text:
September 2, 2012 March 20, 2020 Ephraim Percy Kenyanito
East African Community (EAC) University Students' Debate on EAC Political Integration: A Global Citizen's Perspective
Written By: Ephraim Percy Kenyanito
Countries: Burundi, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania and Uganda.
Topics: Youth, Students, East African Community, Debate, Regional Integration, Political Integration
Ephraim having lunch immediately after arrival at Arusha City, United Republic of Tanzania with fellow Students from the Higher Institutes of Education in the East African Community (EAC: Burundi, Kenya, Rwanda, United Republic of Tanzania and Uganda), who participated in the First EAC University Students Debate on EAC Political Integration!
Ephraim Percy Kenyanito, 20, is an Author, a Law Student, Humanitarian and a Social Entrepreneur and founder and project coordinator for "Sauti Kwa Watoto Advocacy and Communications Project" where he uses poems and drama and social media as a tool for communication by street children in Kenya. He also serves as a student intern with Transparency International- Kenya (Advocacy and Legal Advisory Centre) as part of his community outreach. He is one of the six university students who were selected to represent Kenya at the First EAC University Students Debate on EAC Political Integration in Arusha, United Republic of Tanzania as from 22nd-25th August 2012. Read his 'story' of how he got selected, the highlights of the event, incredible experiences and lessons he has learnt and want to inspire you with.
Ephraim Percy Kenyanito standing next to the East African Community (EAC) flag.
Selection process and journey to the United Republic of Tanzania
I recall when I first heard about the First EAC University Students Debate on regional integration. It was making news through university campus notice boards and through the social media and the call for application was over and over again shared across various networks. This sparked a ball of flames in my heart to at least make an effort and apply. "Wow an ultimate opportunity to network at the EAC regional level!" I told myself. With this enthusiasm, I resolved to do what is required to apply for the program.
I previously worked as the National Organizing Secretary and Deputy-President- Western Province Students' Council (WPSC) at Kenya Secondary Schools Students' Council (KSSSC), where on behalf of all secondary students in Kenya, I drafted a petition for "Learner Friendly Schools" to the government of Kenya which was presented to the UNICEF, UNESCO, Kenya's Vice President and Minister for Home Affairs, Ministers for: Education, Sports & Youth Affairs, Gender, Children and Social Services; NGO Council of Kenya among other private and social stakeholders in the Education Sector.
I was looking for another prospect to learn, share thoughts, interact and network with other young and passionate community activists and social entrepreneurs.
The First EAC University Students Debate on regional integration provided this opportunity and not only that; one could be able to interact with representatives from academia, private sector, civil society, media and technocrats from the East African region who would listen to the debate and make their comments on the strength of the deliberations and make recommendations on the way forward for the programme. The debate would be broadcasted in the EAC media and streamed live.
It took a little while until I received the magic email with a 'Congratulations Ephraim you have been selected' from Ms Ethel Sirengo, and Ms Kaboha Barbara both Program Assistants at the Nyerere Peace Centre at the East African Community Secretariat Office in Arusha City, United Republic of Tanzania.
My journey to the United Republic of Tanzania for the First EAC University Students Debate on regional integration began. I identified what I wanted to realize with this opportunity (or I would not have applied in the first place), I shaped my objectives, expectations and anticipations and wrote them down in my little diary and in my heart.
We were emailed a contact sheet with the names and contact details of the twenty nine (29) participants in order to contact each other before hand and to work together in the preparation for the debate. My fellow participants included: Bigirimana Désiré, Ndikumana Anatole, Nindorera Rebecca, Nsengiyumva Callixte, and Ntungane Olenka who were all from Burundi.
Those from Kenya included: Mbedy Milly Minayo, Mutua Jesse Kimani, Nangekhe Elizabeth, Oyombe Julians Amboko, Omondi Edna and Kenyanito Ephraim Percy.
Those from Rwanda Included: Mbembe Aaron Clevis, Mbembe Ye Mbembe (Adolphe), Mbonigaba Callixte, Mugabowindekwe Maurice, Muramira Gachegu and Muramira Hillary.
Those from Tanzania included: Fabian John, Arold Moses, Magoma Anthony, Maro Raymond Callyst, Mbele Frank and Ngilangwa Eric Gordon.
Those from Uganda included: Aboneka Michael, Ateenyi Rachael Kivuna, Kyobutungi Isabel, Muhindo James, Odong Amos and Tayebwa James Bamwenda.
The twenty nine (29) participants, representatives from academia, private sector, civil society, media and technocrats from the East African region pose for a group photo session at the new EAC Headquarters.
I chose to contact them and requested them that we form a Facebook group: "East African Community Youth Platform" In which we would share individual experiences and get to know each other before the debate while still in our home countries. The link to the Facebook Group is: https://www.facebook.com/groups/285740971539542/
They responded enthusiastically and I then knew that my objectives, expectations and anticipations were being met as I hoped that I would have the chance of making life-long friendships with my fellow youth who would be participating in the debate and exchange ideas on making EAC a better integrated community and this would go a long way not only into our private friendships but also into establishing a culture of consultation in suggesting policy formulation to our governments and also since I believe some of us will end up in future governments within EAC it would be a great opportunity to network with fellow youth leaders as early as possible.
Team Kenya members went to this historical tourist site first after arrival in Arusha City, United Republic of Tanzania.
Arriving in Arusha, United Republic of Tanzania on 22nd August, 2012 at 2.00pm with my fellow Kenyans; Mbedy Milly Minayo, Mutua Jesse Kimani, Nangekhe Elizabeth, Oyombe Julians Amboko and Omondi Edna, we could not help but admit the friendly atmosphere at the city of Arusha. The town was green and thus christened, "Geneva of Africa." This was unlike the smoky Nairobi that we had left earlier at 8.00 am East African Time.
Team Kenya members (Without Oyombe Julians Amboko) share a light moment at Arusha Declaration Museum).
With the theme of debate being, "understanding the benefits and challenges of regional Political Integration in East Africa", there could not have been a better time to describe the world in which we live in, countries are forming regional integrations in order to better provide services to their citizens and EAC Youth had to meet and discuss the benefits and challenges of the integration processes. Integration in the EAC indeed is something we ought to embrace especially as young people since it provides numerous opportunities for the 70 million youth out of the 133 million citizens of the East African Community. The obligation lies on us to create the desirable future through our present actions, to develop skills that would aid us remain relevant in a swiftly changing world (a global village) with seemingly overwhelming challenges.
Appreciating that these challenges are still solvable, the First EAC University Students Debate on regional integration made us understand that as young people of East Africa, we cannot afford any inaction, fold our arms and make the same slip-ups the older generation had made. We are young, energetic and resilient. It is definitely our time! Let's make the East African Community a better place through Economic, Socio-Cultural and Political Integration.
The interactions over coffee and lunch breaks gave me the opportunity to speak to the other 28 Youth Leaders from the East African Community Partner states. This gave me the opportunity to view East Africa differently. It was like looking through eye glasses of the over 25 country representatives to see and understand East Africa. The event provided the platform to be part of an International Community, to study, network, share concepts and best practices. All stereotyped sentiments about other countries' cultures in our thoughts were completely expunged during and after the debate. The effectiveness of such a multi-ethnic educational experience cannot be over-emphasized.
The event was a far-reaching refresher for me. The ice-breakers, and the combination of various excitements (team work activities, networking sessions, sketches, individual and team presentations, interactive talks, Q & A sessions, tours around Arusha, Peer Mentoring group discussions) made the learning experience permanent and truly memorable. It was great learning from Ms Heidtmann Miriam, Programme Manager, EAC- GIZ Programme on Promotion of Peace and Security, Ms Isabelle Waffubwa, Principal Political Affairs Officer at the EAC Secretariat, Mr Philip Wambugu, Director of Infrastructure, EAC Secretariat (Representing the Secretary General) John Sibi- Okumu (facilitator), Lilian Muchoki of Nyerere Peace Centre, Robinson Malemo of Kenya Airports Authority, Donald Deya, Executive Director of Union Panafricaine des Avocats, Velenina Gancheva of GIZ- EAC Programme on Promotion of Peace and Security, Bob Odiko, Senior Public Relations Officer, East African Legislative Assembly, Mr Aloysius Chebet, of EAC Secretariat,
Mr Amani Mwatoroka, Official Political and Security Affairs at the United Republic of Tanzania's Ministry of The East African Community,Mr Peter Chege Kamau, Assistant Director Regional Integration (Social Affairs) at the Republic of Kenya's Ministry of The East African Community, Ms Taima Lydia Munganyinka of East Africa Law Society and many others.
I was able to catch up with some of the organizers and students, and representatives from academia, private sector, civil society, media and technocrats from the East African region both supporting the proposition and the opposition sides of the debate and interviewed them on the video below:
Highpoints
The highpoint for me was the Peer Mentoring group discussions and Q & A session session that took place on August 24, 2012. This was the most exciting learning method used at the debating event. Imagine being in 3 discussion groups and competing to answer general knowledge questions about the EAC while on a limited time.
The second highpoint for most of the debaters was that we did not compete country versus country but rather the EAC Secretariat divided us into two groups of proposition verses opposition each with 3 participants from each of the five countries. We were further divided into 3 sets whereby you had to work in a group of 5 students with students from each of the 5 EAC partner states and compete against another team with the same composition of students. The best three teams would later receive prizes.
Team Kenya 2012 in full: From front Left: Mbedy Milly Minayo, Nangekhe Elizabeth, Omondi Edna. From back left: Mutua Jesse Kimani, Oyombe Julians Amboko and Kenyanito Ephraim Percy.
These two were the most insightful and productive time for the students as we all sharpened our team work skills.
The best Team: Arold Moses (Tanzania), Muhindo James (Uganda), Mugabowindekwe Maurice (Rwanda) and Oyombe Julians Amboko (Kenya)
These highpoints paid off since at the end there were certificates and prizes for the best 5 debaters and best 3 teams. I was lucky to be awarded the best debater by the panel of judges and was also in the 3rd best team out of six.
Ephraim Percy Kenyanito while receiving best debater award from the Deputy Secretary General, Productive and Social Sectors Hon. Jessica Eriyo
5 of the participants were also named EAC Youth Ambassadors pending approval by EAC policy organs and these students include: Ms. Ntungane Olenka (Burundi), Ms. Milly Mbedi Minayo (Kenya), Mr. Muramira Gashegu (Rwanda), Mr. Raymond Maro (United Republic of Tanzania) and Mr. James Tayebwa Bamwenda (Uganda).
We later had a closing dinner dance Gallery (which we really enjoyed!) on 24th August 2012 after the debate. The awards were given during the dinner.
Mutua Jesse Kimani (Kenya) and Omondi Edna (Kenya) who in my opinion were the best dancers for the night.
The following slides give a brief overview of the EAC Secretariat:
NCPR Presentation to students 2012
More information on the debate can be found through the EAC website and through traditional mainstream media through these links:
http://www.eac.int/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1082%3A1st-eac-university-debate-draws-to-colorful-close&catid=146%3Apress-releases&Itemid=194&fb_action_ids=486160148080135&fb_action_types=og.recommends&fb_source=timeline_og&action_object_map={%22486160148080135%22%3A10151053100208697}&action_type_map={%22486160148080135%22%3A%22og.recommends%22}&action_ref_map=[]
http://www.eac.int/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1079:1st-eac-university-debate-on-political-integration-kicks-off&catid=146:press-releases&Itemid=194
http://newsroom.iu.ac.ke/Student_attends_EAC_Universities_Debate
http://musingsofanairobian.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-east-african-community-integration.html
http://www.newtimes.co.rw/news/views/article_print.php?i=15095&a=57510&icon=Print
http://news.eac.int/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=759:eac-1st-university-debate&catid=48:eac-latest&Itemid=69
http://touch.dailynews.co.tz/index.php/local-news/8853-eac-youths-vital-in-regional-integration
http://www.trademarkea.com/site/default.asp?000=1&001=23&003=news&004=1279
http://allafrica.com/stories/201208240601.html
http://www.newtimes.co.rw/news/index.php?i=15097&a=57554
http://www.silobreaker.com/east-africa-eac-students-want-slow-political-federation-process-5_2265929166241136687
Post-debate activities
When we packed our bags and departed from Arusha, United Republic of Tanzania on August 25, 2012; we each had an idea on what to build from the debate and are currently working on attaining our individual goals.
Post-debate plans are to build on our current individual projects and to ensure that our community involvement activities stretch beyond our national borders and to collaborate with other EAC Youth Leaders in Youth Projects.
Each of the 29 participants (regardless of whether they opposed or supported the motion) are charged with the post-debate responsibility of being EAC Youth Ambassador and should create social awareness about the EAC Integration process through any legal and available means they can access.
Oyombe Julians Amboko has done this very well through writing letters to editors in major newspapers within the EAC and his most recent article can be accessed through: http://www.the-star.co.ke/opinions/others/92118-why-eac-integration-is-imperative
Others who have taken their new responsibilities with a lot of energy include those from Tanzania: Magoma Anthony, and Maro Raymond Callyst; who were recently hosted in East Africa Radio engaging the youth into the EAC Debate.
The First EAC Tanzanian Youth Representatives start their work at East Africa Radio engaging the youth into the EAC Debate.
If you are a young person from the East African Partner states and you have just read this, I am charging you with this wake up call. You cannot let your visions and determination die while you have been endowed with the opportunities to be all you can be through the East African Community Integration. If you have not discovered your purpose yet, you have got to do so and begin to toil. Take that footstep, take that possibility, take that dare and be industrious.
Our generation needs you and the change we dream about which will be created in the EAC Partner states only YOU can help create!
Special thanks go to the EAC- GIZ Programme Officials, the panel of 5 judges, the invited representatives from academia, private sector, civil society, media and technocrats from the East African region who listened to the debate and made their comments on the strength of the deliberations and made recommendations on the way forward for the programme and the entire Nyerere Peace Centre and EAC Secretariat team for an incredible First EAC University Students Debate experience.
Tagged community debatepoliticssocial entrepreneurtransparency internationalunited republic of tanzania
Previous: Kenya: Will Citizen Media participate to ensure peaceful elections in Kenya in 2012-13?
Next: Kenya: Murder of Muslim Cleric in Mombasa Sparks Riots
2 thoughts on "East African Community (EAC) University Students' Debate on EAC Political Integration: A Global Citizen's Perspective"
EDWIN MWANDA says:
I would like to encourage you for the effort that you are putting in and also would like to add that you should forge ways in which we are going to enhance trust among the EAC members and citizens in ensuring that we fast-track the implementation of EAC into the reality before vision 2030.Keep it up and count on me guys.
Nzioks Shaddy says:
first of all i would like to appreciate you guys for your efforts you are amazing and doing a very good job create it a open the eyes of all that is my message to you all


