text:
CFP: The Law And Unnatural Disasters: Legal Adaptations To Climate Change
This just in:
The University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review is pleased to announce a call for papers for its 2018 Symposium, "The Law and Unnatural Disasters: Legal Adaptations to Climate Change," to be held on Friday, February 16, 2018.
The United States has experienced literally hundreds of weather disasters with damage over $1 billion since 1980, and the number of billion-dollar-plus weather related disasters has risen from an average of two per year in the 1980s to an annual average of 10.6 for the 2012 to 2016 period. And although these figures capture much of the direct economic costs of disasters, they fail to reflect indirect and non-economic costs like loss of life, displacement, and community disruption. The market has not spawned robust adaptation; development subsidized by federal insurance continues in vulnerable areas. Nor does any coherent body of law exist in the United States at either the federal or state level that is aimed at reducing vulnerability to climate change.
This perfect storm of market and law failure presents a timely opportunity for scholars and practitioners to contribute to the discourse on climate change adaptation lawmaking in the United States. Potential areas ripe for scholarly examination include but are not limited to (1) adaptation issues specific to vulnerable regions or sectors, such as the southern United States, or agriculture and forestry; (2) obstacles local or state governments face with respect to adaptation lawmaking, and strategies for overcoming these obstacles; (3) mechanisms by which local, state or federal lawmaking can facilitate adaptive as opposed to maladaptive development; (4) the state of the law with respect to NEPA and consideration of effects of future climate change on proposed actions; (5) the use of land use controls to facilitate adaptive development, including, for example, condemnation, development moratoria and rolling easements; (6) "retreat" as an adaptation strategy; (7) liability of government entities for failure to adapt or negligent adaptation; and (8) takings liability jurisprudence with respect to temporary takings or negligent adaptation.
The University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review will publish articles from the symposium in an issue of volume 40 slated for release in the fall of 2018. We encourage all interested potential authors to respond. Authors should submit an abstract and a cover letter to Camille Neemann, Symposium Editor, at cmneemann@ualr.edu. The deadline for submissions of article proposals is October 2, 2017; completed articles will be due at the time of the symposium in February. Please feel free to email Ms. Neemann with any questions.
Posted by Dan Filler at 05:01 AM in Calls for Papers | Permalink | Comments (1)
CFP: Feminist Legal Theory Collaborative Research Network at Law and Society 2018
From this year's organizers of the FLT Collaborative Research Network at Law and Society:
Feminist Legal Theory Collaborative Research Network at the Law and Society Annual Meeting (Toronto in June 2018) Call for Papers – Sunday September 17 Deadline for Proposals
We invite you to submit a proposal to participate in the panels sponsored by the Feminist Legal Theory Collaborative Research Network at the Law and Society Annual Meeting in Toronto in June 2018. The Feminist Legal Theory CRN brings together law and society scholars across a range of fields who share an interest in feminist legal theory. This year's meeting invites us to explore LAW AT THE CROSSROADS/LE DROIT A LA CROISÉE DES CHEMINS. We seek proposals that explore the application of feminist legal theory to this rich theme, across any substantive area. If you would like to propose a paper for inclusion in a CRN panel, please submit a 500 word abstract by September 17, 2017. For more information and to submit your abstract, please visit here. Information about the larger Law and Society meeting is available here.
My own experience is that this is a welcoming and diverse group, so if you are working on a piece with a feminist angle, definitely consider participation in the Feminist Legal Theory Collaborative Research Network.
Posted by Bridget Crawford at 06:51 PM in Calls for Papers | Permalink | Comments (0)
CFP: Artificial Intelligence And The Practice Of Law
Call for Papers: Artificial Intelligence and the Practice of Law
The South Carolina Law Review will host its 2018 Symposium on February 9, 2018, at the University of South Carolina School of Law.
The symposium will focus on "Artificial Intelligence and the Practice of Law" and will specifically examine the implications of artificial intelligence on the practice of law, legal professionalism, and legal ethics. The practice of law will change dramatically in the coming years, and the advent of programs such as Ross Intelligence, IBM's Watson Intelligence, LexMachina, and Codex will potentially reshape the future of the legal profession.
The future of artificial intelligence and its effect on the law is certain to impact the legal job market. However, potential job losses may be offset by growth in legal tech jobs. How will this shape the legal marketplace across the country? How can law firms ensure they will stay afloat through this dramatic shift in the everyday practice of law? How will this new high tech legal market change the manner in which lawyers provide services to clients? These issues and more will be addressed during the South Carolina Law Review's 2018 Symposium.
The South Carolina Law Review seeks thoughtful, insightful, and original papers addressing the broad range of topics related to Artificial Intelligence and the Practice of Law. Interested authors should submit a 500-word abstract to symposium@sclawreview.org with the subject line "A.I. and the Law" by September 30, 2017, for consideration. Interdisciplinary works are welcome from academic professors or legal practitioners. If selected, a completed paper (6,000–18,000 words) will be due to the South Carolina Law Review Editorial Board by January 1, 2018.
Contact: symposium@sclawreview.org (cc: submissions@sclawreview.org)
AALS CFP: Structural Facilitation Of Property Markets
The Section on Property Law is pleased to announce a Call for Papers from which at least
one presenter will be selected as a panelist for the Section's program to be held during the AALS
2018 Annual Meeting in San Diego on Thursday, January 4, 2018 from 10:30 a.m. to 12:15 p.m.
Topic Description:
A variety of legal doctrines, systems, and institutions have emerged
over time to facilitate the effective operation of markets in property by adding
value to property assets, adding certainty to and streamlining the process of
property transactions, adding accessibility to property, or otherwise proving
greater security for property rights. At other times, informal norms may
emerge to accomplish similar aims.
These structural facilitators are, indeed, sometimes features of the
property system itself (component parts of its governance) and at other times
operate outside but ancillary to the system. Some of these arise spontaneously
by market demands while other elements of the property law infrastructure
may or may not be possible only by means of government intervention in the
Some facilitators are deliberately designed to benefit the property
system, while others simply have that effect. Some are arguably designed to
enlarge "freedom" while others could be described as restricting "freedom" in
order to save it, i.e. intentionally placing limits on autonomy to enhance the
value of the property rights that remain.
Examples of such facilitators that may be discussed by the panelists
include: information systems like recording regimes or registries; traceability
mechanisms like blockchain technology; content limits like the numerus
clausus principle; fairness, equality, and anti-discrimination principles geared
toward enlarging property ownership markets; prohibitions on certain
restraints on alienation; or at other time restraints on alienation like with
fraudulent conveyancing doctrines. Land use and public law systems
themselves create a legal infrastructure designed to facilitate property
ownership or to manage property conflicts. Other examples of facilitating
industries or polices could include: big data; financial markets; banks and real
estate financing; brokers; title and other insurance; and tax preferences,
among others.
Continue reading "AALS CFP: Structural Facilitation Of Property Markets" »
Posted by Dan Filler at 06:27 AM in AALS , Calls for Papers | Permalink | Comments (0)
AALS CFP: Legal Implications of Social and Political Activism in Sports
AALS Section on Law and Sports Co-sponsored by the AALS Section on Contracts
When QB Colin Kaepernick kneeled during the national anthem at NFL games during the 2016 football season, he quickly became a symbol of a renewed era of athlete activism, triggering collegiate and professional athlete activists across the country to join demonstrations and sparking national conversations about racism and police brutality. But athlete activism is much broader, extending to philanthropic work such as NFL wide receiver Brandon Marshall's efforts to spread mental health awareness and Lebron James' funding of college scholarships for inner-city youth. Professional athletes' willingness to take public stands on political and social issues is reflected and reinforced by sports entities' social responsibility initiatives. For example, the NCAA relocated men's basketball championship games out of North Carolina in response to a state law that curbed anti-discrimination protections for transgender people. Most sports leagues and governing bodies regularly participate in socially responsible causes.
In short, the sports industry has adapted the tenets of corporate social responsibility to fit its uniquely visible profile and serve its communities. Consequently, a constant stream of information can be found in news reports that showcase league, team and player efforts to make sports healthier and safer at all levels, improve literacy, create and fill jobs, address gender and racial inequalities, fight disease and poverty, prevent substantive abuse, address domestic violence, and clean up the environment. However, in staking out positions on political, social, and health questions, sports industry participants face legal ramifications and risk.
This program examines both public and private law issues that arise whenever individuals and organizations among the complex network of relationships that define the sports industry try to make socially responsible choices or engage in social or political activism. For example, public expression from professional athletes may be circumscribed by their collective bargaining agreements and league/team personal conduct codes. Morality clauses in endorsement contracts may be triggered by an athlete's statements or actions. The ability of leagues to implement their social responsibility programs is heavily affected by the buy-in of their constituent teams. Athletes and other sports entities may require reverse morality clauses to ensure their rights to disassociate from corporate relationships when company conduct leads to public opprobrium. First Amendment considerations must be reconciled with contractual obligations.
The program will include a speaker selected from this Call for Papers. The selected author will participate in the Section's annual program on Thursday, January 4, 2017 from 10:30 a.m.-12:15 p.m. in San Diego, California. Only full-time faculty from AALS member institutions are eligible to submit papers. Authors must rely on their own institutions for funding to attend the conference.
The Journal of Legal Aspects of Sports will consider proposals submitted in response to this Call for Papers for inclusion in a Special Issue on Athlete Activism and Sports Industry Social Responsibility scheduled for publication in August 2018 and guest edited by Professors Arthur Miller (NYU Law) and Jodi Balsam (Brooklyn Law).
The deadline to submit a draft paper or abstract is Monday, August 21, 2017. Please e-mail your submission to Professor Ettie Ward, Chair of the Section on Law and Sports, at warde@stjohns.edu. Members of the Section's Executive Committee will review submissions and communicate decisions by late September 2017.
AALS CFP: Legal Competency at the Crossroads: Mental Disability & Family Law
Co-Sponsored by the AALS Sections on Disability Law, Family and Juvenile Law, and Law, Medicine, and Health Care
Legal competency, the law's recognition of an individual's personhood and agency, represents a conceptual cornerstone for law and mental disability scholars. The success of the disability rights movements in fostering greater public support for economic and social rights for people with mental disabilities has generated, at least rhetorically, broader support for the law's recognition of the decisional capacity of people with mental disabilities in these areas. The scope of scholarly inquiry has expanded in recent years from curbing state encroachment in private decision-making to crafting positive theories of rights for people with mental disabilities in sexuality, reproduction, marriage, and parenting.
This panel seeks to bring together legal scholars across several fields to explore emerging theory and doctrine in family law for people with mental disabilities. With its emphasis on intersectionality and cross-pollination, panelists will discuss such issues as assisted reproductive technology, parental termination, and sexual access. An explicit goal of this panel is to develop a research agenda for this emerging interdisciplinary area of legal scholarship. The Family Court Review, an interdisciplinary, peer-reviewed journal, has agreed to publish the program proceedings. For more information on publication guidelines and recent issues, see http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/%28ISSN%291744-1617;jsessionid=0F04F41C5579A8C616CC83AA114B131F.d03t04.
We encourage academics at all levels and from a broad range of backgrounds including but not limited to law and mental disability, disability rights, health law, and particularly family law to submit proposals for consideration. Please e-mail your abstract to Jasmine E. Harris at jeharris@ucdavis.edu by Wednesday, August 23rd.
AALS CFP: Keeping Up With The Changing Face Of The American Family
Keeping Up with the Changing Face of the American Family
The AALS Sections on Family and Juvenile Law, Children and the Law, and Aging and the Law are pleased to announce a call for papers from which two to four presenters will be selected for the section's program at the AALS 2018 Annual Meeting in San Diego, California. We will have a joint, half-day program with two consecutive panels. The date and time of the joint program is Friday, January 5, 2018 from 9 am - 12 noon. The two panels will be divided based on general topics, such as caregiving, family formation and regulation, family dissolution, or structural legal policy impacting children, parents, the elderly or families as a whole.
Here is an overview of the panel subject matter:
The composition and structure of the American family has changed significantly in the last 65 years. From the decline of marriage and fertility to the increase in blended families, interracial relationships, and single parenthood, the face of the family is visibly different. The legalization of same sex marriage, the rise in the number of working women and fathers who share in household and childcare responsibilities, and the growing number of aging family members who need daily care has also impacted how families function. In some ways federal and state family laws precipitated these changes and opened the door for the new trends, but in other ways the law has been mired down in tradition, making it more difficult for the modern family to operate. This panel explores the ways in which family law and other related laws lie behind the curve in areas such as reproduction, custody, companionship, and caretaking. Panelists will also examine the various consequences of this gap between law and the realities of families today, as well as consider ideas and current efforts being made to close the divide.
We ask that submissions fall generally or specifically under the above topics. The papers will be published in a 2018 symposium volume of Family Law Quarterly, the scholarly journal of the American Bar Association Section on Family Law. If you are interested in submitting your paper for consideration, please send it to jdweaver@smu.edu by August 21, 2017. Please use "AALS Call for Papers Submission" as the subject line of your email. We are particularly interested in submissions from junior faculty. Papers should be no longer than 11,000 words and no more than 100 footnotes. Papers that have been accepted for publication are not eligible for consideration because panelists will be publishing their papers in the Family Law Quarterly.
A committee appointed by the section chairs will review the submitted papers and notify the authors of the selected papers by September 25, 2017. All panelists, including the panelists selected from this call for papers, are responsible for paying their own annual meeting registration fee and travel expenses. If you have any questions about the call for papers or the Family Law Quarterly symposium, please contact Jessica Weaver.
CFP: Fake News and Weaponized Defamation: Global Perspectives
The Journal of International Media & Entertainment Law (JIMEL), in association with the Southwestern Law Review and Southwestern International Law Journal, invites the submission of papers that fit within our January 26, 2018 symposium theme: Fake News and Weaponized Defamation: Global Perspectives.
The notion of "fake news" has gained great currency in global popular culture in the wake of contentious social-media imbued elections in the United States and Europe. Although often associated with the rise of extremist voices in political discourse and, specifically, an agenda to "deconstruct" the power of government, institutional media, and the scientific establishment, fake news is "new wine in old bottles," a phenomenon that has long historical roots in government propaganda, jingoistic newspapers, and business-controlled public relations. In some countries, dissemination of "false news" is a crime that is used to stifle dissent. This broad conception of fake news not only acts to repress evidence-based inquiry of government, scientists, and the press; but it also diminishes the power of populations to seek informed consensus on policies such as climate change, healthcare, race and gender equality, religious tolerance, national security, drug abuse, poverty, homophobia, and government corruption, among others.
"Weaponized defamation" refers to the increasing invocation, and increasing use, of defamation and privacy torts by people in power to threaten press investigations, despite laws protecting responsible or non-reckless reporting. In the United States, for example, some politicians, including the current president, invoke defamation as both a sword and shield. Armed with legal power that individuals—and most news organizations—cannot match, politicians and celebrities, wealthy or backed by the wealth of others, can threaten press watchdogs with resource-sapping litigation; at the same time, some leaders appear to leverage their "lawyered-up" legal teams to make knowingly false attacks—or recklessly repeat the false attacks of others—with impunity.
Continue reading "CFP: Fake News and Weaponized Defamation: Global Perspectives" »
CFP: Empirical Legal Studies Replication Conference
Claremont McKenna College's Program on Empirical Legal Studies (PELS) is pleased to announce the inaugural Empirical Legal Studies Replication Conference to be held on Friday April 27, 2018, in Claremont, California. There is a growing awareness of the importance of replication in the empirical social sciences. The creation of data repositories for published articles and the publishing of research protocols prior to estimation are becoming increasingly common (and even expected). Nevertheless replication studies remain extremely difficult to publish in scholarly journals. To advance and encourage replication studies in empirical legal studies, PELS is hosting this replication conference and papers accepted to the conference will be published in a special section of the International Review of Law and Economics.
We are currently soliciting proposals that detail a plan to replicate an important study in law and economics/empirical legal studies. Although we welcome submissions generally, we strongly encourage proposals from teams consisting of a faculty member and one or more graduate students, in recognition of the fact that replication studies are also an excellent form of pedagogy. Proposals should be 4-5 pages in length and must include details on how the authors propose to proceed, including a plain for obtaining the data necessary for the replication (e.g., is the data publicly available, or has the author of the study to be replicated provided them the data?). We would also welcome (but do not require) additional details on ways the authors might plan to extend the study (e.g., by conducting the original estimation using different time periods, different jurisdictions, or other estimation techniques).
Proposed replication studies will be judged on how important the paper is to law and economics/empirical legal studies and the tractability of the proposed replication. Authors of accepted proposals must commit to attending the conference. In general, graduate student authors will present their own papers, and their faculty co-authors will serve as discussants on another paper presented at the conference. PELS will reimburse up to one graduate student and one faculty member for accommodations and reasonable travel costs. Please email inquiries and proposals to Eric Helland at ehelland@cmc.edu.
