The Speyers' Residential Hangover
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Unintended Consequences of the American Presidential Selection System
\\jciprod01\productn\H\HLP\15-1\HLP104.txt unknown Seq: 1 14-JUL-21 12:54 The Best Laid Plans: Unintended Consequences of the American Presidential Selection System Samuel S.-H. Wang and Jacob S. Canter* The mechanism for selecting the President of the United States, the Electoral College, causes outcomes that weaken American democracy and that the delegates at the Constitu- tional Convention never intended. The core selection process described in Article II, Section 1 was hastily drawn in the final days of the Convention based on compromises made originally to benefit slave-owning states and states with smaller populations. The system was also drafted to have electors deliberate and then choose the President in an age when travel and news took weeks or longer to cross the new country. In the four decades after ratification, the Electoral College was modified further to reach its current form, which includes most states using a winner-take-all method to allocate electors. The original needs this system was designed to address have now disappeared. But the persistence of these Electoral College mechanisms still causes severe unanticipated problems, including (1) con- tradictions between the electoral vote winner and national popular vote winner, (2) a “battleground state” phenomenon where all but a handful of states are safe for one political party or the other, (3) representational and policy benefits that citizens in only some states receive, (4) a decrease in the political power of non-battleground demographic groups, and (5) vulnerability of elections to interference. These outcomes will not go away without intervention. -
Professional Wrestling, Sports Entertainment and the Liminal Experience in American Culture
PROFESSIONAL WRESTLING, SPORTS ENTERTAINMENT AND THE LIMINAL EXPERIENCE IN AMERICAN CULTURE By AARON D, FEIGENBAUM A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2000 Copyright 2000 by Aaron D. Feigenbaum ACKNOWLEDGMENTS There are many people who have helped me along the way, and I would like to express my appreciation to all of them. I would like to begin by thanking the members of my committee - Dr. Heather Gibson, Dr. Amitava Kumar, Dr. Norman Market, and Dr. Anthony Oliver-Smith - for all their help. I especially would like to thank my Chair, Dr. John Moore, for encouraging me to pursue my chosen field of study, guiding me in the right direction, and providing invaluable advice and encouragement. Others at the University of Florida who helped me in a variety of ways include Heather Hall, Jocelyn Shell, Jim Kunetz, and Farshid Safi. I would also like to thank Dr. Winnie Cooke and all my friends from the Teaching Center and Athletic Association for putting up with me the past few years. From the World Wrestling Federation, I would like to thank Vince McMahon, Jr., and Jim Byrne for taking the time to answer my questions and allowing me access to the World Wrestling Federation. A very special thanks goes out to Laura Bryson who provided so much help in many ways. I would like to thank Ed Garea and Paul MacArthur for answering my questions on both the history of professional wrestling and the current sports entertainment product. -
A New #Metoo Result: Rejecting Notions of Romantic Consent with Executives
Texas A&M University School of Law Texas A&M Law Scholarship Faculty Scholarship 1-2019 A New #MeToo Result: Rejecting Notions of Romantic Consent with Executives Michael Z. Green Texas A & M University School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/facscholar Part of the Labor and Employment Law Commons Recommended Citation Michael Z. Green, A New #MeToo Result: Rejecting Notions of Romantic Consent with Executives, 23 Emp. Rts. & Emp. Pol'y J. 115 (2019). Available at: https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/facscholar/1389 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Texas A&M Law Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Texas A&M Law Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A NEW #METOO RESULT: REJECTING NOTIONS OF ROMANTIC CONSENT WITH EXECUTIVES BY MICHAEL Z. GREEN* I. INTRODUCTION: #METOO AND THE GROWING DEBATE ON LEGAL CONSENT......................................... ..... 116 II. #METOO AND THE VILE USE OF POWER-DIFFERENTIAL BY EXECUTIVE HARASSERS ........................... ...... 121 III. #METOO BACKLASH AND CLAIMS OF UNCERTAINTY ABOUT WORKPLACE CONSENT ...................................... 126 A. Increasing "Unwelcome" Sexual Harassment Claims as a Result of #MeToo. ........................... ..... 126 B. Resulting Backlash Based on Consent and Unfair Process.......130 C. Dating at Work Being Unnecessarily Regulated........................135 D. Duplicitous Responses Based on Politics ......... ....... 136 E. The Aziz Ansari Experience. .......................... 139 F. Women as the Violators....................... 144 G. Much More Ado Than Should Be Due in the Workplace........... 145 IV. #METoo AND THE BACKBONE TO COME FORWARD DESPITE EXECUTIVE RETALIATION ............................... -
Uncovering Harassment Retaliation
AC138110-E1E8-41F2-9089-27FD4BDB2A65 .DOCX (DO NOT DELETE) 5/2/2021 9:17 AM UNCOVERING HARASSMENT RETALIATION Blair Druhan Bullock INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 672 I. THE LAW THAT INFORMS AN EMPLOYER’S RESPONSE TO HARASSMENT .................................................................................................. 677 A. Employer Liability for Workplace Harassment ......................................... 678 B. Employer Liability for Retaliation ............................................................. 684 C. Liability Conundrum for Hostile Work Environment Harassment and Retaliation ................................................................................................. 687 II. MODELING AN EMPLOYER’S RESPONSE TO HARASSMENT .................... 688 III. EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS OF HARASSMENT RETALIATION .......................... 693 A. Existing Data and Data Limitations ....................................................... 693 B. EEOC Data, Statistics, and Empirical Results ....................................... 697 C. MSPB Data and Summary Statistics ........................................................ 700 D. MSPB Methodology and Results................................................................ 705 IV. TAKEAWAYS AND LEGAL IMPLICATIONS................................................... 712 A. Reforms Supported by the Data ................................................................. 713 B. Role for State Legislatures......................................................................... -
2020 WWE Finest
BASE BASE CARDS 1 Angel Garza Raw® 2 Akam Raw® 3 Aleister Black Raw® 4 Andrade Raw® 5 Angelo Dawkins Raw® 6 Asuka Raw® 7 Austin Theory Raw® 8 Becky Lynch Raw® 9 Bianca Belair Raw® 10 Bobby Lashley Raw® 11 Murphy Raw® 12 Charlotte Flair Raw® 13 Drew McIntyre Raw® 14 Edge Raw® 15 Erik Raw® 16 Humberto Carrillo Raw® 17 Ivar Raw® 18 Kairi Sane Raw® 19 Kevin Owens Raw® 20 Lana Raw® 21 Liv Morgan Raw® 22 Montez Ford Raw® 23 Nia Jax Raw® 24 R-Truth Raw® 25 Randy Orton Raw® 26 Rezar Raw® 27 Ricochet Raw® 28 Riddick Moss Raw® 29 Ruby Riott Raw® 30 Samoa Joe Raw® 31 Seth Rollins Raw® 32 Shayna Baszler Raw® 33 Zelina Vega Raw® 34 AJ Styles SmackDown® 35 Alexa Bliss SmackDown® 36 Bayley SmackDown® 37 Big E SmackDown® 38 Braun Strowman SmackDown® 39 "The Fiend" Bray Wyatt SmackDown® 40 Carmella SmackDown® 41 Cesaro SmackDown® 42 Daniel Bryan SmackDown® 43 Dolph Ziggler SmackDown® 44 Elias SmackDown® 45 Jeff Hardy SmackDown® 46 Jey Uso SmackDown® 47 Jimmy Uso SmackDown® 48 John Morrison SmackDown® 49 King Corbin SmackDown® 50 Kofi Kingston SmackDown® 51 Lacey Evans SmackDown® 52 Mandy Rose SmackDown® 53 Matt Riddle SmackDown® 54 Mojo Rawley SmackDown® 55 Mustafa Ali Raw® 56 Naomi SmackDown® 57 Nikki Cross SmackDown® 58 Otis SmackDown® 59 Robert Roode Raw® 60 Roman Reigns SmackDown® 61 Sami Zayn SmackDown® 62 Sasha Banks SmackDown® 63 Sheamus SmackDown® 64 Shinsuke Nakamura SmackDown® 65 Shorty G SmackDown® 66 Sonya Deville SmackDown® 67 Tamina SmackDown® 68 The Miz SmackDown® 69 Tucker SmackDown® 70 Xavier Woods SmackDown® 71 Adam Cole NXT® 72 Bobby -
Battleground 2014 (XLIII)
Battleground 2014 (XLIII) FINAL STUDY #14107 THE TARRANCE GROUP and LAKE RESEARCH PARTNERS N = 1,000 Registered “likely” voters Margin of error + 3.1% Field Dates: January 12-16, 2014 Hello, I'm _______________ of The Tarrance Group, a national survey research firm. We're talking to people today about public leaders and issues facing us all. IF CELL CODE = “N”, ASK: May I please speak with the youngest (male/female) in the household who is registered to vote? IF CELL CODE = “Y”, ASK: CP-1. Do you currently live in (state from cell sample sheet)? Yes (CONTINUE TO CP-3) No (CONTINUE TO CP-2) _____________________________________________________________________________________________ IF “NO” IN CP-1, ASK: CP-2. In what state do you current reside? __________________________ (RECORD STATE NAME) _____________________________________________________________________________________________ IF CELL CODE = “Y”, ASK: CP-3. For your safety, are you driving right now? Yes (SCHEDULE CALL BACK) No _____________________________________________________________________________________________ A. Are you registered to vote in your state? IF "NO," ASK: Is there someone else at home who is registered to vote? (IF "YES," THEN ASK: MAY I SPEAK WITH HIM/HER?) Yes (CONTINUE) No (THANK AND TERMINATE) *=less than .5% 1 And… B. What is the likelihood of your voting in the elections for US Congress that will be held in November 2014-- are you extremely likely, very likely, somewhat likely, or not very likely at all to vote? Extremely Likely ..................................................... 60% (CONTINUE) Very Likely .............................................................. 27% Somewhat Likely ..................................................... 13% (THANK AND TERMINATE) Not Very Likely UNSURE (DNR) (UPELECT) C. Are you, or is anyone in your household, employed with an advertising agency, newspaper, television or radio station, or political campaign? Yes (THANK AND TERMINATE) No (CONTINUE) Now, thinking for a moment about things in the country-- 1. -
Spreading the Gospel of Climate Change: an Evangelical Battleground