text:
The Creators Issue
Nick Jonas Wants to Be on 'Game of Thrones,' and Emilia Clarke Is Ready to Make It Happen
Winter (Storm Jonas) is coming.
By Mehera Bonner published 2 June 16
Nick Jonas, man who once starred in Disney's Camp Rock, has been flexing his acting muscles (and also his IRL muscles, just saying), and it looks like he wants in on that Game of Thrones action.
The former boy-bander got his fan-boy on while hanging out with Emilia Clarke on BBC Radio 1's Breakfast Show, and tried to keep his cool when she joked about him joining the show.
Nick: "I don't think they would hire me."
Emilia: "Oh, my God! Let's ask them now! David and Dan, if you're listening. I'll email them. True story: I'm going to e-mail them now. I will. I'll be like, 'listen: He's open to dyeing his hair Targaryen blond.' Right?"
Nick: "Absolutely. Let me know."
Emilia: "There we go. You can ride a dragon, honey!"
Nick: "I love dragons."
So, this is amazing. Also, we vote Nick plays Jonhaus Snow, the purity ring-wearing bastard cousin of Jon Snow, who also happens to be a wandering minstrel.
'Manifest' Season 4: Everything We Know
It's official: The once-canceled show is returning for a final chapter (or two).

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Mastering the basic principles of different sensor types can help to realise productivity gains and optimise efficiency. This guide covers a range of different sensors from factory automation to displacement sensors and their typical uses, helping you to identify the ideal device for your applications.
Moulded resin products can be created in a variety of complicated shapes, some of which require a large number of dimensional measurements. This guide covers the basics of injection moulding and the characteristics of typical instruments used to measure moulded resin parts.
Want to Understand More about Digital Microscopes?
Stably Detect ANY Changes in Appearance!
The LR-W Series Sensor solves the widest range of applications of any KEYENCE sensors. Unmatched detecting capabilities allow users to identify presence/absence, differentiate products with only slight variations, detect registration marks and verify colour, all with a single, self-contained device.
Read our guide to gain a better understanding about traceability and code readers and how they can help you to maintain a competitive edge by tracking and tracing products from any part of your production process.
Which Static Eliminator Suits Your Application Best?


text:
HomeLiteratureDream Allegory | Literary Genre | Dream vision in literature
Dream Allegory | Literary Genre | Dream vision in literature
Dream allegory is a mode of narrative extremely popular in the Middle ages.
By common convention the writer goes to sleep and dreamt an event in rural surroundings and often on a spring landscape.
Dream vision as an allegory
Usually the dream vision was expressed as an allegory. A excellent example of Medieval dream allegory is the 13th century French poem "Roman de la Rosa".
The "Roman de la Rosa" opens at a river bank outside a walled garden where the hero enters through a wicket gate, these scenes becomes a stock property in Medieval literature.
The story is narrated in the form of a dream, from which he wakes at the conclusion. This dream form of narration is presented by the writer as dream allegory.
The may morning, the wandering in the country, the falling asleep and dreaming , plot is usually a garden, are the characteristics features of the literary genre of dream allegory.
Creations under the literary genre of dream vision
The greatest Medieval poem Dante's "Divine Comedy" is an example of a dream allegory. The late 14th century poem, "The Pearl" by William Langland is also caste in the form of a dream allegory.
It is also the narrative mode of Langland's "Piers Plowman" and of Chaucer's "The book of Duchess", "The house of fame", "The Parliament of fowls" and the "Prologue to the Canterbury Tales".
After the middle ages, although the vogue of dream allegory diminished, yet it never died out. This is evident in Bunyan's prose narrative "The Pilgrim's Progress" and Keat's verse narrative "The Fall of Hyperion: A Dream". Lewis Carroll's "Alice-adventure in wonderland" is in the form of dream allegory.
In the Modern Age James Joyce's "Finnegan's Wake" is an example of a dream allegory.
Hope this short note is helpful to you.


On a private party or picnic when we use hand pump to push beer out of a keg the beer can relatively quickly get stale. What can be done to keep the beer in a good quality for as long as possible?
I can imagine that a low temperature and not moving the keg can help. What about air pressure? Is it better to keep it low or higher? I guess that low pressure is better because lower amount of air should dissolve in the beer in such a case. What other factors could influence the beer durability in such a situation?
Avoiding agitating the beer and reducing the temperature are the two key ways to slow down the rate of staling, but really once there's air in the beer it's just a matter of time before it goes bad.
This uses small CO2 cartridges to push the beer. The advantage being that the keg won't stale quickly since very little air is introduced.
If you take off the air pump and start charging it with CO2, and then pump a good bit of beer/foam out of it (to rid it of some of the air), you should have a much nicer ratio of dissolved CO2 to other gases. That plus keeping it chilled and not shaking it (just like you'd treat a can of beer) should help it last a good deal longer.
I prefer DrinkGAS. It's a good solution for a party, I use it in my restaurants.
Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged freshness keg or ask your own question.
How to tap beer without CO2, like the germans do?