Deadline October 15, 2017
Empirical Legal Studies Replication Conference Program Committee: Eric Helland, Claremont McKenna College, David Bjerk, Claremont McKenna College, Dan Klerman, USC Law School, JJ Prescott, University of Michigan Law School and Eric Talley, Columbia Law School.
AALS CFP: Professional Responsibility 2018 Works In Progress
AALS Section on Professional Responsibility Call for Papers – 2018 AALS Annual Meeting
The AALS Section on Professional Responsibility invites papers for its program "Professional Responsibility 2018 Works in Progress Workshop" at the AALS Annual Meeting in San Diego. Two papers will be selected from those submitted.
This workshop will be an opportunity to test ideas, work out issues in drafts and interrogate a paper prior to submission. It will pair each work in progress scholar with a more senior scholar in the field who will lead a discussion of the piece and provide feedback. Successful papers should engage with scholarly literature and make a meaningful original contribution to the field or professional responsibility or legal ethics.
Full-time faculty members of AALS member law schools are eligible to submit papers. Preference will be given to junior scholars focusing their work in the area of professional responsibility and legal ethics. Pursuant to AALS rules, faculty at fee-paid law schools, foreign faculty, adjunct and visiting faculty (without a full-time position at an AALS member law school), graduate students, fellows, and non-law school faculty are not eligible to submit. Please note that all faculty members presenting at the program are responsible for paying their own annual meeting registration fee and travel expenses.
PAPER SUBMISSION PROCEDURE:
Two papers will be selected by the Section's Executive Committee for presentation at the AALS annual meeting.
There is no formal requirement as to the form or length of proposals. However, the presenter is expected to have a draft for commentators one month prior to the beginning of the AALS conference.
The paper MUST be a work in progress and cannot be published at the time of presentation. It may, however have been accepted for publication and be forthcoming.
Please email submissions to Ben Edwards, Associate Professor, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, William S. Boyd School of Law, at ben.edwards.unlv@gmail.com on or before September 30, 2017. The title of the email submission should read: "Submission – 2018 AALS Section on Professional Responsibility."
AALS CFP: New Voices In Legislation
AALS Call for Papers: "New Voices in Legislation"
AALS 2018 Annual Meeting
The AALS Section on Legislation & Law of the Political Process is pleased to announce that it will host a "New Voices in Legislation" program during the 2018 AALS Annual Meeting in San Diego, CA. This works-in-progress program will bring together junior and senior scholars in the field of legislation for the purpose of providing the junior scholars with feedback and guidance on their draft articles. Scholars whose papers are selected will present their work in small panel sessions. A senior scholar will moderate each panel and lead discussion about the draft article.
Eligibility: The New Voices Program will be open to full-time faculty members from AALS member schools who are untenured or have been tenured for two years or less. All scholars, whether or not presenting a paper or moderating a discussion, are welcome to attend the program and participate in discussions.
Submission Requirements: Submissions should be drafts of articles relating to legislation and the law of the political process, including articles related to legislative structure, the legislative process, the budget process, statutory interpretation, and deliberation. Submissions should be near completion and should not exceed 30,000 words, including footnotes. The purpose of the program is to provide junior scholars with feedback that can be incorporated into their works-in-progress; as a result, articles are ineligible for the program if they are expected to be in print at the time of the program in January 2018. However, articles that already have been submitted to journals for publication, and accepted for publication, are not ineligible for this reason.
Submission Process: To be considered for participation in the program, please email a copy of the paper and abstract to Evan Zoldan, evan.zoldan@utoledo.edu by Sunday, October 1, 2017. Selected participants will be notified in early November 2017. Final drafts of those who are selected must be submitted by December 15, 2017.
Senior Scholars: If you are interested is serving as a commentator for one of the junior papers, please contact Evan Zoldan, evan.zoldan@utoledo.edu.
CFP: Beyond Disadvantage: Disability, Law and Bioethics
"Congress acknowledged that society's accumulated myths and fears about disability and disease are as handicapping as are the physical limitations that flow from actual impairment." Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., School Bd. of Nassau, Fl. v. Arline, 480 U.S. 273 (1973).
The Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics at Harvard Law School is pleased to announce plans for our 2018 annual conference, entitled: "Beyond Disadvantage: Disability, Law, and Bioethics." This year's conference is organized in collaboration with the Harvard Law School Project on Disability.
Conference Description
Historically and across societies people with disabilities have been stigmatized and excluded from social opportunities on a variety of culturally specific grounds. These justifications include assertions that people with disabilities are biologically defective, less than capable, costly, suffering, or fundamentally inappropriate for social inclusion. Rethinking the idea of disability so as to detach being disabled from inescapable disadvantage has been considered a key to twenty-first century reconstruction of how disablement is best understood.
Such 'destigmatizing' has prompted hot contestation about disability. Bioethicists in the 'destigmatizing' camp have lined up to present non-normative accounts, ranging from modest to audacious, that characterize disablement as "mere difference" or in other neutral terms. The arguments for their approach range from applications of standards for epistemic justice to insights provided by evolutionary biology. Conversely, other bioethicists vehemently reject such non-normative or "mere difference" accounts, arguing instead for a "bad difference" stance. "Bad difference" proponents contend that our strongest intuitions make us weigh disability negatively. Furthermore, they warn, destigmatizing disability could be dangerous because social support for medical programs that prevent or cure disability is predicated on disability's being a condition that it is rational to avoid. Construing disability as normatively neutral thus could undermine the premises for resource support, access priorities, and cultural mores on which the practice of medicine depends.
Continue reading "CFP: Beyond Disadvantage: Disability, Law and Bioethics" »
CFP - Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Torts Opinions
DEADLINE: Friday August 25, 2017
The U.S. Feminist Judgments Project seeks contributors of judicial opinions rewritten to reflect a feminist perspective, and commentaries on the cases and rewritten opinions, for an edited book collection tentatively titled Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Torts Opinions. This edited volume is part of a collaborative project among law professors and others to rewrite, from a feminist perspective, key judicial decisions in the United States. The initial volume, Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Opinions of the United States Supreme Court, edited by Kathryn M. Stanchi, Linda L. Berger, and Bridget J. Crawford, was published in 2016 by Cambridge University Press. Subsequent volumes in the series will focus on different areas of law and will be under review by Cambridge.
Torts volume editors Lucinda Finley and Martha Chamallas seek prospective authors for fourteen to sixteen torts opinions covering many major topics in tort law. The editors have selected the cases with an eye towards issues and injuries of particular salience to women's lives, and with insights from feminist torts scholarship and input from leading torts scholars. Potential authors are welcome to suggest other opinions that they would like to address, but the overall number of cases finally included in the volume must remain limited.
View the full call here.
Symposium CFP: HUD's Past, Present and Future
University of Detroit Mercy School of Law seeks proposals from scholars, practitioners and housing advocates interested in participating in its fall interdisciplinary symposium, entitled HUD's Past, Present and Future which will take place November 13 and 14, 2017. Proposals are due August 15. Download the symposium CFP here.
CFP: AALS Section on Law & Religion Award for Excellence in Scholarship
The AALS Section on Law & Religion is once again soliciting papers for consideration for its annual Award for Excellence in Scholarship, to be given at the AALS Annual Meeting next January. All fellows at AALS Member Schools, as well as faculty members with ten years or less experience as faculty members, are eligible. The award is given annually to a paper either published or to be published by July 15 of this year, that has made an outstanding scholarly contribution to the field of law and religion.
Any faculty member at an AALS member school can nominate up to one paper for the award. Nominations should be sent directly to Professor Haider Ala Hamoudi (hamoudi@pitt.edu) as Chair of the Prize Committee. Nominations must be received by August 15.
Haider Ala Hamoudi, Chair, Prize Committee
Professor Of Law
University Of Pittsburgh School Of Law
Hamoudi@Pitt.Edu
Robin Fretwell Wilson, Chair, Law & Religion Section
Roger and Stephany Joslin Professor of Law
504 East Pennsylvania Avenue
Champaign, Illinois 61820
217.244.1227 (office)
wils@illinois.edu
Posted by Bridget Crawford at 10:59 AM in AALS , Calls for Papers, Religion | Permalink | Comments (0)
Call for Authors - Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Family Law Opinions
DEADLINE: FRIDAY, JULY 21, 2017
The U.S. Feminist Judgments Project seeks contributors of rewritten judicial opinions and commentaries for an edited collection tentatively titled, Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Family Law Opinions. This edited volume is part of a collaborative project among law professors and others to rewrite, from a feminist perspective, key judicial decisions in the United States. The initial volume, Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Opinions of the United States Supreme Court, edited by Kathryn M. Stanchi, Linda L. Berger, and Bridget J. Crawford, was published in 2016 by Cambridge University Press. Subsequent volumes in the series will focus on different areas of law and will be under review by Cambridge.
Volume editor Rachel Rebouché seeks prospective authors for twelve to fifteen rewritten family law opinions covering a range of topics. With the assistance of an advisory panel of distinguished family law scholars, the editor has selected decisions that have not appeared in other Feminist Judgment volumes. Potential authors are welcome to suggest other opinions, but given certain constraints, the list of cases will likely remain the same. The list of selected cases, a description of the process of selecting decisions, and the opinions considered but not included, are on the application website here.
Proposals must be to either (1) rewrite an opinion (subject to a 10,000-word limit) or (2) comment on a rewritten opinion (4,000-word limit). Rewritten decisions may be majority opinions, dissents, or concurrences. Authors of rewritten opinions should abide by the law and precedent in effect at the time of the original decision. Commentators should explain the original court decision, how the feminist judgment differs from the original judgment, and what difference a feminist judgment might have made. The volume editor conceives of feminism broadly and invites applications that seek to advance, complicate, or critique feminist ideas and advocacy.
Those who are interested in rewriting an opinion or providing commentary should complete the form found here.
Applications are due no later than Friday, July 21, 2017. The editor will notify accepted authors and commentators by Monday, July 31, 2017. First drafts of rewritten opinions will be due on Friday, February 2, 2018. First drafts of commentaries will be due on Friday, March 9, 2018.
If you have any questions, please contact Rachel Rebouché at rebouche@temple.edu.
Posted by Bridget Crawford at 03:06 PM in Calls for Papers, Family Law, Gender | Permalink | Comments (0)
CFP: Special Jurisdictions Within And Outside the United States
Chapman Law Review Symposium 2018: Special Jurisdictions Within and Outside the United States
Countries across the world have sought to encourage growth by creating Special Economic Zones (SEZs) that
operate under different rules from the surrounding area. In the United States, these take the form of Foreign
Trade Zones (FTZs)--secure areas located in or near its ports of entry, such as harbors or airports, but outside of
its customs or duties territory, legally speaking. Despite the growing popularity of such zones, however, and
their unusual features, they have largely escaped the attention of legal scholars.
How do SEZs fit within conventional models of state authority? Does the extra-territorial status of U.S. FTZs,
and their special tax statute, raise constitutional issues? Should the United States reconsider the growing
popularity of FTZs or leverage their success to create new and even more comprehensive special jurisdictions?
The Chapman Law Review will explore these and other related questions at our next symposium on January
26, 2018, to be held at the Chapman University Dale E. Fowler School of Law in Orange, California. We invite
interested scholars and practitioners to submit abstracts for articles to present at the symposium on the topic of
the special jurisdictions within and outside of the United States, Foreign Trade Zones, the impact on domestic
and international trade, and legal implications of these zones.
We are looking for papers between 10,000 and 15,000 words. If you would like to apply to participate in the Symposium, please submit an abstract of no more than 500 words by June 26 2017. The deadline for the completed paper will likely be in October 2017.
Selected papers will be published in a special issue of the Chapman Law Review in sometime in June 2018, and the authors will participate in the 2018 Chapman LawReview Symposium on Friday, January 26, 2018. If you have questions about the Symposium, please contactCindy Park, Senior Symposium Editor, at park312@mail.chapman.edu.
CFP: Northeast Privacy Scholars Workshop
Call for Papers for the Inaugural Northeast Privacy Scholars Workshop
October 20, 2017 at New York Law School
Abstracts/Applications to have a paper workshopped due August 20, 2017
Papers due September 20, 2017
We are excited to announce this Call for Papers for the inaugural Northeast Privacy Scholars Workshop, to be held at New York Law School, 185 West Broadway, New York, New York on October 20, 2017.
Jointly sponsored and organized by the Innovation Center for Law and Technology at New York Law School and the Center on Law and Information Policy at Fordham Law School, the Workshop offers privacy scholars from diverse fields the opportunity to receive extensive, constructive commentary on their works in progress.
We invite submissions on a variety of privacy-related topics and from a wide range of disciplines, including, but not limited to, law, social science, computer science, engineering, communications, and public policy.
The Workshop format is designed to facilitate discussion and commentary on early stage papers and will give preference to papers that are sufficiently developed to be read and critiqued, but not yet submitted for publication. There will be no presentations at the Workshop; only brief commentary and feedback from participants. All participants and attendees are asked to read the papers ahead of time and stay for the entire workshop.
Continue reading "CFP: Northeast Privacy Scholars Workshop" »
Property Implications of the Sharing Economy Workshop Penn State Law, CFP
We have the following call for papers for a conference on the "Property Implications of the Sharing Economy Workshop," which will be at Penn State Law (University Park) on October 6-7, 2017. It is co-sponsored by the AALS Property Section and the AALS Commercial and Related Consumer Law Section.
This workshop at Penn State Law (University Park) will bring together an interdisciplinary and transnational group of scholars to explore the many property implications of the sharing economy. The workshop is being co-organized by Dean Hari Osofsky, Penn State Law and School of International Affairs; Rashmi Dyal-Chand, Northeastern University School of Law; and Shelly Kreiczer-Levy, College of Law and Business, Ramat Gan, Israel. It is co-sponsored by Penn State Law, the AALS Property Section, and the AALS Commercial and Related Consumer Law Section.
The last several years have seen a major growth in peer-to-peer online exchanges and other collaborative consumption enterprises. Companies such as Airbnb and Uber have disrupted longestablished regulated industries. A wide range of smaller companies connect strangers to "share" underutilized resources. In addition, crowdfunding through Kickstarter and other companies has provided a mechanism for individuals to launch ventures that are difficult to fund through traditional methods. These types of companies are only likely to become more important. PricewaterhouseCoopers, for instance, estimates that sharing economy global platform revenues could grow from $15 billion in 2013 to $335 billion by 2025.
The rapid growth of the sharing economy has significant property implications. It changes how people use their own property and interact with the property of others. Property law—among many other types of applicable law, including tax, insurance, zoning, licensing, consumer protection, data privacy, and labor law—both facilitates and constrains these exchanges.
We welcome submissions of abstracts in any area that connects to the workshop themes. We also would be delighted to have individuals serve as commentators or moderators of sessions. Please let us know of your interest in participating by July 1, 2017 by emailing Shelly KreiczerLevy, shellykr@clb.ac.il. Please include an abstract if you would like to present. We will accept presenters, commentators, and moderators on a rolling basis and anticipate finalizing participants by July 15, 2017.
Penn State Law, based in University Park, PA, will host the event and provide meals throughout the workshop (including ice cream from the famed Penn State University Berkey Creamery). Participants will be responsible for other expenses, including their own travel and lodging. We have arranged for a hotel block that will allow participants to book at a discounted rate. Delta, American, and United offer direct flights to State College (airport located 15 minutes from conference), and BWI, Pittsburgh, and Harrisburg airports are within driving distance.
Posted by Alfred Brophy at 09:54 AM in Calls for Papers | Permalink | Comments (1)
Introducing the Equality Law Scholars' Forum & Call for Proposals
From the mailbox:
In the spirit of academic engagement and mentoring in the area of Equality Law, we (Tristin Green, University of San Francisco; Angela Onwuachi-Willig, UC Berkeley; and Leticia Saucedo, UC Davis) introduce the Equality Law Scholars' Forum to be held this Fall. This Scholars' Forum seeks to provide junior scholars with commentary and critique and to provide scholars at all career stages the opportunity to engage with new scholarly currents and ideas. We hope to bring together scholars with varied perspectives (e.g., critical race theory, class critical theory, feminist legal theory, law and economics, law and society) across fields (e.g., criminal system, education, employment, family, health, immigration, property, tax) and with work relevant to many diverse identities (e.g., age, class, disability, national origin, race, sex, sexuality) to build bridges and to generate new ideas in the area of Equality Law.
We will select three to four relatively junior scholars (untenured, newly tenured, or prospective professors) to present papers from proposals submitted in response to this Call for Proposals. In so doing, we will select papers that cover a broad range of topics within the area of Equality Law. Leading senior scholars will provide commentary on each of the featured papers in an intimate and collegial setting. The Equality Law Scholars' Forum will pay transportation and accommodation expenses for participants and will host a dinner on Friday evening.
This year's Forum will be held on November 17, 2017 at Berkeley Law School.
Junior scholars are invited to submit abstracts of proposed papers, 3-5 pages in length, by July 14, 2017.
Full drafts must be available for circulation to participants by October 27, 2017.
Proposals should be submitted to: Tristin Green, USF School of Law, tgreen4@usfca.edu. Electronic submissions via email are preferred.
Posted by Bridget Crawford at 02:31 PM in Calls for Papers, Scholarship Strategy | Permalink | Comments (0)