NEW POLITICAL REFORM NEW MODELS OF AMERICA PROGRAM POLICY CHANGE LYDIA BEAN AND STEVE TELES SPREADING THE GOSPEL OF CLIMATE CHANGE: AN EVANGELICAL BATTLEGROUND PART OF NEW AMERICA’S STRANGE BEDFELLOWS SERIES NOVEMBER 2015 #STRANGEBEDFELLOWS About the Authors About New Models of Policy Change Lydia Bean is author of The Politics New Models of Policy Change starts from the observation of Evangelical Identity (Princeton UP that the traditional model of foundation-funded, 2014). She is Executive Director of Faith think-tank driven policy change -- ideas emerge from in Texas, and Senior Consultant to the disinterested “experts” and partisan elites compromise PICO National Network. for the good of the nation -- is failing. Partisan polarization, technological empowerment of citizens, and heightened suspicions of institutions have all taken their toll. Steven Teles is an associate professor of political science at Johns Hopkins But amid much stagnation, interesting policy change University and a fellow at New America. is still happening. The paths taken on issues from sentencing reform to changes in Pentagon spending to resistance to government surveillance share a common thread: they were all a result of transpartisan cooperation. About New America By transpartisan, we mean an approach to advocacy in which, rather than emerging from political elites at the New America is dedicated to the renewal of American center, new policy ideas emerge from unlikely corners of politics, prosperity, and purpose in the Digital Age. We the right or left and find allies on the other side, who may carry out our mission as a nonprofit civic enterprise: an come to the same idea from a very different worldview. -
Environmental Standards, Thresholds, and the Next Battleground of Climate Change Regulations
Article Environmental Standards, Thresholds, and the Next Battleground of Climate Change Regulations Kimberly M. Castle† and Richard L. Revesz†† Introduction .......................................................................... 1350 I. Traditional Risk Assessment Models ............................. 1363 A. Carcinogens ............................................................... 1363 B. Noncarcinogens Other than Criteria Pollutants ..... 1371 II. Treatment of Criteria Pollutants ................................... 1377 A. Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 ......................... 1378 B. Shift in the EPA’s Approach: A Case Study of Lead ....................................................................... 1383 C. Rejecting Thresholds and Calculating Benefits Below the NAAQS .................................................... 1391 III. Calculating Health Benefits from Particulate Matter Reductions Below the NAAQS ....................................... 1397 A. Scientific Basis .......................................................... 1400 B. Regulatory Treatment .............................................. 1409 C. Addressing Uncertainty ........................................... 1413 D. Adjusting Baselines .................................................. 1417 IV. Considering Co-Benefits ................................................. 1421 A. Co-Benefits and Indirect Costs ................................ 1424 B. The EPA’s Practice ................................................... 1427 † Research Scholar, Institute -
Battleground 2016: New Game
Battleground 2016: new game June 30, 2016 Methodology Battleground Survey of 2700 Likely 2016 Voters in 9 competitive presidential battleground states. This survey took place June 11 - 20. Respondents who voted in the 2012 election, 2014 election, or registered since the 2014 election were selected from the national voter file. Likely voters were determined based on stated intention of voting in 2016. Data shown in this deck is among all 2016 likely voters unless otherwise noted. Margin of error for the full sample = +/-1.89 percentage points at 95% confidence. Margin of error will be higher among subgroups. Respondents were divided equally among states (n=300) of Arizona, Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Margin of error for each state sample= +/- 5.66 percentage points at 95% confidence. Margin of error will be higher among subgroups. Forty-nine percent of respondents were reached by cell phone, in order to account for ever-changing demographics and accurately sample the full electorate in each state. Regression analysis. A series of fractional logistic regressions were conducted to obtain the marginal effects of the explanatory variable (presidential vote) on outcome variables (associations, statement pairs), representing the change in outcome probabilities estimated for the explanatory variable, all else held equal. No causation is implied by these results. 1 State Breakdowns Senate Battleground: Arizona Diverse Target States: Florida* Arizona Florida Nevada Nevada North Carolina North Carolina Rustbelt Target States: Ohio Ohio New Hampshire New Hampshire Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Wisconsin Michigan Wisconsin *The Senate vote results were excluded in Florida where Senator Rubio had not yet announced his candidacy. -
Cubed Circle Newsletter 241 – Consistency Is Hard
Cubed Circle Newsletter 241 – Consistency is Hard As many of probably noticed, we have been posting late and sporadically for the last month. This was, obviously, not our intention, but with the second semester eating into my free time, staying up to date is a tall order. Even without the newsletter itself seeing weekly publication the site has still remained up to date on a weekly basis, thanks primarily to co-author Ben Carass, as well as guest writers Paul Cooke and Leslie Lee III. But, the newsletter has survived for well over 241 weeks, and will hopefully thrive in the years to come. I have attempted to make provisions for publishing related tasks which should minimize the risk of major delays (obviously there will be some regular delays, as this late issue can attest), but we have some fail safes in place in order to keep this to a minimum. With all of this said, we have a great issue for everyone this week with Paul Cooke discussing the Pro-Wrestling Only Greatest Wrestler Ever project and his personal experience with the poll, Ben covers the news including tons of results from Japan and the Lesnar USADA violation, the Mixed Bag returns with a look at comedy wrestling, Ricochet/Ospreay, and a potential WWE match of the year -- plus Ben also looks at last Sunday's Battleground show and the first RAW of the brand split (a very good show). Also, for those unaware, we now have an official Twitter account @CubedCircleWres allowing the banger to unprecedented highs at @BenCarass and @RyanClingman. -
New Insights Into the Phylogenetics and Population Structure of the Prairie Falcon (Falco Mexicanus) Jacqueline M
Doyle et al. BMC Genomics (2018) 19:233 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-018-4615-z RESEARCH ARTICLE Open Access New insights into the phylogenetics and population structure of the prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus) Jacqueline M. Doyle1,2*, Douglas A. Bell3,4, Peter H. Bloom5, Gavin Emmons6, Amy Fesnock7, Todd E. Katzner8, Larry LaPré9, Kolbe Leonard10, Phillip SanMiguel11, Rick Westerman11 and J. Andrew DeWoody2,12 Abstract Background: Management requires a robust understanding of between- and within-species genetic variability, however such data are still lacking in many species. For example, although multiple population genetics studies of the peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) have been conducted, no similar studies have been done of the closely- related prairie falcon (F. mexicanus) and it is unclear how much genetic variation and population structure exists across the species’ range. Furthermore, the phylogenetic relationship of F. mexicanus relative to other falcon species is contested. We utilized a genomics approach (i.e., genome sequencing and assembly followed by single nucleotide polymorphism genotyping) to rapidly address these gaps in knowledge. Results: We sequenced the genome of a single female prairie falcon and generated a 1.17 Gb (gigabases) draft genome assembly. We generated maximum likelihood phylogenetic trees using complete mitochondrial genomes as well as nuclear protein-coding genes. This process provided evidence that F. mexicanus is an outgroup to the clade that includes the peregrine falcon and members of the subgenus Hierofalco. We annotated > 16,000 genes and almost 600,000 high-quality single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in the nuclear genome, providing the raw material for a SNP assay design featuring > 140 gene-associated markers and a molecular-sexing marker. -
Michigan's Copper Country" Lets You Experience the Require the Efforts of Many People with Different Excitement of the Discovery and Development of the Backgrounds
Michigan’s Copper Country Ellis W. Courter Contribution to Michigan Geology 92 01 Table of Contents Preface .................................................................................................................. 2 The Keweenaw Peninsula ........................................................................................... 3 The Primitive Miners ................................................................................................. 6 Europeans Come to the Copper Country ....................................................................... 12 The Legend of the Ontonagon Copper Boulder ............................................................... 18 The Copper Rush .................................................................................................... 22 The Pioneer Mining Companies................................................................................... 33 The Portage Lake District ......................................................................................... 44 Civil War Times ...................................................................................................... 51 The Beginning of the Calumet and Hecla ...................................................................... 59 Along the Way to Maturity......................................................................................... 68 Down the South Range ............................................................................................. 80 West of the Ontonagon............................................................................................