text:
I'm generally fond of companies that find creative ways to access the public equity markets while not giving away all the "rights" that traditionally go to "owners" of "companies." I mean, you want money, you ask people for money, you give them the terms that you need to give them to get the money: what is so sacred about shareholder voting rights?
At the same time though I'm a little skeptical of some of the reasons that private companies give for not wanting to go public. These seem to me to be basically two:
- High-frequency-trading computers robots algorithms crash scary scary.
- "If we go public our shareholders will force us to focus on quarterly earnings rather than the long-term good of the company."
The first one, as you might notice from its grammar, seems ill-defined, though the fact that like every high-profile IPO this year has suffered from a computer glitch makes me think that it's on to something. Something vague though. The second one: I mean, just don't do that. What's gonna happen to you if you manage for the long-term good of the company? Your stock will go down this quarter? Who cares? I thought you were in this for the long haul?
But they've got a point. Today in "shareholders are assholes," here's a delightful recent paper by three business professors about how stronger shareholder rights make companies more likely to manage earnings.1 As they point out, you could have two models of how strong public-shareholder rights (i.e. things like robust shareholder voting rights, weak anti-takeover provisions, etc.) affect corporate behavior:
- Shareholders are good and will make companies do good things if they're empowered,2 or
- Shareholders are self-interested jerks and will make companies do bad things if it makes them more money.
There's no particular reason to believe the first one but, y'know, it's a hypothesis; it is also wrong:
We find that when shareholder rights are stronger, managers are more likely to manage earnings both upward and downward. Firms that meet or slightly beat the analyst forecast report greater accruals in the current quarter relative to the subsequent four quarters if they offer strong shareholder rights. Similarly, firms that easily beat the analyst forecast report lower accruals in the current quarter relative to the subsequent four quarters if they offer strong shareholder rights. Both results are consistent with accruals showing more reversal (i.e., greater discretionary reporting) for firms with strong shareholder rights. These results are not consistent with the traditional view that shareholder rights serve a governance role by reducing discretionary reporting behavior.
The overlapping intuitions here are something like:
- Strong shareholder rights mean that shareholders are more likely to effectively complain if you miss earnings or generally have volatile earnings, which causes managers to manage earnings to avoid complaints and things like votes against their pay packages.
- "Strong shareholder rights" is a euphemism for "weak takeover protections," and companies that miss earnings are easier pickings for takeovers, which causes managers to manage earnings to avoid takeovers and the associated firings.
- The cause is some third thing that leads to both weak shareholder protections and lack of giving a damn about quarterly earnings – Facebook's IPO, for instance, evidenced both terrible shareholder rights and a Silicon-Valley-mandatory letter expressing a theoretical indifference to quarterly earnings, though, y'know, there's the Instagram thing, so how long did that last?
Anyway! Are there lessons here? And, for whom? Like, if you were in charge of the world – or at least the SEC, which in turn is sort of in charge of securities markets – how do you weigh the value of "shareholders' rights to control the companies that they own" against the value of "honest and reliable accounting"? Is the answer "who cares"? Both of those are extremely abstract values, are they not? No one's ever gone to war over shareholder rights or accurate accounting.3 But perhaps they represent larger things: if you squint, "shareholder democracy" can be confused with "democracy," and "honest accounting" can be confused with "honesty and fair dealing."
Or if you're a company thinking about going public, what does this tell you? "Don't go public," I guess, but that's not a great answer. "Manipulate your earnings," maybe, though that also has some faults.
Perhaps somewhat surprisingly, the result in this paper is reversed for companies with a lot of long-term institutional shareholders: strong shareholder rights + long-term holders = less earnings manipulation. So "sell your IPO to a lot of long-term institutions" is a good answer for companies who want to go public but don't want to devote their energies to managing earnings. Perhaps you do this by incentivizing long-term shareholding with loyalty rewards. Or perhaps you do it by having your IPO bankers target and persuade long-term institutions. With Facebook's IPO endlessly in the news, this is strangely controversial – favoring big institutions rather than retail traders seems to have been a problem there4 – but that doesn't make it wrong.
Or just, y'know, go public with poison pills and staggered boards and supervoting shares and no fiduciary duties. And then when people yell at you about it, say that you're doing it to protect the integrity of your accounting. That could work too.
Lail, Martin & Thomas: The Influence of Strong Shareholders on Earnings Management [SSRN via Professor Bainbridge]
1. You can be a little unsatisfied about the terms "stronger shareholder rights" and "manage earnings" but they're basically fine. Shareholder rights are measured using a twelve-factor index from RiskMetrics with things like classified boards, poison pills, blank check preferred stock, golden parachutes, restrictions on shareholder bylaw amendments, etc. Earnings management is measured by looking at analyst earnings expectations and a model of discretionary accounting accruals; the intuition is that what "earnings management" looks like is (1) accruing above-trend amounts when you beat expectations by a lot and (2) accruing below-trend amounts when you meet or barely beat expectations. I.e. you borrow earnings from big quarters to make up earnings in weak quarters, because beating by a little is much better than missing, while beating by a lot is not that much better than beating by a little.
2. Does this sound idiotic? I mean I feel like it's the intuition behind a lot of disclosure and advisory-vote and whatnot rules and proposals. Like the one where companies should tell their shareholders what they're contributing to political candidates, because the shareholders are better situated to decide that than the companies are, or something.
3. Asserted without evidence. I would love to be wrong about this. If Bolivia and Paraguay mobilized over LIFO reserves in 1931, or something, please tell me about it.
4. TBF the favoritism shown to institutions in the Facebook IPO was telling them not to buy it, but that won't usually be the case.
Comments (5)
"Both of those are extremely abstract values, are they not? No one's ever gone to war over shareholder rights or accurate accounting."
You could make a strong case that the UK's involvement in the War of Spanish Succession was linked to the crown's ownership in the South Sea Company and Spain's desire to seize those assets
Going to war as shareholder activism = the OKI
Some cynics out there have postulated that the Boston Tea Party was an attempt to see how adept British cost accountants were at recording spoilage. Of course, a lot of that had to do with the aforementioned British accountants' unhappiness over what they perceived to be a shabby dental plan…….a situation that many feel has to this day not been remedied.
I'm all for corporate transparency, but I wouldn't equate shareholder democracy with democracy. There's a difference in willing participation and the acceptance that a corporation can fail, while a country cannot.
Nonetheless, I would be in favor of relentless television ads of Steve Ballmer promising me that over the next four years Microsoft will be going gangbusters, while the last ten years of stagnation is due to Bill Gates' incompetence while at the helm.
"a corporation can fail, while a country cannot."
O Rly?
Okay, I'm late to the party here, but it's Christmas Day and I've got time on my hands.
One way of looking at corporate governance issues is as a feature of a life cycle. A corporation still in its youth, when the originating entrepreneur is still the dominant figure, might seek out directors with biases that would be troubling amongst more mature corporations.
During the youth/entrepreneurial stage, a director may serve a function as an adviser, or as a channel of communication betweenthat dominant CEO and other organizations, such as suppliers or trade groups.
Investors might not worry about rent seeking at this stage, because the youngish firm doesn't yet have the amount of free cash flow that would make rent seeking seem a grievous problem.
During the mature phase of the life cycle, though, it may be important to have a board specifically tpo serve as a check on rent seekers. A board watching out for the trouble makers who were valuable board members in the earlier phase.


text:
Advertise in the Magazine
Looking for opportunities to put your messaging in front of more than 13,000 nonprofit human service senior staff and board members?
Look no further. The Alliance for Children & Families Magazine, which incorporates the Nonprofit Director, is the answer.
Check out our 2011 Media Kit for information about:
- the publisher
- editorial content
- audience and circulation data
- areas of purchasing interest
- advertising deadlines
- discounts
- rates for print ads
- rates for web ads
- policies and production requirements
- the Ads Plus Program, which maximizes return on investment at no additional cost
To place your ad, contact Bob Silverstein at 240-498-9674.
New Web Feature: Hillside Program Rated in Top 23 for Preparing Youth for the Future
Hillside Work-Scholarship Connection addresses education gaps facing at-risk youth
As an eighth-grade student, Jason already was at risk of dropping out of school. His attendance record was poor and his grade point average had fallen to a D-level.
That was until he enrolled in Hillside Work-Scholarship Connection (HW-SC), an affiliate program of Alliance for Children and Families member Hillside Family of Agencies, Rochester, N.Y.
Jason was assigned one of HW-SC's full-time, professional youth advocates, who offered support and helped him overcome obstacles at home and school. Jason's grades improved to a B-average.
In high school, Jason participated in HW-SC's Youth Employment Training Academy and secured a part-time job as a cashier at one of HW-SC's employer partners, and he graduated early. Thanks to a scholarship provided by HW-SC's local college partner, today he is proud to be the first member of his family to attend college.
HW-SC is one of the top 23 programs in the nation that successfully support youth in preparing for college or employment after high school. It's a distinction HW-SC earned in 2009 from the American Youth Policy Forum, which examined programs that close the education gaps facing at-risk youth.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Our team of artists can provide you with any look that you are going for on your wedding day or special event.
Angela Makeup Chicago's artists and stylists have over 6 years of experience in airbrush and bridal makeup, hair services and semi-permanent eyelash extensions by Xtreme.
We travel on-site to your location.
Clarendon Hills, IL 60514
- DOJ Smart Search verified
- Email verified
- Thumbtack reviewed
- Facebook verified


text:
About Bottega VenetaBottega Veneta's signature woven leather designs have remained a style staple within the fashion industry since the company's founding in 1966. Using a weaving technique called intrecciato, developed my the company's artisans, founders Michele Taddei and Renzo Zengi... View More.
SHIPPING & RETURNS We offer free 2 day shipping on all other US orders. For international orders, we offer free express shipping (3-6 days) on all orders.
We do not deduct any shipping or pickup charges from your refund.
More info


text:
As New York City Mission Society celebrates 200 years of service, we invite alumni to join us and share their memories with us.
Let us know who you are. We will be delighted to hear from you.
First Name (required)
Last Name (required)
1st Address (required)
2nd Address
City (required)
State (required)
Zip (required)
Phone (required)
Email (required)


text:
Found the same room at a different price? Tell us, and we'll offer to match it.
Reviews - Quality Airport Hotel Dan
The Quality Airport Hotel Dan offers accommodation located near Copenhagen Airport Kastrup. We're the only hotel in Copenhagen that offers a free shuttle service between Copenhagen Airport and the Airport hotel.
At Quality Airport Hotel Dan you'll feel the international atmosphere as soon as you walk through the front door. The hotel offers accommodation in quiet surroundings near Copenhagen Airport Kastrup. The nearby Metro and highway E20 provide easy and convenient access to Copenhagen Airport Kastrup, southern Sweden, Orestad, the beautiful Amager beach and of course central Copenhagen with its many sights and attractions.
Free shuttle service between Copenhagen Airport and the Airport hotel
We are the only hotel in Copenhagen to offer free shuttle service between Copenhagen Airport and the hotel.
Operating hours: Monday – Sunday: 06:00-09:45 & 18:00-21:45
Free internet connection is available as is access to our guest PC, which is located in the lobby.
Our friendly and flexible staff is looking forward to welcoming you!
Reviews can only be left by customers of LateRooms who have booked and stayed at this property. All reviews are left in accordance with our conditions of posting. All reviews posted are the opinions of people who have stayed at this accommodation, not of LateRooms.com. These opinions may vary greatly and should be considered alongside all the other information available for this property. If you have more questions regarding our guest reviews read our FAQS. Terms and Conditions of Hotel ReviewsOnly the opinions of a person, or people, who have actually stayed at the hotel(s) concerned may be submitted. You must accept all liability for the contents of all postings made by you, or on your behalf. Please be aware that the hotel which you review will receive a preview of your comments 2 days prior to them appearing on the website. The hotelier may request your booking reference number in order to address your comments. In some circumstances this may affect your anonymity, but only with regard to the hotel you are reviewing. Your review may be withheld for up to fourteen days, while LateRooms.com vet all comments for posting. We will review all submissions for basic profanities and vulgar language, and we reserve the right to remove (or not publish) comments at our discretion. We also reserve the right to identify you in response to a court order, threat of legal action or complaint. If you believe that there is a review on LateRooms.com that should be removed due to the fact that it may offend or be illegal, please let us know and we will investigate and take action if appropriate. Please be advised that any review that you post on LateRooms.com will be shared across all websites operated by LateRooms Ltd including miniBreaks.com and may be distributed to selected LateRooms.com partner websites. Please be aware the name and location you choose in the reviews form will be displayed alongside your review. You may not use, or allow others to use, your review questionnaire to: Complaints If you wish to complain about, or have any concerns about any review left by others on the site, please contact email@example.com. |


text:
Tue, Oct 25, 11 at 19:41
Have there been recent favorite alternatives to painting a porch, being rebuilt on a 100-year-old house? How long might the porch floor last if we just let it weather naturally (in Connecticut, southern exposure)? If we treat the floor, what finish has worked best for folks recently? We're coming up on a decision point, and I'm in a quandary. One thought would be to 1) paint the railings, and let the floor weather. 2) Another choice would be paint the railings, and put some sort of oil or sealer on the floor to preserve the color of the Honduran mahogany. 3) Another choice is to oil the whole shebang, but that seems not to integrate so well with a turn-of-the-century house. Knowing that my husband and I can let some years slip by without thinking of treating a porch floor, what would you recommend? Like everyone else, we would like a less labor-intensive solution. If it were you, what would you do?
Lynn |
Follow-Up Postings:
- Posted by staceyneil (My Page) on Mon, Nov 21, 11 at 17:14
I'm going to let mine weather to a silver grey, but that suits the character of my house (1956 house renovated sort of coastal/cottage/craftsman.) I'm using mangaris (red balau) which is somewhat similar to your Honduran mahogany, I think. I didn't want that new/stained deck look. For what it's worth, there was a recent high-end renovation of a Victorian down the road, and they chose to leave the (local fir) decking untreated. It looks funny right now- much too dark and bright to my eye, on a period home, but they builder told me he just couldn't bear to do the historically correct thing and paint over that beautiful wood :) Pics of that house: |
- Posted by farmgirlinky (My Page) on Mon, Nov 21, 11 at 21:45
Staceyneil, thanks for those photographs and your thoughts. Since my original post we've gone back and forth and finally decided on the following plans: we'll let the mahogany porch floor weather (silver over time). We'll paint the railings on the porch and balcony, to tie these to the 1910 house. There is a mahogany bench that we will keep stained with Sikkens -- shouldn't be too hard to keep up with that job annually, which is what the man doing the millwork recommends. I agree with you that the natural/stained finish on the Victorian house seems jarring. We'll see how that goes, and I'll post a photograph next summer. Lynn |
Please Note: Only registered members are able to post messages to this forum. If you are a member, please log in. If you aren't yet a member, join now!
Return to the Porches & Decks Forum
Information about Posting
- You must be logged in to post a message. Once you are logged in, a posting window will appear at the bottom of the messages. If you are not a member, please register for an account.
- Please review our Rules of Play before posting.
- Posting is a two-step process. Once you have composed your message, you will be taken to the preview page. You will then have a chance to review your post, make changes and upload photos.
- After posting your message, you may need to refresh the forum page in order to see it.
- Before posting copyrighted material, please read about Copyright and Fair Use.
- We have a strict no-advertising policy!
- If you would like to practice posting or uploading photos, please visit our Test forum.
- If you need assistance, please Contact Us and we will be happy to help.
Learn more about in-text links on this page here


text:
Cool you right I never knew that.
Most people never realize that many attractions in WDW use Audio-Animatronics figures whose heads are made from the mold used to create the U.S. Presidents in the Hall of Presidents!
For example, in Spaceship Earth, during the scene in Egypt, the bald atttandee to the Pharoh is our 27th President, William Howard Taft (minus the moustache!).
Other attractions included the former World of Motion, where the bust of Richard M. Nixon was used on the inventor of the triangular wheel.
Lou Mongello
Host, Author & Site Owner
Cool you right I never knew that.
"You're dead if you aim only for kids. Adults are only kids grown up, anyway." Walt Disney
Didn't know about that. That is too funny.
any idea as to why? do they have "backup" heads to all the presidents? that would be funny, too! Thats cool we have to look really close now when we go in November!
that's amazing! I have to look for that when I go? so do you mean that i may see bill clinton in mission-space?
any where else to look for most recent brain dead presidents But not dead otherwise
Looks like nobody ever answered the question on why this was done, so guess I'll do it.
When it came time to start making the Animatronics for the EPCOT Center attractions, money started to become a huge issue. EPCOT Center *was* a HUGE project, after all.
So one of the solutions to cut costs was to reuse existing face molds whenever possible. This isn't an unusual practice -- take a look at the Haunted Mansion and you'll find some of the Pirates as well as many of the faces repeating often. Or even a complete figure -- pay attention just before you enter the crypt with the Hitchhikers and you'll see Gus (the prisoner) tucked away to the right with his hitchiking hand turned the other way.
Back to EPCOT: Since EPCOT was a park based hugely in reality rather than fantasy, realistic faces were needed. So where better to get realism than the Hall of Presidents?
However, this need to reuse was used as a political statement by Ward Kimball, who worked on the World of Motion. Ward Kimball was always quite the rebel among the studios and always rebelled in ways that should've gotten him fired -- everything from the infamous Tinker Bell and Jiminy Crickett animation to a random Donald Duck. Ward's political views were quite the opposite of Walt's. He quite disagreed with Walt's republican leanings and the two were always at odds because of that. When they were given permission to reuse Hall of Presidents molds, he took the opportunity to throw in a joke about Nixon, but well desguised so that he wouldn't get in too much trouble. Thus, why Nixon is inventing the triangular wheel.
Does that answer your question?
Wow! I learned a lot from this thread!!!
Wow! that is pretty cool! I never knew that...kepp up the cool facts!:mickey:Originally Posted by AKQJ10
Lou, did you find this out for yourself, or did your little bluebird tell you?
Belle... Can you keep a secret??
(so can I)
Lou Mongello
Host, Author & Site Owner
That would be Tim Curry in the movie Clue .Originally Posted by AKQJ10
always plotting, planning, and looking forward to our next adventure...
Nice one. I can keep my mouth shut. Hopefully... ...just kidding.Originally Posted by AKQJ10


text:
GELEX is a bentonite extender and selected flocculant for all non-dispersed, polymer and low-solids water- based drilling fluids. The GELEX bentonite extender is a flocculating polymer capable of doubling the yield of bentonite used to formulate low-solids, non-dispersed systems.
GELEX has the ability to provide increased viscosity without an excessive amount of clay solids. It is used most often in low-hardness, freshwater fluids.
With its twofold yield, GELEX can maintain a given viscosity with one-half the normal clay solids. This makes GELEX an excellent additive for low-solids drilling fluids. GELEX also tends to cause reactive drill solids, especially fine silty ones, to form agglomerates and settle out. This further enhances its use as an additive in either weighted or unweighted, nondispersed drilling fluid systems. It can be used as a selective flocculant.
GELEX offers effective filtration control alternative to asphalt and gilsonite products. It is applicable to all oil‐base and synthetic‐base systems and is compatible with other additives.