Special Olympian Jennifer Granger proudly displaying her hard-earned medal.
SPECIAL OLYMPICS - The Lawton Northeast Lions club sponsors a Special Olympian to compete in local and regional events every year.
"LET ME WIN, BUT IF I CANNOT WIN, LET ME BE BRAVE IN MY ATTEMPT"
Special Olympians, coaches, volunteers, and their friends danced to the music from Perry Broadcasting's K98 JAMZ radio station, who conducted a live, 'on-site' radio broadcast during the 2006 Special Olympics.
Special Olympian Jennifer Granger checks out the Oklahoma Lions Mobile Health Screening Unit. District 3-L Governor Al Sikora, Lions Willie Smith and Lynette Carter greeted her warmly.
The Oklahoma Lions Mobile Health Screening Unit at the 2006 Great Plains Area Special Olympics.
Special Olympian (and future Lion?) Jennifer Granger, surrounded by her friends, Lions Ed Rall, Adela Sandusky, Ron Brown and Wes "Big Buckaroo" Williams.
It was a chilly, yet sunny day on April 7th, 2006, as special athletes gathered from all over southwestern Oklahoma to participate in the Great Plains Area Special Olympics at the Lawton High School track. As always, members of the Lawton NE Lions Club were right there with them! The Oklahoma Lions Mobile Health Screening unit was on-hand. All of the coaches wore shirts with our club name and logo on the back!
It was great to see District 3-L Governor Al Sikora, BeLinda Gwoompi from the Walters Lions Club, members of the Walters Leo's Club, Amanda Bousley (wife of Lion Jay Bousely), and all of the other Lawton NE Lions that showed up to help! A big "Thank You" goes out to Vice District Governor Ed "Conan" Rall; Lion (Sergeant Major) John Henry; Capt. Jacqueline Glaze and her outstanding Soldiers from D Detachment, 15th Finance Battalion; the great Soldiers from all of the other Ft. Sill units; and Joy Chapman, Nikki Foxx, J-TYME and the rest of the wonderful staff from Perry Broadcasting. All of you were a very big help to the Special Olympics this year. That was a job well done Lions and friends!


