination attestation process the University used this past year for short-term visitors ended in June 2022. Brown proactively arranged with departments and programs with large numbers of short-term visitors and guests to use the approved attestation form language in their standard registration and enrollment processes as needed next year.
Departments that may be interested in following a similar process for multi-day conferences, large events, or other similar programs or activities can contact visitors@brown.edu to inquire about doing so.
I have a question about visitors and guests that is not answered here. Who do I ask?
Departments and members of the Brown community with additional questions regarding visitors and guests related to COVID-19 should send an email to visitors@brown.edu.
Last updated Sept. 1, 2022. Information on this page may be updated as the University's planning evolves and/or public health guidance prompts a shift in Brown's operations and protocols.
Open details for Visitor and Guest Vaccination Requirement FAQ