I did a full rebranding at the beginning of this year and decided to start a new Instagram account with the new branding in focus, and it has been quite a ride.
Recently there has been a lot of confusion around the Instagram shadowban what is it, why it has come about, and what we should, and should not be doing, but the most important question here is have you been affected by it?
So, what is an Instagram shadowban?
An Instagram shadowban is when your hashtags become 'undiscoverable', what does this mean, when you use your hashtags you will only show up in the hashtag feeds of your current followers, so basically your images won't show up in the feeds of anyone who doesn't follow you which will reduce the visibility of your account and make it much harder to reach a new audience.
How do you know you've been affected?
What can you do that will give you a clear indication that you have been shadowbanned?
1. You can ask a friend to unfollow your account and look for your image in the hashtag feed of the hashtag that you have chosen for that image, your image will NOT show up if you have been shadowbanned.
2. You can follow this link HERE to a free Shadowban tool that will tell you if your image or account has been shadowbanned.
So what do I do if you've been shadowbanned?
2. Check your hashtags before you post to make sure none of them have been banned, if you find a post that has been shadowbanned, remove all the hashtags you posted under the image because they will all be affected and add in the safe hashtags that you have researched, your image should then show up under the hashtags that you have chosen.
3. Stop using automated services or bots.
So in conclusion basically Instagram is trying to figure out if you're a bot or not and keep the platform safe and undesirable for spammers, so be aware of your activity on Instagram how many people you like or how many people you dislike at once. Use fresh hashtags and research them before you use them and if you are suspicious that you have been shadowbanned check the free tool HERE.
Thank you for visiting The Imagepreneur, my name is Darlene Bayley I am a qualified Personal stylist and Style Expert and I have been in the Fashion industry for over 23 years for more information about the services I provide click HERE .


Many small business owners struggle with cash flow issues. This can be a problem because a company might generate a good deal of business but be waiting on payment for its goods or services. In the meantime, bills come due and the business may be struggle with basic expenses regardless of the size of the future payout.
Sometimes, a business owner may be able to forgo a salary for a few months until things even out. However, sometimes the cash flow problem is severe enough that this is insufficient. Obtaining a bank loan may take too much time, or the business owner might not have good enough credit to get the loan approved.
The solution to cash flow problems is in part based on the source of the problem. To help avoid unpaid invoices, business owners may want to ask for a deposit up front. Customers can be encouraged to pay early by offering a discount for early payment and adding fees for late payments.
It may be necessary to replace or upgrade expensive equipment. A P2P business loan can be the solution here although business owners should research companies carefully. Finally, opening a new location can incur significant expenses. This is a time when a business loan may be the best solution, so this requires careful advance planning.
Advance planning begins with setting up a business. Prospective entrepreneurs who can look ahead and consider how they will handle issues such as unpaid invoices, broken equipment and expansion will be better prepared when the time comes to do so. Creating a firm foundation is necessary, and an attorney may be helpful in choosing the right business entity, such as a corporation or a limited liability company, and filing the correct documentation as well as with other aspects of getting started.


The following maintenance schedule is a checklist of annual gardening activities for the newly developed landscape. By attending to these matters at the proper time, a major portion of the maintenance will be preventive rather than remedial.
Fertilize Bermuda and Zoysia grass as green growth begins to emerge. See our Solution Center staff for help in determining which fertilizer is best for your situation. Mow to a height of 1".
Sow Fescue or Rye early in the month, whether establishing a new lawn or overseeding an existing one. Rake the soil with a hoe before reseeding and maintain even soil moisture for 7 to 10 days. Don't let the grass grow taller than 3" before the first mowing!
Check new growth on shrubs, azaleas, roses & euonymus for aphids, scale or lacebug infestations. Control with horticultural oil or Neem.
Trim winter damaged plants as necessary. Replace plants that did not survive the winter.
Plant summer annuals in the middle of the month, depending on weather. Mulch beds with pine, cedar, or cypress mulch to control weeds and help conserve moisture.
Continue planting perennials as well as trees and shrubs.
Prune and fertilize azaleas after the blooms drop. Spray for lacebugs and mealybugs with horticultural oil or Neem.
Overseed with Bermuda or Zoysia grass after middle of the month.
Continue planting anything that grows.
Continue checking for insects, especially grubs, in lawns and treat as necessary.
If the weather does not cooperate, water new trees, shrubs and lawns thoroughly all summer. Water should be applied infrequently with enough per application to wet the soil to a depth of 6-8" (more for trees).
Weed beds as necessary. Use a selective herbicide to kills weeds and grasses in established flower beds.
Continue mowing the lawn, raising the height to 2 ½" on Bermuda, 3 to 3 ½" on Fescue.
Spot spray weeds in lawn as needed.
Continue checking for insect infestations. Bring specimens to Southwood for diagnosis and recommendations.
Liquid feed hanging baskets, patio pots, and bedding plants every two weeks.
Re-seed and fertilize cool season grasses.
Fertilize Bermuda and Zoysia one last time.
Replace summer annuals with pansies or chrysanthemums.
Tulips, Hyacinths, and Daffodils are available late September. Plant after first frost.
Lightly prune roses and other summer flowering shrubs.
Replace trees and shrubs that did not survive the summer.
Control existing broadleaf winter weeds such as dandelions. Visit Southwood for details.
If rainfall has been deficient, water thoroughly (6-8" deep) prior to a freeze.
Mulch or wrap tender plants to protect from freeze damage.
Remove any support stakes around trees that have been in place for one growing season.
Many perennials can be divided now.
Plant fall bulbs before the end of December.
If rainfall has been deficient, water lawns, trees and shrubs, especially any evergreens.
Many 'green' winter weeds can be controlled now with Roundup as it won't harm dormant Bermuda or Zoysia.
"Spring Clean-Up" – Remove weeds and debris from shrub and groundcover beds.
Fertilize beds with bagged, composted products, or use either organic or conventional fertilizers.
Add additional mulch to existing beds to help control weeds.
Fertilizer cool season lawns such as Fescue or Ryegrass. Mow 2" to 2½" high with a sharp mower.
Begin planting cool-season vegetables -- asparagus, onions, potatoes, salad greens and more.


There's nothing quite like that feeling of dread that slowly envelops you when you realize you've been backed. Regardless if it's just your social media account or something as serious as your bank account or credit card, you can't escape those first few moments of confusion, anger, and the overwhelming sense of fear. You don't know how they got your information, what other accounts they've had access to, how long they've had access, and it's terrifying. So I've come up with a checklist to help you protect yourself from further damage and begin the repairing process.
First off, breath. It might sound silly, but you need a clear head to proceed. Panic and fear will only lead to confusion. You can easily forget crucial steps you need to take or repeat ones and waste time.
Change your passwords, especially if you use the same password for multiple accounts. You should change your passwords once every 3-6 months. Consider using a password management software like LastPass or KeePass. In the future, set up two-factor authentication when possible.
If your personal information (such as social security number) has been compromised, notify the credit agencies (Equifax, Experian and TransUnion) and request a 90-day credit alert. Activating this tells businesses to contact you before any new account can be opened in your name. This alert can be renewed every 90 days. It can also stay in effect for seven years – so long as your identity has been stolen, and you've filed a report with the police.
The Federal Trade Commission also offers some excellent advice and includes details on how to get your life back after your identity has been stolen.
Monitor your credit card bills and double check any charges you don't recognize. Criminals are known to make small charges to begin with, hoping they'll go unnoticed, before running your card for something really big. If you see a charge you didn't make, call the credit card company and alert them right away.
If someone has already stolen your identity and opened an account, immediately contact the credit issuer and have the account closed. Dispute any charges that were made. Request your credit report from one of the three credit agencies and ask for any unauthorized accounts or incorrect information be removed from your record. This will help preserve your credit score.
Submit your report through the FTC website and keep copies of all your reports and correspondences with these agencies. Record everything, use certified mail and get delivery receipts. Most of the places you'll need to call will have a notice, "This call may be recorded for quality assurance purposes", but don't rely on them for recording the conversation. Record the call yourself, but be sure to inform the person on the other end of the line that you are recording the call. Check your state for telephone recordings laws.
Check your sent folder of your email and look for any messages that may have gone out that you didn't send. Hackers might request personal information from banks or send viruses to your friends. If you see anything suspicious, contact the recipients and let them know.
If the hacker has gained access to your account and locked you out by changing the password, you'll need to contact the email provider and prove you're the rightful account holder. And remember, if you've used your email address and the same password for other websites, those are all compromised as well. Change those as fast as you can to beat them to the draw. Even if you don't use the same password for those accounts, the hacker can still use the "forget my password" feature and have a new one email to them.
If you're concerned, your computer may have a virus, avoid making online purchases until you have run comprehensive anti-virus and malware software. Some virus installs keyloggers on your computer, letting the hacker see every keystroke. Typing in your credit card information is all they would need.


The durability, practicality, and cost of vinyl flooring have made it a popular choice among homeowners and businesses alike. Sheet vinyl and vinyl planks and tiles share many of the same advantages. But there are also differences between the two types, making each predominantly well suited for certain applications. Your decision eventually will be made on the type of environment your home is in, the level of traffic that space sees, and the kinds of challenges it will face such as staining and accidental spills. Your choice will boil down to which characteristics are most important for your situation.
One of the main reasons homeowners choose vinyl flooring is because any pattern can be printed to resemble a vast variety of materials like hardwood, stone, and tile. Sheet vinyl can be printed with lines that mimic the seams between individual planks and tiles.
A major advantage of sheet vinyl is its cost. It costs less than luxury vinyl planks and tiles with similar patterns. Sheet vinyl is mass-produced in huge rolls without the worry of precision cuts and waste. Provided your installer properly measures the space and properly cuts the sheets to fit, sheet vinyl is usually more affordable than vinyl tiles or planks.
When it comes to water resistance, sheet vinyl is the best option. Sheet vinyl is usually installed in one or two unbroken pieces, which means you do not have seams running between several individual pieces like you have with luxury vinyl planks and tiles. Seams make the moisture defense vulnerable in your floor and moisture can penetrate and damage the subfloor. Sheet vinyl is a much better barrier against moisture and is especially useful for bathrooms and other areas with a lot of moisture.
Both sheet vinyl and vinyl tiles or planks have their individual advantages. Your choice will boil down to what most important to you and how the floor is expected to perform. Our DIY customers will almost certainly prefer tiles or planks, but for areas where moisture is an issue, sheet vinyl is really the logical choice.
To learn more about sheet vinyl and to speak with one of our sales professionals, be sure to visit our Main Floor Carpet One Floor & Home showroom in Royal Oak, MI.


Due to unforeseen problems, the last few minutes are not available. We know that God will bless you with this wonderful message and charge to witness!
Unfortunately, this file is unavailable due to severe technical issues.
Let the Nations Sing Praise!


Send 20 Pink Tulips for UK flower delivery from Clare Florist.
20 stems of top quality, fresh crisp, vivid Pink Tulips - freshly picked and then simply presented within layers of fine tissue paper. As with all of the flowers in our, flowers under £35 range, these 20 stems of pretty Pink Tulips arrive ready for you to arrange in your own vase.
Pink Tulips are symbolic of good wishes and happiness, making this beautiful bunch the perfect gift to express thanks, congratulations, or good luck. They could also make a nice alternative to roses as a romantic gift.
Show that special person how important they are with the 20 Pink Tulips - beautiful tulips for only £24.99 including standard delivery to any address in the UK! Have these flowers delivered 7 days a week throughout the UK. Your flowers will be delivered in our special delivery box to prevent damage while in transit, so they arrive in excellent condition all for just £24.99!
For that extra special personal touch, why not a box of delicious Lily O'Briens Chocolates, a cuddly teddy or a Handwritten Card to say thank you.
We also have a large selection of flowers under £35 as well as many arrangements containing tulips and an array of different gift sets to suit every occasion.


text:
203 F. 3d 997 - Kimberly Miller v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company
Federal Reporter, Third Series
203 F.3d
203 F3d 997 Kimberly Miller v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company
203 F.3d 997 (7th Cir. 2000)
Kimberly Miller, Plaintiff-Appellant,
American Family Mutual Insurance Company, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 99-1537
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit
Argued September 29, 1999
Decided February 16, 2000
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. No. 98 C 168--Barbara B. Crabb, Judge.
Before Harlington Wood, Jr., Manion, and Evans, Circuit Judges.
Manion, Circuit Judge.
Kimberly Miller worked for American Family Mutual Insurance Company for eight years. She was a good employee who was twice promoted and who regularly received raises. Unlike her co-workers, she also gave birth to four children during her tenure. It was because of her pregnancies, she suspected, that she was not being paid as highly as her co-workers. After confronting her supervisors over her salary disparity, Miller was terminated. She sued American Family under Title VII, asserting that it discriminated against her with respect to her pay because of her pregnancies, and then fired her when she complained about it. In a thorough and well-reasoned opinion, the district court granted American Family's motion for summary judgment on both of Miller's claims. We affirm.
The following facts are undisputed for purposes of summary judgment.
American Family hired Miller in 1988 as a Special Projects Clerk at $5.70/hr. Over the next eighteen months, it twice increased her wages (first to $6.10/hr. and then to $6.53/hr.). In 1990, American Family promoted her to Advertising Coordinator in the Direct Marketing Unit of its Advertising Department at an annual salary of $19,965. It gave her four raises over the next four years, with her salary reaching $28,073 by 1994.
On April 15, 1994, American Family promoted Miller to Direct Marketing Specialist-Advertising at an annual salary of $32,994. This promotion occurred about three months after the birth of her third child and one month after she returned from maternity leave. American Family raisedMiller's salary to $36,323 in 1995 and to $38,473 in 1996. Her salary increases for 1994, 1995, and 1996 were the highest increases each year of any employee in her department.
Nevertheless, Miller was the lowest-paid person in her department in each of those years. American Family has three ranges of salaries for each position: minimum, mid-range, and maximum. Her 1994 and 1995 raises were needed to bring Miller up to the minimum range salary for her position. And her 1996 raise left her salary almost $2,000 below the bottom cut-off for her position's mid-range salary. Still, during her eight-year tenure, Miller received two promotions and a total pay increase from $11,115.00/year in 1988 (as an hourly employee) to $38,473/year in 1996 (as a salaried employee), and she was making progress with respect to American Family's three salary categories (rising from "minimum" in 1994 and 1995 to approaching "mid-range" in 1996). During this eight-year period, Miller gave birth to four children. She took four maternity leaves totaling thirty weeks in addition to 87 vacation and personal days.
From the time Miller was promoted to Specialist until she was fired, none of her four, female co-workers became pregnant or took maternity leave, and all were paid more than she, even those whom Miller had helped train. American Family explains that it paid Miller's colleagues more because they were in a higher position (and had been in that position longer); had been with the company much longer; had earned M.B.A.s (which Miller did not have); or had more experience in direct marketing and benefitted from "salary compression"--a condition where to attract employees from outside the company, American Family has to pay them more to perform the same job than it pays its existing employees who have equal or more experience. In this way, the salaries of its existing employees (in this case, Miller) are "compressed" relative to those of its newer hires.
By January 1995, Miller had discovered that she was the lowest-paid member of her unit and asked Ann Knapstein (then the head of Direct Marketing) whether it was because of her pregnancies. Miller asserts that Knapstein responded by "simply turn[ing] around, mad, and slamm[ing] one of the drawers on her desk."1
On July 31, 1995, Andy King succeeded Knapstein as head of Direct Marketing. He had not previously worked for American Family. King thought all five of Direct Marketing's employees deserved raises, but he had a fixed pool of money to allocate among them. As a matter of company policy, he could not withhold raises from deserving, newer employees (in order to award Miller a higher raise) simply because they benefitted from "salary compression" vis-a-vis Miller. King would give Miller the largest raise in her unit, although this would still leave her almost $2,000 below mid-range.
King met with Miller on April 16, 1996 to discuss her raise. She was disappointed to learn she was going to be paid well below mid-range. She asked King what she needed to do to get up to mid-range. She claims his response was "You just have to stop having kids and I'll get you up to mid-range in a couple of years."2 Aboutone month after this meeting, in May 1996, Miller told King and Knapstein that she was pregnant again.
Upset that she was being paid less than her Direct Marketing co-workers, Miller demanded a meeting with her supervisors. On June 27, 1996, Miller met with King and Knapstein and asked them why she was the lowest-paid person in her unit. Knapstein said that she had tried to get Miller a higher salary when Miller was promoted to Specialist in 1994, and King said that Miller had received the highest raise of anyone in Direct Marketing that year. Miller stated that although she was happy with her work, she was not happy with her pay and wanted to be compensated fairly.
But then, according to her own copious notes of the meeting, she told Knapstein and King that the Advertising Department had "flunked every one" of the "10 big mistakes" of management. And she told King that he was a "political hire" who was put in a position where he did not have the knowledge he needed to do his job. Miller added that she had two accordion binders at her home filled with problems concerning one of her co-workers. She then gave King and Knapstein the following ultimatum: she would give them until the end of July to find out whether there was money available to raise her salary to an appropriate level; she added that "[i]f you can't even answer that question, I will be leaving the company."
On July 1, 1996, King and Knapstein met with Miller. King told Miller there was no more money available to give her a higher raise. (Miller claims King made only a half-hearted effort to obtain more money for her because of his anti- pregnancy bias.) Miller responded: "Then I will be leaving the company. Before I make any final decisions on when that will be, I first need to make a few phone calls, check the contract I have with my baby sitter and speak with my husband." She told King she would meet with him in a few days to tell him her decision.
On July 3, Miller sent King an e-mail stating that she had discussed the situation with her husband and decided that "she would not be leaving the company in the near future." (Emphasis added.) On July 8, Miller met with King, Knapstein, and a woman from the company's Human Resources Department. Miller was advised that she was terminated, effective immediately. American Family's reasons were: (1) Miller's "raise-or-quit" ultimatum was inappropriate; (2) it was concerned that she would not be a "team player" in the future, given her views about her supervisors and her file on a co-worker; (3) it feared her lack of commitment to the company, given her statements about leaving; and (4) it felt she was unhappy because she was not getting paid what she felt she deserved and would leave soon anyway.
On October 7, 1996, Miller filed a complaint against American Family with the Wisconsin Equal Rights Division (ERD).3 After receiving a right to sue letter from the EEOC, Miller brought suit against American Family under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. sec. 2000e et seq., as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), 42 U.S.C. sec. 2000e(k). She claimed that from the day she was promoted to Specialist in Direct Marketing until her termination, American Family paid her less than her co-workers because of her pregnancies. She also claimed that American Family retaliated against her by firing her (a) when she complained about it; and (b) because she was pregnant.4
American Family moved for summary judgment. Because Miller filed her discrimination claim with the ERD on October 7, 1996, the district court first held that her claim of pregnancy discrimination prior to December 12, 1995, the date the 300-day statute of limitations expired (note 3, supra), was untimely. With respect to Miller's remaining claims of discrimination, the district court held that Miller failed to show that American Family's proffered non- discriminatory reasons for paying her colleagues more than her were false or "pretextual." The court also rejected Miller's alternative argument of discrimination that she based on the direct evidence of King's alleged "stop having kids" statement because it was not tied to any "adverse action"--at the same time he made this comment, he gave Miller the largest raise in her department. Finally, the district court ruled against Miller on her second claim, retaliatory discharge. It held that Miller failed to establish that she engaged in protected conduct at the June 1996 meeting with her supervisors (that she was complaining about pregnancy discrimination), and that in the alternative, Miller did not establish that American Family's reasons for firing her were pretextual.
II. Discussion
We review the district court's entry of summary judgment de novo. Gleason v. Mesirow Financial, Inc., 118 F.3d 1134, 1139 (7th Cir. 1997). "Summary judgment is proper if 'there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and . . . the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.'" Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)). All evidence, and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, are to be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmovant. Rabinovitz v. Pena, 89 F.3d 482, 486 (7th Cir. 1996). But the nonmovant still must produce evidence to establish those elements of her claim on which she bears the burden of proof at trial. Gleason, 118 F.3d at 1139. This means that the nonmovant "must do more than raise a 'metaphysical doubt' as to the material facts." Id. "Rather, she 'must come forward with specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.'" Id. (emphasis in original) (quoting Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986)).
A. Miller's Pregnancy Discrimination Claim
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 made it "an unlawful employment practice for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual or to otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's . . . sex." 42 U.S.C. sec. 2000e- 2(a). In 1978, Congress amended Title VII's prohibition on sex discrimination to include discrimination on the basis of pregnancy. See Kennedy v. Schoenberg, Fisher & Newman, Ltd., 140 F.3d 716, 722 (7th Cir. 1998). This amendment, known as the PDA, provides that "women affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical condition shall be treated the same for all employment-related purposes . . . as other persons not so affected but similar in their ability or inability to work." 42 U.S.C. sec. 2000e(k); see Kennedy, 140 F.3d at 722. "An unlawful employment practice is established whenever pregnancy is a motivating factor for an adverse employment decision." Kennedy, 140 F.3d at 722 (citing 42 U.S.C. sec. 2000e-2(m)).
1. Miller's pre-December 12, 1995 claim and the statute of limitations.
The 300-day time period for Miller to file her discrimination claim excluded any alleged discriminatory acts that occurred before December 12, 1995. To get around the statute of limitations, Miller seeks use of the "continuing violation" doctrine, under which a plaintiff may "get relief for a time-barred act by linking it with an act that is within the limitations period." Speer v. Rand McNally, 123 F.3d 658,663 (7th Cir. 1997). Miller argues this doctrine applies to her because American Family continued to discriminate against her in terms of her salary after December 12, 1995. As a result, she contends, it engaged in a "continuing violation" within the limitations period which she can link to American Family's pre-December 12, 1995 discrimination to bring this otherwise time- barred activity within the limitations period. See id. ("For purposes of the limitations period, courts treat such a combination as one continuous act that ends within the limitations period.").
Relying on our decision in Jones v. Merchants Nat'l Bank & Trust Co., 42 F.3d 1054 (7th Cir. 1994), the district court rejected Miller's argument. It noted that we have recognized three variations of the "continuing violation" doctrine and put forth the "covert" continuing violation theory as the variant which best fit Miller's case. Id. at 1058. Under this variation, "the plaintiff can only realize that she is a victim of discrimination after a series of discrete acts has occurred. The limitations period begins to run when the plaintiff gains such insight." Id. But "if the plaintiff knew, or with the exercise of reasonable diligence would have known after each act that it was discriminatory and had harmed her, she must sue over that act within the relevant statute of limitations." Id.
The district court noted Miller admitted that by January 1995, she knew she was the lowest-paid person in her unit and suspected it was because of her pregnancies. Miller, by her own account, then directly confronted Ann Knapstein (then her immediate supervisor) with this suspicion. According to Miller, Knapstein responded by "simply turn[ing] around, mad, and slamm[ing] one of the drawers on her desk." The district court reasoned that because Knapstein did not deny Miller's charge, her response (or lack thereof) was ambiguous. If Miller was bothered by that response, she had a duty to exercise reasonable diligence to inquire further whether American Family was in fact discriminating against her. Miller, however, did not do so. Instead, she continued working as if nothing had happened; she did not act at that point and "exercise reasonable diligence to root out an actual answer." Because Miller was alerted to a possible problem at the time of the encounter with Knapstein and yet did nothing, the district court held that Miller could not avail herself of the "continuing violation" theory to bring time- barred activity within the limitations period. See Jones, 42 F.3d at 1058.
On appeal, Miller argues that Knapstein's response was not ambiguous, but was clearly a denial that the pregnancies were a problem. We agree with the district court, however, about the ambiguity of Knapstein's response. Knapstein did not say "no" or shake her head negatively. On the one hand Knapstein's reaction could be attributed to her being angry that she got "caught" in alleged discriminatory behavior (a tacit admission of discrimination). On the other hand, it could be attributed to her frustration at what she perceived as Miller's ingratitude--the body language equivalent of "after all I've done for you (promotions, raises, four maternity leaves totaling 30 weeks), this is the thanks I get" (an implicit denial of discrimination). While the latter interpretation may be the more likely one, it is certainly not conclusive that this was the meaning of Knapstein's reaction. In short, Knapstein's reaction was ambiguous, and as a result, Miller should have pressed the issue of the discrimination she apparently suspected. Because she did not, she cannot invoke the "continuing violation" doctrine to save her time- barred claims.
2. Miller's post-December 11, 1995 claim and the "direct method" of proof.
With respect to Miller's discrimination claims that survive the statute of limitations (those occurring on and after December 12, 1995), "[w]e must determine whether [Miller] presented a question of fact as to whether [American Family]treated her less favorably because of her pregnanc[ies]." Marshall v. American Hosp. Ass'n, 157 F.3d 520, 525 (7th Cir. 1998). There are two ways in which Miller could do so. Id.; see also Kennedy, 140 F.3d at 722. She could "proceed under the 'mixed motives' or direct method . . . by producing sufficient evidence, either direct or circumstantial, to create a triable issue as to whether pregnancy was a motivating factor in her discharge." Id. Alternatively, Miller could avoid summary judgment by using the indirect, burden-shifting approach. See id. (citing McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973)).
In the district court, Miller employed both methods. Before us, she argues only the direct method. She relies on King's alleged statement of April 16, 1996 ("You just have to stop having kids, and I'll get you up to mid-range in a couple of years.") as direct evidence that American Family violated the PDA from December 12, 1995 until her termination.5
"When a plaintiff proceeds under the direct proof method, allegedly discriminatory statements are relevant, as the district court correctly recognized, only if they are both made by a decisionmaker and related to the employment decision at issue." Stopka v. Alliance of American Insurers, 141 F.3d 681, 688 (7th Cir. 1998). As we said in Chambers, 17 F.3d at 1004, there has to a be a link between the alleged prejudice of the manager and the adverse action at issue:
Liability under Title VII does not turn on the bigotry of company managers unless that bigotry resulted in injury to the plaintiff. . . . There therefore needs to be a link between an [American Family] manager's alleged prejudice, and the decisions that [Miller] is challenging.
In this case, the district court put this principle succinctly when it noted, "even if King were a bigot, [Miller] cannot make a claim unless his bigotry harmed her."
American Family made its decisions on Miller's 1994 and 1995 salaries before King arrived. Thus, even if these salaries were unlawfully low, King could not have been responsible for them. As a result, his April 1996 statement has no probative value for the legality of those earlier salaries. See Kennedy, 140 F.3d at 724 ("[E]ven if Goldberg's comment could be viewed as discriminatory, it does not serve as evidence plaintiff was terminated for discriminatory reasons because Goldberg, even though plaintiff's supervisor, was not a decision maker" as to the decision at issue.); see also Gleason, 118 F.3d at 1140.6
That leaves only two compensation decisions for which King was responsible: Miller's April 16, 1996 raise (when he made the "not having kids" remark) and his July 1996 refusal to give her an even bigger raise. As to the first, Miller's counsel acknowledged at oral argument that Miller did not advise her supervisors that she was pregnant with her latest child until mid-May, one month after King told her about her raise. Her claim of pregnancy discrimination with respect to her April 1996 raise cannot be based on her being pregnant if King did not know she was. It must, instead, be predicated on a more general displeasure with women who have missed work because of past pregnancies. Given that American Family is 64% female and its employees frequently take maternity leaves (indeed, Miller took four, totaling 30 weeks), we are skeptical the evidence would support the existence of such a claim.
But even if it would have, Miller's April 1996 raise was the biggest in her unit. King cannot be guilty of pregnancy discrimination--of treating Miller less favorably than her heretofore-non- pregnant co-workers--by giving her a raise that was bigger than the raises he gave all her non- pregnant colleagues. As the district court put it, "even if [King's] statement is evidence of discriminatory motive, the job action to which the comment was tied was not adverse; concurrently with the comment, [Miller] received the largest [raise] of any employee in the department." This is fatal to Miller's claim, for without a materially adverse job action, discrimination is not actionable. See Rabinovitz, 89 F.3d at 488; see also Chambers, 17 F.3d at 1004 ("Liability under Title VII does not turn on the bigotry of company managers unless that bigotry resulted in injury to the plaintiff.").
What remains, then, is Miller's argument that King discriminated against her by not agreeing to her July 1996 demand for even more money. The district court also rejected this argument, observing that "not everything that makes an employee unhappy is an actionable adverse action." Smart v. Ball State University, 89 F.3d 437, 441 (7th Cir. 1996). It noted that in Rabinovitz, we held that the "loss of a bonus is not an adverse employment action in a case . . . where the employee is not automatically entitled to the bonus," 89 F.3d at 488-89, and that here, Miller has not argued that she was "automatically entitled to an even larger raise." It reasoned that this case was in line with Rabinovitz: "If, absent entitlement, failure to receive any bonus or [raise] is not a material adverse job action, it follows that King's discretionary decision to award plaintiff the largest [raise] in her department[, but not to give her the even larger raise she demanded,] cannot be a material adverse job action. . . . whatever [King's] personal beliefs." We find the district court's reasoning entirely sound.
Miller similarly complains that King's failure to make a good faith effort to obtain more funds from which to give her an even bigger raise (allegedly because of his anti-pregnancy bias) is an adverse action. After meeting with Miller on June 27, 1996, King spoke with the Human Resources Division about obtaining more funds for Miller but did not press his inquiry. We do not find it remarkable, however, that King did not vigorously try to obtain more money for Miller after their meeting. She had just finished calling him--her supervisor--incompetent and a political hack, and she did so in the presence of his supervisor (whom she also called incompetent) before threatening to quit if she did not get her way. Given Miller's unusual strategy, it is surprising that King made any effort to garner more funds.
Nevertheless he did, and we do not fault American Family for King's efforts, even if he did not go to the mat for Miller. King had a limited pool of money from which to award raises. From this limited pool, he gave Miller the largest raise in her unit. Then, after she threatened to quit and personally insulted him, he still made an effort (albeit a relatively minor one) to obtain even more money for her.7 Under company procedures, King would then have had to have gone to his Vice-President to obtain more money for Miller, no doubt requiring an extraordinary request for a subordinate who had just insulted him in front of his boss. Under these circumstances, not taking that extra step was not an adverse action. See Rabinovitz, 89 F.3d at 488-489, supra.8
B. Miller's Retaliation Claim
Title VII protects persons not just from certain forms of job discrimination, but from retaliation for complaining about the types of discrimination it prohibits. Dey v. Colt Const. & Dev. Co., 28 F.3d 1446, 1457 (7th Cir. 1994) (citing 42 U.S.C. sec. 2000e-3(a)). Miller also argues that American Family violated Title VII by firing her in retaliation for complaining about alleged pregnancy discrimination. She does not have direct evidence that it did so, so she proceeds under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting variant applicable to claims of retaliation. See Dey, 28 F.3d at 1457. To establish a prima facie case of retaliation under it, Miller must show that (1) she engaged in statutorily protected expression by complaining about discrimination that Title VII covers; (2) she suffered an adverse action by her employer; and (3) there is a causal link between the protected expression and the adverse job action. Id. If Miller establishes these elements, then American Family has the burden to produce a legitimate (non- discriminatory) reason for firing her. Id. If it succeeds in doing so, then Miller has the burden to prove that American Family's proffered reasons were not true--that they were a mere pretext for retaliating against her. Id.
1. Miller's prima facie case.
The district court concluded that Miller did not engage in protected expression during her June 1996 meeting with Knapstein and King. The court noted two occasions when Miller did ostensibly discuss pregnancy discrimination--her January 1995 query to Knapstein and King's alleged comment to her in April 1996. The court concluded these events were not sufficiently connected to her termination; they would not support a reasonable inference that American Family fired her after the June meeting because Knapstein and King knew she was complaining about pregnancy discrimination at that meeting. Before us, Miller points to these two instances, as well as other events (so called "background facts"), and contends the district court impermissibly made credibility determinations by believing King and Knapstein that they did not know Miller was complaining about pregnancy discrimination at that meeting, while not believing her that they did know. Given these "background facts," Miller contends, a jury could reasonably infer that her supervisors really knew that her complaints at that meeting "centered around" her belief of pregnancy discrimination.
An employee, of course, need not use the words "pregnancy discrimination" to bring her speech within Title VII's retaliation protections. See Drake v. Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co., 134 F.3d 878, 882, 885 (7th Cir. 1998). But she hasto at least say something to indicate her pregnancy is an issue. An employee can honestly believe she is the object of discrimination, but if she never mentions it, a claim of retaliation is not implicated, for an employer cannot retaliate when it is unaware of any complaints. Cf. Dey, 28 F.3d at 1458 ("We agree that there generally can be no causal link between protected activity and an adverse employment action if the employer remained unaware of the protected activity.").
Here, the district court did not err in holding that Miller did not engage in protected expression at the June 1996 meeting. She said nothing to indicate that pregnancy discrimination was an issue. Her own copious notes (which she testified are a complete and accurate account of that meeting) plainly show that she did not mention pregnancy or even related topics such as children or maternity leave. Her complaints instead concerned a general displeasure with being paid less than her co-workers given her longer tenure and the fact that she had trained some of them. She also complained that a co- worker who was the subject of dozens of complaints was the highest-paid person in the unit. By complaining about matters other than her pregnancies, Miller, if anything, implied that pregnancy was not a factor in American Family's decisions.
Miller's "background facts" include things like her taking maternity leave in 1989, 1991, 1994, and 1995. That is accurate history but has nothing to do with the June meeting with King and Knapstein. Miller has not produced "evidence from which it could reasonably be inferred that [her employer] more likely than not" knew she was concerned about pregnancy discrimination. Senner v. Northcentral Technical College, 113 F.3d 750, 758 (7th Cir. 1997) (emphasis in original); see also Dey, 28 F.3d at 1459 n. 12. Indeed, as the district court noted, "[i]t is undisputed that [Miller] did not engage in statutorily protected expression at any time before or after January 1995, a year and a half prior to her termination. [And] [f]ollowing her remarks to Knapstein in 1995 she worked for a year and a half in apparent harmony with her supervisors and was given the largest [raise] in her department."
In sum, the district court did not invade the jury's province to assess credibility. Rather, it correctly concluded that Miller had failed to produce evidence from which a jury could reasonably and more likely than not infer knowledge on the part of her supervisors. See id. at 758; Dey, 28 F.3d at 1459 n. 12.9
2. Miller's assertion that American Family's reasons were pretextual.
Even if Miller had established her prima facie case of retaliation, American Family would still be entitled to summary judgment because it presented legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for firing her, and Miller did not meet her burden of showing that these reasons were pretextual. See Richter v. Hook-SupeRx, Inc., 142 F.3d 1024, 1029 (7th Cir. 1998) (when employer articulates legitimate reasons for terminating employee, burden shifts to employee to establish that the proffered reasons were phony). "Pretext" is "more than a mistake on the part of the employer; pretext 'means a lie, specifically a phony reason for some action.'" Id. at 1030 (quoting Wolf v. Buss (America) Inc., 77 F.3d 914, 919 (7th Cir. 1996)). Thus, "[t]he issue of pretext does not address the correctness or desirability of [the] reasons offered for employment decisions. Rather, it addresses the issue of whether the employerhonestly believes in the reasons it offers." Id. at 1029.
American Family's reasons for firing Miller were (1) her "raise-or-quit" ultimatum was inappropriate; (2) its concern that Miller would not be a "team player" in the future, given her views about her supervisors' competence and her file on a co-worker; (3) its fear that Miller lacked commitment to the company, given her statements about leaving; and (4) its belief that Miller was unhappy because she was not getting paid what she felt she deserved and would leave soon anyway on her own terms.
Miller argues her "raise or quit" ultimatum was not inappropriate. According to her, this is not simply a threat to leave; rather, it is a "threat to leave if you do not stop discriminating against me." Of course, Miller never said (or even implied) that American Family was engaging in pregnancy discrimination. Instead she called her immediate supervisor incompetent and a political hack, and called his supervisor incompetent. Miller had a right to engage in protected conduct without fear of retaliation, but when she says something obviously inappropriate and unprotected, she is not insulated from being fired. Because she did not prove some pretext, American Family's "inappropriate ultimatum" reason easily holds up. Gleason, 118 F.3d at 1143 ("In the summary judgment context, the ultimate burden is on the plaintiff to show that there is some genuine issue of fact as to whether the stated reasons form a pretext for . . . discrimination.").
Nor did Miller overcome American Family's other reasons--that she would not be able to be a "team player" in the future, that she projected a lack of commitment, and that she would be unhappy working with her supervisors and co-workers. True, her work had been good in the past and her supervisors were not concerned with her ability to continue to produce quality work. But someone who keeps a file on a co-worker and trashes her supervisors can reasonably be labeled something other than a team player. As to her lack of commitment, Miller thrice threatened to leave the company. And her second threat was really a promise--"then I will be leaving the company . . . ." Her third threat only partly retracted (but still confirmed) this promise: Miller clarified that she would not be leaving "in the near future." As the district court noted, it "is not discriminatory for an employer to take preemptive action against an employee who has announced her intention to leave at the first opportunity." Lastly, based on Miller's repeated threats to quit, it is reasonable to conclude that American Family sincerely believed she was unhappy at the company, and therefore it was in its best interest to terminate her before she left on her own terms. Gleason, 118 F.3d at 1142 (employer is entitled to make "reasoned business judgment about whether to continue" to employ plaintiff).10
American Family readily acknowledges that Miller was a good employee. Perhaps she should have been paid more, but it is nevertheless undisputed that American Family was making progress in eliminating the pay disparity between Miller and her colleagues. In a few years, this disparity may well have been eliminated. Instead of waiting (or reaping the benefits of "salary compression" elsewhere), Miller got angry and "gave [her employer] ample nondiscriminatory reasons to terminate her." As the district court observed, "[t]hat she found she could not quit on her own terms does not mean that shecan escape the consequences [of her actions]."
The judgment of the district court is
Miller's account of this incident is from her affidavit in response to American Family's motion for summary judgment, and is the account she sets out in her Statement of Facts before this court. In her earlier deposition, however, she testified that Knapstein's response was "to g[e]t very nervous and . . . sa[y] no, that's not the reason." We generally look with disfavor on using affidavits that contradict earlier deposition testimony. See Adusumilli v. City of Chicago, 164 F.3d 353, 360 (7th Cir. 1998) ("where [prior] deposition and affidavit are in conflict, the affidavit is to be disregarded unless it is demonstrable that the statement in the deposition was mistaken."). In this case, we shall allow Miller to use her more favorable affidavit version of Knapstein's reaction because it still does not substantiate her claims.
King admits he told Miller that by working within the parameters of the company's compensation system he would try to get her salary to the mid- range level in a couple of years; he denies he told Miller that he would condition his doing so on her not becoming pregnant again.
In Wisconsin, a plaintiff alleging discrimination under Title VII must first file a complaint with either the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) or the ERD within 300 days of the alleged discriminatory conduct. See 42 U.S.C. sec. 2000e-5(e); Speer v. Rand McNally & Co., 123 F.3d 658, 662 & n.1 (7th Cir. 1997); Alvey v. Rayovac Corp., 922 F. Supp. 1315, 1326 (W.D. Wis. 1996).
In her complaint, Miller also alleged that American Family denied her promotions because of her pregnancies in violation of Title VII. However, she did not pursue this claim in the district court.
Miller asserts American Family errs in stating that she "is proceeding only on a direct evidence theory to establish pay discrimination." She argues that she has identified more than the direct evidence of King's alleged statement. It appears Miller is confusing the direct method, under which a plaintiff may use both direct and circumstantial evidence to establish discriminatory motive, with the indirect method, under which she must establish a prima facie case. See Marshall, 157 F.3d at 525. Miller does not lucidly develop her direct method theory with circumstantial evidence (her argument revolves around the direct evidence of King's alleged statement). See Chambers v. American Trans Air, Inc., 17 F.3d 998, 1005 (7th Cir. 1994) (Undeveloped arguments are waived. "[W]e will not reverse the entry of summary judgment based on skeletal snippets of argument . . . ."). And if Miller is instead disputing that she has abandoned the indirect method, her protest is to no avail, for she has not discussed it in her initial brief in any cognizable fashion, such as by demonstrating how she has made a prima facie case. See id.
Although we will assume King's alleged statement qualifies as direct evidence, there is a question whether it does. "To rise to the level of direct evidence of discrimination, this Court has stated that 'isolated comments must be contemporaneous with the [adverse action] or causally related to the [applicable] decision making process.'" Kennedy, 140 F.3d at 723 (quoting Geier v. Medtronic Inc., 99 F.3d 238, 242 (7th Cir. 1996)); see also Marshall, 157 F.3d at 526. Here, King's statement is neither. There was no adverse action to which the statement was tied: King gave Miller the biggest raise in her department when he made the remark. And it was not causally related to the applicable decision-making process: the statement refers to future compensation decisions, not to the April 1996 one that had already been made.
King's effort to obtain more money for Miller after her insult indicates he in fact did not have an anti-pregnancy bias. See Gleason, 118 F.3d at 1141 (emphasis in original) ("In reviewing a . . . grant of summary judgment, we must evaluate the record 'as a whole.' Therefore, in addition to the supposed 'evidence' of pregnancy discrimination cited by [plaintiff], . . . we must also consider any facts in the record which serve to establish that her employer was not biased against pregnant women . . . .").
American Family also contends that, if anything, King's alleged statement reflected a negative attitude toward Miller's absences from work due to her maternity leaves and vacations (which the PDA would not cover), rather than a discriminatory attitude towards her pregnancies (which the PDA would cover). Geier, 99 F.3d at 242. Because we hold that American Family's compensation decisions were not "adverse actions," we need not address this argument.
Miller's subjective belief that her supervisors knew her complaints at the June meeting "centered around" her belief of pregnancy discrimination, by itself, will not create the factual dispute needed to ward off summary judgment. This bare assertion simply speculates as to what her supervisors knew, and for the reasons just discussed, it is not reasonable to impute such knowledge to them. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e); Adusumilli, 164 F.2d at 359-360 (affirming striking, as speculation, portion of employee's affidavit attesting to supervisors' alleged knowledge because it was not reasonable to impute knowledge to them).
Miller disputes American Family's contention that she has abandoned her claim that it fired her for being pregnant. She concedes, though, that this claim rises or falls with the resolution of the pretext analysis on her claim that American Family fired her for complaining about discrimination. Because we affirm the district court's ruling that American Family did not fire Miller for complaining about pregnancy discrimination, we need not address her claim that it fired her for being pregnant.


directly from the internal or external hdd!
The 1st Dual Firmware Add-On, compatible with both Toshiba-Samsung and Hitachi-LG drives of XBOX360!
Choose with the switch the firmware you wish to boot your console!
Worlds' First modchip compatible with all PS2 models with Plug&Play installation!
Worlds' First modchip compatible with all Xbox models and all LPC modchips!
Other No-Swap modchip solutions for PS2/Xbox consoles, with exclusive features!


A contemporary European design with a mid century aesthetic, the Lof 101 offers great comfort with or without upholstery. The Lof collection includes two chair options, and a small table all suitable for both commercial & residential interiors.
European Beech solid timber with ply seat and back.
Back and or seat optioanl upholstery.
Available ex Europe in Oak or Beech. Contact Us for leadtimes.


text:
Q: Getting error 'value' is not a valid managed object while implemting Realm in Android App In my app, I have to fetch JSON data from rest API. I am using Realm as a local database inside the app. Now after creating model classes, I have one controller class where I performed deserialization and stored functionality into Realm DB. But unfortunately, the app is crashing whenever I click the option to see the news page. I have explained in code.
NewsRealmModel Class
public class NewsRealmModel extends RealmObject {
    public static final String ID = "id";
    private String _id;
    private String body;
    private String title;
    private String updatedDate;
    private RealmList<AppImage> appImages;
    private String updatedAt;
    private TeaserImageSmall teaserImageSmall;
    public NewsRealmModel() {
    }

    public static String getID() {
        return ID;
    }

    public String get_id() {
        return _id;
    }

    public void set_id(String _id) {
        this._id = _id;
    }

    public String getBody() {
        return body;
    }

    public void setUpdatedDate(String updatedDate) {
        this.updatedDate = updatedDate;
    }

    public RealmList<AppImage> getAppImages() {
        return appImages;
    }

    public void setAppImages(RealmList<AppImage> appImages) {
        this.appImages = appImages;
    }

    public String getUpdatedAt() {
        return updatedAt;
    }

    public void setUpdatedAt(String updatedAt) {
        this.updatedAt = updatedAt;
    }

    public TeaserImageSmall getTeaserImageSmall() {
        return teaserImageSmall;
    }

    //getting error for this.teaserImageSmall = teaserImageSmall;
    public void setTeaserImageSmall(TeaserImageSmall teaserImageSmall) {
        this.teaserImageSmall = teaserImageSmall;
    }

}

TeaserImageSmall Class
public class TeaserImageSmall extends RealmObject{
    private String alt;
    private String src;
    public String getSrc() {
        return src;
    }

    public void setSrc(String src) {
        this.src = src;
    }

}

Now, the AppImage Class
public class AppImage extends RealmObject{
    private String _id;
    private String alt;
    private String src;
    //getter and setter
}

The Controller Class is
public class NewsController {
    private static final String TAG = NewsController.class.getSimpleName();
    private UserCallbackListener mListener;
    private NewsRestApiManager mApiManager;
    private AppImage appImages;
    Realm myNews_realm;
    public NewsController(NewsPage listener) {
        mListener = listener;
        mApiManager = new NewsRestApiManager();
    }

    public void startFetching(){
        myNews_realm = Realm.getDefaultInstance();
        mApiManager.getNewsApi().getNews(new Callback<String>() {
            @Override
            public void success(String s, Response response) {
                Log.d(TAG, "JSON :: " + s);
                try {
                    JSONArray array = new JSONArray(s);
                    for(int i = 0; i < array.length(); i++) {
                        JSONObject jsonObject = array.getJSONObject(i);
                        Log.d("-----Start Fetching---", jsonObject.optString( "title" ));
                        myNews_realm.beginTransaction();
                        NewsRealmModel news = myNews_realm.createObject( NewsRealmModel.class );
                        news.setTitle( jsonObject.optString( "title") );
                        news.setBody( jsonObject.optString( "body" ) );
                        news.setUpdatedAt( jsonObject.getString( "updated_at" ) );
                        ArrayList<AppImage> list = new ArrayList();
                        JSONArray imageArray =jsonObject.getJSONArray("appImages");
                        if (imageArray.length() > 1) {
                            for(int j=0; j<imageArray.length();j++){
                                appImages  = new AppImage();
                                try {
                                    appImages.setSrc( new JSONArray( s ).getJSONObject( i ).getJSONArray( "appImages" ).getJSONObject( j ).optString( "src" ) );
                                }
                                catch (JSONException e){
                                    e.printStackTrace();
                                }
                                list.add(appImages);
                            }
                        }
                        news.setAppImages( list );
                        // I am getting error for this line
                        TeaserImageSmall coverImage=new TeaserImageSmall();
                        coverImage.setSrc( new JSONArray( s ).getJSONObject( i ).getJSONObject( "teaserImageSmall" ).optString( "src" ));
                        news.setTeaserImageSmall(myNews_realm.copyToRealmOrUpdate(coverImage));;
                        //error in this line
                        myNews_realm.commitTransaction();
                    }
                }
                catch (JSONException e) {
                    mListener.onFetchFailed();
                }
                mListener.onFetchComplete();
            }
            @Override
            public void failure(RetrofitError error) {
                Log.d(TAG, "Error :: " + error.getMessage());
                mListener.onFetchComplete();
            }
        });
    }

    public interface UserCallbackListener{
        void onFetchStart();
        void onFetchComplete();
        void onFetchFailed();
    }

}

The Logcat is showing following error
09-02 21:11:43.050 7337-7337/demo.app.com.bluapp_client_and E/AndroidRuntime: FATAL EXCEPTION: main

Process: demo.app.com.bluapp_client_and, PID: 7337
    java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: A RealmObject with no @PrimaryKey cannot be updated: class demo.app.com.bluapp_client_and.RealmModel.TeaserImageSmall
at io.realm.Realm.checkHasPrimaryKey(Realm.java:1615)
        at io.realm.Realm.copyToRealmOrUpdate(Realm.java:1030)
        at demo.app.com.bluapp_client_and.controller.NewsController$1.success(NewsController.java:134)
        at demo.app.com.bluapp_client_and.controller.NewsController$1.success(NewsController.java:99)

A: Your code will not crash anymore with this error if you replace
news.setTeaserImageSmall(coverImage); //error in this line

With
news.setTeaserImageSmall(realm.copyToRealm(coverImage));

Because news is managed object, so coverImage has to be managed object as well.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
Kourtney Kardashian has a Portofino wedding in Italy
by broderickfatnown | May 20, 2022 | Blog | 0 comments
(CNN) — Many a time has a trip within the solar led to a vacation spot marriage ceremony and it appears that evidently Kourtney Kardashian and Travis Barker aren't any totally different from the remainder of us.
The pair spent a lot of summer time 2021 in Italy residing la dolce vita, as they drifted round on a yacht in Liguria, took in a trend present in Venice, and packed in loads of PDA in between, which had been swiftly posted to Instagram.
And it appears that evidently their time in Portofino — throughout which Kourtney took to her Instagram Tales to provide her followers journey ideas — made an actual impression on them, because the pair are rumored to be returning to get married. Presumably this weekend, to be exact.
The couple — together with family and friends — have been noticed right now again in Portofino, with TMZ reporting that they are going to be married this weekend at Castello Brown, the fort which launched a thousand postcards, perched on a bluff above city.
Kourtney Kardashian and Travis Barker seen in Portofino, the day earlier than they are going to supposedly marry.
The Mega Company
Representatives for Castello Brown didn't reply to a request for remark, although an individual answering their cellphone line admitted that the fort, which is often open to guests, was closed this weekend "for a personal occasion."
A spokesperson for Kardashian didn't reply to a request for remark.
The couple had been legally married a number of days in the past, forward of their vacation spot marriage ceremony. That they had beforehand staged a faux marriage ceremony in Las Vegas.
The fort — which is an integral a part of the Portofino skyline — payments itself as a "distinctive location," and is obtainable to rent out for occasions, in addition to providing daytime visits to the general public. It's thought that the location has been fortified since Roman instances, although the modern-day Castello Brown is a Nineteenth-century renovation by former British consulate Montague Yeats-Brown.
Yeats-Brown purchased the fort in 1867, after it had been deserted for greater than half a century, following the autumn of the Republic of Genoa. He turned it right into a lavish villa, match for a celeb marriage ceremony, and remodeled the previous artillery entrenchments right into a lush backyard.
At the moment, weddings, civil ceremonies and conferences are held within the backyard, overlooking the port and village beneath.
Portofino has lengthy been beloved by foreigners looking for some dolce vita — in truth, the entire area of Liguria was a cease on the Grand Tour, with many northern Europeans, and particularly Brits (together with Mary Shelley), establishing residence on the coast.
For the reason that Fifties, it has been a Hollywood hotspot, and stars nonetheless flock to the village, usually to lease yachts and keep offshore. Final summer time, a newly reunited Jennifer Lopez and Ben Affleck got here ashore for the day.
At the moment, the streets of what was a easy fishing village are stuffed with designer retailers and celebrities spilling out of them. Kardashian herself is a frequent customer, having not too long ago posted throwback photos of journeys in 2019 and 2016.
Italy is, after all, one of many go-to spots for stars wanting a vacation spot marriage ceremony. The Clooneys picked Venice, whereas Justin Timberlake and Jessica Biel went south to Puglia for his or her marriage ceremony. Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes married in Lazio, whereas Kourtney's sister Kim married Kanye West in Florence in 2014.
The Kardashian-Barker marriage ceremony, if confirmed, will not be the primary excessive profile nuptials to be held in Portofino — and the couple can be happy to listen to that Ligurian celeb weddings appear to final.
Rod Stewart and Penny Lancaster married right here in 2007, returning to resume their vows 10 years later.
And Wayne and Coleen Rooney — presently on the heart of the UK's compulsive "Wagatha Christie" libel trial — married close by in Santa Margherita Ligure, in 2008.


The Supervisory Board Chairman of E.ON SE, Werner Wenning, will end his service at the end of the E.ON's Annual General Meeting on June 8th. He has served as Member of the Supervisory Board since April 2008 and as its Chairman since May 2010. The Supervisory Board Nomination Committee is proposing Karl-Ludwig Kley as his successor on the Supervisory Board and as Supervisory Board Chairman. Kley is currently the Chairman of the Executive Board & CEO of Merck of Merck KGaA. He will leave the company at the end of April.
"Over the past five years I have been able to play my part in repositioning E.ON for the future. The Uniper spin-off and the strategic realignment represent an important turning point for E.ON, and for me this is the right time to pass on the responsibility to somebody else," Wenning said stating the reasons for his decision.
Under the leadership of Werner Wenning, the Supervisory Board adopted the new strategic alignment in November 2014 and appointed the members of the management boards of the two companies. The Annual Shareholders Meeting will also shortly receive recommendations concerning the future composition of the Supervisory Board. "We have thus set the course for the future of the Group. I am convinced that with this strategic realignment E.ON has embarked on the right path towards the future," Wenning emphasized.
Karl-Ludwig Kley has been successfully leading Merck KGaA for 10 years. Prior to that he served as Chief Financial Officer of Lufthansa and held various management positions at Bayer. "Karl-Ludwig Kley is a prominent German business leader who is thoroughly familiar with the structures of large organizations. I am delighted that he is available to tackle the challenges at E.ON," Wenning said.


text:
Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby (2006)
Bewitched (2005)
Kicking and Screaming (2005)
Melinda and Melinda (2005)
Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy (2004)
Elf (2003)
Step Brothers (2008)
Land of the Lost (2009)
Megamind (2010)
Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues (2013)
Daddy's Home Two (2017)
The LEGO Movie 2: The Second Part (2019)
The Grand (2008)
Sleepwalking (2008)
The Prize Winner of Defiance, Ohio (2005)
After the Sunset (2004)
Natural Born Killers (1994)
The Hunger Games (2012)
Seven Psychopaths (2012)
Now You See Me (2013)
War for the Planet of the Apes (2017)
Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri (2017)
Andre 'Andre 3000' Benjamin
Idlewild (2006)
Four Brothers (2005)
Hot Rod (2007)
Monsters vs Aliens (2009)
G-Force (2009)
When in Rome (2010)
The Secret World of Arriety (2012)
The Nut Job (2014)
The LEGO Batman Movie (2017)
Welcome to Mooseport (2004)
Finding Amanda (2008)
Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa (2008)
Freaks and Geeks: The Complete Series (1999)
Watchmen (2009)
Watchmen: Director's Cut (2009)
Dark Shadows (2012)
A sort of cinematic comfort food: it's the mac and cheese of the cineplex.
90 min. New Line Cinema. Director: Kent Alterman. Cast: Will Ferrell, Woody Harrelson, Andre 'Andre 3000' Benjamin, Jay Phillips, Will Arnett, Maura Tierney, Andy Richter, David Koechner, David Koechner, Jackie Earle Haley, Jackie Earle Haley.
There's nothing you haven't seen before in the basketball comedy Semi-Pro, but the Will Ferrell vehicle qualifies as a sort of cinematic comfort food: it's the mac and cheese of the cineplex. The emphasis is on cheese, with Ferrell playing Jackie Moon, the player-coach-owner of the Flint Tropics. Unfortunately his team draws more for Jackie's crazed promotions than any skill on the court. In the film's 1976 setting, these are the once-heady, now-waning days of the ABA, a less-successful version of the NBA—if the Tropics don't step up their game, they'll be going the way of the rainforest.
With depressed Flint, Michigan as the appropriate backdrop, the unaccountably confident Moon is sure he can get the Tropics into the top four ABA teams that will survive an NBA merger. Step one: trade the team washing machine for NBA also-ran Ed Monix (Woody Harrelson). Step two: escalate the wacky promotions to draw in the crowds, even if it means choreographing a dance number for the team—including André Benjamin's Clarence "Coffee" Black—to perform in tropical-themed mascot outfits (seahorses, flamingos, and the sun). Step three: walk into "the anals of history" (um, sic). It's all about Ferrell's gift for characters fueled by unbridled, spontaneous enthusiasm: assuming his time is on the way to the big time on the announcement of the merger, he exclaims, "I'm so happy I can't even feel my arms!"
The always welcome Maura Tierney is on hand to engage in a seriocomic subplot about her relationship with Monix, and the rest of the supporting cast is a who's who of comedy talent: David Koechner, Andy Richter, Matt Walsh, and, most surprisingly, Jackie Earle Haley, whose last role earned him an Oscar nomination. Fresh face Andrew Daly, paired with known quantity Will Arnett, kills as straight-laced Tropics announcer Dick Pepperfield. We know we're in for the Ferrell school of innocent profanity and sexual bravado right from the start: a credits sequence set to catchy faux 1970's gold record "Love Me Sexy." Dick and boob jokes are par for the course in a Ferrell vehicle, but they're always just a cut above the usual nonsense—it's in the verbal construction and the well-timed delivery. The jokes are frat-friendly to be sure (the script's by the writer of Old School), but with the satisfyingly absurdist twists we've come to expect from Ferrell flicks.
Aspect ratios: 2.35:1 Anamorphic Widescreen
Audio: 7.1 DTS-HD Master Audio
Street date: 6/3/2008
Distributor: New Line Home Entertainment
Semi-Pro makes a fast break onto Blu-Ray and DVD in mirrored 2-Disc Unrated "Let's Get Sweaty" editions. Both the Original Theatrical Version (1:31:24) and new Unrated Extended Version (1:38:27) of the film are included on disc one in transfers that actually look better than the film did in theatres (while preserving the rusty seventies look the filmmakers intended); plus you get to hear Will Ferrell croon "Love Me Sexy" in 7.1 DTS-HD Master Audio.
Disc two sends us to showers of extras. The rewarding From the Cutting Room Floor section (15:16 with "Play All" option) is well worth watching in full, with four Deleted/Alternate Scenes—"Dick Pepperfield Opening" (1:27), "Monix Prologue" (1:58), "Tropical Fever Dance" (:54), and "Alternate Ending: Where Are They Now?" (2:17)—and three unused Improv runs: "Dick and Lou" (1:39), "Tropics Weekly" (3:42), and "Andy, Amy, and Will" (3:17), the latter actually separate runs by Andy Richter, Amy Sedaris, and Ferrell.
Next up is the Behind-the-Scenes section. "A Short History of the ABA" (6:50) delivers on its promise, letting us know, among other facts, that the three-pointer originated in the ABA. Director Kent Alterman, Ferrell, writer Scot Armstrong, former NBA player Jerome "Pooh" Richardson, and former ABA players, James Silas, Artis Gilmore, and George Gervin participate. "Recreating the American Basketball Association" (12:46) adds comments by streetballer Grayson Boucher, basketball coordinator Mark Ellis, and actors Andre Benjamin, Jay Phillips, and Josh Braaten while depicting the behind-the-scenes process of casting b-ball talent and coaching the stars.
Behind-the-Scenes featurettes continue with "'Love Me Sexy'—The Story Behind the One-Hit Wonder" (5:24), with comments by music producer Nile Rodgers and Patti LaBelle; "Bill Walton Visits the Set" (2:40), adding fresh participants former NBA player Walton and head hair stylis Bridget Coot while revealing the director's surprisingly notable role in ABA history; "Four Days in Flint" (5:38), which focuses on the good community relations and production challenges on location, adding comments by co-producer Josh Church; and "The Man Behind Semi-Pro" (23:56), the closest to a making-of doc, adding the two cents of Maura Tierney, Woody Harrelson, Richter, Rob Corddry, Will Arnett, Andrew Daly, and Jackie Earle Haley.
The Promotions section features a "Love Me Sexy" Music Video (1:59) and two installments of "Flint Tropics Hot Talk with Dick Pepperfield": "Ball Girls" (1:14) and "Pancakes and Camels" (1:25). Also provided: the film's Teaser (:45), Trailer (2:28), and Red Band Trailer (1:48). More good news about this fully loaded Blu-Ray special edition: nearly all of the extras are presented in high-definition (a combination of 1080p and 1080i), and there's a funny (and addictive) Blu-Ray bonus that's ironically low-tech: a Pong-styled interactive game called Jackie Moon's Super Agility Trainer. Score!


First vehicle to feature SkyActiv efficiency technology, which will be a feature of subsequent Mazda models from 2012.
The 6th generation SL-Class roadster. Not an extensive model range, but impressive and advanced technology nonetheless.