text:
Ora Carew (13 de agosto de 1893 – 26 de octubre de 1955) fue una actriz cinematográfica de nacionalidad estadounidense, activa en la época del cine mudo.

Biografía
Su verdadero nombre era Ora Whytock, y nació en Salt Lake City, Utah, siendo sus padres James LeRoy y Evelyn Garn Whytock. Fue educada con tutores privados, y cursó estudios en el Seminario Roland Hall. Tras fallecer el padre el 19 de junio de 1896, Evelyn se mudó con sus tres hijos a California.

La carrera cinematográfica de Carew comenzó con Goldwyn, tras numerosas actuaciones como actriz de vodevil, comedia musical y teatro. Entre los filmes más importantes en los que actuó figuran Go West, Young Man y Too Many Millions y, producidos por Universal, Love's Protegé, Loot y Under Suspicion, entre otros. Conocida por ser una de las Bellezas Bañistas de Mack Sennett, ella se retiró de la pantalla en el año 1925.

Carew se casó con Harry E. Grant el 15 de junio de 1908 en El Paso (Texas). Tuvieron una hija, Lotus Grant, nacida en 20 de octubre de 1909 y fallecida el 25 de junio de 2007 en Sherman Oaks, California. El matrimonio se divorció antes de 1920. Ella se casó con John C. Howard en diciembre de 1922 en Hollywood, California, divorciándose ambos en 1924.

Ora Carew falleció en 1955 en Los Ángeles, California, a los sesenta y dos años de edad. Fue enterrada en el Cementerio Forest Lawn Memorial Park, en Glendale (California).

Su hermano era el editor cinematográfico Grant Whytock (1894-1981).

Filmografía completa

Actriz

Guionista
Her Bridal Night-Mare, de Al Christie (1920)

Referencias

Enlaces externos

Carew en http://www.allmovie.com/

Nacidos en Salt Lake City
Actrices de cine de Estados Unidos
Actrices de cine mudo
Actrices de Utah

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


The prospect of flying with children is probably enough to give anyone a moderate case of the "who needs a holiday anyways".
I'm a reluctant airline passenger at the best of times. I love holidaying, but the prospect of actually getting to my destination is not thrilling to me.
It's not so much a fear of flying as such, but rather a fear of plummeting to my untimely death.
This week I was forced to endure the self esteem annihilation exercise that is shopping for jeans.


