A commissioned article for Ceramic Review Issue 257 2012 about The Plate Experiment.
CJ O'Neill tells us about her PhD project that evokes stories in participants.
READYMADES AND FLUORESCENT FIGURES In order to do this I devised a piece called The Plate Experiment to show in an exposition, State of Play, a PhD work in progress show at RIBA Hub, Manchester, July 2011, and again as part of the British Ceramics Biennial at Spode, Stoke-on-Trent. For The Plate Experiment I selected a range of plates gathered from charity shops and flea markets that already contained a high level of surface narrative. I began to play with highlighting characters from within the surface pattern, producing silhouettes of these in hand-cut fluorescent orange card. I enjoy the combination of industrial, man-made materials with processes of the hand; the juxtaposition of the two elements set up a counterpoint. Silhouettes of doorways had emerged during my involvement in The Pol Project, a month long collaborative project in Dhal ni Pol, Ahmedabad, India in 2010. (www.thepolproject.blogspot.com) acting in most instances as a visual portal, entry point, or escape route.
The basic premise of The Plate Experiment was a simple set up of camera over a cutting mat with a range of plates and hand-cut characters/doorways laid out for participants to use. Visitors were invited to interact by selecting their own combination of a plate, a character, and a doorway, to encourage responsive storytelling. Participants were invited to create a scene with the materials and then write a short statement about the story they imagined; each story was separate and people didn't see the others' stories.
AUTHORSHIP My subsequent processing of this information unexpectedly highlighted issues around authorship. Whose work is this? How are the others I invited to be involved in this process actually acknowledged? The piece presented below cites a number of authors, and is one way of addressing this issue. It is crafted by me from the combined contributions made during The Plate Experiment at State of Play by Helen Felcey, Pui Lee, CJ O'Neill, Sonia Sanchez-Lopez, and Sylvianne Sykes.
SHARED TECHNIQUES On reflection I see that the process of creating this narrative is the same process that I use when constructing a ceramic piece, working with layers and symbols to create a thread, a connection, between disparate parts. Inviting others into this process has been enlightening, liberating, and challenging. I didn't know what to expect – perhaps no one would interact, there would be no dialogue to develop; if they did interact, what would I do with the contributed stories? Instead of too little, I was slightly overwhelmed by the response and the enthusiasm of others to engage with the work in a highly personal way.
It is now recognised that collaboration is key to creative practice, in all its shapes and forms as highlighted by the recent Pairings project and conference (www.miriad.mmu.ac.uk/pairings/). And it follows from this that new explorations of collaboration will require the issue of authorship to be further probed. I am intrigued by everyday ceramic items and the stories of people; I hope to begin to draw out these stories through objects and interventions. Perhaps my role is changing – am I becoming curator or editor, drawing together my own interpretation of the world, along with other people's contributions and views to create new ways of seeing, and valuing, objects? Perhaps not. Only the future will tell.
Article originally published in Issue 257 of Ceramic Review.


text:
Ontario Resident Files $550 Million Lawsuit Against Equifax Over Security Breach
by Christine Sharma on September 19, 2017
If you use the Georgia-based consumer credit reporting agency Equifax, you might have heard about the extreme cybersecurity privacy hack that has impacted up to 143 million consumers, including several across Canada. Now, an Ontario resident has proposed class action seeking $550 million in damages on behalf of Canadian victims.
The proposed $550 million class action seeks an order from the Ontario Supreme Court of Justice requiring Equifax to notify Canadians who have been affected, as information was given only to those customers affected in the U.S.
That includes all residents of Canada whose information was stored on Equifax databases and was accessed without authorization between May 1, 2017 and August 1, 2017.
Though Equifax set up a website to provide information to American customers who might have been affected, it was impossible for Canadians to identify whether or not they were affected by the hack.
The statement of claim alleges, among other things, that Equifax breached its contract with class members as well as their privacy rights, was negligent in handling their information, and breached provincial privacy statutes.
"The scope of the privacy breach is unlike virtually any other previous breach," explains Sotos Partner Jean-Marc Leclerc. "Retailers typically do not store information about social insurance numbers, or track bills, or keep records of items purchased with credit. Equifax does. Fighting identity theft takes years, during which a consumer's ability to obtain anything with credit is compromised: purchasing a house; renting an apartment; or obtaining a credit card or line of credit, for example."
On September 7, 2017, Equifax issued a statement saying that "criminals exploited a U.S. website application vulnerability to obtain Social Insurance Numbers, dates of birth, names, addresses, credit card numbers and other personal identifying information of millions of U.S. consumers and an undisclosed number of Canadians."
Equifax says it discovered the unauthorized access on July 29 and immediately engaged a leading, independent cybersecurity firm that has been conducting a comprehensive forensic review to determine the scope of the intrusion, including the specific data impacted.
For those Canadians who might have been affected by the hack, hopefully, more information will be available soon.
Are You Affected by the Massive Equifax Hack?
Personal Data of 6 Million Canadians Compromised After Major Bank Hack
Personal health information compromised in LifeLabs hack
Average Canadian debt rose 2.7 per cent to $72,950, says Equifax Canada
Some Mississauga Residents Affected by Serious Privacy Breach
Unique New Bar and Restaurant Now Open in Mississauga
The Wave Bar and Lounge
A popular fusion restaurant recently opened up in Mississauga
While COVID-19 has been tough for most businesses, it's nice to still see some new and unique restaurants popping up in the city.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Occasionally, I get a notice for something that looks so promising that I basically give it a free ad, running the whole friggin' press release and not even bothering to embellish it with the usual derogatory comments. This time, it's for Wasp Cove, a sort-of-monthly prime-time soap spoof at Comix, where the club's purposeful misspelling is just the beginning of the laffs. The show—a journey back to '80s TV melodramatics—is apparently more about AARON Spelling, trotting out all kinds of nostril flaring and shoulder padding in a high-concept tale of loudly buzzing Wasps. But next time I'll be giving them a page rate.


text:
Q: Silverlight and a form application I wondering if a can make a form with silverlight like an HTML form and submit its data to a server to store them on a database.
Can I do that?
Thanks!

A: You can definately do this.  But you cannot talk to a server directly via Silverlight like you can with ASP.Net.  You have to use web services to achieve this.
There are a number of ways to do this:
1. Use Web Services  (Old ASMX;  This has security issues)
2. Use WCF  (For complex systems)
3. Use ADO.Net Data Services (This is probably the easiest and fastest way to achieve this) using ADO.Net Entity Framework.
4. Use RIA Services (In CTP now for Silverlight 3)

A: Just take a look at some videos over here:
http://silverlight.net/learn/videocat.aspx?cat=2#HDI2WebServices
basically, you build your data model with Linq (or some other orm), expose that data through Select/Update/Delete/... methods with web service (new WCF or old one, ASMX), and consume that in silverlight. Silverlight automatically make proxy classes for communication. In Silverlight, you can use it's rich databinding capabilities, so you do not need to worry about how data are transferred, serialized, read from UI and similar.
Video tutorials on silverlight.net web explains most of stuff regarding programming SL2 really good.

A: You can always host the sliverlight app in a web page which the forms app loads.
It may be possible to directly intergrate WPF and forms as well.

A: Or you aren't running ASP.NET on the server like everybody always seems to assume you are and therefore don't use all these darned "Web Service" things, you can just use WebClient and make your POST that way.
...I dont know why everybody thinks there is a need to layer on so many heaps of acronym goo between you and your webserver.  Your old javascript code wasn't interfacing with your backend using WCF, SOAP or whatever, why should Silverlight?  Keep it simple!  Silverlight is more than happy to make regular, old-fashioned, time-tested HTTP POST's.
And not to be shameless, I've been working on a library I use in my projects to make it easier to call your backend like you would have if you were using javascript: WebBuddy.

A: Actually there is an easy way to do make an html page in silverlight and fill it with data and post it to the server. it will use Silverlight browser interop to programmatically create an HTML  and set elements to it.
//Creates a blank html document
var htmldoc = System.Windows.Browser.HtmlPage.Document;
// Returns a Reference type to the body of html page
var body = htmldoc.Body;

// Create a <form> element and add it to the body
var newForm = htmldoc.CreateElement("form");
newForm.SetAttribute("action", targetUrl);
newForm.SetAttribute("method", "post");
body.AppendChild(newForm);

//Add your elements to your form
HtmlElement input1 = htmldoc.CreateElement("input");
input1.SetAttribute("type", "hidden");
input1.SetAttribute("name", "someName");
input1.SetAttribute("value", "someValue");
newForm.AppendChild(input1);

//submit your form
newForm.Invoke("submit");

That Simple!
original Answer: This Answer

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


If not for a drought, one of the Triangle's best-known events to celebrate sustainable farming might not have launched the Farm to Fork Picnic Weekend.
Vote for all your favorites in the 7th Annual Best of Downtowner Awards!
Winners of the 2016 Best of Downtowners Awards are out!
Who says you can't get great pizza from a coffee shop?