text:
- Text Size:
- ASmall Text
- AMedium Text
- ALarge Text
Lawrence police are searching for a man who robbed a liquor store Thursday.
The man, who was wearing a pink fedora, walked into Super Liquors at 36 South Broadway at 9 p.m.
He walked up to the counter, and demanded that the clerk open the cash drawer of the register, police said.
When the woman was reluctant to open the drawer, he reached over the counter, grabbed the register and ran from the store, police said. The incident was captured on store surveillance video.
Anyone with information is urged to call Lawrence police.
The views expressed are not those of this site, this station or its affiliated companies. By posting your comments you agree to accept our terms of use.
blog comments powered by Disqus


text:
email us: email@example.com
Santa Fe Harley-Davidson® is a big supporter of the community they live and ride in. We host numerous fund raising rides through the year. Check out our Event Calendar & join us in supporting our community. Santa Fe Harley-Davidson® is locally owned and operated. Jim Pearson, owner and General Manager is a second generation rider with over 30 years of riding and racing under his belt. In 2005, Jim successfully competed in the Baja 1000 and has ridden his motorcycle extensively in the United States, Canada, Central and South America. Additionally, over 90% of our team at SFH-D® are motorcycle riders. "We walk the talk or more aptly put, WE RIDE!" Learn More


text:
Beating the Odds
The public can go to http://www.michigan.gov/beatingtheodds to find more information on schools that are Beating the Odds.
Post date: Apr 18, 2012
North Ohio Elementary is a k-3 building with 425 students and a free and reduced lunch count of 57%. The following plan took place over the past three school years.
Post date: Apr 18, 2012
To begin this journey we knew that it must start with the school leadership team. The leaders have a crucial role in the building and we knew that the stage must be set and the environment cultivated for teachers to perform at their best. Therefore, our story begins with the thinking processes and values the leadership team put into place to change the culture of the building and ensure our teachers could rise to their highest potential. Our journey can best be displayed by the following graphic which the leadership team developed, embraced and utilized throughout the years.
Post date: Dec 30, 2010
When parents send their children off to kindergarten they hope that they will be safe, instilled with the joy of learning and a sense of wonder, made to smile and laugh each day, fueled with a desire to explore the world, and that their creativity will be sparked. Although each child comes to school with different needs, the reality is that we continue to put all learners in the same box for learning as if all students are the same. We are told to judge all students by the same standards or testing procedures, which restricts the learner and impedes learning for a large proportion of our students. We grade our students' and schools' success by the score of a test given once each year and by our rating on government-mandated guidelines.


text:
The BMD-4M is the latest generation of Russian-made airborne armoured infantry fighting vehicle that can be para-dropped to provide firepower and support for airborne troops. It is an upgraded variant of the BMD-4 (BMD-3M). The BMD-4M was developed by the Russian defence Companies Volgograd Tractor Plant and the Tula KBP Instrument Design Bureau, the vehicle is manufactured by Kurganmashzavod Joint Stock Company. In 2008 Kurganmashzavod produced prototypes of upgraded airborne combat vehicles BMD-4 and carried out tests aiming the unification of BMD-4 with BMP-3 that are in the field of Russian army. The main special feature of this new vehicle: specific power block and running gear are changed on batch ones used in BMP-3. This will allow to significantly reduce costs of service maintenance of airborne combat vehicles in the army, besides, will reduce their purchase cost within the frames of state defense order of Defense Ministry of Russia. In December 2012, the Russian Defense Ministry decided to adopt combat airborne armoured infantry fighting vehicles BMD-4M for the Airborne Forces.
The BMD-4M is fitted with a two-man turret armed with a 2A70 100mm caliber gun, coupled to a 30mm 2A72 cannon and a 7.62mm PKT coaxial machine gun mounted to the right of the main armament. The 100mm gun uses an automatic loader with 34 rounds of 100mm ready to fire and 18 in reserve. The main gun can fire conventional types of ammunitions and also the 100mm laser-guided ammunition Arkan Tandem 9M117M1 which can be used against modern main battle tanks at a maximum range of 5,500m and against sheltered and exposed personnel and fortifications at a maximum range of 7,000m. Unobserved threats, antitank weapon and other small targets, fixed-wing and rotary-aircraft can be engaged at a maximum range of up to 4,000m. A total of eight Arkan ammunitions are carried, with four ready to use and four in reserve. Three smoke grenade dischargers are mounted to each side front of the turret. The BMD-4M can fire at day and night, while the vehicle is on the move, stationary or afloat. The weapon station is equipped with an advanced computerized fire control system including a combined day/night gunner's sight, a commander's panoramic TV-aimed sight, a digital computer, an automatic target tracker and automatic devices which supplu data on unobserved targets.
Your add video on Army Recognition website
Free Web Counter
Name E-mail
Subscribe Unsubscribe


text:
This section of the page features an image gallery, so if you're using a screen reader you may wish to jump to the main content.
Minstergate is housed in a medieval building with exposed timbers, sloping floors and interesting nooks and crannies, this apartment has views from the dining room overlooking York Minster.
It is ideally located, right in the centre of York, with York Minster and the Shambles on its doorstep and many other tourist attractions within a short walk. An excellent rail service serves the city and the apartment is within 15-20 minutes walk or taxi drive from the station. It is the perfect location for a city break in this beautiful and historic city.
A diverse range of shops, cafes, restaurants and bars are close by.
The cottage's layout
- First floor
- kitchen, large dining/sitting room, two bedrooms (1 double with 5' bed leading through to 1 single), bathroom with shower over bath.
Visitor notes
Heating: Gas central heating included.
Parking: Guests are able to pay for parking in advance by calling 01904 279279 . For more information please look at the following web site: www.york.gov.uk. This will allow you to pay for your parking in advance but does not reserve or guarantee a space.
Please Note: stopping to load/unload your car between the following times at the property: 8:15am to 9:15am and 4:00pm to 6:00pm is not permitted.
Tour De France Supplement: From 28 June - 18 July 2014 a supplement of £20 per night applies.
Cottage details
- Sleeps
- 3
- Bedrooms
- 2
- Let starts
- Friday
- Min stay
- 3
- Dogs allowed
- No
- Cottage ref
- 020024
- Acorn rating What's this?
- 3
- Pub nearby
- Railway nearby
- City location
- Cot
- Television
- Washing machine
- Double bed
- Microwave
- Radio
Things to see and do nearby
- Yorkshire & North East England
In England's spectacular North East, Yorkshire and Northumberland are both counties that offer something for everyone. Yorkshire is world renowned for the beauty of its countryside and its scenery, reaching from the Dales in the west to the Moors in the east. There are also historic towns and cities, a spectacular coastline, much of which is in the care of the Trust, and some of the most magnificent historic houses in the country. The cathedral city of York, where the Trust has two holiday apartments, has a huge variety on offer to visitors - from magnificent York Minster to the medieval Shambles, an area steeped in history and now rich in gift and antique shops alongside fashionable boutiques. Northumberland too abounds in magnificent scenery with wide open stretches of moorland and a long and dramatic coastline. Steeped in history, protecting the border with Scotland since the days when Hadrian's army built the famous Wall, the county also has a wonderful collection of historic houses and castles including Cragside, Wallington and Lindisfarne, all of which are in the care of the Trust. The Trust now has cottages close to Hadrian's Wall itself and in many other spectacular locations including Alnwick and Fountains Abbey, a World Heritage Site.
- York
York is a city alive with interest for the visitor, it has retained so much of its medieval structure that strolling around the centre is like walking around a living museum. There is the Shambles, Jorvik Viking Centre, York Castle Museum and the Minster to name just a few of the many attractions to tempt the visitor. Nestled behind the Minster, is the National Trust?s own Treasurer?s House built over a Roman road; the interior here is a constant surprise to visitors along with its famous ghost stories! The apartments are above the National Trust shop and tea-rooms in the very centre of York, close to all the main sites and a host of good restaurants and pubs.
Cottage location
- Key
- Current cottage
- Holiday cottage
National Trust
place to visit - Cluster of pins Shows number of grouped pins. Zoom in to see individual pins
- The Shambles
- York Minster and many other city attraction
- North Yorkshire Moors
- Yorkshire Dales
- North Yorkshire Coast
- Cycling
- Walking
National Trust places to visit
- Treasurer's House
- Elegant town house dating from medieval times
- Goddards Garden
- Formal and informal gardens with a variety of features
- Beningbrough Hall and Gardens
- 18th-century house with interactive galleries and National Portrait Gallery paintings. Grounds and working walled garden
- Nunnington Hall
- Picturesque Yorkshire manor house with organic garden and exciting programme of exhibitions
- Rievaulx Terrace
- One of Yorkshire's finest 18th-century landscape gardens, containing two temples
Visitor comments
Comments from past visitors
Debbie and Gina
The accommodation is excellent
The accommodation is excellent, ideal for a family or group of friends. Not much noise at all - particularly enjoyed the ghost tours which stopped outside property. Everything is in within walking distance. There are ample eateries in the area providing a range of food to meet most tastes and finances. Thoroughly recommend this accommodation, we will be back again as soon as possible.
The Harveys
Spectacularly beautiful and convenient location
We had never stayed in a National Trust property before and we were very pleasantly surprised when we arrived by the spacious and nicely presented interior and the spectacularly beautiful and convenient location
Pauline and Paul Macey
Had an absolutely great time
Had an absolutely great time in a wonderful National Trust flat - our first time but definitey not the last. A wonderful welcome, we knew from the welcome we were going to love this place.
Stayed at Minstergate recently?
We welcome your views on Minstergate and these can be provided via our online survey.
What it will cost
The detail
Prices include:
- VAT at the current rate
- Linen, heating and electricity (except where shown in the cottage details)
(not included in the price table above)
- A non-refundable £10 charge is not included, and will be added to the total price of your holiday to cover the cost of accidental breakages
- Unfortunately we cannot accept website bookings more than 15 months in advance. Please call 0344 335 1287 or email email@example.com to enquire about future cottage bookings and reservations.
- As part of the annual pricing review of all its cottages the National Trust reserves the right to move individual cottages up or down the price bands and to alter date breaks. We also reserve the right to charge supplements for certain cottages for specific dates covering special events, e.g. Rosetta Cottages on the Isle of Wight during Cowes week. We will notify you of any special event supplements at the time of booking.


text:
How can sustainability concepts be effectively integrated across the disciplines and what is the role of scientific literacy specifically in advancing sustainability education?
What various forms does place-based learning take at campuses across the region, as well as nationally and globally, and how can we design curriculum that can help drive solutions to pressing regional issues including food justice, salmon survival, regional contaminants, coal exports, and regional contributions to and impacts of climate change?
How can we better integrate attention to globalization in sustainability education and research and draw insights from the structural adjustment of the global south to anticipate and address increasing pressures to privatize water, public lands, and institutions in the Pacific Northwest?
These questions and others will be addressed at the Strengthening Sustainability Curriculum across the Disciplines and across the Pacific Northwest conference set for April 20 in Vancouver, Washington. Sign up for a stimulating day of panels and workshops addressing ways to engage with pressing issues facing our bioregion and to join with others in shaping a sustainable and equitable future. Individuals and/or campus teams of any size may attend, including faculty, staff, students, teachers, and community members interested in sustainability and justice
Cost is $40 for regular registration; $12 students; $10 or less for those on limited budgets. Registration fee covers lunch, refreshments, and resources for the day. Registration deadline is April 11. Register now!


text:
A chassis builder long associated with the IMCA Modified division returns as a regional title sponsor this season.
Dirt Works Race Cars, now of Oronogo, Mo., will furnish a portion of the $6,000 point fund to be paid to top 10 drivers in official 2013 standings for the Eastern Region.
The Dirt Works Eastern Region includes sanctioned tracks in New York, Pennsylvania and Michigan.
Purchased by Jerry Hoffman last August and now a sister company to Hoffman Race Cars, Dirt Works originally became a regional title sponsor in 1996 and maintained that partnership with IMCA through the 2004 race season.
"It's neat to be able to do something like this with IMCA again," Hoffman said. "They're the backbone of grassroots racing and have the best rule structure out there. IMCA is what we all need to get back to."
Hoffman started racing a Modified in 1993 and worked for Dirt Works from 1994-1999.
"(Owner) Mike Clark told me I needed to get out on my own and that I'd succeed," Hoffman recalled. "I've always had a place in my heart for Dirt Works Race Cars. This company has always meant a lot to me and I know the same is true for a lot of other racers, because Dirt Works has built like 3,200 Modifieds."
Dirt Works was relocated from Walker, Mo., and is now under the same roof as Hoffman Race Cars. More information about either brand is available by calling 417 673-7426 or 417 465-2410. The company websites are www.hoffmanracecars.com and www.dirtworksracecars.com.
Regional championships pay $2,500. Regional point fund checks will be presented during the national awards banquet in November or mailed beginning the following week from the IMCA home office.
Dirt Works was first title sponsor for the South Central Region. The company was title sponsor for five of the seven IMCA Modified regions from 1999-2004.
"The Dirt Works brand is embedded in the history of the IMCA Modified and resurrecting this partnership is really exciting," said IMCA Marketing Director Kevin Yoder. "We want to help drivers recognize they are still building quality race cars and are more than pleased to have them as the face of one of our Modified regions."
by Bill Martin


text:
Hotels in Annapolis
From luxury resorts to small design hotels and cozy inns, there are an infinite number of great places to stay in the world, including hotels in Annapolis. Browse our travel guide and get Travel + Leisure's picks for the best Annapolis hotels—all-inclusive resorts, design hotels, remote lodges, vacation rentals, and more. Our international team of editors and writers handpicks the top Annapolis hotels, helping travelers discover the most popular places to stay in Annapolis, and the most memorable.
Whether a boutique hotel with luxury amenities, a wilderness lodge, a cool rental home, or a country inn fit for your budget, Travel + Leisure highlights the best of the best. From affordable beach resorts and cozy inns to high-tech hotels and kid-friendly all-inclusive resorts, these Annapolis hotel listings will help you find just the right place to spend the night during your visit. Below find Travel + Leisure's top spots for where to stay in Annapolis.
1 - 3 of 3 Results
Scotlaur Inn Bed & Breakfast
PRICE RANGE:Rooms may be on the small side, but this turn-of-the-20th-century row house has comfy beds with wrought-iron frames, and guests get a complimentary... More
Explore hotels in Eastern Shore for more options.
1 - 3 of 3 Results


text: Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens form one of the largest green spaces in central London. It includes The Serpentine, Serpentine Gallery, Marble Arch, Kensington Palace, Speaker's Corner and part of the Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial Walk. Also within its environs is the Albert Memorial, Queen Victoria's monument to her husband.


text:
To: Interested Parties
From: Paul Gordon, Senior Legislative Counsel, People For the American Way
Date: September 25, 2014
Subject: PFAW Foundation's Supreme Court 2014-2015 Term Preview
The beginning of a new Supreme Court term has become a time to worry, "What's next?" In the past two terms alone, often in 5-4 decisions, the Roberts Court has severely undermined the Voting Rights Act, continued its assault on the American people's efforts to limit money in politics, strengthened the hand of employers who discriminate, significantly eroded church-state separation, discovered religious rights for for-profit corporations seeking to deny female employees needed contraception coverage, undercut unions, and found ways to help large corporations bypass laws designed to limit their power over small businesses and ordinary people.
As bad as the Roberts Court has been, there have also been some good decisions in the most recent terms. For instance, the Court struck down the odious Defense of Marriage Act, upheld the EPA's general authority to issue regulations on greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, and unanimously recognized our Fourth Amendment right to privacy concerning our smart phones.
The 2014-2015 Term is set to begin on October 6, the traditional First Monday in October, and the Court will be hearing a number of important cases. At the same time, perhaps half the cases it will hear this term have not been determined or announced, and there is substantial speculation on whether it will hear cases on several high-profile issues, marriage equality most prominent among them. Below is a summary of some of the major cases the Court may hear this term, along with cases already scheduled that we will be following.
If the Court accepts a marriage equality case, it will obviously become the blockbuster case of the term (and perhaps the decade). The Court has already been asked to hear appeals of pro-equality rulings by three circuit courts: From the Tenth Circuit are Herbert v. Kitchen (Utah) and Smith v. Bishop (Oklahoma). From the Fourth Circuit are Rainey v. Bostic, Schaefer v. Bostic, and McQuigg v. Bostic (all Virginia). From the Seventh Circuit are Bogan v. Baskin (Indiana) and Walker v. Wolf (Wisconsin). While states and government officials who lost in the lower courts are filing the appeals, the couples who won the cases are also urging the Court to hear the appeals, so there can finally be a national resolution to the issue.
Should one of the remaining circuit courts uphold a state marriage ban, the resulting split among circuits on such a major constitutional issue would almost guarantee review by the Supreme Court. But if every circuit continues to rule the same way, the Justices might decide to let the issue be resolved there.
Conservatives like Scalia and Thomas, who have in case after case shown their hostility to LGBT equality but may be unsure of how Kennedy would vote, might not be willing to risk a Supreme Court precedent that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. From their perspective, if they can't change the outcome around the country, why make it worse by adding a jurisprudential nightmare from the nation's highest court that would taint American law for decades to come?
For Justices likely to recognize the constitutional right to marriage equality, the calculation might be different. They, too, not knowing Kennedy's position, might not want to risk a 5-4 ruling in the "wrong" direction on a major constitutional and societal issue. But even if they could be certain of being in the majority, they might find advantages to having the Court stay out. Justice Ginsburg, for instance, has suggested publicly that Roe v. Wade went "too far, too fast," provoking a backlash that could otherwise have been avoided. If the legal question of marriage equality is being decided rightly in all the circuit courts, some Justices might rather leave well enough alone. In fact, Justice Ginsburg told a group of law students in mid-September that without a circuit split, she saw "no urgency" for the Court to take up the issue now, although she added that she expects the Court to take it up "sooner or later."
Should the Court grant cert on one or more of the appeals, it could answer a number of critically important questions in addition to whether states can prohibit same-sex couples from marrying.
Exactly which constitutional right do the bans violate? While numerous courts have ruled in favor of same-sex couples, they have been anything but unanimous in their reasoning: Some have suggested that the bans violate the Due Process Clause, because the longstanding, fundamental right to marry includes the right to marry someone of the same sex. Other judges indicate that the bans violate the Equal Protection Clause because they deny the right to marry based on the sex of the people seeking to get married. Still others suggest that the bans violate the Equal Protection Clause because they discriminate against gays and lesbians. While the different legal rationales would all have the same immediate result (marriage equality), they could create very different legal precedents and have very different impacts down the line as lower courts consider other types of discrimination, whether aimed at gays and lesbians, at transgender people, or at others.
A Supreme Court ruling might decide what level of scrutiny the Equal Protection Clause requires for laws that discriminate against gay people, an issue not squarely faced in previous cases. Most government classifications are subject to – and easily pass – "rational basis" scrutiny by the courts: The law is constitutional as long as it's rationally related to some legitimate government interest. (The Court has said that animus against gays and lesbians is not a legitimate purpose, which in the past has let it bypass the question as to whether anti-gay laws warrant more scrutiny from the courts.)
But a few types of laws trigger heightened Equal Protection scrutiny. Sex-based classifications are subject to intermediate scrutiny: They must be substantially related to an important government interest. Race-based classifications are generally subject to strict scrutiny, the highest level: They must be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest. If the Court rules that laws discriminating against lesbians and gays warrant some level of heightened scrutiny, that would have an enormous impact nationwide on all kinds of laws that discriminate against lesbians and gays, not just marriage bans.
The Court's discussion of this issue could also shed light on whether eliminating private discrimination against LGBT people is (in the Court's eyes) a compelling government interest. This could have an enormous impact as courts consider right wing challenges to anti-discrimination laws on the basis of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act or state-law analogs.
Opponents of the Affordable Care Act strategically launched lawsuits in four different circuits challenging federal subsidies for millions of Americans buying health insurance on federally-run exchanges. The circuits were apparently selected to maximize the possibility of a circuit split, which in turn would maximize the likelihood of getting the case heard by the Roberts Court, which (they hope) would deliver a crippling blow to Obamacare. Decisions have been reached in two of the circuits, although one has since been vacated.
Section 1311 of the ACA says states should set up insurance exchanges, while Section 1321 of the Act says the federal government can set one up if a state doesn't. Subsidies are available for less well-off people getting health insurance through an exchange, based on the amount the person pays for the insurance s/he is enrolled in through an exchange "established by the state under [section] 1311" of the ACA. The law's opponents hope to have the Supreme Court rule that Congress intended for subsidies to be unavailable to Americans purchasing insurance through the federally-established exchanges that the law calls for in cases where the state does not step in. In other words, the argument is that Congress intended to undercut the financial viability of the law and thwart its central purpose.
A unanimous panel of the Fourth Circuit rejected this wild claim in King v. Burwell. However, two far right judges on the D.C. Circuit formed a majority in a three-judge panel ruling actually agreeing with the Obama care opponents in Halbig v. Burwell. Dissenting Judge Harry Edwards recognized the lawsuit as a "not-so-veiled attempt to gut the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act," noting that "[i]t is inconceivable that Congress intended to give States the power to cause the ACA to crumble." The full D.C. Circuit subsequently vacated the ruling and will consider the issue en banc, and most observers expect a ruling more like the Fourth Circuit's.
But even if that happens, there are still lawsuits percolating in Indiana (Seventh Circuit) and Oklahoma (Tenth Circuit), so the hoped-for circuit split may yet occur. If it does, the Roberts Court is almost certain to consider the issue. While the case is transparently political and legally weak, that did not stop the conservative Justices when it came to the Commerce Clause challenge to the individual mandate.
The Roberts Court may hear one or more cases involving religious nonprofits that oppose the ACA's contraception coverage requirement, in a sequel to Hobby Lobby v. Burwell. In that case, the Roberts Court gave certain for-profit corporations religious liberty rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), then completely rewrote the law to give the chain store the right to "exercise" its religion by refusing to comply with the ACA's contraception coverage requirement.
Under RFRA, a federal law cannot impose a substantial burden on a person's religious exercise unless it is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest, and it is the least restrictive means of doing so. In Hobby Lobby, the Roberts Court concluded that the corporation and its owners suffered a "substantial" burden" on their religious exercise because the owners were offended by the contraception coverage requirement, even though it did not restrict or burden what they may believe or do. The majority also concluded that the law was not the least restrictive means of furthering the government's interest in women's health, because the Administration offers religious nonprofits an accommodation: They are exempt if they simply sign a form certifying that they are a religious nonprofit that objects to the provision of contraceptive services, and provide a copy of that form to their insurance issuer or third-party administrator, which then has the responsibility to pay for and provide the coverage. (Churches, in contrast, are wholly exempt.) The Roberts Court concluded that the federal government can make this accommodation available to for-profit corporations, meaning the coverage requirement is not the least restrictive means of achieving the ACA's goal.
But three days later, the Court issued a temporary injunction against enforcing even this accommodation against Wheaton College, a non-profit religious institution that argued that the accommodation substantially burdens its religious freedom. This prompted a furious dissent from the three women Justices. Although the merits of the case are still being argued before a lower federal court, this was an ominous sign of how the Roberts Court will address the legal question when it inevitably reaches the high court.
Another high-profile case (or one similar to it) that may reach the Court involves Little Sisters of the Poor. This religious nonprofit organization, too, has a religious objection to the accommodation that was designed to meet its religious objections, arguing that the form is like a permission slip that would trigger contraception coverage, making the nuns complicit in sin. However, the Little Sisters' insurer is classified as a "church plan," which is actually exempt from the ACA requirement. So regardless of whether the Little Sisters signed the form, their employees would still not have the contraception coverage. Nevertheless, last January, while its RFRA suit against the contraception coverage provision was before the Tenth Circuit (where it is still pending), the Supreme Court enjoined the federal government from enforcing the law until a final resolution on the merits.
It seems likely that there will be a request that this issue be considered by the Supreme Court at some point this term, either through one of these cases or one similar to them.
Young v. UPS: Discrimination on the basis of pregnancy
The Supreme Court is to decide to what extent employers can treat pregnant workers temporarily unable to work differently from other workers temporarily unable to work.
This case involves Peggy Young, a pregnant employee of UPS with temporary medical restrictions on how much she could safely lift. UPS did not make any accommodations for her, such as temporary alternative work. As a result, she spent several months on unpaid leave, during which she lost her medical coverage.
In 1976, the Supreme Court ruled that discriminating against employees who are pregnant was not sex discrimination under Title VII. Congress corrected that interpretation of the law in 1978 with the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), which has two relevant provisions. First, it specifies that sex discrimination includes discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.
The second provision explains how to apply that general principle: It says that women affected by pregnancy "shall be treated the same for all employment-related purposes … as other persons not so affected but similar in their ability or inability to work." This establishes a basis of comparison. So while a typical sex discrimination case looks at how a female plaintiff is treated in comparison to similarly situated men, a PDA case looks at how she is treated in comparison to non-pregnant workers with similar ability (or inability) to work.
UPS's collective bargaining contract calls for UPS to accommodate temporarily disabled employees if the disability is due to an on-the-job injury, or if they have lost their DOT certification to drive. UPS also accommodates employees who have a permanent impairment under the Americans With Disabilities Act. UPS says its policy is "pregnancy-blind:" They claim they are treating Young the same way they'd treat a non-pregnant employee whose injury doesn't fit any of the above conditions.
But Young argues that isn't the proper analysis under the PDA. She points out that UPS would have made an accommodation for someone "similar in their ability or inability to work" to her if they were in one of those three categories. So, she concludes, the plain text of the PDA requires UPS to accommodate her, as well.
Integrity Staffing Solutions v. Busk: Overtime pay for workers at warehouse distribution centers
The Supreme Court is to decide if employers can deny overtime pay to employees at "customer fulfillment" distribution centers for the time they spend waiting for mandatory security screenings.
This is a class-action lawsuit brought by Jesse Busk and Laurie Castro, two former employees of Integrity Staffing Solutions, which provides workers to work in the warehouses of companies like Amazon.com. At the end of the shift, the company requires every employee to go through a security check before they leave the facility to make sure they aren't stealing the merchandise. The employees wait as long as 25 minutes to be searched. Busk and Castro claim that they should have been paid overtime for this time under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), as should all current employees, as well.
FLSA requires overtime pay when a covered employee works more than 40 hours in a workweek. In 1947, Congress helped define what counts as "work" by passing the Portal-to-Portal Act (PPA), which says that FLSA's overtime requirement doesn't apply to activities that are "preliminary" or "postliminary" to an employee's primary job responsibilities. In a 1956 case called Steiner v. Mitchell, the Supreme Court interpreted the PPA as requiring overtime only for tasks that are an "integral and indispensable part of the principal activities for which covered workman are employed."
Busk and Castro say that any activity required by and benefitting the employer (such as the security searches) are part of the actual job, not "postliminary" to it, so they count as time at work under FLSA and should generate overtime pay. They get support from an amicus brief submitted by the National Employment Lawyers Association, which details how loss-prevention activities have become integrated into the modern retail work routine, making searches like those at issue here part of an employee's principal activities.
The workers won at the Ninth Circuit, but the court used different reasoning: that the searches are "postliminary" (so the Portal-to-Portal Act applies), but that they are an "integral and indispensable part" of the workers' principal activities and therefore subject to overtime pay. Integrity (supported by an amicus brief from the Obama Administration) asserts that the searches are "postliminary" to work, are not an "integral and indispensable part" of the employees' principal activities and, therefore, don't trigger the overtime requirement.
Part of the company's argument seems to be a results-based pitch to a corporate-friendly Court: In its certiorari petition urging the Justices to hear its appeal, Integrity Staffing wrote that since the Ninth Circuit ruling, "plaintiffs' lawyers have brought nationwide class actions against a number of major employers—including Apple, Amazon.com, and CVS—seeking back pay (plus overtime and penalties) for time spent in security screenings." Notice that it isn't employees who are suing, but "plaintiffs' lawyers," a framing that is red meat for right-wing ideologues. This argument also seems to have less to do with discerning congressional intent and more to do with protecting large corporations.
Mach Mining v. EEOC: Pre-lawsuit settlement efforts by the EEOC
The Supreme Court is to decide if employers can escape liability for illegal discrimination by arguing that the EEOC failed to make a sufficiently good-faith attempt to reach a settlement with the employer.
Mach Mining has never hired a woman for a mining position. A woman who had been turned down several times for a coal mining job filed a sex discrimination complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, a step that Title VII requires before filing a lawsuit. EEOC looked into the allegation, found it had merit, and – again, as required by Title VII – sought to negotiate an end to the alleged sex discrimination "by informal methods of conference, conciliation, and persuasion" before suing. After several months without success, the EEOC notified the company that it felt further efforts would be futile and initiated a lawsuit. Mach Mining says the case should be dismissed on the grounds that the EEOC didn't make a good-faith conciliation effort. In response, the EEOC says Title VII doesn't allow such a defense.
While several other circuits have ruled otherwise, the Seventh Circuit in this case concluded that Title VII cannot be interpreted to allow courts to inquire into the adequacy of the EEOC's conciliation efforts. For one thing, Title VII has no express provision for an affirmative defense based on a defect in the EEOC's conciliation's efforts. It also calls for the EEOC to "endeavor" to end the discrimination through "informal methods of conference, conciliation, and persuasion." If it can't reach a result "acceptable to the Commission," it can sue. The Seventh Circuit interpreted this as giving the EEOC great deference.
The court also noted that Title VII makes the process confidential, with penalties for making the information public without the consent of everyone concerned. That could prevent the EEOC from showing the court the evidence that it had sought to conciliate in good faith. It seems unlikely that Congress wrote Title VII to require the EEOC to defend its conciliation efforts in court but made its ability to do so dependent on the permission of the employer being sued. The court also concluded that there would be no meaningful standard of review. For instance, just how hard should the agency pursue an agreement?
A Supreme Court ruling for the employer could give employers a significant tool to stymie legitimate lawsuits against unlawful employment discrimination. As the Seventh Circuit wrote:
Simply put, the conciliation defense tempts employers to turn what was meant to be an informal negotiation into the subject of endless disputes over whether the EEOC did enough before going to court. Such disputes impose significant costs on both sides, as well as on the court, and to what end?
All the employer should legitimately hope to gain is some unspecified quantum of additional efforts at conciliation by the EEOC. The result of such a defense, as we have said in a closely related context, is to "protract and complicate Title VII litigation, and with little or no offsetting benefit."
Holt v. Hobbs: Right of a Muslim prisoner to grow a short beard
The Supreme Court is to address whether a state prison's prohibiting a Muslim prisoner from growing a half-inch beard violates the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.
This case originated with a handwritten request to the Supreme Court from Gregory Holt (aka Abdul Maalik Muhammad), a Muslim prisoner in Arkansas, to hear his case. He states that his religious beliefs require him to have a beard, and he seeks to grow a half-inch beard. The state Department of Corrections prohibits beards generally, but allows quarter-inch beards grown for medical reasons. Muhammad sees his request as a compromise (since his religious beliefs really would have him grow it much longer) that has been accepted in prisons elsewhere.
Since he is in a state prison, Muhammad's case is governed by a federal law called the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, or RLUIPA. Passed unanimously by Congress in 2000, RLUIPA requires prisons accepting federal funds to give greater religious liberty protections to inmates than is required by the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause. Similar to the better-known Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which was at issue in Hobby Lobby, RLUIPA is triggered when the government imposes a "substantial burden on the religious exercise" of a person confined to an institution. When that happens, the action can be upheld only if the government can demonstrate that the burden: "(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest."
The state argues that the no-beard policy furthers the compelling government interests in prison safety and security, and that the proposed half-inch accommodation would not be as effective as the no-beard rule in achieving those purposes. For instance, they provide the opinions of penal experts that prisoners could use the beards to hide contraband, and that escaped prisoners could too easily and quickly change their appearance simply by shaving. Muhammad (now represented by counsel) argues that the lower courts, which ruled against him, did not provide the strict scrutiny of the state's arguments that is required by RLUIPA.
In Hobby Lobby, the Supreme Court significantly rewrote RFRA, watering down the "substantial burden" requirement and applying the religious liberty law to for-profit corporations. Neither factor is relevant to this case, meaning the Court could rule in favor of Muhammad without rewriting the law. But the Roberts Court is known for playing the "long game." Even if the Court rules unanimously for Muhammad, they may not all agree on the reasoning: The conservatives could write an opinion designed to be cited in future RFRA litigation strengthening the hands of those on the right who would reshape RFRA from a shield against government oppression into a sword.
Alabama Democratic Conference v. Alabama / Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama: Racial gerrymandering
The Supreme Court is to address whether Alabama engaged in unconstitutional racial gerrymandering when it drew new state House and Senate district lines that channeled large numbers of African Americans into districts that were already majority-minority.
The GOP-controlled Alabama state legislature enacted a redistricting plan that transferred a significant portion of the black population that had previously been in majority-white districts into districts that were already majority-black. In so doing, the legislature was seeking to achieve certain percentages of black voters in the majority-black districts. At issue is whether legislators engaged in an unconstitutional effort to separate voters by race, or whether they followed traditional redistricting criteria in a way that was necessary to comply with the Voting Rights Act.
Due to population shifts, majority-black districts established after the 2000 Census lost population and had to be redrawn after the 2010 Census to bring in new people. In some cases, the population loss was disproportionately white, meaning that a significantly higher percentage of the remaining population was African American than before. In redrawing the lines while keeping the same number of majority-black districts, the legislature made two decisions that led to what some call "bleaching" – drawing lines so that large numbers of African Americans in majority-white districts would be redistricted into supermajority-black districts, and diminishing African Americans' political influence in much of the state.
First, they chose to reduce the permissible population difference between districts from 10% (the 2000 standard) to 2%. To achieve district populations that close to each other, many more people would have to be drawn into the modified black-majority districts than would otherwise have been necessary. That huge numbers of those people would be blacks removed from majority-white districts was determined by the second decision: Ostensibly to comply with the requirement under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (this was before Shelby County) that new lines not lead to a retrogression in the position of racial minorities with respect to their effective exercise of the electoral franchise, the African American percentages in the redrawn majority-minority districts should be at least whatever they had become in 2010.
This reapportionment was upheld by a divided three-judge federal district court. The majority concluded that race was not the predominant factor in drawing the redistricting boundaries, so that they need not be analyzed under strict scrutiny as in the 1993 Shaw v. Reno case. The majority also concluded that even if strict scrutiny applied, the legislative boundaries were narrowly tailored to achieve the compelling purpose of compliance with the preclearance provisions of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which applied at the time. The plaintiffs in this case – the Alabama Legislative Black Caucus and state Democrats – challenge those conclusions, arguing that legislators had misinterpreted Section 5, that race was impermissibly the overriding criterion used by legislators in drawing lines, and that the redistricting plan violated the Fourteenth Amendment.
Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Arizona: Municipal sign regulations
The Supreme Court will hear a church's Free Speech challenge to city rules regulating the size and placement of various types of signs, which affect the signs it puts up to direct people to its church services.
This case was brought by a small church (25-30 adult members) in Arizona that places signs up to invite people to its weekly services and inform them where they are being held. Good News Church and its pastor Clyde Reed are urging the Court to strike down the town of Gilbert's sign ordinance, which treats some signs (such as directional signs for events, like a fair or, in this case, a church service) differently from others (like political, real estate, or ideological signs). The different types of signs have different rules on how large they can be, and where and when they can be posted. Good News Church argues the law is an unconstitutional content-based infringement of its First Amendment rights. The lower court had upheld it as content-neutral.
Gilbert regulations generally require a permit before posting a sign, with a number of exceptions that can be posted without a permit. These exceptions (each with specific size, number, and placement rules) include construction signs, open house signs, parking signs, building identification signs, garage sale signs, street address signs, and restaurant menu signs. The church devotes much of its focus to three of the exceptions:
The church has signs in the first category to tell people about their weekly church services in the space they rent. The maximum size is smaller than political and ideological signs, fewer can be posted, and they cannot stay up nearly as long. Represented by the far-right Alliance Defending Freedom, Good News Church argues that the city is violating its First Amendment rights by applying different rules to different types of noncommercial signs based on their content. According to the church, any classification based on what a sign says is content-based and therefore subject to the highest level of scrutiny. And if the law's purpose is, say, to promote traffic safety or aesthetics, then what difference should it make if the sign is for a church service, political candidate, or particular ideology?
A divided panel of the Ninth Amendment disagreed, ruling against the church. It said the distinctions among different types of signs are content-neutral (and thus subject to a somewhat lower level of scrutiny) because Gilbert's interests in regulating temporary signs are unrelated to the specific content or message of the sign. Each exemption is based on objective criteria related not to the sign's message, but to the reason for the exemption (such as need for communication about elections, or the need to let event sponsors inform people how to get to the event).
Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi v. IndyMac MBS: Timing of lawsuits
The Court is to decide whether the clock stops on a deadline to sue for securities fraud when someone files a class action suit.
This case relates to a key 1974 precedent called American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, where the Supreme Court ruled that the filing of a class action lawsuit stops the clock ("tolls" in legal parlance) on the statute of limitations on filing federal antitrust claims for all potential members of the class, including those who are not actively involved with or even aware of the class action lawsuit. So if a court then doesn't certify the class for some reason or dismisses its claims, but makes that decision after the statute of limitations has passed, those who would have been included in the class have not lost their opportunity to have their day in court just because they hadn't made an individual filing in the case.
The current case relates to the financial meltdown of the 2000s and involves federal laws in the Securities Act of 1933 prohibiting sellers of securities from misleading investors. The law has two key time limits: (1) You generally have one year to file a lawsuit, and that can be a year after the untrue or misleading statement is made or discovered. (2) But there is an additional limit, one that restricts just how long after the fact you have to discover the wrongdoing: "In no event shall any such action be brought … more than three years after the security was bona fide offered to the public [or, depending on which section of the law is involved] more than three years after the sale." The Second Circuit concluded that the American Pipe rule did not apply to this statute.
One of the great benefits of class action litigation is that it protects the rights of people who cannot afford to themselves engage in litigation and may not even realize they have been wronged. It also vastly enhances our society's ability to hold large corporations responsible when they violate people's rights. The rule from American Pipe has served that purpose well. But in other contexts, the Roberts Court has significantly undercut the ability of Americans to utilize class actions to protect their rights. If the Court rules that American Pipe doesn't apply in the securities fraud context, it will be important to see if its reasoning also undercuts American Pipe as a precedent in other contexts.
Omnicare v. Laborers District Council: Holding companies accountable for false statements to investors
The Court is to address what investors need to prove to hold companies accountable for material misstatements in investment material.
When responding to a public offering of company shares, investors may rely on a company's registration statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, investors can sue if that statement "contained an untrue statement of a material fact or omitted to state a material fact [that was] necessary to make the statements therein not misleading." This case asks what investors need to prove if the purportedly "untrue statement" was the company's opinion that it wasn't breaking the law.
Omnicare is the nation's largest provider of pharmaceutical care for the elderly and other residents of long-term care facilities. In Omnicare's registration statement, it said that "we believe" that its financial relationships with pharmaceutical manufacturers were legal. The investors here claim that some of those deals constituted unlawful kickbacks. The question is whether that allegation is enough to trigger Section 11.
According to Omnicare, for the investors to have a claim under Section 11, they have to allege that Omnicare didn't believe the statement when it was made. Otherwise, companies could be held liable for statements of opinion that turn out later not to be true. Two circuit courts have taken that view.
But in this case, the Sixth Circuit took a different approach, one that makes it easier for investors to file a Section 11 claim. That court reasoned that Section 11 is a "strict liability" statute where the state of mind of company officials isn't relevant, so it's sufficient to allege that the opinion was false, regardless of whether the company knew at the time it was false. That's the ruling the investors in this case are asking the Supreme Court to uphold.
In an amicus brief, the Obama Administration takes a middle ground, in which the company isn't held liable only because it expressed an opinion that turned out not to be true. The Administration argues that a statement of opinion is actionable under Section 11 if: (1) the company didn't believe it at the time (which both parties in this case agree on), or (2) there was no reasonable basis for the opinion at the time, even if it was sincerely held (which Omnicare disagrees with).
Any ruling by the Roberts Court should keep in mind that Congress enacted Section 11 to encourage maximum disclosure by companies making a public offering. After all, people associated with the company know far more about the business than potential investors could ever know, and Section 11 was intended to dissuade corporations from tricking investors.
Just as the Lochner case defined the Supreme Court a century ago as it turned conservative economic policies into constitutional dogma, America finds itself living through the Citizens United era, where the Court again routinely rules in favor of corporate and other powerful interests. By the end of June, we will know if the current term will have been as damaging to Americans' fundamental rights as recent terms have been.
In another win for equality, today U.S. District Judge Richard Young struck down Indiana's ban on marriage for same-sex couples. Because the judge did not stay the ruling, the Indianapolis Star reports that couples can begin getting married right away.
Not a single state marriage ban has been able to withstand a challenge in federal court in the wake of the Supreme Court's 2013 decision in United States v. Windsor, which struck down part of DOMA.
Congratulations, Indiana!
Two incumbent Republican state representatives in Indiana lost primary elections after national anti-gay groups targeted them for their votes against a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.
Kathy Heuer and Rebecca Kubacki were among eleven Republicans who voted against the marriage amendment in January. The amendment will next have to be placed on the statewide ballot, which won't happen until 2016 at the earliest .
According to the National Organization for Marriage, NOM, the American Family Association of Indiana, Focus on the Family's political arm Citizenlink, the Family Research Council and the FRC's Indiana affiliate the Indiana Family Institute were all involved in the effort to unseat the pro-marriage lawmakers. NOM writes:
NOM, the Indiana Family Institute, the American Family Association of Indiana, Citizenlink, and Family Research Council Action had warned politicians before the marriage amendment vote in the legislature that if they did not give the people the chance to vote on marriage this year, there would be political repercussions. After the failure of the legislature to pass the question to the voters, the coalition worked together to choose its targets, particularly the ousting of Heuer and Kubacki while protecting marriage champions.
The Indianapolis Star reports that the Indiana Family Institute's political arm "ran $12,000 worth of radio ads in the Fort Wayne area targeting Heuer, Kubacki, and a third incumbent, Casey Cox of Fort Wayne," who won his primary contest. The FRC-affiliated group also reportedly sent out 10,000 mailers in support of the marriage amendment's sponsor in his successful effort to fend off a primary challenger.
In February, NOM and Citizenlink started airing radio ads against at least one Republican state lawmaker who ultimately voted for the marriage amendment, but supported a change that would remove a ban on civil unions from the measure, thus pushing back the schedule for getting the ban on the ballot. The groups accused proponents of the change of bringing "San Francisco-style marriage" to Indiana.
In a statement, FRC president Tony Perkins touted his organization's recent poll on how Republican voters view marriage equality and claimed that "elected officials can no longer avoid the reality that the redefinition of marriage leads to the loss of our most basic freedoms."
"The election outcome reinforces the findings of an FRC-commissioned survey released last month showing three-quarters of Republican voters want their elected officials to uphold natural marriage as the national standard. Voters in Indiana and across the country are now realizing that much more than marriage is on the line. Elected officials can no longer avoid the reality that the redefinition of marriage leads to the loss of our most basic freedoms.
"Redefining natural marriage is about far more than the marriage altar; it is about fundamentally altering society. In the wake of same-sex marriage, religious freedom and parental rights have been lost. Business owners, like florists, bakers and photographers, have been hauled into court, fined and even put out of business for simply refusing to participate in a same-sex wedding. But it doesn't stop there; university professors, sportscasters and even members of the military have been demoted or fired for simply believing marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Families have been impacted as parents have lost the right to determine whose values are taught to their children," concluded Perkins.
The first TV ads have hit the airwaves in Indiana's debate over putting a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage on the ballot.
The two ads, which the Indiana-based group Advance America says it is paying "several thousand dollars" to air, play ominous music over a picture of the state capitol in front of cloudy skies. One shows the members of state committee considering the ballot measure. In the other, the words "freedom" and "right to vote" float across the screen as actors say "let me vote."
"You Deserve the Right to Vote…to Protect Marriage in Indiana!" the ad concludes.
Advance America is the same group that has been distributing flyers warning that marriage equality will result in the imprisonment of pastors and lead the state to "legalize 'gender identity.'"
Today the Supreme Court declined to review a federal appeals court ruling blocking an Indiana law that would have stopped Planned Parenthood from receiving federal Medicaid funding for preventative health screenings.
Rev. Brendolyn Jenkins-Boseman of Aiken, South Carolina, chair of the African American Ministers Leadership Council, released the following statement:
"Today's decision is a victory for Indiana women and should be a signal to conservative legislatures across the country that are trying to limit women's access to health care. Our courts have stopped many of these measures, but with proposals to defund Planned Parenthood surfacing across the country, we must remain vigilant.
"Why do conservative politicians still think that playing politics is more important than women's access to cancer screenings and other vital health services? While these politicians push for wasteful and unpopular attacks on reproductive justice, many faith leaders and our allies remain committed to fighting for access to safe, affordable, and compassionate health care for all women. All women deserve dignity and autonomy – over their own bodies and their own futures."
Conservative talk show host Janet Mefferd this week waded into the controversy about an Indiana high school where a group of students wanted to organize a separate prom that would specifically prevent gay and lesbian students from attending.
After lamenting that "public schools are morally bankrupt," Mefferd asserted that proms which allow all students — gay or straight — to attend actually violate the rights of Christian students who disapprove of homosexuality.
What right in particular, you might ask?
According to Mefferd, apparently the right of students not to even see gay people!
She maintained that the students' desire not to see gay students outweighs the rights of gay students to attend their own prom.
"Why should the rights of the [gay] activists trump the rights of Christians" who don't want "to see that," Mefferd asked.
Mefferd: Everything is so upside down in our society now and right and wrong have completely switched where what is really wrong is to say you shouldn't have two boys allowed to go to the high school prom. Now we can get into a big issue of the public schools are morally bankrupt at this point and we all ought to exit and just let them, let them do their thing, and that may be the ultimate answer; on the other hand, I feel for these Christian kids who are in a prom or kids who are at this high school who say, 'you know something, do we have to go down this road?' Whether the homosexual activists like it or not, and I know this isn't politically correct to say this, but not everybody wants to see that. I know that that's offensive to the activist crowd, they want us all to see it, they want us all to approve of it, they want us all to call it blessed and okay and rejoice and have parties and throw confetti in the air over this whole thing. But the fact of the matter is it's a moral issue. You will always have Christians who will disagree with this and why should the rights of the activists trump the rights of Christians?
Update 2/20: Mefferd spent a good part of the weekend tweeting at us, and a good portion of her show yesterday railing against us, claiming that we had "libeled" her with this post. Today, we received a letter [PDF] from her attorneys demanding that we remove this post and asserting that even though we had quoted her verbatim, we had misrepresented her views.
According to this letter, Mefferd claims that she was merely saying that some people object to seeing gay couples at prom, not that Christians have a right not to see gay people in general:
Ms. Mefferd's comment, in discussing a controversy in an Indiana high school about attendance by homosexual couples at a high school prom, was that 'not everybody wants to see that.' (emphasis added). Ms. Mefferd was not making a statement about homosexual people, or any other people for that matter, when making that statement, as Ms. Mefferd would have said 'not everybody wants to see them.' Mefferd's statement was about the inclusion of homosexual couples at a high school prom, and made a factual statement that 'not everybody wants to see that.'
What's the difference you ask? Good question. We stand by our original post and think that the audio clip we posted speaks for itself.
Out of State Money Floods Contests in 2012
Washington, DC – Today People For the American Way Foundation unveiled new state-by-state fact sheets detailing outside spending in U.S. Senate and House races in 21 states. Each report analyzes the outside spending totals from Super PACs, dark money groups, and out-of-state spenders in the down ballot federal races from the 2012 election cycle. The fact sheets reveal that, on average, a majority of outside election money in these states came from Super PACs. And in every case, a vast majority came from organizations registered outside of the state.
The release of the "Outside Spending, Outsized Influence" reports coincide with the weekend marking Martin Luther King, Jr. Day and the third anniversary of Citizens United v. FEC to draw attention to the dual threats of voter suppression and unlimited corporate and special interest money in politics. The reports – a partnership between PFAWF and U.S. PIRG – are part of the Money Out/Voters In campaign. As part of that campaign, People For the American Way Foundation, its affiliate People For the American Way, and other organizers across the country are hosting "Day of Action" events in more than 76 cities in 33 states this weekend. Members of People For the American Way Foundation's African American Ministers Leadership Council will be leading Money Out/Voters In events in Georgia, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Virginia.
"Last year's elections were far and away the most expensive in history," said People For the American Way Foundation Executive Vice President Marge Baker. "A major reason was the influx of outside, special interest spending in the wake of the Supreme Court's Citizens United v. FEC decision. When big money floods our elections, it dwarfs the ability of individual Americans to have their voices heard. Just as important, when politicians push laws to suppress the vote, we turn back the clock on decades on progress to expand and improve our democracy. We need to pursue the full range of remedies to address the problem of too much money in politics, including amending the Constitution to overturn Citizens United, and we need to stand up against the growing threat of voter suppression. This weekend we are joining with allies across the country to call for a democracy that gets Money Out and Voters In."
The states featured in the reports are California, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, North Carolina, New Jersey, Nevada, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, and Wisconsin.
For links to each report, please visit: http://www.pfaw.org/issues/outside-spending-outsized-influence-big-and-s...
For more information about the Money Out/Voters In campaign or the Days of Action, please visit: http://www.moneyout-votersin.org
Former Indiana Rep. John Hostettler lamented yesterday that the "church has extracted itself from government," creating a vacuum filled by "those adversarial to biblical truth."
Hostettler, talking with Truth in Action Ministries' Carmen Pate on the organization's radio program, agreed with Pate that the education system is controlled by "those who really don't want our kids to understand what the Constitution has to say" – namely, as Hostettler, puts it, that "government is an institution that is not just a God-centered one, but it was ordained by God."
Hostettler represented southwest Indiana in Congress from 1995 through 2007, and is now president of the Constitution Institute, which dedicates itself to providing state legislators and others with "a greater understanding of the United States Constitution."
Pate: You know, it seems to me, Congressman, it's very clear that the founding fathers intended for the government's role to be limited, and they based this Constitution on biblical principles and truths. Yet we know that those on the left, the secular humanists, see the importance of a big government, not limited, because then they can wield more power over the people.
Not to sound conspiratorial here, but I wonder if there have been attempts perhaps by those secular humanists, those on the left, to really not allow or to take away some of the opportunities for learning more about what the Constitution has to say. Say in our public schools, you mentioned in school you didn't learn all these things. I didn't either. It wasn't until I got out of school and started working with pro-family organizations that I really dug into the Constitution.
Have we allowed the education of our children to be given over to those who really don't want our kids to understand what the Constitution has to say?
Hostettler: Well, Carmen, you're exactly right. That is what has happened. Because the church has extracted itself from government and we have fundamentally forgotten, as Dr. Kennedy taught, that government is an institution ordained by God. Just as the family was ordained by God, and just as the church was ordained by God, government is an institution that is not just a God-centered one, but it was ordained by God.
So we have extracted ourselves from it – the church, the body of Christ has – we've handed it over to others, and we've forgotten that just has nature abhors a vacuum, politics and public policy and government likewise abhor a vacuum. Someone is going to occupy that space, some philosophy is going to occupy that space. And it's either going to be fundamentally a philosophy that is sympathetic and is agreeable to biblical truths, or it is a philosophy that is adversarial to biblical truth. It's going to be one of the two. And as you pointed out, it has been a philosophy overall that is adversarial to biblical truth.


text:
Originally published September 27, 2013 at 5:15 AM | Page modified September 27, 2013 at 2:42 PM
Corrected version
Enjoy adventurous grub at down-home Gastropod pub
Don't let the spare décor of Gastropod fool you. The brewpub attached to the Epic Ales Brewery in Sodo boasts a kitchen with a daringly creative menu.
Special to The Seattle Times
3201 First Ave. S., Seattle
Reservations: no
Hours: dinner 4-10 p.m. Tuesday-Saturday
Prices: $$ (plates $3-$15)
Drinks: Epic Ales and guest beers on draft, plus ciders and sodas
Service: easygoing and, like the setting, nothing fancy
Parking: free in gravel lot along north end of the building, or on street
Sound: moderate to rowdy
Who should go: worth a trip for beer geeks and culinary adventurers; a must-try if you frequent the neighborhood.
Credit cards: all major
Access: two steps at entrance (ramp coming soon); restrooms accessible
Sample menu
Roasted mushrooms and poached egg $3
Pickled beet and watercress salad $6
Chanterelle potpie $9
Okonomiyaki with squid and bacon $12
Zabutan steak $15
The aptly named Gastropod inhabits a couple of rooms attached to the Epic Ales Brewery in Sodo, but the wood-paneled interior feels more like a rustic wilderness cabin than an urban brewpub. Its simplicity belies the ambitions of its kitchen.
The filament-bulb lighting is poor, the rudimentary décor a work in progress. A couple of shelves hold cookbooks, interspersed with a few volumes of literature. They reflect the varied interests of chef and co-owner Travis Kukull, who went, in a roundabout fashion, from Shorewood High School to Reed College to a degree in literary theory from UW, cooking all the way.
Kukull describes himself as a working-class guy who likes making beer and matching it with food. He has long wanted to start a brewpub. Partnering with Epic Ales' founder Cody Morris to launch Gastropod in March allowed him to do just that.
Epic's ales are low in alcohol by volume but big on flavor — basil, miso and smoked serrano and rye, for example. They flatter Gastropod's eclectic menu, a roster of roughly 10 items, listed by price, ranging from $3 to $15. It changes each Tuesday and runs for the week.
What does three bucks buy? Something sensational in my experience. Once it was roasted squash blossoms and fingerling potatoes basted with anchovy, garlic and chili oil; another time it was roasted chanterelles and lobster mushrooms supporting an egg poached in Epic's Rose Water Ale. (A glass of Partytime Sour Blond ale, rosy with red-currant syrup, costs another two.)
Kukull doesn't look to make a profit on those $3 plates. He considers them a gift to his guests, an intimation of what his kitchen can do. (With the mushrooms, it helped the bottom line that he foraged them himself.)
Moving up in price, you'll likely find a soup, a salad, some meat, some fish, possibly a potpie, risotto or paté. There is always okonomiyaki, a savory Japanese pancake in which anything goes.
Making the most of mushroom season, Kukull sliced matsutakes into hot-and-sour tom yum soup zesty with lime leaf, lemon grass and beer; he captured their essence in risotto garnished with the sweet crunch of diced apple and finely slivered nori.
A potpie brimmed with tiny chanterelles and purple carrots in an herby velouté under a buttery lid of house-made puff pastry.
Mint roused a salad of pickled beets sliced wafer thin with wild watercress and toasted hazelnuts; pecorino romano dusted another composed of tender red kale and cherry tomatoes.
A thick rind of pork fat encased a paté of coarsely ground pork and duck speckled with currants and pistachio. A mini, lemon-kissed avocado cheesecake accompanied lox-like slices of house-cured king salmon.
That night there was cheesecake again for dessert, a dreamy wedge, deep-green with basil, rimmed with an orange-almond biscotti crust.
Okonomiyaki is a menu staple because Kukull thinks it's amazing bar food. The two versions I tried certainly were. Filled with shredded carrot, onion and cabbage, they remained remarkably crisp considering their load.
Finely diced raw beets, a fried quail egg, salmon roe and shiso-flavored kewpie (the distinctive Japanese mayo) topped one; sautéed squid, chopped bacon and black garlic kewpie crowned the other.
The kitchen does a lot within its tiny footprint: a square hub in the corner of the main room framed by two counters where you can eat and catch the action. (The rest of the seating comprises communal tables.) This busy bullpen embraces four propane burners, a convection oven, an emersion circulator, the dishwashing sink and the beer taps, not to mention Kukull (as likely to be pulling beers as plating food), sous chef Kevin Comer, a waitress and a dishwasher (who is often Morris).
At the menu's $15 ceiling, you now can get a Niman Ranch "zabutan" steak. Known less poetically as chuck tail flap, it is ripe with minerality and as supple as tenderloin after being cooked sous vide, pan-seared and oven-finished.
One week the steak was sliced and stacked with sautéed Swiss chard over breaded and baked green tomatoes that got too soggy under the copious juices. More recently, I noted it came with basil Yorkshire pudding and roasted Concord grapes. Worth a trip to Sodo, I'd say.
Providence Cicero is The Seattle Times restaurant critic. Reach her at firstname.lastname@example.com.
Information in this article, originally published September, 2013, was corrected September 2013. A previous version of this story incorrectly stated that Travis Kukull received a degree in literary theory from Reed College.


text:
Was really pleased with this Deviation as it took me a few days to do! |
Was really pleased with this Deviation as it took me a few days to do! |
Was pleased how this drawing turned out |
My name is Callum Robertson, I am 21 and come from Scotland. In my spare time a like to either draw or play the Xbox 360 or when am not doing that I am probably watching films or watching Naruto. The Type of drawings I mainly focus on is Anime, never tried another style of drawing yet but may do in the near future if you have any ideas or that on what I could draw then leave a comment if you wish ^^ Current Residence: Scotland Favourite genre of music: Trance And The Normal Chart Music Favourite style of art: Mainly Like Anime Drawings Favourite cartoon character: Gaara |


text:
City Apartments South Glasgow
City Apartments are self catering holiday apartments in Glasgow's South Side, overlooking Queens Park.
City Apartments Glasgow offer quality accommodation; overlooking the beautiful and tranquil Queens Park, City Apartments are located in the leafy suburbs of Glasgow Southside on Balvicar Street.
Address :
Balvicar StreetCustomer Reviews City Apartments South Glasgow - Ratings Out of 5
[Click On Images to View Gallery]