text:
West Point Thoroughbreds
MyRacehorse
Santa Anita Videos
Gulfstream Park Videos
Bullet Drill
Day Makers
Stronach 5
Black Book Xpress
Jeff Siegel's Blog
On Track with Johnny D
It's Post Time by Jon White
Sheets Plays with Josh Casey
Zoe Cadman's Blog
Trainer's Corner
Home \ Blogs \ It's Post Time by Jon White \ It's Post Time by Jon White:
It's Post Time by Jon White:
XBTV Blogs
Jeff Siegel's Blog
Du Jour Worked 5 Furlongs in 59.20 at Santa Anita...
Quinnie Worked 4 Furlongs in 49.20 at Santa Anita Park...
Bella Chica Worked 4 Furlongs in 49.40 at Santa Anita...
Moonlight d'Oro (Outside) and Missy P. Worked 5 Furlongs at...
Ecologist Worked 5 Furlongs in 1:01.40 at Santa Anita Park...
She Shot Me Down (Outside) and Shore Break Worked 3...
Warning: Underestimate Maximum Security at your own peril.
No doubt plenty of people are going to scoff at him in the Kentucky Derby.
Many will view Maximum Security's front-running 3 1/2-length victory at 9-2 in Gulfstream Park's Grade I Xpressbet.com Florida Derby last Saturday as something of a fluke.
There will be those who will believe he had it all his own way on the front end last Saturday while being permitted to set a tepid pace, a scenario that is very unlikely to be repeated in the Run for the Roses.
And there will be those who subscribe to the notion that it is extremely doubtful a horse who ran in a maiden $16,000 claiming race when debuting Dec. 20 at Gulfstream is good enough to win the $3 million Kentucky Derby on May 4.
But then an awful lot of people did not take Maximum Security seriously in the Florida Derby. How did that turn out?
Many moons ago I learned that one should never take an undefeated horse lightly. Never. There is no way to truly know how good a horse is when the horse has never been beaten.
Is Maximum Security a cinch to win the Kentucky Derby? Nope. Far from it. But is there a possibility that he will win the 1 1/4-mile classic on the first Saturday in May? There sure is. That's why he debuts all the way up at No. 3 on my Kentucky Derby Top 10 this week.
MY KENTUCKY DERBY TOP 10
Game Winner
Long Range Toddy
Anothertwistafate
Cutting Humor
By My Standards
What Maximum Security has done so far really is remarkable. The 1 1/8-mile Florida Derby was his first start going farther than seven furlongs. It was his first race around two turns. It was his first start in a stakes race and first in a graded stakes race. After he graduated from the maiden ranks by almost 10 lengths, he won a pair of starter allowance/optional claiming races at Gulfstream by 6 1/4 and 18 1/4 lengths.
Does he need the early lead in order to win? Does he need a fast track in order to succeed? No and no.
In the second start of his career on Jan. 24 at Gulfstream, he sat third early before drawing away in the stretch. The track was muddy.
Nobody has come close to beating him so far. He's won four races by a combined 38 lengths. His average margin of victory is 9 1/2 lengths. That is what you call domination.
Maximum Security's 18 1/4-length laugher going seven furlongs on Feb. 20 certainly got my attention. Granted, he was a 1-10 favorite and didn't beat much. But not only did he win by a humongous margin, he zipped seven furlongs in 1:21.72. He posted a 102 Beyer Speed Figure in that race, a major leap from his first two figures of 81 and 83.
Yes, they let Maximum Security bowl along early while on an uncontested lead. One reason that happened was 9-5 favorite Hidden Scroll did not go for the early lead.
Many (not me) blasted Joel Rosario for his ride in Gulfstream's Fountain of Youth Stakes on March 2. They said Rosario should have tried to rate Hidden Scroll early when he set a fast pace and finished fourth. Now many are criticizing Javier Castellano for rating Hidden Scroll early in the Florida Derby. When Hidden Scroll found himself boxed in through the early furlongs while getting dirt thrown back into his face, he did not seem to like it very much. It appeared that rating Hidden Scroll and essentially taking away what probably is his best weapon, his speed, backfired.
As for those of you who are determined to be non-believers in Maximum Security in the Kentucky Derby due primarily to the easy time of it he had early in the Florida Derby, the fact is he came home the final three furlongs in a very strong :35 and change. It takes a serious equine athlete to come home that fast.
Maximum Security completed his Florida Derby journey in 1:48.86. Before you go ahead and cavalierly dismiss him in the Kentucky Derby, keep in mind that his final time last Saturday was better than three Florida Derby winners in the last 13 years who went on to win the Kentucky Derby: Barbaro, Orb and Nyquist.
Since Gulfstream enlarged the main track to 1 1/8 miles for its 2005 season, these have been the Florida Derby times, from fastest down to slowest:
1:47.47 (2017) Always Dreaming*
1:47.72 (2009) Quality Road
1:48.16 (2008) Big Brown*
1:48.79 (2012) Take Charge Indy
1:48.86 (2019) Maximum Security
1:49.00 (2007) Scat Daddy
1:49.01 (2006) Barbaro*
1:49.11 (2016) Nyquist*
1:49.17 (2014) Constitution
1:49.19 (2010) Ice Box
1:49.43 (2005) High Fly
1:49.48 (2018) Audible
1:50.74 (2011) Dialed In
1:50.87 (2013) Orb*
1:52.30 (2015) Materiality
*Won the Kentucky Derby
The fact that Maximum Security has put Beyer Speed Figures of 101 and 102 on the board this year is noteworthy, especially this year. Not any of the other 65 horses on the current Kentucky Derby points leaderboard has recorded a Beyer Speed Figure of 100 or higher this year or ever.
Even if someone does receive a Beyer of 100 or higher between now and the Kentucky Derby, it is certain that Maximum Security will be the only horse in this year's Run for the Roses to have ever recorded a Beyer Speed Figure of 100 or higher more than once.
Maximum Security's capacity to run fast enough to get a Beyer of 100 or higher also is significant when viewed in the context of what kind of figure it takes to win the Kentucky Derby. With the exception of California Chrome's 97, it has always taken a 100 or higher to win the Kentucky Derby going back to 1989, the first year that Beyers for that race are listed in the American Racing Manual.
The Beyer Speed Figures in the American Racing Manual for the Florida Derby winners go back to 1992, as listed below.
2019 Maximum Security (101)
2018 Audible (99)
2017 Always Dreaming (97)
2016 Nyquist (92)
2015 Materiality (110)
2014 Constitution (98)
2013 Orb (97)
2012 Take Charge Indy (95)
2011 Dialed In (93)
2010 Ice Box (99)
2009 Quality Road (111)
2008 Big Brown (106)
2007 Scat Daddy (99)
2006 Barbaro (103)
2005 High Fly (102)
2004 Friends Lake (92)
2003 Empire Maker (108)
2002 Harlan's Holiday (101)
2001 Monarchos (105)
2000 Hal's Hope (102)
1999 Vicar (102)
1998 Cape Town (108)*
1997 Captain Bodgit (104)
1996 Unbridled's Song (114)
1995 Thunder Gulch (101)
1994 Holy Bull (115)
1993 Bull Inthe Heather (94)
1992 Technology (101)
*Lil's Lad finished first but was disqualified and placed second
IMPORTANT RACES COMING UP
A total of 170 qualifying points (100-40-20-10) were up for grabs in the Florida Derby. There are four more such races left to be decided, all at 1 1/8 miles. Three of them will be run Saturday: the Grade I Santa Anita Derby, Grade II Wood Memorial at Aqueduct and Grade II Blue Grass Stakes at Keeneland. A week later, Oaklawn Park will stage the Grade I Arkansas Derby.
Omaha Beach, ranked No. 1 on my Top 10, is headed to the Arkansas Derby. He had a sharp four-furlong workout in :47.80 last Saturday at Santa Anita for Hall of Fame trainer Richard Mandella. Omaha Beach most recently won a division of Oaklawn's Grade II Rebel Stakes by a nose over Eclipse Award winner Game Winner.
Game Winner, No. 2 on my Top 10, heads Saturday's Santa Anita Derby. I have installed him as the 4-5 morning-line favorite. Roadster is 5-2. Instagrand is 3-1.
Hall of Famer Bob Baffert trains both Game Winner and Roadster. Game Winner worked six furlongs Monday in 1:13.40 at Santa Anita. Roadster stepped the same distance in 1:12.80 when he worked last Saturday, also at Santa Anita.
Gary and Mary West own Game Winner. The Wests also race Maximum Security. Jason Servis conditions Maximum Security.
Improbable, ranked No. 4 on my Top 10, and Long Range Toddy, who is No. 5, are scheduled to join Omaha Beach and others in the Arkansas Derby. Long Range Toddy won a division of the Rebel by a neck over Improbable. Hall of Famer Steve Asmussen trains Long Range Toddy. Baffert conditions Improbable.
CURRENT STRIKES SITUATION
In addition to going into the Kentucky Derby with two Beyer Speed Figures of 100 or higher, Maximum Security has just one strike in the Derby Strikes System that I developed in 1999. The system consists of nine key factors. When a horse does not qualify in one of the nine categories, the horse gets a strike. The nine key factors (or categories) are explained at the end of this column.
According to the Derby Strikes System, a horse with zero strikes or only one strike has a much better chance to win the Kentucky Derby than a horse with two strikes or more. Going back to 1973, 38 of the last 46 Kentucky Derby winners have had zero strikes or just one strike.
Six of the last 46 Kentucky Derby have had two strikes: Cannonade (1974), Ferdinand (1986), Sea Hero (1993), Funny Cide (2003), Giacomo (2005) and Always Dreaming (2017).
It's not impossible, but it is a tall task for a horse with more than two strikes to win the Kentucky Derby. Of the last 46 horses to win the Run for the Roses, only two horses have won with more than two strikes, Mine That Bird and Justify.
Maximum Security's only strike comes in Category 6, the "racing experience" category. He will go into the Kentucky Derby having made just four career starts. I consider Category 6 to be by far the least important of the nine categories. That's because horses do not race as much these days.
From 1973 through 2000, Fusaichi Pegasus was the only horse to get a strike in Category 6.
But from 2001 through 2018, seven horses -- Barbaro, Big Brown, Animal Kingdom, I'll Have Another, American Pharoah, Always Dreaming and Justify -- got a strike in Category 6 for making fewer than six starts before the Kentucky Derby.
Put another way, only 3.5% of the Kentucky Derby winners in the 28 years from 1973 through 2000 had a strike in Category 6. But 36.8% of the winners in the last 18 years from 2001 through 2018 had a strike in that category.
It is not until a horse's next race will be the Kentucky Derby that a horse's number of strikes can be determined.
These are strikes for a number of Kentucky Derby candidates, listed alphabetically, who are not scheduled to race again before the first Saturday in May:
Bodexpress (second in the Florida Derby) has two strikes (Categories 2 and 6).
By My Standards (winner of the Louisiana Derby) has one strike (Category 2).
Code of Honor (third in the Florida Derby) has one strike (Category 6).
Country House (fourth in the Louisiana Derby) has three strikes (Categories 2, 5 and 6).
Gray Magician (second in the UAE Derby) has one strike (Category 2).
Maximum Security (winner of the Florida Derby) has one strike (Category 6).
Plus Que Parfait (winner of the UAE Derby) has one strike (Category 7).
Spinoff (runner-up in the Louisiana Derby) has three strikes (Categories 2, 4 and 6).
War of Will (ninth in the Louisiana Derby) has one strike (Category 5).
WINNER'S STRIKES FROM 1973 THROUGH 2018
Here are the strikes for each Kentucky Derby winner going back to 1973:
1973 Secretariat (0 strikes)
1974 Cannonade (2 strikes) Categories 3 and 4
1975 Foolish Pleasure (0 strikes)
1976 Bold Forbes (0 strikes)
1977 Seattle Slew (0 strikes)
1978 Affirmed (0 strikes)
1979 Spectacular Bid (0 strikes)
1980 Pleasant Colony (0 strikes)
1981 Genuine Risk (1 strike) Category 1
1982 Gato Del Sol (1 strike) Category 3
1983 Sunny's Halo (1 strike) Category 1
1984 Swale (0 strikes)
1985 Spend a Buck (0 strikes)
1986 Ferdinand (2 strikes) Categories 2 and 4
1987 Alysheba (1 strike) Category 2
1988 Winning Colors (0 strikes)
1989 Sunday Silence (0 strikes)
1990 Unbridled (1 strike) Category 3
1991 Strike the Gold (0 strikes)
1992 Lil E. Tee (0 strikes)
1993 Sea Hero (2 strikes) Categories 3 and 5
1994 Go for Gin (0 strikes)
1995 Thunder Gulch (0 strikes)
1996 Grindstone (0 strikes)
1997 Silver Charm (1 strike) Category 4
1998 Real Quiet (0 strikes)
1999 Charismatic (1 strike) Category 5
2000 Fusaichi Pegasus (1 strike) Category 6
2001 Monarchos (0 strikes)
2002 War Emblem (0 strikes)
2003 Funny Cide (2 strikes) Categories 2 and 9
2004 Smarty Jones (0 strikes)
2005 Giacomo (2 strikes) Categories 2 and 5
2006 Barbaro (1 strike) Category 6
2007 Street Sense (0 strikes)
2008 Big Brown (1 strike) Category 6
2009 Mine That Bird (4 strikes) Categories 1, 4, 5 and 9
2010 Super Saver (1 strike) Category 4
2011 Animal Kingdom (1 strike) Category 6
2012 I'll Have Another (1 strike) Category 6
2013 Orb (0 strikes)
2014 California Chrome (0 strikes)
2015 American Pharoah (1 strike) Category 6
2016 Nyquist (0 strikes)
2017 Always Dreaming (2 strikes) Categories 1 and 6
2018 Justify (3 strikes) Categories 1, 6 and 8
THE CLAIMING-RACE STIGMA
One of the reasons a lot of people will be underestimating Maximum Security in the Kentucky Derby, just as many did in the Florida Derby, is he once ran in a maiden claiming race for a $16,000 tag.
Similarly, one of the reasons lots of folks did not like Charismatic in the 1999 Kentucky Derby was he had once run in a maiden claiming race for a $62,500 tag. Charismatic won that maiden claiming race by five lengths as a 2-year-old at Hollywood Park, but then lost seven straight before his 2 1/2-length victory in Keeneland's Lexington Stakes. And then, two weeks after the Lexington, he won the Kentucky Derby at 31-1.
It is clear that many considered Charismatic's Kentucky Derby triumph to have been a fluke, as evidenced by his 8-1 odds in the Preakness Stakes. The Kentucky Derby winner almost always is sent off as the favorite in the Preakness, yet Charismatic was a juicy 8-1.
I loved Charismatic in the Preakness. The primary reason I did not consider his Kentucky Derby to be a fluke was his Beyer Speed Figure pattern. Prior to the Kentucky Derby, Charismatic's top Beyer had been a 94. Then he jumped all the way up to a 108 in the Lexington. The way I saw it, he validated his 108 Lexington figure by likewise recording a 108 in the Kentucky Derby.
I believe those who had looked at Charismatic's Kentucky Derby performance as being a fluke missed the boat by evidently not also taking into account his effort in the Lexington. It was the back-to-back 108s, rather than just a lone 108, that put me strongly on him in the Preakness, particularly at 8-1. And Charismatic did win the Preakness, a race in which he was credited with a 107 Beyer.
I regard Charismatic's $18.80 win mutuel in the Preakness to be one of the biggest overlays of the 1990s.
Again, as for Maximum Security, what makes him scary to me going into the Kentucky Derby are his back-to-back triple-digit Beyer Speed Figures, much like Charismatic's back-to-back triple-digit figures going into the Preakness.
I also am convinced that a contributing factor in terms of the lack of respect for Charismatic in both the Kentucky Derby and Preakness was the stigma attached to him for having once run in a maiden claiming race.
I can cite yet another example of a racehorse who achieved considerable success after being stigmatized for a time early in his career largely because he had run in the maiden claiming ranks.
Turbulator finished second in a maiden claiming race for a $1,500 tag at Portland Meadows on June 16, 1969. Seven days later, he ran second in a maiden claiming race for a $2,000 tag at that same track. After those two defeats, however, Turbulator reeled off seven consecutive victories during the 1969 meet at Spokane's Playfair Race Course. He won those seven races in nine weeks. You read that right. He started seven times in nine weeks, winning on each occasion while competing at distances ranging from six furlongs to two miles.
During Turbulator's seven-race winning streak in 1969, there continued to be skeptics stemming from those losses in maiden claiming races at Portland Meadows. But by the end of the 1969 Playfair meet, Turbulator had turned just about all of the doubters into enthusiastic believers.
Turbulator in 1970 became a huge favorite with Pacific Northwest racing fans during a campaign in which he broke the world record for 6 1/2 furlongs by two-fifths of a second. He set two other track records that season. In one of his 1970 victories, he came from 20 lengths behind to win by two despite being burdened with 134 pounds. He lost another race by only a neck when asked to "carry the grandstand," or 138 pounds to be exact. To this day, no other horse in the history of racing in the Pacific Northwest has carried as much as 138 pounds in a non-restricted stakes race.
Along with Turbulator's considerable talent, he had unmistakable charisma.
"If there ever was a horse that brought sheer joy and hysteria to a track and thrived on that crowd response it was Turbulator," it was written in The Washington Horse magazine in 1973.
To give you an idea of his immense popularity, at various times during his racing career, there were Turbulator T-shirts, coffee mugs, campaign buttons and refrigerator magnets. After his retirement from racing in 1974, he continued to make public appearances at Longacres and Playfair until he did so for the final time on Sept. 30, 1989. Turbulator died that year on Nov. 7, just three days after Sunday Silence won an epic Breeders' Cup Classic.
This Saturday, April 6, will be an important day in racing, highlighted by the Santa Anita Derby, Wood Memorial and Blue Grass Stakes. And for some fans of the sport, April 6 also was an important day in 1965, for that was the day Pacific Northwest racing legend Turbulator was born.
THIS WEEK'S NTRA POLLS
Here is the Top 10 for this week's NTRA Top Thoroughbred Poll:
Rank Points Horse (First-Place Votes)
341 Monomoy Girl (14)
319 Bricks and Mortar (4)
234 City of Light (19)
213 Roy H
192 McKinzie
187 Midnight Bisou
125 X Y Jet (1)
105 Sistercharlie
99 Coal Front
94 Thunder Snow (5)
Here is the Top 10 for this week's NTRA Top 3-Year-Old Poll:
388 Game Winner (24)
339 Omaha Beach (4)
331 Improbable (7)
197 Long Range Toddy (2)
195 Maximum Security (3)
159 Tacitus (1)
154 Code of Honor
89 War of Will
78 By My Standards
73 Cutting Humor
DERBY STRIKES SYSTEM'S CATEGORIES
These are the nine key factors (or categories) in my Derby Strikes System:
THE GRADED STAKES FACTOR. (The horse ran in a graded stakes race before March 31.) This points out horses who have competed against tough competition prior to March 31 rather than at the last minute in April, enabling the horse to be properly battle-tested. (Exceptions: Since the introduction of graded stakes races in the U.S. in 1973, only Genuine Risk in 1980, Sunny's Halo in 1983, Mine That Bird in 2009, Always Dreaming in 2017 and Justify in 2018 have won the Kentucky Derby without running in a graded stakes race at 2 or early at 3 before March 31.)
THE WIN IN A GRADED STAKES FACTOR. (The horse has won a graded stakes race.) This points out horses who have shown they have the class to win a graded stakes race. (Exceptions: Ferdinand in 1986, Alysheba in 1987, Funny Cide in 2003 and Giacomo in 2005 are the only exceptions since the introduction of U.S. graded stakes races in 1973; Alysheba in 1987 did finish first in the Blue Grass, only to be disqualified and placed third.)
THE EIGHTH POLE FACTOR. (In either of his or her last two starts before the Kentucky Derby, the horse was either first or second with a furlong to go.) This points out horses who were running strongly at the eighth pole, usually in races at 1 1/16 or 1 1/8 miles. By running strongly at the same point in the Kentucky Derby, a horse would be in a prime position to win the roses. Keep in mind that 53 of the last 56 Kentucky Derby winners have been first or second with a furlong to run. Since Decidedly won the Derby in 1962 when he was third with a furlong to go, the only three Kentucky Derby winners who were not first or second with a furlong to run were Animal Kingdom, third with a furlong remaining in 2011 when only a half-length from being second; Giacomo, sixth with a furlong to go in 2005; and Grindstone, fourth with a furlong to run in 1996. (Exceptions: Since 1955, the Kentucky Derby winners who weren't either first or second at the eighth pole in his or her last two starts have been Tim Tam in 1958, Carry Back in 1961, Cannonade in 1974, Gato Del Sol in 1982, Unbridled in 1990 and Sea Hero in 1993, with Canonero II in 1971 unknown.)
THE GAMENESS FACTOR. (The horse's finish position in both of his or her last two races before the Kentucky Derby was no worse than his or her running position at the eighth pole.) This points out horses who don't like to get passed in the final furlong. (Exceptions: Since 1955, the exceptions have been Venetian Way in 1960, Cannonade in 1974, Foolish Pleasure in 1975, Ferdinand in 1986, Silver Charm in 1997, Mine That Bird in 2009 and Super Saver in 2010, with Canonero II in 1971 unknown.)
THE DISTANCE FOUNDATION FACTOR. (The horse has finished at least third in a 1 1/8-mile race or longer before the Kentucky Derby.) This points out horses who have the proper foundation and/or stamina for the Kentucky Derby distance. (Exceptions: Since 1955, the only exceptions have been Kauai King in 1966, Sea Hero in 1993, Charismatic in 1999, Giacomo in 2005 and Mine That Bird in 2009.)
THE SUFFICIENT RACING EXPERIENCE FACTOR. (The horse has had at least six lifetime starts before the Kentucky Derby.) This points out horses who have the needed experience. (Exceptions: Since 1955, the exceptions have been Grindstone in 1996, Fusaichi Pegasus in 2000, Barbaro in 2006, Big Brown in 2008, Animal Kingdom in 2011, I'll Have Another in 2012, American Pharoah in 2015, Always Dreaming in 2017 and Justify in 2018. Grindstone, Fusaichi Pegasus, Barbaro, I'll Have Another, American Pharoah and Always Dreaming each had made five starts before the Kentucky Derby. Animal Kingdom had made four starts before the Kentucky Derby. Big Brown and Justify had made three starts before the Kentucky Derby.)
THE NO ADDING OR REMOVING BLINKERS FACTOR. (The horse has not added blinkers or had blinkers removed in his or her final start at 3 before the Kentucky Derby.) This seems to point out that, if a horse is good enough to win the Kentucky Derby, the trainer is not searching for answers so late in the game. (Since Daily Racing Form began including blinkers in its past performances in 1987, no horse has added blinkers or had blinkers removed in his or her last start at 3 before winning the Kentucky Derby.)
THE RACED AS A 2-YEAR-OLD FACTOR. (The horse made at least one start as a 2-year-old.) (Exceptions: Apollo in 1882 and Justify in 2018 are the only Kentucky Derby winners who didn't race as a 2-year-old. Through 2018, the score is 142-2 in terms of Kentucky Derby winners who raced at 2. Since 1937, horses unraced as a 2-year-old are a combined 1 for 63 in the Kentucky Derby. During this period, the only horses to win, place or show were Hampden, who finished third in 1946; Coaltown, second in 1948; Agitate, third in 1974; Reinvested, third in 1982; Strodes Creek, second in 1994; Curlin, third in 2007; Bodemeister, second in 2012; Battle of Midway, third in 2017; and Justify, first in 2018.)
THE NOT A GELDING FACTOR. (The horse is not a gelding.) (Exceptions: Funny Cide in 2003 and Mine That Bird in 2009 are the only geldings to win the Kentucky Derby since Clyde Van Dusen in 1929.)
It's Post Time by Jon White | April 3, 2019 2:35 pm
It's Post Time by Jon White: First Derby Strikes for 2019
It's Post Time by Jon White: Omaha Beach Still Atop Kentucky Derby Rankings
Copyright © 2019 XBTV, A Stronach Group Company
About XBTV