text:
Western Civ
Western Civ:
InstaPundit has an interesting post today recommending Western Civ "courses" for those who didn't get them in school. There's a lot there, and probably none of it would have occurred to me as the right way to approach the problem.
The best suggestion of the several is the endorsement of St. John's college reading list. I probably would not have thought of their list, although their fame is well known to me (and well deserved, from all I've heard). It was recommended to me as a school when I was young enough to be looking, but I could not afford it. It's a good list they've put together, though it is too heavy on Enlightenment and modern thinkers, whose importance I have come to believe is overrated.
Fascinating that they decide to wind up the four year program with two classes on Virginia Woolf, for example. Instead of leaving the Medievals in the middle of the second year, I would have spent the whole of the second year on them, as well as part of the third year on them, the rest on the early moderns (Shakespeare, etc); and wrapped up the Enlightenment and moderns in the fourth year only, leaving some weeks at the end for a review of how it all tied together.
You probably do need a year and a half of the program for the ancients; a year at least for the Medievals; half a year for the early moderns; and then the fourth year for the Enlightenment and moderns.
Except in physics, the great ideas are the old ones. The rest is commentary.
By Grim on Saturday, January 29, 2011 0 comments
Merry Men:
The Politico reports on certain lawsuits:
The federal lawsuits against last year's health care overhaul were greeted with eye-rolling and snickers from many conventional legal scholars.
Nobody's laughing now.
That's not true at all!
It's an interesting argument, and an encouraging one. Some of these efforts are wiser than others: may they prevail.
Tzeitel's Wedding
I was reminded by something at Assistant Village Idiot of my idea of the perfect wedding. This scene makes me weep with happiness. -- It's funny to see "Motel" spelled that way. It's not "Motel" as in "Hotel and Motel Management" but "Maht-el," pronounced the way Mid-lanticans used to say "bottle," with a swallowed "t" sound.
By Texan99 on Saturday, January 29, 2011 0 comments
A Feast in the Hall:
Today was a special day, not for any holiday, but because my sister came. I always try to prepare something delicious, as she loves good food and good wine, and might therefore come more often.
The First Course.
The Main Course.
This matters to the Hall because it gives me an opportunity to give especial thanks and praise to one of you who deserves it. The centerpiece of today's feast was provided by Mark, whose generous heart was moved by the fact that I was unable to eat the Christmas Duck we so long discussed here. He sent me a large number of pheasants instead. Two of these -- one cut up, and one served whole -- were the main course.
Basque Pheasant.
I made Basque Pheasant, a cake common to Transylvania, and a honey wheat bread. The pheasant was by far the star of the show. Here are the ingredients as listed in this extraordinary reference guide and cookbook:
Basque Pheasant
2 pheasants, cut up
3/4 cup white whine
1 cup medium pitted prunes
1 cup pitted medium Spanish green olives
1/4 cup capers with liquid
2 tablespoons snipped fresh parsley
2 tablespoons dried basil leaves
As for preparation, I simply put the pheasant in a cast iron dutch oven, mixed all the other ingredients together and poured them on as a marinade. After several hours, put them in to roast at 350 degrees for an hour; then remove the lid from the dutch oven, turn the temperature up to 425 and finish browning the skin and ensuring proper internal temperature (165 degrees in the thickest part of the meat).
It's an interesting flavor, similar to coq au vin for the obvious reasons, but with a sweetness to match the savor that is not found in the French recipe. If you're looking for something new, you might give it a try.
Many thanks to Mark for his generous gift, part of which we greatly enjoyed this evening. I award him "The Hero's Portion" for today, although he could not be here to share it!
By Grim on Friday, January 28, 2011 0 comments
Labels: THP
Sidepork Pandemonium.
I don't know. Don't ask.
By Eric on Friday, January 28, 2011 0 comments
Labels: silliness, Swedes
Responding to Bachmann:
Continuing yesterday's discussion on the TEA Party's challenge to the extant Republican party, some Republican thoughts on Rep. Bachmann:
When Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann was named to the House Intelligence Committee earlier this year, one of her Republican colleagues responded this way: "Is that a punchline?" Another simply said, "Jumbo shrimp. Oxymoron."
Neither dared to attach his name to his comment.
That's not very impressive, guys.
The best response -- from Rep. Walsh -- is still not really an argument.
"She was out of line. She had no business stepping on the official Republican response to the State of the Union," Walsh said in an interview with POLITICO. "I can say that to you saying I'm a fan of Michele Bachmann's. She and I think the same on virtually probably every darn issue."
I say that this isn't an argument because it doesn't answer the question: if it is "out of line" to step on the "official Republican response," why is it out of line? What gives the Republican leadership the legitimate authority to claim the exclusive right to frame a response?
Our party system isn't based on authority, but rather on free association. In many states, you can elect to run as a member of a party without anyone's permission -- for example, in South Carolina, the Democratic Party probably would not have agreed to this.
Mr. Greene paid his money and took his shot, as a free citizen freely choosing to align himself with his party. What if he had won? He would go to the Senate, where he would again freely choose to caucus with the Democratic Party. That second choice is not binding either.
Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter said Tuesday he is switching parties, almost certainly giving President Barack Obama and the Democrats the ability to build a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.
The Specter announcement, coming on the eve of the president's 100th day in office, secured the Democrats a 59th seat in the Senate, counting two independents who caucus with the party.
If this is the system, there's nothing like a chain of command that has the authority to assert control over messaging. There is no oath taken, and no legal structure in place. You associate with the party of your choice, only for as long as you want to do so.
That leaves open the question of whether Congressmen should adhere to party discipline even though they do not have to do so. There are two kinds of arguments that could be made for why it would be proper.
1) Money: the national party may have supported your candidacy with cash or other mechanisms. Even though you associate with them on a free basis, you owe them for helping you.
2) Effectiveness: a disciplined party structure is more likely to achieve its agenda than one riven by infighting.
The problem with (1) is that it perverts the intent of the American electoral system. We call members of the House "representatives" because it is descriptive of their duty. They are meant to serve as the representative from their district. The interest of the people who voted for them needs to be their guiding star. To the degree that they let the money flowing through the system distort that guidance, they are off course.
Senators have a slightly different duty, which is to serve as the representatives of their states. That includes their constituents, but also the interests of the state government at the Federal level. If the Senator turns away from those interests in service to a national party, he is failing in his real duty.
The only truly Federal elected officials are the President and Vice-President. These two might reasonably take the will of the national party as some sort of proxy for the will of their whole constituency (although there are still problems with doing so, insofar as the party structure has been captured by wealthy interests). Senators really are not free to do that, if they take their duty to serve their state seriously.
As for (2), it's a very solid point insofar as the party's agenda aligns with your constituents'. If you were elected by a movement like the TEA Party, whose entire point is to force reform, naturally your duty lies in trying to force reform rather than in pursuing an agenda your constituents don't share. Your duty is to try and move the party toward your constituents' agenda.
That may sometimes -- may usually -- involve compromise and negotiation, but it probably doesn't involve submission. A good example might be the Congressional Black Caucus, which generally votes with the party, but certainly makes clear that it has its own reasons for doing so. The difference is that the CBC is an isolated movement unlikely to garner wider support; thus the Democratic leadership can shrug it off. The Republican Party is genuinely threatened with being overthrown and replaced, as its mainline constituents have more reason to align with the TEA Party's populism than with the business interests that long ago captured its leadership. It may be up to the older interests to prove their value to the populists, rather than the other way around.
The Well-Dressed Viking
The Well-Dressed Viking:
Eric sends a book for those of you who enjoy well-known Viking pursuits like sewing.
Genghis Khan, Environmentalist:
It's amazing how little we appreciate his extraordinary achievements.
So how did Genghis Khan... earn such a glowing environmental report card?... [T]he same way he built his empire — with a high body count.
Over the course of the century and a half run of the Mongol Empire, about 22 percent of the world's total land area had been conquered and an estimated 40 million people were slaughtered by the horse-driven, bow-wielding hordes. Depopulation over such a large swathe of land meant that countless numbers of cultivated fields eventually returned to forests.
In other words, one effect of Genghis Khan's unrelenting invasion was widespread reforestation, and the re-growth of those forests meant that more carbon could be absorbed from the atmosphere.
In this he set a shining example for today's advocates of DDT-banning in Africa, the one-child policy in China, and abortion everywhere.
We have gators, too, but not like this. One of the nice things about winter is that the gators and snakes lie low for a while. The tape dates from last summer, in Okeefenokee.
By Texan99 on Thursday, January 27, 2011 0 comments
Shhhhhh
Shhhhhhhh
Remember when the mainstream media scarcely could bring themselves to acknowledge that there was such a thing as a grassroots movement called the Tea Party? Demonstrations could be held all over the country involving hundreds of thousands of people, but reporters would dismiss them as "a few dozens malcontents" whose aims and wishes were simply incomprehensible.
I was surprised, therefore, to read on HotAir that voices are rising up against CNN's shocking decision to air Michelle Bachman's separate Tea Party response to the State of the Union earlier this week. Liberals worry
that it could create a fundamental imbalance — two Republicans responding to one speech from Obama — and that there's no way CNN would allow a liberal Dem to offer a response from the left, as Bachmann is doing from the hard right.
Republicans, in turn, are said to worry that having two responses from the right would dilute their message. CNN itself took the radical position that it made sense to run the speech because it was newsworthy -- itself a newsworthy development:
The Tea Party has become a major force in American politics and within the Republican Party. Hearing the Tea Party's perspective on the State of the Union is something we believe CNN's viewers will be interested in hearing and we are happy to include this perspective as one of many in tonight's coverage.
Maybe it's time for the FCC to turn its sights on CNN.
Idjits
Embarrassment:
It's amazing what people find embarrassing.
"It's an embarrassment to the state to have as a symbol that was used only a few weeks ago to kill innocent people," Gunn said.
There's something to be embarrassed about here, but I don't think he and I agree about what it is.
By Grim on Wednesday, January 26, 2011 0 comments
Eric's Knife
A Knife for Eric:
From ancient Rome, a pretty nifty piece of camp equipment.
State of the Union:
There's a surprising amount of skepticism in the media about last night's speech. I expected a more bland reaction given that it was a pretty normal Democratic SOTU speech: the usual insincere framing comments ("The era of big government is over," "The rules have changed") combined with the business-as-usual Democratic Party agenda (massive new spending projects, cuts in the defense budget).
Is it a good sign that they finally realize that they can't just report the competing claims with a straight face, but have to admit that the number don't add up? I mean to say: even the press now realizes it must admit that?
Nazis?
Apparently our new governor here in Georgia is a Nazi. I find that somewhat surprising, as he was my congressman for several years and I don't recall him suggesting any legislation of the sort that I normally associate with National Socialists.
However, who am I to distrust the local Spanish-language newspaper?
Navarro said the picture represents the fear immigrants in Georgia feel with the arrival of Deal to the state's top office, because of Deal's strong anti-immigrant rhetoric during the last campaign.
The article (and photo) are here. Perhaps more interesting is the reactions page.
Those who promote and protect illegal Hispanic Roman Catholic immigration, pawns in the historic war between the Old Sectarian Order of "king and pope" and Our New Secular Order's American Exceptionalism which in 1776 recognized Individual and the People's sovereignty over false elite rule serving "the few," who now invoke Hitler to disparage American patriots combating Rome's organized invasion for conquest....
Um, it's a Papist plot? That's one I haven't heard before.
McQ (top link) notes the irony.
Navarro, who immigrated to the United States from Colombia, said he printed the picture knowing he didn't have to fear retaliation from the governor because of the freedom of speech guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.
Yeah, that happened all the time in Nazi Germany Mr. Navarro, you ignorant jackwagon.
I would add something, but really, why?
By Grim on Tuesday, January 25, 2011 0 comments
WR Mead
Puritanism and President Obama:
I'm beginning to be impressed by this Walter Russel Mead. He's making good and interesting points fairly consistently.
[F}ar from being dead and buried, the Puritan political tradition in America is best represented by our current president; intellectually and morally, President Obama is a distinguished representative of Boston at its best.