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
FOX News idol
The Conservative Way (Tuckomatic Mix)
All hail FOX News.
Unless your name is Mickey Kaus.
The blogger Mickey Kaus has quit his job at The Daily Caller after the conservative site's editor-in-chief, Tucker Carlson, pulled a critical column about Fox News from the site, Kaus told the On Media blog on Tuesday.
"It's pretty simple," Kaus said in an interview, "I wrote a piece attacking Fox for not being the opposition on immigration and amnesty — for filling up the airwaves with reports on ISIS and terrorism, and not fulfilling their responsibility of being the opposition on amnesty and immigration…. I posted it at 6:30 in the morning. When I got up, Tucker had taken it down. He said, 'We can't trash Fox on the site. I work there.'"
Carlson, who co-founded The Daily Caller in 2010, is a conservative contributor to Fox News and the host of its weekend edition of "Fox & Friends."
Kaus says when he told Carlson he needed to be able to write about Fox, Carlson told him it was a hard-and-fast rule, and non-negotiable.
"He said it was a rule, and he wouldn't be able to change that rule. So I told him I quit," Kaus explained. "I just don't see how you can put out a publication with that kind of giant no-go area. It's not like we're owned by Joe's Muffler Shop, so we just can't write about Joe's Muffler shop."
(Byers)
It would not be fair to wonder specifically why Kaus, a self-described neoliberal, would want to work for a conservative propagandist like Carlson, who once used a platform on msnbc to denounce San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsome as a Nazi for showing compassion to undocumented immigrants. Yes, really, Carlson called Newsome a Nazi for not going after minorities. But neither can we demand that our public discourse be wholly segregated; in this case, it just didn't work out, because whatever Kaus' priorities are, Carlson is focused on marketing the conservative brand.
Then again, who knows what to think of Kaus' implication that he would be happy to tank coverage of his employer.
Maybe that was his common ground with a shill like Carlson.
Byers, Dylan. "Mickey Kaus quits Daily Caller after Tucker Carlson pulls critical Fox News column". Politico. 17 March 2015.
Posted in Business, Conservative, Culture, Ethics, Journalism, Marketing, Media (culture), People, Politics, Republicans, Television and tagged bad journalism, conservative brand, conservative propaganda, Dylan Byers, FOX News, FOX News idol, FOX News sacred, journalistic integrity, Mickey Kaus, MSNBC, neoliberal, Politico, Republican brand, The Daily Caller, Tucker Carlson, Tucker Carlson poodle, Tucker Carlson propagandist, Tucker Carlson shill on 2015.03.18 by bd. Leave a comment


text:
@interface IDEWorkspace (SBH)

@end

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


Christmas brunch is one of the most important days of the year, so celebrate with any one of these delicious dishes. From liege waffles, to gingerbread pancakes, breakfast casseroles and more!
Pin these Christmas Brunch Recipes for Later.
Last week I got together with some friends and we all brought different breakfast/brunch recipes to share and photograph together. I brought my delicious caramel apple cinnamon rolls.
I had a series of unfortunate events in preparation for the fun blogger event. We moved last weekend, so our house was a bit of mess. I had two failed recipes that I was also planning to bring, banana bread coffee cake and vanilla almond granola. I hope to remake both of them for you some point soon. Then on the way up I realized I forgot my camera! Oh well, we still had a fun time together, and really enjoyed eating the food afterwards!
The bloggers who came were Ashlee from Ashlee Marie, Ruthie from Cooking with Ruthie, Alyssa from The Recipe Critic, Jamie from Jamie Cooks It Up, Kara from Creations by Kara, Jesseca from One Sweet Appetite.
But the point of this all is brunch! Christmas is such a great day and I always love opening up some presents in the morning followed by a delicious brunch after! We have 15 amazing breakfast/brunch recipes for you to make on Christmas morning! And I promise you'll love them all!!
I want to eat all of these! So YUMMY!


text:
Deals / Cyber Monday
The 10 best Cyber Monday laptop deals to get before they're gone today
By Staff, CNN Underscored
Published 2:55 PM EST, Mon November 28, 2022
Want more deals? Visit CNN Underscored's Guide to Cyber Monday for wall-to-wall coverage of the best discounts to be found during the biggest shopping event of the year.
Shopping for a laptop can be tough. With so many out there, from so many retailers, finding a good deal is never easy. But one thing you can count on is saving some cash on Cyber Monday.
No matter what make, model or size laptop you may be searching for, here are the best discounts on the web right now.
• Related: All the best Cyber Monday tech deals we found today
Lenovo Flex 3 Chromebook
Lenovo makes our favorite budget Chromebooks, and this cheaper variation on our top pick has everything you need for basic schoolwork and web surfing — all within a flexible design that doubles as a tablet.
$189 $100 at Best Buy
Best Tested
A mainstay in the budget laptop space (and one of our top picks), the Acer Aspire 5 gets you great performance for the price and is close to its lowest price ever right now.
$650 $400 at Amazon
This massive 2022 upgrade is currently our favorite laptop overall, and you won't want to miss out on its lowest price yet. You'll get all the best-in-class performance for $150 off.
$1,199 $1,049 at Amazon
Go big or go home. The 2021 MacBook Pro is now a whopping $500 off, and you'll love the gorgeous Liquid Retina XDR screen, minimal design and powerful performance packed into the 14-inch frame.
The Dell XPS 13 is our best tested Windows laptop and it's a beaut. For $250 off, you get this slim, powerful Intel Core i7 model with a 13-inch screen.
$1,650 $1,350 at Best Buy
Microsoft Surface Pro 8 Touch Screen Tablet PC
We love the Surface because it's a tablet and laptop in one. And the Pro model gives you even more power in it's convertible form. Plus, at $450 off, you also get a keyboard included, which is usually sold separately.
$1,350 $900 at Best Buy
First-time Deal
Costco members can get $200 off on the newer Surface Pro 9, along with a typepad cover thrown in for free. If you're not a member, head to Best Buy and get $100 off on the latest model of Microsoft's popular convertible device.
$1,100 $1,000 at Best Buy $1,300 $1,100 at Costco
The new Surface Laptop 5 is one of the best (and best-looking) laptops we tested this year, and it's seeing some sizable discounts just weeks after release. And if you're on a budget, last year's still-great Surface Laptop 4 is down to just $650.
An ultralight, good-looking laptop, you can now score the HP Spectre with an i-5-1235U processor for $400 off.
$1,250 $850 at HP
Asus ROG Zephyrus 14
The Asus ROG Zephyrus 14 was a strong runner-up in our best gaming laptop testing, and this discounted model gets you fantastic gaming specs (plus a month of Xbox Game Pass) for just $900.


What continually makes the United States the place to be with respect to investment is the expectation that, when all is said and done, the rule of law generally prevails. One need only visit China, Japan and Russia to see that markets are generally manipulated by insiders.
1) Tech firms like Dell aggressively compete regarding strategic acquisitions and nothing speaks louder than "cash" or shares assumed to have the potential to appreciate. For most tech firms the largest source of cash is remarkably non-payment of taxes. This is due to the large stock option generated tax deductions with no corresponding outlay of cash, deductions associated with restricted stock, etc. These firms do not generally purchase shares on the open market to fulfill such commitments but rather simply print up new stock.
Put another way, if you can generate a billion dollars of tax deductions, you can effectively reduce your tax bill by 350 million, which is nothing short of cold hard cash in the bank, if you are profitable. The biggest such deductions come from the issuance of stock or large write-downs of assets, for which there is no cash cost to the company.
If one compares Dell to Apple and Google it doesn't take long to see that Apple and Google have been veritable tax deduction making machines via the issuance of non-qualified stock options. Consider the following analysis based upon each companies most recently released 10K reports. Also consider that large exercises in options at Apple and Google in the last 5 years have generated staggering tax deductions while Dell has generated little.
One could even argue that the whole anti-trust action against Google was misdirected in that the focus should instead be on tax rules that have created a situation in which they are relatively immune to competition. What tax paying publishing company could possible compete with a firm like Google that "coins" cash, to quote Henry Blodget, in the form of non-payment of taxes.
The key point is that Dell is so underwater with its options that it can't play the game any longer. What they need to do is go private, take a massive write-down and revalue the shares lower to create lower strike prices.
Management can then issue two classes of options, not unlike what Bain Capital has done with respect to its own employees participation in deals. One class will have a greatly reduced exercise price that will accordingly result in massive tax deductions when exercised in a subsequent IPO, when Dell is taken public again.
The beauty of this well worn scheme is that the amount expensed for the options is declared when granted, not when exercised. This often results in a tax deduction upon exercise years later that are ten times as great as the expense recognized.
If Dell is taken private such deductions can then be allocated among Dell and other taxable private equity partners and result in effective tax rates of close to zero. This is because many private equity firms have tax exempt limited partners who have no use for tax deductions, examples being public pensions and foundations. Tax deductions are unusable for tax exempts.
Those private equity firms like Silver Lake, whose largest limited partners are tax exempt investors, including Calpers that owns 10 percent of Silver Lake outright, use well worn schemes to allocate these deductions away from tax exempts, contrary to IRS rules, in particular the "fractions rule." Remarkably, there is not only no discussion of this important rule but also no enforcement.
Other major tax exempt investors in Silver Lake include the New Jersey Public Pension System. Is it not ironic that New Jersey Governor Chris Christie excoriated the Republican party leadership for its slow response in providing Hurricane Sandy relief while the State and other public pensions seek to profit at every turn from "buyout" funds? Especially when these buyouts decimate the very tax base relied upon to support the public pension system.
In a perfect world Dell would also take a massive writedown now, prior to the buyout, so that this important value could be captured and quantified, that is the future tax deduction resulting from the write down. What Michael Dell wants to do is wait until after the buyout and pocket a larger share of any such deduction for himself.
Clear disclosure of all existing unused net operating losses able to be used in future years should also be prominently disclosed.