New England government was charged with the creation of a moral society. There was nothing that was not its business: how much did a master pay his apprentices? Who celebrated Christmas? Who was cheating on his or her spouse? The duty of government was to make society live right; the university, the pulpit, the newspaper — these were to be the allies of government in the struggle for good.
This really is the frame we're getting from the Obama left: the state as having a duty to ensure a moral society, which requires regulation of every aspect of life. Those in the professions mentioned are supposed to fall in line with turning out a moral society on their terms: a society whose businesses pay wages that are described in moral terms, whose members have all the nice things we might all like to have, whose tone is appropriately respectful of the wise, and where those who know best are reliably at the top.
Mead notes that this project has a mixed history, which we should consider fairly.
Many of their causes today look prescient: the abolition of slavery and voting rights for women. Others, prohibition, eugenics and various forms of food-nuttery matching the changing scientific fashions of the day, look weird.
"Political correctness" and tortured attitudes toward language and gender have long been part of the New England Way. Victorian New Englanders pioneered feminist ideas and daring new styles of dress — but enforced rigid standards of 'political correctness' that stifled American literature, restricted its range of subjects, and drove authors like Mark Twain to paroxysms of rage and frustration. In the nineteenth century Bostonian literary puritanism was so focused on sex that "Banned in Boston" was a label that helped sell books around the country. Today's Puritans want to regulate "hate" speech on college campuses and engage in tortured debates over topics like "heteronormative" discourse not unlike the hair-splitting theological debates their ancestors were famous for.
But there was never any doubt in the New England mind that the State was the chosen instrument of the righteous in the ongoing mission to make a better world.
He finishes by noting, "In any case, nobody should expect blue thinking to go away.... A rich heritage, deeply woven into American life for more than 300 years, will not vanish away."
Fair enough! The TEA Party project does not even aspire to make them go away; it just wants them to relocate their activity to the state governments, instead of trying to force their ideals on everyone using the Federal government. If Massachusetts wants universal health care, they can legislate as much as they prove to be able to afford. If Georgia wants jobs instead, that's our call.
Some among the blues (as Mead calls them) believe that this is a false dichotomy: that legislating health care is precisely the best way to ensure jobs. If so, prove it at the state level and you'll find other states will follow. Of course, they'll do it because it's economically effective -- not because they feel a moral society requires it. It's distressing to realize, but other Americans may have different ideas about the structure and function of morality.
I wonder if that would be satisfying to the blue mind: to get what they want, but not for the reason they wanted it? Would such a society be "moral" enough for them? Or is it important not just to do the right thing, but to feel the right way?
So What's Bill Up To?
What's Bill Up To These Days?
Teaching the Iraqis how to fly through canyons, apparently.
That's way more exciting than digging trucks out of the mud.
UPDATE: A competitor in the comments posts this video... which, actually, is also pretty cool.
Non-Current Events
Something is wrong with my brain, lately; I can't engage with current events. I thought instead I would write about some things I've been reading. First, inspired by the NPH's lovely Christmas gift of five George Eliot novels set to DVD, I began re-reading one of my favorite novels, "Middlemarch." I have a nice copy with one of those ribbons attached to the spine that can be used as a page-marker. What terrific brief portraits Eliot paints of even her secondary characters. This is Mrs. Cadwallader, the rector's wife, expostulating with her amiable but somewhat wiggly landowning neighbor, who was developing a taste for politics in the early 19th century just as Reform was gathering steam:
. . . Such a lady gave a neighbourliness to both rank and religion, and mitigated the bitterness of uncommuted tithe. A much more exemplary character with an infusion of sour dignity would not have furthered their comprehension of the Thirty-nine Articles, and would have been less socially uniting.
Mr Brooke, seeing Mrs Cadwallader's merits from a different point of view, winced a little when her name was announced in the library, where he was sitting alone.
"I see you have had our Lowick Cicero here," she said, seating herself comfortably, throwing back her wraps, and showing a thin but well-built figure. "I suspect you and he are brewing some bad politics, else you would not be seeing so much of the lively man. I shall inform against you: remember you are both suspicious characters since you took Peel's side about the Catholic Bill. I shall tell everybody that you are going to put up for Middlemarch on the Whig side when old Pinkerton resigns, and that Casaubon is going to help you in an underhand manner: going to bribe the voters with pamphlets, and throw open the public-houses to distribute them. Come, confess!"
"Nothing of the sort," said Mr Brooke, smiling and rubbing his eye-glasses, but really blushing a little at the impeachment. "Casaubon and I don't talk politics much. He doesn't care much about the philanthropic side of things; punishments, and that kind of thing. He only cares about Church questions. That is not my line of action, you know."
"Ra-a-ther too much, my friend. I have heard of your doings. Who was it that sold his bit of land to the Papists at Middlemarch? I believe you bought it on purpose. You are a perfect Guy Faux. See if you are not burnt in effigy this 5th of November coming. Humphrey would not come to quarrel with you about it, so I am come."
"Very good. I was prepared to be persecuted for not persecuting -- not persecuting, you know."
"There you go! That is a piece of clap-trap you have got ready for the hustings. Now, do not let them lure you to the hustings, my dear Mr Brooke. A man always makes a fool of himself, speechifying: there's no excuse but being on the right side, so that you can ask a blessing on your humming and hawing. You will lose youself, I forewarn you. You will make a Saturday pie of all parties' opinions, and be pelted by everybody."
"That is what I expect, you know," said Mr Brooke, not wishing to betray how little he enjoyed this prophetic sketch -- "what I expect as an independent man. As to the Whigs, a man who goes with the thinkers is not likely to be hooked on by any party. He may go with them up to a certain point -- up to a certain point, you know. But that is what you ladies never understand."
"Where your certain point is? No. I should like to be told how a man can have any certain point when he belongs to no party -- leading a roving life, and never letting his friends know his address. 'Nobody knows where Brooke will be -- there's no counting on Brooke' -- that is what people say of you, to be quite frank. Now, do turn respectable. How will you like going to Sessions with everybody looking shy on you, and you with a bad conscience and an empty pocket?"
"I don't pretend to argue with a lady on politics," said Mr Brooke, with an air of smiling indifference, but feeling rather unpleasantly conscious that this attack of Mrs Cadwallader's had opened the defensive campaign to which certain rash steps had exposed him. "Your sex are not thinkers, you know -- varium et mutabile semper -- that kind of thing. You don't know Virgil. I knew" -- Mr Brooke reflected in time that he had not had the personal acquaintance of the Augustan poet -- "I was going to say, poor Stoddart, you know. That was what he said. You ladies are always against an independent attitude -- a man's caring for nothing but truth, and that sort of thing. And there is no part of the county where opinion is narrower than it is here -- I don't mean to throw stones, you know, but somebody is wanted to take the independent line; and if I don't take it, who will?"
"Who? Why, any upstart who has got neither blood nor position. People of standing should consume their independent nonsense at home, not hawk it about. And you! who are going to marry your niece, as good as your daughter, to one of our best men. Sir James would be cruelly annoyed: it will be too hard on him if you turn round now and make yourself a Whig signboard."
I usually like to have an upstairs book and a downstairs book. I've just finished a book I've been meaning to read since someone here recommended Matt Ridley, oh, a year or so ago. The recommendation actually was for his newest book, which I haven't read yet, but I picked up two earlier ones first: "Genome," which was quite good, and this one, "The Origins of Virtue." Many books treating human ethics from the perspective of evolutionary biology drive me crazy, but I did enjoy this one. Ridley covers developments in game theory that I know you've all heard about elsewhere, and often here, such as the wrinkles on the Prisoner's Dilemma and modifications such as "tit-for-tat" and "tit-for-tat-with-forgiveness." What he added that I hadn't run into before was attention to game theory experiments in which the players were allowed to play repeatedly and develop reputations, coupled with the freedom to agree or refuse to play with certain players. He ends with a theory of what cooperative characteristics are peculiar to humankind. Not specialization and the division of labor, because insects do that, too. Not the ability to form coalitions and use cooperation as a weapon in social relations, including the defense of territory or assets by a group, because chimpanzees do that. Not even the use of alliances between groups to combat third groups, because bottlenose dolphins do that. What he thinks only humans do is exploit the law of comparative advantage between groups: that is, specialize at the group level, and engage in trade between groups. For him, therefore, the free market is the essence of humanity, which makes him a man after my own heart.
Here's a book I've been slowly reading for a very long time: "Power, Sex, Suicide," by Nick Lane, subtitled "Mitochondria and the Meaning of Life." Power, because mitochondria, which started life as separate bacteria-like organisms that were engulfed and internally "farmed" by other bacteria, are today the powerhouses of our own cells, pumping protons tirelessly across membranes. Sex, because of something that I haven't understood yet about the need to avoid recombination of mitochondrial DNA from our own DNA, which has led to the concentration of mitochondria in the egg and its strict exclusion from the sperm, which is the biological essence of gender distinctions. Suicide, because mitochondria brought with them the mechanism for orderly cell death that is crucial to the welfare of a multicellular organism if each cell is not constantly to attempt a selfish coup d'etat in the form of cancer. You can't go wrong with a popularized science work by Nick Lane. He's a fine writer who knows how to organize his ideas.
But I think I'm going to set all these aside for a while and read a couple of romps that just came in the mail. One is "War in Heaven," by Charles Williams, a Holy-Grail Brit whodunnit from the 1960s that is the anti-Da Vinci Code, and the other is "Night of Thunder," by Steven Hunter, a Nascar-sniper mashup. I recently read about both of these on Lars's excellent site, Brandywine Books.
By Texan99 on Tuesday, January 25, 2011 0 comments
Warm Weather:
The stuff has me thinking of spring. I spent the afternoon digging a truck out of the mud -- it got hung up on a tree stump at the bottom of a muddy hill, so I had to take the tire off and cut the stump with a chainsaw. Then the truck slipped back, so the drum and axle went into the mud. Once I got that jacked up, it still wasn't enough to let me put the tire back on, so I had to get a shovel and dig it all out.
Bit of a pain. It was warm, though, even into the early evening.
So I am thinking of spring, and that means St. Patrick's Day. To me that means Kevin Barry's Pub down Savannah way; and good old Harry who sings thereabouts.
Might have to make a trip down there this year. Anybody want to come?
Bwahaha
Lessons in Reality:
Greyhawk notes a small collision.
Off they went to see Bradley, bringing a petition with 42,000 signatures demanding he be released from solitary confinement. But then...The Guardian:
...the pair were stopped by military police and Hamsher's car impounded after guards found the vehicle's license plates had expired and Hamsher was unable to produce insurance papers.
Quantico spokesman Col. Thomas V. Johnson says the car was towed after the pair could not provide proof of insurance and guards found the vehicle's license plates had expired.
This reminds me of that reporter in Iraq who was so put out by having the Ugandan guards demand his ID. I always liked the Ugandans, but even though they normally saw me twice a day every day, if I had shown up without my CAC card for identification they would not have let me in -- not to the DFAC, not to the PX, not to anything they were assigned to guard.
(In fact, shortly after coming back from Iraq, I went into WalMart and had a moment of panic when I saw the greeter standing there at the door. Where's my CAC card??? She won't let me in!)
Of course, I wasn't delivering pizza important signatures expressing support for a suspected traitor, either. That kind of business is too important to get bogged down with little things like paying your tax-and-tag taxes, or keeping up with the automobile-insurance mandate you'd so eagerly like to extend to my health-insurance bills.
By Grim on Monday, January 24, 2011 0 comments
When You've Got Ten Bucks that You Can Blow...
We're getting close to the State of the Union, which is the right time for this political warning about incivility.
By Grim on Sunday, January 23, 2011 0 comments
The Names of Things:
There is some law at work in Georgia that requires names of places to worsen over time. I don't know if it works the same way elsewhere, but a student of history quickly learns that Georgia used to have interesting and descriptive place names, and now has bland and uninteresting names. For example, one of the modest-sized cities in Georgia used to be called "Mule Camp Springs," as it lay at the first good springs for mule trains making the trek over the mountains on the way north; it is now known as "Gainesville."
I was reminded of this on a trip to Fort Yargo.
I mean, come on: "Jug Tavern"? "Groaning Rock"? Those are much better names. You'd want to live in a place called "Jug Tavern."
Here's the old fort, by the way:
Doesn't seem like much, does it? Apparently it was enough.
Sidepork Pandemonium. I don't know. Don't ask.


SJR 44, a proposed amendment to the State Constitution providing citizens with the "Right to Hunt and Fish," is finally in a form that legitimately protects sportsmen against attacks from radical animal "rights" organizations. On May 12, Senator Jeff Miller (R-Cleveland) worked diligently on the floor to win approval of an amendment that protects against politically motivated bans on the hunting of certain species, such as bear and dove, or bans on the use of certain implements or methods, such as archery equipment. This was important because the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (TWRA) has contended in meetings with NRA representatives that it should be allowed to retain the ability to prohibit certain types of hunting for political, not biological, reasons. This, of course, is precisely what sportsmen must be protected against. Senator Miller understood this and fought for your rights. Please call Senator Miller's office at (615) 741-3794 and thank him for his efforts on your behalf. Also, it is critical that you call your Senator and ask him/her to continue to support SJR 44 with the Miller Amendment that was adopted on Thursday.


'Kiss of Fate' is the 3rd book in Deborah Cooke's Dragonfire Series. It's about the third firestorm, between Eric Sorensson and Eileen Grosvenor, before the final battle between Pyr and Slayer.
It's also a suitable book for the 2nd topic of the Reading Romances Challenge: Read a book with an older Hero or heroine (AT LEAST mid-to-late thirties): Eric has a few centuries in his backpack and Eileen's thirty-seven.
Eric is the leader of the Pyr, a group of dragons that are meant to protect the earth and all things that form it. In their quest to save earth and the human race against the Slayers (dragons that degenerated into foul creatures and are trying to wipe the humans and Pyr from the face of the earth), they have to fulfill some prophecies that include the consummating of three firestorms and the personal growth of each Pyr, beforethe final battle takes place.
These stories are packed with action, fights, flights and persecutions; they also have a strong love theme and some Good vs. Evil lessons that captivate the reader's attention. They also keep reminding us of humanity's responsibility in saving ourselves and the earth we live in. It definitely is a fun read about dragon lore and human behavior. It really keeps us in a true roller-coaster of events.
But I do maintain that this is a fun read and a good paranormal romance as it puts us through passion, reincarnation, sacrifice and redemption.
'Kiss of Fate' é o 3º livro da Série Dragonfire de Deborah Cooke, sobre a terceira firestorm ou 'tempestade de fogo' entre Eric Sorensson e Eileen Grosvenor, que antecede a batalha final entre Pyr e Slayers.
É também um livro que se encaixa perfeitamente no 2º tópico do Desafio Reading Romances: Ler um livro com um herói ou heroína mais velho (pelo menos trinta e cinco anos): Eric existe há alguns séculos e Eileen tem 37 anos.
Eric é o líder dos Pyr, um grupo de metamorfos de dragão, que estão destinados a proteger o planeta e todos os seres que nele habitam. Procurando salvar a Terra, e os seres humanos, dos Slayers (dragões que degeneraram da missão protectora e que tentam eliminar humanos e Pyr da face da terra) os Pyr têm de ver cumpridas algumas profecias que incluem o consumar de três 'tempestades de fogo' e o próprio crescimento interior, antes da batalha final.
Acção, luta, voos e perseguições são coisas que não faltam nestes livros. Junta-se uma história de Amor, e algumas lições sobre o Bem e o Mal, e a atenção do leitor está assegurada. São histórias que nos relembram da responsabilidade que cada ser humano tem em se salvar a si próprio e o planeta onde vive. Um leitura divertida que agrega mitos sobre dragões e comportamento humano, mantendo-nos presos numa montanha-russa de acontecimentos.
Mas mantenho a opinião de que esta é uma leitura divertida, e um bom romance paranormal, que nos transporta através da paixão, reincarnação, sacrifício e redenção.


text:
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Third Circuit › 1986 › Kiwanis International, v. Ridgewood Kiwanis Club (d.c. Civil No. 85-4306).kiwanis Club of Ridgewood,...
Receive free daily summaries of new opinions from the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Subscribe
Kiwanis International, v. Ridgewood Kiwanis Club (d.c. Civil No. 85-4306).kiwanis Club of Ridgewood, Inc., and Julie Fletcher, v. Kiwanis International (d.c. Civil No. 85-4483).appeal of Kiwanis International, 806 F.2d 468 (3d Cir. 1986)
US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit - 806 F.2d 468 (3d Cir. 1986) Argued Sept. 16, 1986. Decided Dec. 3, 1986
Donald E. Knebel (argued), Brian J. Martin, Barnes & Thornburg, Indianapolis, Ind., John F. Darcy, Thomas F. Cermack, Jr., Orbe, Nugent and Collins, Ridgewood, N.J., for appellant.
Marcia K. Baer (argued), Hirsch, Newman, Simpson & Baer, Hackensack, N.J., for appellees.
Thomas P. Ondeck, Baker and McKenzie, Washington, D.C., for amicus curiae Conference of Private Organizations.
Before ADAMS, STAPLETON and GARTH, Circuit Judges.
OPINION OF THE COURT
GARTH, Circuit Judge:
Kiwanis International has appealed from a district court order holding that the local Kiwanis club of Ridgewood, New Jersey (Kiwanis Ridgewood) is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of the New Jersey statute which prohibits unlawful discrimination in places of public accommodation. The district court held that Kiwanis International could not revoke the trademark license it had granted to the local Ridgewood club, because Kiwanis Ridgewood was a "place of public accommodation" and, as such, could not refuse admission to women.1 Moreover, the district court reformed the license agreement and permitted Kiwanis Ridgewood to continue using the Kiwanis marks under the Kiwanis charter, holding that the provisions of the Kiwanis Ridgewood license which restricted Kiwanis membership to men could be severed from the whole of the license agreement. We reverse.
Appellant Kiwanis International is the parent organization of 8,200 chartered Kiwanis clubs scattered throughout the world. Kiwanis clubs number in excess of 313,000 members. The nonprofit association, founded in 1915, is incorporated in Illinois and headquartered in Indiana. The principal focus of the Kiwanis organization is community service. Club activities include fundraisers for scholarships and other charitable purposes.2 Kiwanis is not a secret society; members do not partake in clandestine meetings or private rituals. Neither the goals nor the activities of the organization are sex-specific. Indeed, the district court found that while a "collateral benefit" of Kiwanis membership is the pleasure of camaraderie, the social aspect of the club does not supplant its charitable and civic focus. The district court further found that Kiwanis "engages in no activities in which the presence of women would create uncomfortable or embarrassing situations." Kiwanis International v. Ridgewood Kiwanis Club, 627 F. Supp. 1381, 1384 (D.N.J. 1986). Moreover, the court found, "since women already participate to such a significant degree in [Kiwanis] activities ..., their full membership will not adversely affect the camaraderie or ... impede the achievement of any of the overall goals of the organization." Id. As to the effect of any change in membership on the public, the district court found that those "persons who would otherwise contribute [to the charitable functions sponsored by Kiwanis] will not cease doing so because women are members." Id.
Chartered Kiwanis clubs are bound by the constitution and bylaws of Kiwanis International. Since its formation, Kiwanis has restricted its membership to men. This restriction is contained in article V, Sec. 4(a) of the Kiwanis constitution3 and article II, Sec. 2 of the bylaws.4 There are several national requirements for membership, such as employment in a recognized trade or profession. Local clubs can adopt additional requirements for membership. New members are selectively chosen. Each new member must be sponsored by at least one current member and must be accepted by vote of the local club's Board of Directors.
Kiwanis International and Kiwanis Ridgewood entered into a charter agreement on November 2, 1942. Under the agreement, Kiwanis Ridgewood was allowed to use the Kiwanis marks, as long as it adhered to the organization's constitution and bylaws. The Ridgewood club currently has twenty-eight members and meets weekly for a luncheon meeting at a local restaurant. Several individuals have been members of the Ridgewood club for over twenty years. Kiwanis Ridgewood has admitted no more than twenty members over the past decade, and every applicant has been sponsored by a member of the Kiwanis Ridgewood club.
The current dispute arose when Julie Fletcher joined the Ridgewood club in June of 1984. Following her admission to Ridgewood, Ms. Fletcher's membership application and processing fee were sent to Kiwanis International; both were promptly returned. This rejection was followed by, on June 26, 1985, a letter from the Secretary of Kiwanis International stating that Ms. Fletcher's membership was in violation of the Kiwanis constitution and bylaws and that, unless Kiwanis Ridgewood cured the violation within sixty days, Kiwanis International would revoke Ridgewood's license to use the Kiwanis marks.
Kiwanis Ridgewood refused to revoke Fletcher's membership, and Kiwanis International filed suit in federal court under the Lanham Act on September 3, 1985.5 Kiwanis International claimed that Kiwanis Ridgewood had forfeited its license to use the marks, and sought preliminary and permanent injunctions prohibiting Ridgewood's continued use. On September 6, 1985, Kiwanis Ridgewood filed suit in New Jersey Superior Court seeking an injunction against International's license revocation and a declaration that Ms. Fletcher was a bona fide member of the Ridgewood club. Kiwanis Ridgewood asserted in its complaint that the revocation would violate the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination.
Kiwanis International removed Ridgewood's suit to federal court, where both parties agreed to a consolidation of their suits. Kiwanis International then filed a motion to dismiss Ridgewood's complaint on the grounds of failure to state a claim. The district court considered International's motion to dismiss and both parties' requests for injunctions in an evidentiary hearing on November 18 and 19, 1985.6 The district court filed its opinion on February 6, 1986.
In its opinion, the district court examined each of the consolidated actions, and found that federal law did not preempt the application of New Jersey law as to either claim. Applying the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, the district court held that Kiwanis Ridgewood was a place of public accommodation and as such was prohibited from restricting membership on the basis of sex. The district court then held that Kiwanis International was precluded from enforcing its illegal discriminatory membership restrictions against Ridgewood. Finding the illegal part of the charter agreement between Kiwanis International and Kiwanis Ridgewood to be severable, the district court reformed the license agreement concluding that Kiwanis International was prohibited from revoking Kiwanis Ridgewood's trademark license just because Kiwanis Ridgewood had admitted a female member.
On March 6, 1986, final judgment was entered dismissing International's trademark action; reforming the license agreement between Kiwanis International and Kiwanis Ridgewood to reflect the severance of the illegal membership provision; and permitting Kiwanis Ridgewood to continue using the Kiwanis name and service marks. Kiwanis International timely appealed. This court's jurisdiction is found under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
The purpose of a public accommodations law, such as the New Jersey statute 10:5-12(f), is to ensure that publicly offered goods and services, such as those offered by a hotel or restaurant, are available to all persons regardless of sex, race, or any other protected characteristic. The New Jersey Law Against Discrimination prohibits an operator of any place of public accommodation from denying any of its accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges on the basis of race, creed, color, national origin, ancestry, marital status, nationality or sex. N.J.S.A. 10:5-12(f).7 However, to be subject to the statute's proscriptions, an organization or establishment must be a "place of public accommodation." A "place of publicaccommodation" is statutorily defined in N.J.S.A. 10:5-5(l):
1. "A place of public accommodation" shall include, but not be limited to: any tavern, roadhouse, hotel, motel, trailer camp, summer camp, day camp, or resort camp, whether for entertainment of transient guests or accommodation of those seeking health, recreation or rest; any producer, manufacturer, wholesaler, distributor, retail shop, store, establishment, or concession dealing with goods or services of any kind; any restaurant, eating house, or place where food is sold for consumption on the premises; any place maintained for the sale of ice cream, ice and fruit preparations or their derivatives, soda water or confections, or where any beverages of any kind are retailed for consumption on the premises; any garage, any public conveyance operated on land or water, or in the air, any stations and terminals thereof; any bathhouse, boardwalk, or seashore accommodation; any auditorium, meeting place, or hall; any theatre, motion-picture house, music hall, roof garden, skating rink, swimming pool, amusement and recreation park, fair, bowling alley, gymnasium, shooting gallery, billiard and pool parlor, or other place of amusement; any comfort station; any dispensary, clinic or hospital; any public library; any kindergarten, primary or secondary school, trade or business school, high school, academy, college and university, or any educational institution under the supervision of the State Board of Education, or the Commissioner of Education of the State of New Jersey. Nothing herein contained shall be construed to include or to apply to any institution, bona fide club, or place of accommodation, which is in its nature distinctly private; nor shall anything herein contained apply to any educational facility operated or maintained by a bona fide religious or sectarian institution, and the right of a natural parent or one in loco parentis to direct the education and upbringing of a child under his control is hereby affirmed; nor shall anything herein contained be construed to bar any private secondary or post-secondary school from using in good faith criteria other than race, creed, color, national origin or ancestry, in the admission of students.
(Emphasis added.)
Although the parties have raised a number of issues, both statutory and constitutional, we find it necessary to address only the question as to whether the New Jersey statute against discrimination has been violated. Thus our primary task is to determine whether the Kiwanis club of Ridgewood is a "place of public accommodation" within the meaning of N.J.S.A. 10:5-5(l) . If Kiwanis Ridgewood meets the statutory requirement of being a "place of public accommodation," then of course the provision in Kiwanis International's license agreement would be illegal and therefore unenforceable because of its discriminatory character. On the other hand, if Kiwanis Ridgewood is not a "place of public accommodation" as provided in the statute, then no illegality attaches to the provision of the license agreement and the agreement is enforceable according to its terms.8
To determine if the New Jersey statute has been violated by the "men only" provision of the license agreement, we must look to New Jersey decisional law and, in particular, to the one case which has interpreted the statute and furnished the standard for our analysis: National Organization of Women v. Little League Baseball, 127 N.J.Super. 522, 318 A.2d 33, aff'd mem., 67 N.J. 320, 338 A.2d 198 (1974).
New Jersey addressed the status of a membership organization under the public accommodation law in Little League. The case arose because the Little League baseball program excluded girls aged 8 to 12 from participation. The Little League organization argued that because of physical differences, girls as a class were more likely to be injured playing hard ball baseball than boys. Of particular guidance to us here, however, is the additional argument made by Little League that because Little League baseball did not constitute a "place of public accommodation" within the meaning of the intent of N.J.S.A. 10:5-5(l), there was no requirement that girls be admitted as participants in Little League baseball.9
Judge Conford, writing for the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, affirmed the order of the Division of Civil Rights which found that girls would not suffer a materially greater hazard of injury playing baseball than boys of the same age group, and, more importantly from the standpoint of this case, that Little League constituted a "public accommodation" requiring nondiscriminatory participation. In so holding, Judge Conford wrote: "Little League is a public accommodation because the invitation is open to the children in the community at large, with no restriction (other than sex) whatever.... It is public in the added sense that local governmental bodies characteristically make the playing areas available to the local leagues, ordinarily without charge." Little League, 127 N.J.Super. at 531, 318 A.2d at 37-38 (citation omitted).
The New Jersey court then emphasized, as we have quoted above, that Little League is a place of public accommodation because it openly invites all children of the community, with no restriction except sex, to join. It is this standard of open invitation to all that defines the content of a "public accommodation," and establishes the essential character of those organizations which are subject to the statute's proscriptions and those that are not.
The Supreme Court of New Jersey summarily affirmed the Appellate Division. National Organization of Women v. Little League Baseball, 67 N.J. 320, 338 A.2d 198 (1974).
This analysis, dependent on selectivity, has found expression in other jurisdictions as well. In United States Jaycees v. McClure, 305 N.W.2d 764 (Minn.1981), the Minnesota Supreme Court, in construing a public accommodation statute similar to that of New Jersey, concentrated on the business character of the organization, an issue not present in the instant Kiwanis proceeding. The Minnesota legislature had directed that the term "place of public accommodation" be liberally construed to mean roughly "public business facility." In the course of its analysis of the "public" component of the statutory standard, the Minnesota court examined the "selectiveness of the group in the admission of its members, i.e., standards and a formal procedure by which membership is restricted; and ... the existence of limits on size of the membership." Id. at 770.
The court focused on the criterion of selectivity stating that the Jaycees were "unselective in those to whom it sells its memberships; selectiveness occurs only in the privileges and benefits it accords to those holding one kind of membership rather than another." Id. at 771. The court found "in fact, that the national organization encourages continuous recruitment and discourages the use of any selection criteria," noting that " [m]ost important, though, is the absence of selection criteria. This is evinced by the national organization's Officers & Directors' Guide 1977-78, which advises that the emphasis in recruitment be on quantity rather than quality." Id. The court concluded that " [b]y virtue of its unselective vigorous sale of memberships, the national organization is a public business." Id. at 771.
Thus even though the Minnesota Supreme Court's conclusion differs from the conclusion which we reach, it did so not because it differed from the Little League analysis, but rather because it emphasized the "public business facility" standard found in the Minnesota statute, and found that the Jaycees' membership practices were unselective and unrestricted. This latter holding was reached by applying the same selectivity standard to the Jaycees which Little League applied. The Minnesota court, in concluding that the Jaycees were unselective in their membership practices,10 held that the Jaycees came within the Minnesota public accommodation statute.
We do not focus on the spatial characteristics of "place" as that term appears in the statute to the same extent as did the district court. The district court, in focusing on "place," rather than "place of public accommodation," wrote: "Because Kiwanis conducts its meetings in just such places,--i.e., public restaurants-- [this] court concludes that the New Jersey Supreme Court would be as prepared to find that the statutory 'place' requirement has been met here as it was in Little League." Kiwanis International, 627 F. Supp. at 1387.
Despite the district court's emphasis on the term "place" rather than the more meaningful clause "place of public accommodation," the district court quoted with approval: "a 'place of public accommodation or a facility' is less a matter of whether the organization operates on a permanent site, and more a matter of whether the organization engages in activities in places to which an unselected public is given an open invitation." Id., citing United States Jaycees v. McClure, 305 N.W.2d 764, 773 (Minn.1981).
Our difference with the district court is that it found central to its decision the fact that Kiwanis Ridgewood conducted its meetings in public restaurants, a matter which we regard as irrelevant to the primary consideration stressed in Little League which requires that we scrutinize not where the gathering takes place but rather whether the invitation to gather is open to the public at large. Little League, 127 N.J.Super. at 531, 318 A.2d at 37-38.11
Thus the mere fact that Kiwanis Ridgewood meets in a public place cannot lead to the conclusion drawn by the district court that such meetings constitute Kiwanis Ridgewood as a "place of public accommodation" as Little League had defined that term. Membership organizations or clubs do not become "public accommodations," simply because they choose to meet in public restaurants.12 As we interpret Little League, to be subject to the prohibitions of the statute, the organization or club must invite an unrestricted and unselected public to join as members.
As we have stated, our task is to determine whether Kiwanis Ridgewood is a place of public accommodation. To do so, we must review the findings of fact which bear on that determination and which were made by the district court. However, the district court did not find facts answering the question of whether Kiwanis Ridgewood solicited members from a selected or an unselected public nor did it find facts answering the question whether Kiwanis Ridgewood's invitation to membership was open to the community at large or was an invitation restricted to particular individuals. In normal course, absence of such critical findings would dictate that we remand to the district court to have such findings made. Here, however, having examined the record before us and discerning nothing in that record which could support any findings that Kiwanis Ridgewood had opened its membership rolls to the "community at large," we are satisfied that these questions answer themselves.
Accordingly, if the standard by which Kiwanis Ridgewood must be measured is the Little League standard which defines "public accommodation," the record establishes conclusively that Kiwanis Ridgewood does not fit within the statutory definition of "public accommodation." It is thus not precluded from restricting its membership to men. In such a posture, there is no need for expending limited judicial resources in remanding to the district court to make findings where we have examined the evidence and have concluded that the evidence can lead to only one result.
The evidence of Kiwanis Ridgewood's membership practices is undisputed. The Ridgewood club is small, comprised of only twenty-eight members. Ten individuals have been members for over twenty years. Indeed, Kiwanis Ridgewood has admitted no more than twenty members over the course of the past decade. Each new member had to be sponsored by a current member, and formally voted in by the Ridgewood Board of Directors. The sponsorship of the existing member acted as a primary screening mechanism in the maintenance of the quality of membership. In addition to national membership requirements, Kiwanis Ridgewood established several local membership requirements, which included, among others, the candidate's willingness to pray at meetings and to recite the pledge of allegiance.
Although Kiwanis International has encouraged large-scale membership solicitation in the past, the suggested "membership roundup" mailings were sent only to those prospects already known by current members. These individuals would be invited to a Kiwanis meeting to determine their compatability with the organization's goals and members. The scope of these membership drives was limited. Not only did every solicited individual have to be known by an existing member, but every applicant out of that group of solicited individuals would have to be sponsored by an existing member.
Interestingly, despite the "membership roundup" practice suggested by Kiwanis International, Kiwanis Ridgewood itself never attempted any such "membership roundup." It did, however, in January of 1984, mail about fifty letters to corporations in the Ridgewood area inviting each to send a representative to a Kiwanis meeting. This particular membership drive sought only to elicit interest in the club. Interested individuals were not promised membership, only an opportunity to attend a Kiwanis Ridgewood meeting. Any prospective candidate for membership still had to be sponsored by an existing member of Kiwanis Ridgewood and meet compatability and other requirements of the organization.
This evidence of membership practices and policy does not reflect an open and unrestricted invitation to the community at large to join Kiwanis Ridgewood. Rather, all the evidence points totally in the opposite direction. If the test of "place of public accommodation" is unselectivity, unrestrictedness, and open invitation, as Little League informs us that it is, it is evident Kiwanis Ridgewood's practices do not pass that test.13
Kiwanis International also argued that the statute which defines "place of public accommodation" also explicitly provides that: "Nothing herein contained shall be construed to include or to apply to any institution, bona fide club, or place of accommodation, which is in its nature distinctly private." N.J.S.A. 10:5-5(l) . Kiwanis International contended that it is a club which in its nature is distinctly private. The district court concluded otherwise. It did so, not by focusing on the effect of Kiwanis Ridgewood's membership practices as they impacted upon the communities surrounding Ridgewood, but rather by examining the Kiwanis International complex (i.e., 8,200 clubs, 313,000 members) as a whole, subjecting that analysis not to the New Jersey statutory standard but to a constitutional standard involving freedom of association.14
We do not read N.J.S.A. 10:5-5(l) as the district court did. In our view, the latter part of the statute which excludes bona fide clubs which are distinctly private from the "places of public accommodation," represents the other side of the "public accommodation" coin. This is particularly so because of the emphasis placed on "selectivity" as the standard for determining "public accommodation," as well as for determining if a club is "distinctly private." If a club is "bona fide," as no one contends Kiwanis Ridgewood is not, and if it is not a "place of public accommodation" because of its selective membership practices, it must be private as that term is used in the statute. See Brown v. Loudoun Golf & Country Club, 573 F. Supp. 399, 403 (E.D. Va. 1983) ("The key factor is whether the club's membership is truly selective."); United States v. Trustees of Fraternal Order of Eagles, 472 F. Supp. 1174, 1175 (E.D. Wis. 1979) ("... the most important factor in determining whether a club is in fact private is the process which the club actually uses in selecting its members"); Kiwanis Club of Great Neck, Inc. v. Bd. of Trustees of Kiwanis, 41 N.Y.2d 1034, 363 N.E.2d 1378, 395 N.Y.S.2d 633 (1977), aff'g 52 A.D.2d 906, 383 N.Y.S.2d 383 (1976), aff'g 83 Misc.2d 1075, 374 N.Y.S.2d 265 (1975), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 859, 98 S. Ct. 183, 54 L. Ed. 2d 132 (1977).
We derive that learning from Little League which, while not discussing this aspect of the statute itself, nevertheless requires us to draw that implication from its overall discussion of "place of public accommodation." We do not believe that a freedom of association constitutional analysis of Kiwanis International's overall operation and structure--an analysis which the district court performed--is helpful in deciding whether a discrete component of Kiwanis International (i.e., Kiwanis Ridgewood) falls within or without the New Jersey statutory definition of "place of public accommodation." Our decision in that regard must be controlled by the New Jersey court's construction of its own legislation. See National Surety Corp. v. Midland Bank, 551 F.2d 21 (3d Cir. 1977).
Thus, our reading of the instant record in light of the interpretation of the New Jersey statute as glossed by Little League leads inexorably to the conclusion that Kiwanis Ridgewood, having a selective, nonpublic membership policy, is not a "place of public accommodation" but is rather in its nature distinctly private. It therefore falls without the prohibitions of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination.
Having concluded that Kiwanis Ridgewood does not constitute a place of public accommodation, there is no need for us to address all of the subsidiary arguments raised by the parties.15 One argument, however, deserves brief mention.
Kiwanis Ridgewood has consistently asserted that Kiwanis International's appeal is moot because the Board of Trustees of Kiwanis International has recently changed its position and now supports the admission of women into the organization. The facts belie this contention. Kiwanis Ridgewood, looking only to the actions of the Board of Trustees of Kiwanis International, claims that the Board has now reversed its position and now permits women as members. Therefore, Kiwanis Ridgewood claims, the entire issue before this court is moot.
However, our attention is called to the fact that in order to change the constitution and bylaws, a two-thirds majority must vote to do so at the Kiwanis International annual convention. We recognize that although the Board may have reversed its position on women members, the Kiwanis membership at the June 1986 meeting did not follow suit. Rather, the membership voted down a proposed amendment to the constitution which would allow women to become members of Kiwanis.
There has thus been no change in the provisions of the original constitution and bylaws which would permit any Kiwanis club to admit other than male members. This constitution and bylaws are binding upon Kiwanis Ridgewood absent authorized modifications. Because no modification which would permit the admission of women as members has been voted, we reject Kiwanis Ridgewood's argument that this appeal is moot.
In concluding that the provision of the Kiwanis Ridgewood license agreement did not violate the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, we find no need to address the severability issue which assumed importance at the trial level only because of the district court's determination that the "men only" provision of the license agreement was illegal. As appears above, we have held otherwise. We therefore conclude that the license agreement in its original form is to be enforced in accordance with its terms.
In so holding we do not condone the restrictive practices of Kiwanis International any more than the district court did. We share the district court's perturbation that an organization with a membership as large as Kiwanis and with objectives of such worthwhile value should nevertheless exclude from its membership qualified individuals only because they are not of the male sex.
The issues before us, however, do not permit our personal predilections to control our decision. We are faced not with a question of how we personally would respond to such an issue but whether Kiwanis International has responded to this problem illegally. We are satisfied that, in its enforcement of its license agreement with Ridgewood, Kiwanis International did not violate New Jersey's laws. That is the only issue which is properly before us and the only issue that we may appropriately answer.
We will reverse the March 6, 1986 judgment of the district court and remand with directions to the district court that it vacate its order of March 6th and enter a new and different judgment in favor of Kiwanis International which will permit enforcement of its license agreement according to its original terms.
ADAMS, Circuit Judge, concurring.
Although I concur in the result reached by the majority, I write separately to emphasize my conviction that the facts of this case make the issue a closer one than the majority appears willing to concede. Thus, while I am persuaded that the Kiwanis Club of Ridgewood, and its parent organization, Kiwanis International, are "distinctly private" within the meaning of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, I reach this conclusion only after weighing several factors that, under the analysis of the New Jersey courts in N.O.W. v. Little League, make this issue a close as well as a complex question.
Among the factors that tend to undermine a claim that Kiwanis is distinctly private are: (1) the size of the club's membership, which includes some 8,200 local chapters and 313,000 individual members, Kiwanis International, 627 F. Supp. at 1383; (2) the turnover brought about by the high rate of attrition among first-year Kiwanis members, which generally ranges from 60% to 70% annually, id.; (3) the fact that Kiwanis solicits members through large-scale "membership round-ups," app. at 412; and (4) the fact that employers often pay the dues of employee members, app. at 146. Although some of these characteristics apply to the national Kiwanis organization, as contrasted with the local chapter, I do not believe that this is a significant point when the question at issue here is viewed in context. I am persuaded, therefore, that each of these aspects of the Kiwanis organization argues against the claim that Kiwanis uses strict selection criteria for screening members, and should be weighed against the countervailing factors discussed in the majority opinion.
Even acknowledging the existence of such nonprivate components of Kiwanis, however, I am persuaded that the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination does not control here, and that Kiwanis International may require the local club at Ridgewood to comply with the discriminatory Kiwanis constitution and bylaws. As the majority correctly points out, Kiwanis does maintain some selectivity in determining whom to admit as members, and it is this selectivity that distinguishes Kiwanis from the Little League. All Kiwanis members must belong to a trade or profession, subscribe to the charitable goals of the club, and be sponsored by a club member.
Unlike the athletic organization involved in Little League, the public at large is not invited to join Kiwanis. Meetings of Kiwanis clubs generally are held in restaurants, rather than in public parks or playgrounds in full view of passers-by as in Little League. Further, the requirement that any new member be sponsored by an existing member reinforces the selectivity of Kiwanis membership. The Little League decision, which stressed the facts that the Little League organization imposed no other selection criterion than that of sex and that its activities were conducted in full view of the general public, supports the conclusion that the degree of selectivity present here is sufficient to remove a club from the purview of the Law Against Discrimination.
Consequently, I join the result reached by the majority, but believe that the focus of the majority unfortunately avoids consideration of factors that should be weighed in the analysis of whether Kiwanis clubs fall within the ambit of the public accommodation law. Given that the statute itself does not define the term "distinctly private," the New Jersey legislature is, of course, free to amend the statute in order to reach groups such as Kiwanis and similar organizations.
The Kiwanis license permitted Ridgewood to use the Kiwanis name and logos consisting of four service marks all of which are related to the "Kiwanis" name. The district court found that:
The marks are used by local clubs primarily to promote their services activities, and are also used to attract new members and to identify the locals to members of other Kiwanis clubs. The use of the service marks is central to the success of the locals' service and fund raising activities--indeed, to the locals' continued existence--because those marks inspire public confidence in the activities being promoted.
Kiwanis International v. Ridgewood Kiwanis Club, 627 F. Supp. 1381, 1384 (D.N.J. 1986).
The objectives of the Kiwanis organization are presented in its constitution. Article II reads:
To give primacy to the human and spiritual, rather than to the material values of life.
To encourage the daily living of the Golden Rule in all human relationships.
To promote the adoption and the application of higher social, business, and professional standards.
To develop, by precept and example, a more intelligent, aggressive, and serviceable citizenship.
To provide, through Kiwanis clubs, a practical means to form enduring friendships, to render altruistic service, and to build better communities.
To cooperate in creating and maintaining that sound public opinion and high idealism which make possible the increase of righteousness, justice, patriotism, and good will.
Article V, Sec. 4(a) of the Kiwanis constitution reads: "The active membership of this club shall consist of men of good character and community standing residing or having other community interests in the area of this club."
Article II, Sec. 2 of the Kiwanis bylaws reads: "Membership in a chartered club is limited to males over eighteen years of age who satisfy the qualifications for either active membership, privileged membership, senior membership, or honorary membership...."
Our analysis and disposition do not require us to address Kiwanis International's arguments regarding Lanham Act violations
Both International and Ridgewood agreed that the trial of this action on the merits be advanced and consolidated with a hearing of their requests for injunctions
It shall be unlawful discrimination " [f]or any owner, lessee, proprietor, manager, superintendent, agent, or employee of any place of public accommodation directly or indirectly to refuse, withhold from or deny to any person any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges thereof, or to discriminate against any person in the furnishing thereof ... on account of the race, creed, color, national origin, ancestry, marital status, sex or nationality of such person ...." N.J.S.A. 10:5-12(f)
A trademark licensing agreement is a contract to be interpreted and enforced under state law. Judge Adams, writing for the court in Mariniello v. Shell Oil Co., 511 F.2d 853 (3d Cir. 1975), stated that the " [i]nvalidation of contract clauses held repugnant to state public policy is a proper exercise of the state judicial function." Id. at 858. The Mariniello court went on to conclude that "once the state court has declared a clause invalid as violating the public policy of the state, a federal court may not enforce such a term solely because a contract entails the licensing of a federally protected trademark." Id
It is thus clear that in the event a licensing agreement clause is held to be illegal, it cannot be enforced. Conversely, if no state policy is violated, then the agreement must be given full effect. To the extent that Kiwanis International argues otherwise, that argument is rejected.
Among other arguments, Little League contended that it was not a public accommodation because it was a membership organization which did not operate from any fixed parcel of real estate in New Jersey of which it had exclusive possession by ownership or lease. The New Jersey court responded that " [t]he statutory noun 'place' (of public accommodation) is a term of convenience, not of limitation." Little League, 127 N.J.Super. at 531, 318 A.2d at 37, but that in any event Little League fulfilled the statutory spatiality requirement, i.e., "place," because the "places" of public accommodation were the ball fields where tryouts, practices, and games were held
Because the issues in United States Jaycees v. McClure, 305 N.W.2d 764 (Minn.1981), had been certified to the Minnesota Supreme Court by the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, the proceedings were reviewed by the United States Supreme Court where the Jaycees pressed their constitutional issue. Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 104 S. Ct. 3244, 82 L. Ed. 2d 462 (1984). The Supreme Court held that the application of the Minnesota public accommodations statute did not violate the male members' freedom of expressive or intimate association. Because of our holding, we do not reach the constitutional issues decided in Roberts
In other jurisdictions, courts interpreting "place of public accommodation" have centered their analysis on "place" rather than "public accommodation." The cases generally hold that where the organization maintained no physical "place" of operations in the state (as Kiwanis Ridgewood did not in New Jersey) and did not resemble any of the various types of physical facilities enumerated in the examples found in the particular state statute, the organization did not constitute a "place of public accommodation." See, e.g., United States Jaycees v. Richardet, 666 P.2d 1008 (Alaska 1983) (not place of public accommodation); United States Jaycees v. Bloomfield, 434 A.2d 1379 (D.C.1981) (organization not a place of public accommodation because did not operate from any particular place); United States Jaycees v. Mass. Comm'n. Against Discr., 391 Mass. 594, 463 N.E.2d 1151 (1984) (not a place of public accommodation where it did not maintain a place of business in Mass. and did not resemble examples of "places" listed in statute)
The restaurant itself, because it invites attendance by the general public, would be a "place of public accommodation" within the meaning of the statute
Rotary Club of Duarte v. Board of Directors, 178 Cal. App. 3d 1035, 224 Cal. Rptr. 213 (1986), cert. granted, --- U.S. ----, 107 S. Ct. 396, 93 L. Ed. 2d 350, and Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 104 S. Ct. 3244, 82 L. Ed. 2d 462 (1984) are not to the contrary. In light of our discussion, we do not reach the constitutional issues which concerned the Court in Roberts nor are we bound by the California court's interpretation of their civil rights law in Duarte. The district court, because it read the statute and Little League differently than we have, was obliged to consider Kiwanis International's constitutional claim. We are not
Judge Adams, in his concurring opinion, agrees that the hallmark of the "distinctly private" club is its selectivity in determining whom to admit as members, and that because of the evidence of Kiwanis Ridgewood's high degree of selectivity, the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination cannot apply to Kiwanis Ridgewood. He writes in concurrence, however, because he is concerned that some aspects of the record were not weighed as heavily as others in determining selectivity
Without taking issue with Judge Adams' concerns or with his enumeration of the factors he lists, it bears mention that the record just does not disclose the rate of attrition of Kiwanis Ridgewood members or the fact that Kiwanis Ridgewood advertises in business or trade publications for members. Inasmuch as our focus must necessarily be on Kiwanis Ridgewood, a club with but 28 members, it is apparent that evidence dealing with the whole of the Kiwanis International complex is irrelevant in determining whether Kiwanis Ridgewood is a place of public accommodation within the purview of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination.
The appellant, Kiwanis International, presented the following arguments. First, it argued that the Lanham Act preempted the application of state law which would compel International to license its marks to a club not sharing its uniform membership criteria. Kiwanis International argued in the alternative that it is not a public accommodation, but rather a "distinctly private" club. As a second alternative, International argued that, if the provision were illegal, it would not be severable from the whole of the agreement. Briefly, the appellee Ridgewood argued that the Lanham Act did not preempt state law, that the Kiwanis members' right to freedom of association was not infringed by the application of the statute, that the Ridgewood club was a public accommodation, and, finally, that the illegal provision was severable
of Third Circuit opinions.


"...Admax Network is the largest online advertising network in Southeast Asia with offices in Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Philippines and Vietnam. Our network combines...top local and international websites, making it easy for advertisers to reach their target audience online, and helping publishers to maximize their revenues through a range of display advertising products." Admax was acquired by Komli.


Trader & Supplier of Color Sorting Machine & Industrial Color Sorter. Our product range also comprises of Biomass Gasifiers, Sterling Generators and Silent Generators.
With our rich industry experience, we are engaged in manufacturing, distributing and supplying an extensive array of Industrial Color Sorter. As per the requirements of customers, this color sorter is accessible in varied specifications. Offered color sorter is used in agricultural and food industries for the purpose of sorting grains and seeds. Customers can avail this color sorter from us at reasonable prices in a stipulated frame.
With the assistance of our team of professionals, we are engaged in manufacturing, distributing and supplying a wide range of Color Sorting Machine that is very durable and delivers high performance. This sorting machine is used for removing worst materials from input seeds. This sorting machine is provided in different specifications & models as per the requirements come from customers. The given sorting machine is installed in rice mills to scan and detect the color of rice before the final packaging.
Looking for Color Sorting Machine ?


The Mass is average, The Mass wants you to fit in, BUT WE HAVE A SURPLUS OF MASS. So…. Break out, try new things, get rid of dogmas, do what you like, go crazy – WHY ? Mass is NOT you. YOU DO SOMETHING REMARKABLE. YOU ARE AHEAD OF THE CURVE!


text:
Canischio est une commune italienne de la ville métropolitaine de Turin dans la région Piémont en Italie.

Autrefois (début ) c'ètait un village de 1550 habitants
avec une banque et une mine d'or (on peut encore la visiter), exploitée par une société anglaise.

Administration

Communes limitrophes
Sparone, Cuorgnè, Alpette, San Colombano Belmonte, Pratiglione, Prascorsano

Notes et références

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


The second book in Marie Lu's New York Times bestselling LEGEND trilogy—perfect for fans of THE HUNGER GAMES and DIVERGENT!
In this highly-anticipated sequel to the New York Times bestseller Legend, Lu delivers a breathtaking thriller with high stakes and cinematic action.
From the Trade Paperback edition. Download and start listening now!
" Second book in the Legend Trilogy. Pretty fast moving and exciting. Not crazy about how it ended...too sad. "
" My new favorite dystopian book series.I recommend it. "
" Great young adult book. Good spring board for discussion on people's effect on government. "
" This book, for being a second book in a trilogy is Amazing!!! I read it while I was on vacation in 5 days it was just soooo good!! "
" I thought Prodigy was a really strong sequel to Legend. Day and June are taken in by the patriots, and given a mission: to assassinate the new elector. Prodigy had a somewhat disappointing ending, but it will still leave the reader hanging and waiting for the third and final book in the series. "
" I enjoyed it, and I hope they make a 3rd one. Hopefully that is possible! "
" i dont know this one wasn't half as good as the first one, and that is putting it mildly..i dont understand the development of the characters...and the forced ending :S "
" I enjoyed this. I liked that the twists weren't easily figured out, so I was on pins and needles until the end. Can't wait for book 3! "
" Can't wait for the next one "
" A good second instalment to the series. I admit to wanting to drop-kick a certain character in the last chapter, but I'm hoping his/her stupidity is redeemed in the next book. "
" Much better than the first book. Much more suspenseful with better plot twists. "
" There are no words to describe how wonderful this book was! Defiantly one of my favorites!! "
" Very Nice. Blue Words. "
" Great action packed followup to Legend...can't wait for the next one "
" Very good book wth a huge cliffhanger, why Day? Why? "
" Omg I loved this book so much if I could give it a million stars I would "
" It took me a few chapters to really get back into the story, but by then I was hooked! It was such a great read and I'm both eagerly anticipating and mildly dreading the next book! "
" Fast paced, all action. "
" I was a little disappointed in this sequel to Legend, as the writing seemed a bit forced at times and I found a few plot holes, but otherwise it was okay.. "
" I think this series is as good as the Divergent series. What do others think? "
Marie Lu is the author of the New York Times bestselling series The Young Elites, as well as the blockbuster bestselling Legend series. She graduated from the University of Southern California and jumped into the video game industry as an artist before becoming a full-time writer.
Steven Kaplan is an actor and classical and jazz trained pianist. Among his many film, television, and theater credits are The Reluctant Professor, Smash, Law & Order, Lost in Yonkers, and Book Club. In addition to acting, he is also an occasional audiobook reader for Penguin and HarperCollins. Steven is a graduate of the Tisch School of the Arts at NYU.


A conversation with Paul Livingston.
Why did you guys choose an acoustic tour instead of a normal one?
We're at a bit of a crossroads in the band. And picking out the whole extra members, and doing the whole big band tour…we did a few last year and this time we just wanted it to be as stress-free as possible. After we made three albums and we had to think [about the future of the band]. That's what happened before. And so now that we've made six albums, we needed to think about things again. And so this seemed like a good way to round things off nicely. It's also been 30 years since we've been a band. Wait, yes, 30 years.
Yeah, 30 years. And we just thought we'd go out and have a nice relaxing tour. No big long soundchecks, no stress. We just show up, play our guitars. And that was the plan but then of course we decided without really thinking it through, that we would play every one of our songs that was ever recorded. And so we got rid of the stress in one area and added it in another way.
Now we're all frantically trying to relearn these B-sides and stuff and extra tracks that we never, ever played. Some of them we've never played live. Some we've only played once when we recorded it.
So we're learning these songs, it's about 105 or something like that.
So we're gonna play every song on this tour.
Speaking of that, we heard you've been doing some covers as well. What song are you mostly looking forward to cover?
We recorded some covers in our past so they're included in every song we've recorded. We've done "To Sir With Love" by Lulu. "White Horses" by…I don't know who did that. We are thinking of learning some new covers. Frank suggested "The Day Before You Came" by ABBA.
That's a good one. And apparently, I think that was ABBA's last single and it wasn't a huge hit. So Benny said in an interview that they loved that song and they felt that's the way ABBA should be going. And when it wasn't a huge hit, they were like, "Okay, let's just wrap this up." So if it had been a hit, they would have stayed together.
Speaking of tours, I know you guys toured Japan before. Do you have any upcoming Japan tours?
No, not yet, unless we take this acoustic thing to Japan. We've done that before where we went with a full band and then we went back and played acoustically. So we might to that, because Japan is great to play. It's a great place.
What is your favorite place in Japan?
Well we always play the same gigs, it's always at Club Quattro pretty much, it's always them. And I mean Tokyo is just a trip. We've been there a lot and every time we go there, we get treated really well and have such fun there. Everything's taken care of, nothing is broken, you know…it's very professional.
Are there any particular restaurants that you look particularly forward to when you go there?
No, I don't think so. We just sort of make it up. Sometimes we try and get to the Cavern Club, there's a place called the Cavern Club and they have non-stop Beatles bands playing. And so that's always good fun to see.
Let's talk about your last album. So you guys pre-sold your last album through PledgeMusic. Do you plan on releasing your future albums and EPs through Pledge as well?
Maybe. I mean, we released it through a record company, but we sort of pre-sold it on Pledge, and we've done a couple albums like that now where we basically pre-sold it and then used the money to make it. And that seems to be the norm these days. It's sort of growing that side of things.
When we first did it, it wasn't such a huge thing, and now it's a good way of doing it but there's a little bit of pressure where when we were on a record company and they were paying for things, if we recorded and we didn't like it we could do it again.
And with Pledge and pre-selling things, basically, whatever you record is getting released. So there's a little bit of pressure that way but we've been lucky where we haven't had to record an album and realize that we're not liking it very much. So it's good so far, and I'm sure we'll do that again in the future.
Okay. Let's talk about band names for a second. If you can go back in time, would you consider choosing a different name?
I don't think so. You know, with band names, that name, those words, just come to mean the sound that that band makes and you can't really make it something else. I don't know what we would have called ourselves, but no, I like our name. I like it a lot actually.
Have you ever thought of other alternative band names?
Not really. We played a couple of gigs under the name Bin Crosby's. But that was just sort of out of fun.
If you could go back in time to the 90's, when you just finished recording Cake, your first album, what advice would you give to your former self?
I would probably say don't be so precious. Do everything that you're asked to do.
You know when we first started there was still a thing where you could be accused of selling out, and that was a bad thing in those days. You had to sort of watch what you were doing, you didn't want to over sell it and be a business and things like that. You know, you're supposed to be an artist, but something happened, maybe it was rap music or Oasis, but something happened where selling out became just the norm. Everyone does everything, everybody sells out.
So, you guys have been a band for three decades. What made you guys stick together all these years? What do you think kept you guys together?
We're very close friends and we've always been in this for the right reasons. We always knew we'd be in this for the long haul. We respect each other and this is our artistic outlet and we respect that. We've never been in any rush to make records or do anything quickly. We've just always been trying to get it right.
And so, six albums over 30 years is not a lot. Especially when there's three song writers in the band. So, we just always knew that. I mean, time files. I don't know where the time goes. It doesn't really feel like 30 years. It feels more like six albums. It doesn't seem that long. Time flies.
What kind of advice do you have for bands that are starting out, to stay together?
Oh jeeze, that's tough. I don't know what it's like these days. I think it's harder these days. There's a lot more music, a lot more bands. I don't really know how anyone does it; you just need to be doing it. Don't do it for the money. You need to be doing it just for the artistic reasons, to make beautiful sounds. That's pretty much it.
So, this is my final question. What can we expect from the Trashcan Sinatras in 2018?
Possibly another album. I'm just telling everyone that we're making an album really quickly, because if I'm wrong it doesn't really matter, does it?
So part of why we're doing this acoustic tour with just the three of us is, we're gonna be discussing our future as a band … what that might look like. So we will find out on this tour.
But we have been writing. We've been writing lots of songs and we might play some on this tour. So, there's a fair chance that we'll make another album next year.
And that was our interview with Paul, who was having coffee at 6pm while answering our questions – caffeine diem.
Tickets for Trashcan Sinatras' acoustic tour are available here.
Follow Trashcan Sinatras on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.