Infosys Technologies Limited today announced that it will broadcast the proceedings of the 28th Annual General Meeting ("AGM") of the shareholders to be held on Saturday, June 20, 2009 at 3.00 p.m., Indian Standard Time live on the Internet. The proceedings will be webcast on www.infosys.com.
On entering the Infosys home page, click on the appropriate link to see the proceedings of the AGM, live. Users may also access this information on the 'Investors' section on the Infosys home page at www.infosys.com.
The reception quality of the webcast will depend on the speed and quality of the user's Internet connection.
Certain statements in this release concerning our future growth prospects are forward-looking statements, which involve a number of risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those in such forward-looking statements. The risks and uncertainties relating to these statements include, but are not limited to, risks and uncertainties regarding fluctuations in earnings, our ability to manage growth, intense competition in IT services including those factors which may affect our cost advantage, wage increases in India, our ability to attract and retain highly skilled professionals, time and cost overruns on fixed-price, fixed-time frame contracts, client concentration, restrictions on immigration, industry segment concentration, our ability to manage our international operations, reduced demand for technology in our key focus areas, disruptions in telecommunication networks or system failures, our ability to successfully complete and integrate potential acquisitions, liability for damages on our service contracts, the success of the companies in which Infosys has made strategic investments, withdrawal of governmental fiscal incentives, political instability and regional conflicts, legal restrictions on raising capital or acquiring companies outside India, and unauthorized use of our intellectual property and general economic conditions affecting our industry. Additional risks that could affect our future operating results are more fully described in our United States Securities and Exchange Commission filings including our Annual Report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2009 and on Form 6-K for the quarters ended June 30, 2008 ,September 30,2008 and December 31,2008. These filings are available at www.sec.gov Infosys may, from time to time, make additional written and oral forward-looking statements, including statements contained in the company's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission and our reports to shareholders. The company does not undertake to update any forward-looking statements that may be made from time to time by or on behalf of the company.


The move isn't just an issue of saving money, though that is a nice ancillary effect. It's also a strong vote of confidence in the city's municipal water supply and treatment systems; in light of the fracas about prescription drugs in our water last week, it's good to see the city standing behind its tap water and encouraging its employees and citizens to drink up.
Further, "This is a matter of leading by example," Nickels said. "The people of Seattle own one of the best water supplies in the country, every bit as good as bottled water and available at a fraction of the price. When you add up the tremendous environmental costs of disposable plastic bottles clogging our landfills, the better choice is crystal clear."
Read about the San Francisco banning.
Read about the Chicago tax.


Report: Hi my love! Your letter gives me a lot of energy! When I read it, my heart is beating strongly in my breast! We have very good weather and bright sunshine. In this weather I always excellent mood. Today I got up as the morning thinking about you. All my thoughts are of you. I love you! It means a lot to me! This - my essence, it is - my life and my dreams! I never felt this before! Love - a wonderful feeling! When two people to each other very much loved. Often there is a problem in our love for example parah.U a huge problem for our love - the distance between us. But when the problems are solved, the love is even stronger! My dear to you, I got acquainted with a man. It was not long history. We talked for about a month and I realized that he fell in love with me, but I have not seen him in a man with whom I wanted to be. It did for me this site, it was about 4 months ago. To make an impression. But I had no feelings for him. I tried to talk to him, that we do not succeed, but he would not listen, he started telling me that I loved going with him, began to behave rudely, saying that he would not allow any man to me. I even had to change my email address, because I began to fear him. So ended our conversation. You came along and I did not need anybody. I want to be with you, I say this sincerely from my heart. Darling I'll be able to take leave in a week and I plan to leave early to come to you. I have already started the paperwork and apply for a visa. That gave me a rough trip in the travel agency. from Moscow October 10 12:15 Domodedovo a / p in Frankfurt, October 10 13:35 Frankfurt Intl transplant Frankfurt from Frankfurt October 10 23:50 Frankfurt Intl in Sydney October 12 6:10 Sydney Kingsford Smith Arpt Sydney transplant of Sydney October 12 8:20 Sydney Kingsford Smith Arpt Adelaide October 12 10:00 Adelaide Arpt Loved you agree that I was coming to you this flight? If you agree, I will continue preparing for the journey, after the payment will give me tickets and I'll write you in detail all of the data (flight time, flight number, arrival time), so you can meet me at the airport. I told you that I find it hard to pay for everything herself, and I do not have to pay 680 U.S. dollars. Can you send me this amount for payment to our meeting place? My colleagues at work do not recognize me! I found love and happiness! I found you, my ____!!!! I believe that soon we'll be together! We'll live together! It - a great honor for me to have you close to me! I also talked with my mom, she sends you a big hello. She is very happy for both of us. I was very pleased to hear such words from my mom. I look forward to good news from you! I love you! ____ + Kseniya = LOVE !!!!!


text:
<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
<Document>
  <Header>
    <SchemaName>Location</SchemaName>
    <Identifier>location_geonames_2754296</Identifier>
    <DocumentState>public</DocumentState>
    <TimeStamp>1390753461637</TimeStamp>
    <SummaryFields>
      <Title>NL > North Brabant > Het Broek</Title>
    </SummaryFields>
  </Header>
  <Body>
    <Location>
      <GeopoliticalHierarchy>NL,North Brabant,Het Broek</GeopoliticalHierarchy>
      <LocationName>
        <Appelation>Het Broek</Appelation>
        <LocationNameType>populated place</LocationNameType>
        <Comments>Broek,Den Broek,Het Broek</Comments>
      </LocationName>
      <Coordinates>
        <Longitude>5.44056</Longitude>
        <Latitude>51.4066</Latitude>
      </Coordinates>
      <GeonamesURI>http://www.geonames.org/2754296</GeonamesURI>
      <WikipediaLink/>
      <DbpediaLink/>
    </Location>
  </Body>
</Document>


text:
Q: How do I log an array of values from a list of objects in Javascript? I have an array of days where each day is divided into 30 minute chunks where each chunk is an object array. I want to get the value of the key "wake" for each chunk. If wake is false and then true I want to add 1 to a variable called sleepFrag and if "wake" is false I want to add 30 to a variable called sleepPeriod. I want to console log both of my variables, sleepPeriod and sleepFrag.
This is what the list I am trying to read from looks like(I only included two hours of two days, each "chunks" is divided into 24 hours and I don't know how many days there are):
 days = [
{
chunks: [
  {
    BM: 1,
    ID: 0,
    hour: "00",
    issue: 0,
    mealP: 30,
    timeMins: "00",
    wake: true
  },
  {
    BM: 0,
    ID: 1,
    hour: "00",
    issue: 0,
    mealP: 30,
    timeMins: "30",
    wake: true
  },
  {
    BM: 0,
    ID: 2,
    hour: "01",
    issue: 0,
    mealP: 0,
    timeMins: "00",
    wake: false
  },
  {
    BM: 0,
    ID: 3,
    hour: "01",
    issue: 3,
    mealP: 0,
    timeMins: "30",
    wake: false
  }

    ],
epoch: 1563163200
},
{
chunks: [
  {
    BM: 0,
    ID: 0,
    hour: "00",
    issue: 0,
    mealP: 0,
    timeMins: "00",
    wake: true
  },
  {
    BM: 0,
    ID: 1,
    hour: "00",
    issue: 0,
    mealP: 0,
    timeMins: "30",
    wake: true
  },
  {
    BM: 0,
    ID: 2,
    hour: "01",
    issue: 0,
    mealP: 0,
    timeMins: "00",
    wake: true
  },

and so on
Here is what I tried already:
function getSleep(daysIn){
    sleepFrag = 0
    sleepPeriod = 0
    for (chunk=0; chunk < days.length; chunk++){
        for(element=0; element< days[chunk].length; element++){
            if(days[element-1].wake==false)&&(days[element].wake==true){
                sleepFrag+=1
            }
            else if (days[element].wake==false){
                sleepPeriod+=30
            }

        }
        console.log("this is the sleep amount for day"+chunk+":"sleepPeriod)
        console.log("this is the number of sleep fragments for day"+chunk+":"sleepFrag)
    }
    console.log("this is the total number of sleep fragments :"+sleepFrag)
    console.log("this is the total amount of sleep :"+sleepPeriod)
}
console.log("sleep fragments and sleep periods")
getSleep(days)

I get no log on the console and no errors.
I expect to get:
sleep fragments and sleep periods
this is the sleep amount for day (the "chunks" representing the day im in): (sleepPeriod for that day)
this is the number of sleep fragments for day(the "chunks" representing the day im in): (sleepFrag for that day)
this is the total number of sleep fragments :(number of sleep fragments)
this is the total amount of sleep :(amount of sleep)

A: The logic of your function is actually correct.. but the code writing is very poor..
No var declaration, no semicolon (;), etc..
Here is the refined function:
function getSleep(daysIn){
    var sleepFrag = 0
    var sleepPeriod = 0
    for (var i=0; i < daysIn.length; i++){
        var day = daysIn[i];
        var chunksOfTheDay = day.chunks;
        for(var j=1; j < chunksOfTheDay.length; j++){
            if((chunksOfTheDay[j-1].wake === false) && (chunksOfTheDay[j].wake === true)){
                sleepFrag+=1
            }
            else if (chunksOfTheDay[j].wake === false){
                sleepPeriod+=30
            }

        }
        console.log("this is the sleep amount for day"+i+":"+sleepPeriod);
        console.log("this is the number of sleep fragments for day"+i+":"+sleepFrag);
    }
    console.log("this is the total number of sleep fragments :"+sleepFrag);
    console.log("this is the total amount of sleep :"+sleepPeriod);
}
console.log("sleep fragments and sleep periods");
getSleep(days);

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange