id
stringlengths 33
45
| content
stringlengths 95
98.7k
| url
stringlengths 18
263
|
|---|---|---|
msmarco_v2.1_doc_03_304488541#0_567582369
|
Title: How to Use Smartphone and Data Plans in Europe
Headings: How to Use a Smartphone and Data Plans Abroad
How to Use a Smartphone and Data Plans Abroad
The Basics: PHONES AND DATA PLANS IN EUROPE
Will Your Phone Work Abroad?
Ways To Use Your Phone In Europe
International Roaming (Easy But Expensive)
International Data Plan (Easy But Slightly More Affordable)
Pre-Paid SIM Card w/ Data (A Hassle But Most Affordable)
Where To Buy SIM Cards
A Look At US Carrier Plans and Options
T-Mobile
Sprint
Verizon
TravelPass
Monthly International Travel Pricing
Pay as You Go pricing
AT&T
AT&T International Day Pass
AT&T Passport
Do You Even Need a Data Plan?
So Should You Get A Data Plan?
Tips For Using Only WiFi and/or Lowering Your Data Usage
OTHER TIPS AND ADVICE
No Funny Business
Content: How to Use Smartphone and Data Plans in Europe
How to Use a Smartphone and Data Plans Abroad
Everything you need to know about using mobile phones, smartphones, SIM cards, and pre-paid data plans in Europe — without spending a fortune. phones and technology
January 25, 2017
Originally posted JULY 13, 2014 and updated January 25, 2017
There is no denying that smartphones and data plans come in super handy when you’re traveling — especially for things like Google Maps and getting restaurant recommendations on the go. Unfortunately, using your iPhone, Android, or other smartphones in Europe can be a little confusing, and expensive if you’re not careful. Things get even more confusing because each carrier handles things differently, so some charge a huge amount to use your phone abroad and some offer free service. This guide should help clear up any questions you might have any help you find the best option for your travel style. The Basics: PHONES AND DATA PLANS IN EUROPE
Will Your Phone Work Abroad? Short Answer: Yes. Any modern phone that’s newer than an iPhone 4S should work in Europe.
|
http://thesavvybackpacker.com/smartphones-data-plans-abroad-europe/
|
msmarco_v2.1_doc_03_304488541#1_567584503
|
Title: How to Use Smartphone and Data Plans in Europe
Headings: How to Use a Smartphone and Data Plans Abroad
How to Use a Smartphone and Data Plans Abroad
The Basics: PHONES AND DATA PLANS IN EUROPE
Will Your Phone Work Abroad?
Ways To Use Your Phone In Europe
International Roaming (Easy But Expensive)
International Data Plan (Easy But Slightly More Affordable)
Pre-Paid SIM Card w/ Data (A Hassle But Most Affordable)
Where To Buy SIM Cards
A Look At US Carrier Plans and Options
T-Mobile
Sprint
Verizon
TravelPass
Monthly International Travel Pricing
Pay as You Go pricing
AT&T
AT&T International Day Pass
AT&T Passport
Do You Even Need a Data Plan?
So Should You Get A Data Plan?
Tips For Using Only WiFi and/or Lowering Your Data Usage
OTHER TIPS AND ADVICE
No Funny Business
Content: The Basics: PHONES AND DATA PLANS IN EUROPE
Will Your Phone Work Abroad? Short Answer: Yes. Any modern phone that’s newer than an iPhone 4S should work in Europe. Long Answer: Some carriers in the US use a different wireless technology than what is used throughout all of Europe — which means that some US phones simply won’t work in Europe. Europe uses a system called GSM (Global System for Mobiles) but two American carriers (Verizon and Sprint) use CDMA (Code Division Multiple Access). All the other major US carriers use GSM, so no worries there. Luckily, most new phones offered via Verizon and Sprint can now connect to both GSM and CDMA networks.
|
http://thesavvybackpacker.com/smartphones-data-plans-abroad-europe/
|
msmarco_v2.1_doc_03_304488541#2_567586177
|
Title: How to Use Smartphone and Data Plans in Europe
Headings: How to Use a Smartphone and Data Plans Abroad
How to Use a Smartphone and Data Plans Abroad
The Basics: PHONES AND DATA PLANS IN EUROPE
Will Your Phone Work Abroad?
Ways To Use Your Phone In Europe
International Roaming (Easy But Expensive)
International Data Plan (Easy But Slightly More Affordable)
Pre-Paid SIM Card w/ Data (A Hassle But Most Affordable)
Where To Buy SIM Cards
A Look At US Carrier Plans and Options
T-Mobile
Sprint
Verizon
TravelPass
Monthly International Travel Pricing
Pay as You Go pricing
AT&T
AT&T International Day Pass
AT&T Passport
Do You Even Need a Data Plan?
So Should You Get A Data Plan?
Tips For Using Only WiFi and/or Lowering Your Data Usage
OTHER TIPS AND ADVICE
No Funny Business
Content: Long Answer: Some carriers in the US use a different wireless technology than what is used throughout all of Europe — which means that some US phones simply won’t work in Europe. Europe uses a system called GSM (Global System for Mobiles) but two American carriers (Verizon and Sprint) use CDMA (Code Division Multiple Access). All the other major US carriers use GSM, so no worries there. Luckily, most new phones offered via Verizon and Sprint can now connect to both GSM and CDMA networks. For example, anything newer than an iPhone 4S will work perfectly fine in Europe. If you have an Android or Windows phone through Verizon and Sprint, be sure to check if it’s a “world phone” (i.e., it’s GSM compatible) — most modern phones should be fine. If your phone isn’t compatible, check with your service provider as some will rent you a phone for a few weeks/months. Ways To Use Your Phone In Europe
International Roaming (Easy But Expensive)
Most American carriers have partnerships with carriers overseas so your phone will automatically connect to that partner’s mobile/data services. You don’t have to do anything.
|
http://thesavvybackpacker.com/smartphones-data-plans-abroad-europe/
|
msmarco_v2.1_doc_03_304488541#3_567588352
|
Title: How to Use Smartphone and Data Plans in Europe
Headings: How to Use a Smartphone and Data Plans Abroad
How to Use a Smartphone and Data Plans Abroad
The Basics: PHONES AND DATA PLANS IN EUROPE
Will Your Phone Work Abroad?
Ways To Use Your Phone In Europe
International Roaming (Easy But Expensive)
International Data Plan (Easy But Slightly More Affordable)
Pre-Paid SIM Card w/ Data (A Hassle But Most Affordable)
Where To Buy SIM Cards
A Look At US Carrier Plans and Options
T-Mobile
Sprint
Verizon
TravelPass
Monthly International Travel Pricing
Pay as You Go pricing
AT&T
AT&T International Day Pass
AT&T Passport
Do You Even Need a Data Plan?
So Should You Get A Data Plan?
Tips For Using Only WiFi and/or Lowering Your Data Usage
OTHER TIPS AND ADVICE
No Funny Business
Content: For example, anything newer than an iPhone 4S will work perfectly fine in Europe. If you have an Android or Windows phone through Verizon and Sprint, be sure to check if it’s a “world phone” (i.e., it’s GSM compatible) — most modern phones should be fine. If your phone isn’t compatible, check with your service provider as some will rent you a phone for a few weeks/months. Ways To Use Your Phone In Europe
International Roaming (Easy But Expensive)
Most American carriers have partnerships with carriers overseas so your phone will automatically connect to that partner’s mobile/data services. You don’t have to do anything. It just connects. The downside? International roaming, especially when it comes to using data, can be insanely expensive. You can easily spend $50 sending a few emails and viewing a web page or two. Even a short call or a few text messages can cost you a lot.
|
http://thesavvybackpacker.com/smartphones-data-plans-abroad-europe/
|
msmarco_v2.1_doc_03_304488541#6_567594308
|
Title: How to Use Smartphone and Data Plans in Europe
Headings: How to Use a Smartphone and Data Plans Abroad
How to Use a Smartphone and Data Plans Abroad
The Basics: PHONES AND DATA PLANS IN EUROPE
Will Your Phone Work Abroad?
Ways To Use Your Phone In Europe
International Roaming (Easy But Expensive)
International Data Plan (Easy But Slightly More Affordable)
Pre-Paid SIM Card w/ Data (A Hassle But Most Affordable)
Where To Buy SIM Cards
A Look At US Carrier Plans and Options
T-Mobile
Sprint
Verizon
TravelPass
Monthly International Travel Pricing
Pay as You Go pricing
AT&T
AT&T International Day Pass
AT&T Passport
Do You Even Need a Data Plan?
So Should You Get A Data Plan?
Tips For Using Only WiFi and/or Lowering Your Data Usage
OTHER TIPS AND ADVICE
No Funny Business
Content: For reference, you can burn through 100MB of data by streaming a few Youtube videos, so it really isn’t very much. However, if you just want to send a few emails and do very minimal web surfing, this could be a viable option. Voice and text are still fairly expensive but it isn’t too outrageous — especially if you use them sparingly. If you’re on a budget and you’re cool with trying to use free Wi-Fi as much as possible, this is a pretty reasonable option. Check your provider’s website for details. Pre-Paid SIM Card w/ Data (A Hassle But Most Affordable)
The SIM card in an iPhone. The cheapest option is purchasing a pre-paid SIM card in Europe from a European mobile carrier. To do this, you’ll most likely need to “unlock” your phone so it can accept SIM cards from other carriers. The problem is that most phones sold in the US are “locked” to your mobile provider — which means that your phone won’t work if you install a SIM card from another carrier (this is basically a way for mobile companies to keep you from switching carriers)
Before you do anything, contact your carrier to see if they’ll unlock it. Tell them you’re traveling overseas.
|
http://thesavvybackpacker.com/smartphones-data-plans-abroad-europe/
|
msmarco_v2.1_doc_03_304488541#7_567596545
|
Title: How to Use Smartphone and Data Plans in Europe
Headings: How to Use a Smartphone and Data Plans Abroad
How to Use a Smartphone and Data Plans Abroad
The Basics: PHONES AND DATA PLANS IN EUROPE
Will Your Phone Work Abroad?
Ways To Use Your Phone In Europe
International Roaming (Easy But Expensive)
International Data Plan (Easy But Slightly More Affordable)
Pre-Paid SIM Card w/ Data (A Hassle But Most Affordable)
Where To Buy SIM Cards
A Look At US Carrier Plans and Options
T-Mobile
Sprint
Verizon
TravelPass
Monthly International Travel Pricing
Pay as You Go pricing
AT&T
AT&T International Day Pass
AT&T Passport
Do You Even Need a Data Plan?
So Should You Get A Data Plan?
Tips For Using Only WiFi and/or Lowering Your Data Usage
OTHER TIPS AND ADVICE
No Funny Business
Content: Pre-Paid SIM Card w/ Data (A Hassle But Most Affordable)
The SIM card in an iPhone. The cheapest option is purchasing a pre-paid SIM card in Europe from a European mobile carrier. To do this, you’ll most likely need to “unlock” your phone so it can accept SIM cards from other carriers. The problem is that most phones sold in the US are “locked” to your mobile provider — which means that your phone won’t work if you install a SIM card from another carrier (this is basically a way for mobile companies to keep you from switching carriers)
Before you do anything, contact your carrier to see if they’ll unlock it. Tell them you’re traveling overseas. A lot of times they’ll do it. If you’ve paid off the phone or of you’re no longer under contract then they’re required by law to unlock it for you. If your carrier is being a pain then you can technically work around this through a third party. There are a lot of online services that will do it for you — for a fee of course. The process is fairly simple — you enter some information into a website, pay, and then the company will email you a special unlock code for your phone.
|
http://thesavvybackpacker.com/smartphones-data-plans-abroad-europe/
|
msmarco_v2.1_doc_03_304488541#9_567600692
|
Title: How to Use Smartphone and Data Plans in Europe
Headings: How to Use a Smartphone and Data Plans Abroad
How to Use a Smartphone and Data Plans Abroad
The Basics: PHONES AND DATA PLANS IN EUROPE
Will Your Phone Work Abroad?
Ways To Use Your Phone In Europe
International Roaming (Easy But Expensive)
International Data Plan (Easy But Slightly More Affordable)
Pre-Paid SIM Card w/ Data (A Hassle But Most Affordable)
Where To Buy SIM Cards
A Look At US Carrier Plans and Options
T-Mobile
Sprint
Verizon
TravelPass
Monthly International Travel Pricing
Pay as You Go pricing
AT&T
AT&T International Day Pass
AT&T Passport
Do You Even Need a Data Plan?
So Should You Get A Data Plan?
Tips For Using Only WiFi and/or Lowering Your Data Usage
OTHER TIPS AND ADVICE
No Funny Business
Content: You just follow the instructions they give you. It’s usually a pretty painless process. You’ll have to do your own search as we don’t have any specific recommendations. Alternatively, many small, independent mobile phone shops in Europe will unlock your phone for about $20-$30. Again, this method is a hassle unless you’re traveling for a long period of time or you really need to use a lot of data. Where To Buy SIM Cards
Buying a SIM card from a vending machine. Once your phone is unlocked it’s ready to accept any SIM card. It’s best to purchase a SIM card once you get to Europe. Every country has multiple carriers, and they should all be fairly similarly priced. There are services in the US that will sell you a SIM card before you go but you’ll pay a premium for the convenience.
|
http://thesavvybackpacker.com/smartphones-data-plans-abroad-europe/
|
msmarco_v2.1_doc_03_304488541#10_567602521
|
Title: How to Use Smartphone and Data Plans in Europe
Headings: How to Use a Smartphone and Data Plans Abroad
How to Use a Smartphone and Data Plans Abroad
The Basics: PHONES AND DATA PLANS IN EUROPE
Will Your Phone Work Abroad?
Ways To Use Your Phone In Europe
International Roaming (Easy But Expensive)
International Data Plan (Easy But Slightly More Affordable)
Pre-Paid SIM Card w/ Data (A Hassle But Most Affordable)
Where To Buy SIM Cards
A Look At US Carrier Plans and Options
T-Mobile
Sprint
Verizon
TravelPass
Monthly International Travel Pricing
Pay as You Go pricing
AT&T
AT&T International Day Pass
AT&T Passport
Do You Even Need a Data Plan?
So Should You Get A Data Plan?
Tips For Using Only WiFi and/or Lowering Your Data Usage
OTHER TIPS AND ADVICE
No Funny Business
Content: Where To Buy SIM Cards
Buying a SIM card from a vending machine. Once your phone is unlocked it’s ready to accept any SIM card. It’s best to purchase a SIM card once you get to Europe. Every country has multiple carriers, and they should all be fairly similarly priced. There are services in the US that will sell you a SIM card before you go but you’ll pay a premium for the convenience. Each country has its own laws about purchasing SIM cards. In some countries, you can buy them from grocery stores, kiosks, or even vending machines. In some countries, like France, you have to buy them from a mobile phone store (and be prepared to show your passport). The SIM card will normally come with some credit (voice, text, and data) and you purchase more credits when needed. Additional credit can usually be purchased at convenience stores, grocery stores, or mobile phone shops.
|
http://thesavvybackpacker.com/smartphones-data-plans-abroad-europe/
|
msmarco_v2.1_doc_03_304488541#11_567604420
|
Title: How to Use Smartphone and Data Plans in Europe
Headings: How to Use a Smartphone and Data Plans Abroad
How to Use a Smartphone and Data Plans Abroad
The Basics: PHONES AND DATA PLANS IN EUROPE
Will Your Phone Work Abroad?
Ways To Use Your Phone In Europe
International Roaming (Easy But Expensive)
International Data Plan (Easy But Slightly More Affordable)
Pre-Paid SIM Card w/ Data (A Hassle But Most Affordable)
Where To Buy SIM Cards
A Look At US Carrier Plans and Options
T-Mobile
Sprint
Verizon
TravelPass
Monthly International Travel Pricing
Pay as You Go pricing
AT&T
AT&T International Day Pass
AT&T Passport
Do You Even Need a Data Plan?
So Should You Get A Data Plan?
Tips For Using Only WiFi and/or Lowering Your Data Usage
OTHER TIPS AND ADVICE
No Funny Business
Content: Each country has its own laws about purchasing SIM cards. In some countries, you can buy them from grocery stores, kiosks, or even vending machines. In some countries, like France, you have to buy them from a mobile phone store (and be prepared to show your passport). The SIM card will normally come with some credit (voice, text, and data) and you purchase more credits when needed. Additional credit can usually be purchased at convenience stores, grocery stores, or mobile phone shops. All you need to do is simply pay the cashier and they’ll give you a code that you enter into your phone. However, you should be aware of roaming fees between countries. For example, if you use a French SIM card in Germany, you’ll get charged an inflated rate. The European Union has passed a law that prohibits this practice within the EU, but it’s still waiting to go into effect. So, until then, you’ll need to buy a new SIM card in each country in order to get the best price.
|
http://thesavvybackpacker.com/smartphones-data-plans-abroad-europe/
|
msmarco_v2.1_doc_03_304488541#12_567606414
|
Title: How to Use Smartphone and Data Plans in Europe
Headings: How to Use a Smartphone and Data Plans Abroad
How to Use a Smartphone and Data Plans Abroad
The Basics: PHONES AND DATA PLANS IN EUROPE
Will Your Phone Work Abroad?
Ways To Use Your Phone In Europe
International Roaming (Easy But Expensive)
International Data Plan (Easy But Slightly More Affordable)
Pre-Paid SIM Card w/ Data (A Hassle But Most Affordable)
Where To Buy SIM Cards
A Look At US Carrier Plans and Options
T-Mobile
Sprint
Verizon
TravelPass
Monthly International Travel Pricing
Pay as You Go pricing
AT&T
AT&T International Day Pass
AT&T Passport
Do You Even Need a Data Plan?
So Should You Get A Data Plan?
Tips For Using Only WiFi and/or Lowering Your Data Usage
OTHER TIPS AND ADVICE
No Funny Business
Content: All you need to do is simply pay the cashier and they’ll give you a code that you enter into your phone. However, you should be aware of roaming fees between countries. For example, if you use a French SIM card in Germany, you’ll get charged an inflated rate. The European Union has passed a law that prohibits this practice within the EU, but it’s still waiting to go into effect. So, until then, you’ll need to buy a new SIM card in each country in order to get the best price. A Look At US Carrier Plans and Options
As stated earlier, each US carrier has different plans so we’re going to try listing out the different available plans. As aways, check with your carrier for the most up-to-date/accurate information as plans/prices change often. Let’s be honest… it probably doesn’t make sense to switch phone plans just because you’re going on a trip to Europe. However, you should check out all the plans offered by your current provider to see what works for you. T-Mobile
T-Mobile made some headlines a few years ago when they started offering free and unlimited international data, and text, and cheap international calls on all their plans.
|
http://thesavvybackpacker.com/smartphones-data-plans-abroad-europe/
|
msmarco_v2.1_doc_03_304488541#13_567608614
|
Title: How to Use Smartphone and Data Plans in Europe
Headings: How to Use a Smartphone and Data Plans Abroad
How to Use a Smartphone and Data Plans Abroad
The Basics: PHONES AND DATA PLANS IN EUROPE
Will Your Phone Work Abroad?
Ways To Use Your Phone In Europe
International Roaming (Easy But Expensive)
International Data Plan (Easy But Slightly More Affordable)
Pre-Paid SIM Card w/ Data (A Hassle But Most Affordable)
Where To Buy SIM Cards
A Look At US Carrier Plans and Options
T-Mobile
Sprint
Verizon
TravelPass
Monthly International Travel Pricing
Pay as You Go pricing
AT&T
AT&T International Day Pass
AT&T Passport
Do You Even Need a Data Plan?
So Should You Get A Data Plan?
Tips For Using Only WiFi and/or Lowering Your Data Usage
OTHER TIPS AND ADVICE
No Funny Business
Content: A Look At US Carrier Plans and Options
As stated earlier, each US carrier has different plans so we’re going to try listing out the different available plans. As aways, check with your carrier for the most up-to-date/accurate information as plans/prices change often. Let’s be honest… it probably doesn’t make sense to switch phone plans just because you’re going on a trip to Europe. However, you should check out all the plans offered by your current provider to see what works for you. T-Mobile
T-Mobile made some headlines a few years ago when they started offering free and unlimited international data, and text, and cheap international calls on all their plans. This made T-Mobile a very popular choice for budget travelers. Don’t expect blazing fast internet though as most of the time you’ll only get a 2G or maybe a 3G connection. However, for basic stuff, it’s usable. If you want more speed, you can buy an upgraded plan. Visit the T-Mobile website.
|
http://thesavvybackpacker.com/smartphones-data-plans-abroad-europe/
|
msmarco_v2.1_doc_03_304651256#6_568082244
|
Title: 8 Things That Happen in the Brain and Body While You’re High on Weed | The Science Explorer
Headings: 8 Things That Happen in the Brain and Body While You’re High on Weed
Brain and Body
8 Things That Happen in the Brain and Body While You’re High on Weed
The science behind red eyes and cotton mouth.
SEE ALSO: Largest Ever Twin Study Finds No Link Between Smoking Pot and IQ Decline
1. Your balance gets messed up
2. Your ability to drive becomes impaired
3. You feel euphoric
4. Anxiety, paranoia, and panic are common side effects
SEE ALSO: Smoking Weed May Help Treat Eating Disorders
5. It can cause red eyes
6. The infamous “cotton mouth”
7. You get the munchies
8. Your heart rate increases within minutes
Facebook comments
Content: Marijuana causes the blood vessels in the eye to expand, which brings about the stereotypical bloodshot eyes. 6. The infamous “cotton mouth”
Along with red eyes, another staple side effect of smoking pot is the dry mouth that many users report. The uncomfortable, dry feeling isn’t just the result of inhaling smoke — there’s actually cannabinoid receptors located where our saliva is produced. When these receptors are activated by cannabis use, the production of saliva is restricted. 7. You get the munchies
After smoking, many users report the craving to eat just about anything and everything they can get their hands on. The infamous “ munchies ” are thought to be caused by THC interacting with the cannabinoid receptors in the hypothalamus — a brain region which governs many basic physiological functions like thirst, hunger, sleep, mood, and sex drive. A recent study with mice found that marijuana may actually flip a brain circuit that is normally responsible for suppressing appetites, triggering high people to pig out on snacks instead. 8.
|
http://thescienceexplorer.com/brain-and-body/8-things-happen-brain-and-body-while-you-re-high-weed
|
msmarco_v2.1_doc_03_314046322#5_586290599
|
Title:
Headings:
Content: It only causes needless pain and can damage the joint further. Even if it’s truly dislocated, pulling the finger with a jerk to unjam it is never the treatment. Just like ankles, knees, and other joints, finger joints have tendons and ligaments. They get sprained, even torn, and, like other injured joints, swell up. Also like other injured joints, with fingers, it’s hard to tell a serious injury from one that’s not so serious. That’s why you’ll need medical assistance and possible X-rays. But if you’re stuck, in a disaster, or out in the middle of nowhere, here’s
How to Treat a Jammed Finger When You Can’t Get Medical Help
Avulsion Fracture
When you jam a finger, sometimes the force of the trauma pulls the tendon attachment away from the bone. This can only be diagnosed with an X-ray. The treatment is splinting for four to six weeks. Splint it.
|
http://thesurvivaldoctor.com/2012/03/08/jammed-finger-how-to-treat/
|
msmarco_v2.1_doc_03_314046322#6_586291715
|
Title:
Headings:
Content: That’s why you’ll need medical assistance and possible X-rays. But if you’re stuck, in a disaster, or out in the middle of nowhere, here’s
How to Treat a Jammed Finger When You Can’t Get Medical Help
Avulsion Fracture
When you jam a finger, sometimes the force of the trauma pulls the tendon attachment away from the bone. This can only be diagnosed with an X-ray. The treatment is splinting for four to six weeks. Splint it. Any finger injury is eventually going to need splinting. You can tape a metal strip or a stick to the bones adjacent to the sprained finger joint. Popsicle sticks are popular for this. Many times you can just tape the jammed finger to an uninjured one. We call that a buddy splint.
|
http://thesurvivaldoctor.com/2012/03/08/jammed-finger-how-to-treat/
|
msmarco_v2.1_doc_03_316600998#0_590043962
|
Title: Morton's Neuroma: Causes, Symptoms, Orthotics for Treatment
Headings: Morton's Neuroma
Morton's Neuroma
What is Morton’s Neuroma?
What Causes Morton’s Neuroma?
Call 801-651-3067 for a free, no obligation consultation with Dr. Brent Jarrett.
Symptoms of Morton’s Neuroma
Orthotics for Morton’s Neuroma
Standard Theta Custom Orthotics
Premium Theta Custom Orthotics
Dress Theta Orthotics
How Doctors Diagnose Morton’s Neuroma?
Treating and Managing Morton’s Neuroma
Self-Treatment Options to Improve Symptoms
Advanced Treatment Options
Do Theta Orthotics work for Morton’s neuroma?
Frequently Asked Questions
When Should I Seek Treatment?
Why can Theta Orthotics stop pain from Morton’s Neuroma and other arch supports and orthotics can not?
Can foot trauma cause Morton’s Neuroma?
Can you get more than one Morton’s Neuroma?
Can neuromas grow back after surgery?
Our Morton’s Neuroma Success Stories
Live Pain Free Today!
Content: Morton's Neuroma: Causes, Symptoms, Orthotics for Treatment
Morton's Neuroma
Contents: Causes / Symptoms / Orthotics / Diagnosis / Treatment / FAQ / Success Stories
What is Morton’s Neuroma? Morton’s Neuroma of the foot is a common problem that results in swelling and inflammation of the nerves. This condition can present gradually, or rapidly when associated with trauma. Once the pain begins, it will progress. The pain is related to the amount of time you spend walking and standing. What Causes Morton’s Neuroma? The cause of the inflammation is constant grinding on the nerve as you walk. This results in a progressive enlargement and swelling of the nerve.
|
http://thetaorthotics.com/conditions/mortons-neuroma/
|
msmarco_v2.1_doc_03_316600998#1_590045829
|
Title: Morton's Neuroma: Causes, Symptoms, Orthotics for Treatment
Headings: Morton's Neuroma
Morton's Neuroma
What is Morton’s Neuroma?
What Causes Morton’s Neuroma?
Call 801-651-3067 for a free, no obligation consultation with Dr. Brent Jarrett.
Symptoms of Morton’s Neuroma
Orthotics for Morton’s Neuroma
Standard Theta Custom Orthotics
Premium Theta Custom Orthotics
Dress Theta Orthotics
How Doctors Diagnose Morton’s Neuroma?
Treating and Managing Morton’s Neuroma
Self-Treatment Options to Improve Symptoms
Advanced Treatment Options
Do Theta Orthotics work for Morton’s neuroma?
Frequently Asked Questions
When Should I Seek Treatment?
Why can Theta Orthotics stop pain from Morton’s Neuroma and other arch supports and orthotics can not?
Can foot trauma cause Morton’s Neuroma?
Can you get more than one Morton’s Neuroma?
Can neuromas grow back after surgery?
Our Morton’s Neuroma Success Stories
Live Pain Free Today!
Content: Once the pain begins, it will progress. The pain is related to the amount of time you spend walking and standing. What Causes Morton’s Neuroma? The cause of the inflammation is constant grinding on the nerve as you walk. This results in a progressive enlargement and swelling of the nerve. Over time, the inflammation and swelling around the nerve gradually increases, and collagen is deposited, creating scar tissue around the nerve fibers. Because nerve fibers are traumatized every time we stand, walk and run, the real cause of neuromas persists. The progression of this condition, over time, results in other foot conditions. Call 801-651-3067 for a free, no obligation consultation with Dr. Brent Jarrett. Symptoms of Morton’s Neuroma
Common symptoms of Morton’s Neuroma include:
|
http://thetaorthotics.com/conditions/mortons-neuroma/
|
msmarco_v2.1_doc_03_316600998#2_590047818
|
Title: Morton's Neuroma: Causes, Symptoms, Orthotics for Treatment
Headings: Morton's Neuroma
Morton's Neuroma
What is Morton’s Neuroma?
What Causes Morton’s Neuroma?
Call 801-651-3067 for a free, no obligation consultation with Dr. Brent Jarrett.
Symptoms of Morton’s Neuroma
Orthotics for Morton’s Neuroma
Standard Theta Custom Orthotics
Premium Theta Custom Orthotics
Dress Theta Orthotics
How Doctors Diagnose Morton’s Neuroma?
Treating and Managing Morton’s Neuroma
Self-Treatment Options to Improve Symptoms
Advanced Treatment Options
Do Theta Orthotics work for Morton’s neuroma?
Frequently Asked Questions
When Should I Seek Treatment?
Why can Theta Orthotics stop pain from Morton’s Neuroma and other arch supports and orthotics can not?
Can foot trauma cause Morton’s Neuroma?
Can you get more than one Morton’s Neuroma?
Can neuromas grow back after surgery?
Our Morton’s Neuroma Success Stories
Live Pain Free Today!
Content: Over time, the inflammation and swelling around the nerve gradually increases, and collagen is deposited, creating scar tissue around the nerve fibers. Because nerve fibers are traumatized every time we stand, walk and run, the real cause of neuromas persists. The progression of this condition, over time, results in other foot conditions. Call 801-651-3067 for a free, no obligation consultation with Dr. Brent Jarrett. Symptoms of Morton’s Neuroma
Common symptoms of Morton’s Neuroma include: Feeling as a bunched up sock
Numbness or a buzzing sensation
Sharp burning pain during excessive activity
Shooting “electrical” pain
In the early stages of Morton’s Neuroma, the symptoms are numbness or a wadded up sock feeling in the ball of your foot. Eventually, the burning becomes more frequent and more intense. In the end stages, generally after years of symptoms, the patient reports constant disabling pain with every step. Orthotics for Morton’s Neuroma
You can finally live pain-free without surgery or medications with these custom orthotics for Morton’s Neuroma. Add to cart
Standard Theta Custom Orthotics
$188.00
Add to cart
Premium Theta Custom Orthotics
Rated 5.00 out of 5
$278.00
Add to cart
Dress Theta Orthotics
$218.00
How Doctors Diagnose Morton’s Neuroma?
|
http://thetaorthotics.com/conditions/mortons-neuroma/
|
msmarco_v2.1_doc_03_316600998#3_590050337
|
Title: Morton's Neuroma: Causes, Symptoms, Orthotics for Treatment
Headings: Morton's Neuroma
Morton's Neuroma
What is Morton’s Neuroma?
What Causes Morton’s Neuroma?
Call 801-651-3067 for a free, no obligation consultation with Dr. Brent Jarrett.
Symptoms of Morton’s Neuroma
Orthotics for Morton’s Neuroma
Standard Theta Custom Orthotics
Premium Theta Custom Orthotics
Dress Theta Orthotics
How Doctors Diagnose Morton’s Neuroma?
Treating and Managing Morton’s Neuroma
Self-Treatment Options to Improve Symptoms
Advanced Treatment Options
Do Theta Orthotics work for Morton’s neuroma?
Frequently Asked Questions
When Should I Seek Treatment?
Why can Theta Orthotics stop pain from Morton’s Neuroma and other arch supports and orthotics can not?
Can foot trauma cause Morton’s Neuroma?
Can you get more than one Morton’s Neuroma?
Can neuromas grow back after surgery?
Our Morton’s Neuroma Success Stories
Live Pain Free Today!
Content: Feeling as a bunched up sock
Numbness or a buzzing sensation
Sharp burning pain during excessive activity
Shooting “electrical” pain
In the early stages of Morton’s Neuroma, the symptoms are numbness or a wadded up sock feeling in the ball of your foot. Eventually, the burning becomes more frequent and more intense. In the end stages, generally after years of symptoms, the patient reports constant disabling pain with every step. Orthotics for Morton’s Neuroma
You can finally live pain-free without surgery or medications with these custom orthotics for Morton’s Neuroma. Add to cart
Standard Theta Custom Orthotics
$188.00
Add to cart
Premium Theta Custom Orthotics
Rated 5.00 out of 5
$278.00
Add to cart
Dress Theta Orthotics
$218.00
How Doctors Diagnose Morton’s Neuroma? Only well-advanced Morton’s Neuromas will show up on an MRI and you require some experience and skill to identify them when they become as big as the end of your small finger. The classic “click” or Mulders sign that is felt when the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th metatarsals are compressed during diagnosis. When performed, the patient would express extreme displeasure, pull their foot away, and tell the physician not to do that again. Treating and Managing Morton’s Neuroma
Self-Treatment Options to Improve Symptoms
Decrease the compression by wearing 1-2 size bigger shoes to decrease the compression. Add arch support by wearing shoes such as Birkenstocks, Orthoheels, Vionics, or both custom and over the counter orthotics.
|
http://thetaorthotics.com/conditions/mortons-neuroma/
|
msmarco_v2.1_doc_03_316600998#4_590053092
|
Title: Morton's Neuroma: Causes, Symptoms, Orthotics for Treatment
Headings: Morton's Neuroma
Morton's Neuroma
What is Morton’s Neuroma?
What Causes Morton’s Neuroma?
Call 801-651-3067 for a free, no obligation consultation with Dr. Brent Jarrett.
Symptoms of Morton’s Neuroma
Orthotics for Morton’s Neuroma
Standard Theta Custom Orthotics
Premium Theta Custom Orthotics
Dress Theta Orthotics
How Doctors Diagnose Morton’s Neuroma?
Treating and Managing Morton’s Neuroma
Self-Treatment Options to Improve Symptoms
Advanced Treatment Options
Do Theta Orthotics work for Morton’s neuroma?
Frequently Asked Questions
When Should I Seek Treatment?
Why can Theta Orthotics stop pain from Morton’s Neuroma and other arch supports and orthotics can not?
Can foot trauma cause Morton’s Neuroma?
Can you get more than one Morton’s Neuroma?
Can neuromas grow back after surgery?
Our Morton’s Neuroma Success Stories
Live Pain Free Today!
Content: Only well-advanced Morton’s Neuromas will show up on an MRI and you require some experience and skill to identify them when they become as big as the end of your small finger. The classic “click” or Mulders sign that is felt when the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th metatarsals are compressed during diagnosis. When performed, the patient would express extreme displeasure, pull their foot away, and tell the physician not to do that again. Treating and Managing Morton’s Neuroma
Self-Treatment Options to Improve Symptoms
Decrease the compression by wearing 1-2 size bigger shoes to decrease the compression. Add arch support by wearing shoes such as Birkenstocks, Orthoheels, Vionics, or both custom and over the counter orthotics. Decrease or eliminate weight-bearing activities. Avoid hard-walking surfaces to control the nerve pain and mitigate the symptoms. Advanced Treatment Options
Steroid Injections: Cortisone injections into the Morton’s Neuroma are the first line of treatment recommended by physicians. Because cortisone injections mask the inflammation and pain, they are rarely if ever, a permanent option in the treatment of Morton’s Neuroma.
|
http://thetaorthotics.com/conditions/mortons-neuroma/
|
msmarco_v2.1_doc_03_316600998#5_590055459
|
Title: Morton's Neuroma: Causes, Symptoms, Orthotics for Treatment
Headings: Morton's Neuroma
Morton's Neuroma
What is Morton’s Neuroma?
What Causes Morton’s Neuroma?
Call 801-651-3067 for a free, no obligation consultation with Dr. Brent Jarrett.
Symptoms of Morton’s Neuroma
Orthotics for Morton’s Neuroma
Standard Theta Custom Orthotics
Premium Theta Custom Orthotics
Dress Theta Orthotics
How Doctors Diagnose Morton’s Neuroma?
Treating and Managing Morton’s Neuroma
Self-Treatment Options to Improve Symptoms
Advanced Treatment Options
Do Theta Orthotics work for Morton’s neuroma?
Frequently Asked Questions
When Should I Seek Treatment?
Why can Theta Orthotics stop pain from Morton’s Neuroma and other arch supports and orthotics can not?
Can foot trauma cause Morton’s Neuroma?
Can you get more than one Morton’s Neuroma?
Can neuromas grow back after surgery?
Our Morton’s Neuroma Success Stories
Live Pain Free Today!
Content: Decrease or eliminate weight-bearing activities. Avoid hard-walking surfaces to control the nerve pain and mitigate the symptoms. Advanced Treatment Options
Steroid Injections: Cortisone injections into the Morton’s Neuroma are the first line of treatment recommended by physicians. Because cortisone injections mask the inflammation and pain, they are rarely if ever, a permanent option in the treatment of Morton’s Neuroma. Medication: Anti-Inflammatory medication can be helpful in the early stages of this progressive condition but falls way short of the help required as it advances over time. Prednisone dose packs can provide noticeable relief in moderate to advanced cases. The common side effects of pain meds often only complicate the problem. Physical Therapy:
|
http://thetaorthotics.com/conditions/mortons-neuroma/
|
msmarco_v2.1_doc_03_316600998#6_590057430
|
Title: Morton's Neuroma: Causes, Symptoms, Orthotics for Treatment
Headings: Morton's Neuroma
Morton's Neuroma
What is Morton’s Neuroma?
What Causes Morton’s Neuroma?
Call 801-651-3067 for a free, no obligation consultation with Dr. Brent Jarrett.
Symptoms of Morton’s Neuroma
Orthotics for Morton’s Neuroma
Standard Theta Custom Orthotics
Premium Theta Custom Orthotics
Dress Theta Orthotics
How Doctors Diagnose Morton’s Neuroma?
Treating and Managing Morton’s Neuroma
Self-Treatment Options to Improve Symptoms
Advanced Treatment Options
Do Theta Orthotics work for Morton’s neuroma?
Frequently Asked Questions
When Should I Seek Treatment?
Why can Theta Orthotics stop pain from Morton’s Neuroma and other arch supports and orthotics can not?
Can foot trauma cause Morton’s Neuroma?
Can you get more than one Morton’s Neuroma?
Can neuromas grow back after surgery?
Our Morton’s Neuroma Success Stories
Live Pain Free Today!
Content: Medication: Anti-Inflammatory medication can be helpful in the early stages of this progressive condition but falls way short of the help required as it advances over time. Prednisone dose packs can provide noticeable relief in moderate to advanced cases. The common side effects of pain meds often only complicate the problem. Physical Therapy: Because many physical therapy modalities will help reduce inflammation they can be a helpful treatment option for Morton’s Neuroma. However, PT does not treat the cause of the inflammation, that occurs as we walk, frequent treatments are necessary with diminishing results. Alcohol Injections: This treatment is an unpredictable attempt to ablate the intermetatarsal nerve, and stop the pain. There is minimal to no guarantee that after as many as 10 painful injections, any or all of the nerve will be ablated.
|
http://thetaorthotics.com/conditions/mortons-neuroma/
|
msmarco_v2.1_doc_03_316600998#7_590059481
|
Title: Morton's Neuroma: Causes, Symptoms, Orthotics for Treatment
Headings: Morton's Neuroma
Morton's Neuroma
What is Morton’s Neuroma?
What Causes Morton’s Neuroma?
Call 801-651-3067 for a free, no obligation consultation with Dr. Brent Jarrett.
Symptoms of Morton’s Neuroma
Orthotics for Morton’s Neuroma
Standard Theta Custom Orthotics
Premium Theta Custom Orthotics
Dress Theta Orthotics
How Doctors Diagnose Morton’s Neuroma?
Treating and Managing Morton’s Neuroma
Self-Treatment Options to Improve Symptoms
Advanced Treatment Options
Do Theta Orthotics work for Morton’s neuroma?
Frequently Asked Questions
When Should I Seek Treatment?
Why can Theta Orthotics stop pain from Morton’s Neuroma and other arch supports and orthotics can not?
Can foot trauma cause Morton’s Neuroma?
Can you get more than one Morton’s Neuroma?
Can neuromas grow back after surgery?
Our Morton’s Neuroma Success Stories
Live Pain Free Today!
Content: Because many physical therapy modalities will help reduce inflammation they can be a helpful treatment option for Morton’s Neuroma. However, PT does not treat the cause of the inflammation, that occurs as we walk, frequent treatments are necessary with diminishing results. Alcohol Injections: This treatment is an unpredictable attempt to ablate the intermetatarsal nerve, and stop the pain. There is minimal to no guarantee that after as many as 10 painful injections, any or all of the nerve will be ablated. What is also not clear is how much damage to the good tissue is done by this toxic chemical. Surgery: Surgical excision is the most definitive ablative treatment option for Morton’s Neuroma. Short and long term benefits of all surgical procedures are not well documented. What is certain is that, over time, if the surgery procedure used by your surgeon WORKS PERFECTLY, overall and long term it will fail.
|
http://thetaorthotics.com/conditions/mortons-neuroma/
|
msmarco_v2.1_doc_03_316600998#8_590061598
|
Title: Morton's Neuroma: Causes, Symptoms, Orthotics for Treatment
Headings: Morton's Neuroma
Morton's Neuroma
What is Morton’s Neuroma?
What Causes Morton’s Neuroma?
Call 801-651-3067 for a free, no obligation consultation with Dr. Brent Jarrett.
Symptoms of Morton’s Neuroma
Orthotics for Morton’s Neuroma
Standard Theta Custom Orthotics
Premium Theta Custom Orthotics
Dress Theta Orthotics
How Doctors Diagnose Morton’s Neuroma?
Treating and Managing Morton’s Neuroma
Self-Treatment Options to Improve Symptoms
Advanced Treatment Options
Do Theta Orthotics work for Morton’s neuroma?
Frequently Asked Questions
When Should I Seek Treatment?
Why can Theta Orthotics stop pain from Morton’s Neuroma and other arch supports and orthotics can not?
Can foot trauma cause Morton’s Neuroma?
Can you get more than one Morton’s Neuroma?
Can neuromas grow back after surgery?
Our Morton’s Neuroma Success Stories
Live Pain Free Today!
Content: What is also not clear is how much damage to the good tissue is done by this toxic chemical. Surgery: Surgical excision is the most definitive ablative treatment option for Morton’s Neuroma. Short and long term benefits of all surgical procedures are not well documented. What is certain is that, over time, if the surgery procedure used by your surgeon WORKS PERFECTLY, overall and long term it will fail. Have questions about treatment options for your foot pain? Call 801-651-3067 for a free, no obligation consultation with Dr. Brent Jarrett. Do Theta Orthotics work for Morton’s neuroma? Thirty-five years ago I developed a neuroma. Knowing the devastating outcome long term of this painful condition of the inter-metatarsal nerves, I was intent on finding help and to avoiding neuroma surgery.
|
http://thetaorthotics.com/conditions/mortons-neuroma/
|
msmarco_v2.1_doc_03_316600998#9_590063596
|
Title: Morton's Neuroma: Causes, Symptoms, Orthotics for Treatment
Headings: Morton's Neuroma
Morton's Neuroma
What is Morton’s Neuroma?
What Causes Morton’s Neuroma?
Call 801-651-3067 for a free, no obligation consultation with Dr. Brent Jarrett.
Symptoms of Morton’s Neuroma
Orthotics for Morton’s Neuroma
Standard Theta Custom Orthotics
Premium Theta Custom Orthotics
Dress Theta Orthotics
How Doctors Diagnose Morton’s Neuroma?
Treating and Managing Morton’s Neuroma
Self-Treatment Options to Improve Symptoms
Advanced Treatment Options
Do Theta Orthotics work for Morton’s neuroma?
Frequently Asked Questions
When Should I Seek Treatment?
Why can Theta Orthotics stop pain from Morton’s Neuroma and other arch supports and orthotics can not?
Can foot trauma cause Morton’s Neuroma?
Can you get more than one Morton’s Neuroma?
Can neuromas grow back after surgery?
Our Morton’s Neuroma Success Stories
Live Pain Free Today!
Content: Have questions about treatment options for your foot pain? Call 801-651-3067 for a free, no obligation consultation with Dr. Brent Jarrett. Do Theta Orthotics work for Morton’s neuroma? Thirty-five years ago I developed a neuroma. Knowing the devastating outcome long term of this painful condition of the inter-metatarsal nerves, I was intent on finding help and to avoiding neuroma surgery. It took me 4-5 years but I identified the design properties of any support/orthotic responsible for the desired changes in our gait. Not only did I learn how to improve the benefits of custom orthotics, but I quantified the design. I learned that every time I increased the angular correction by 5 degrees that I doubled the benefits of the device. I learned that if I got the correction high enough I could STOP the progressive pain associated with Morton’s Neuroma. The increased correction provided does work for Morton’s Neuroma.
|
http://thetaorthotics.com/conditions/mortons-neuroma/
|
msmarco_v2.1_doc_03_316600998#11_590068005
|
Title: Morton's Neuroma: Causes, Symptoms, Orthotics for Treatment
Headings: Morton's Neuroma
Morton's Neuroma
What is Morton’s Neuroma?
What Causes Morton’s Neuroma?
Call 801-651-3067 for a free, no obligation consultation with Dr. Brent Jarrett.
Symptoms of Morton’s Neuroma
Orthotics for Morton’s Neuroma
Standard Theta Custom Orthotics
Premium Theta Custom Orthotics
Dress Theta Orthotics
How Doctors Diagnose Morton’s Neuroma?
Treating and Managing Morton’s Neuroma
Self-Treatment Options to Improve Symptoms
Advanced Treatment Options
Do Theta Orthotics work for Morton’s neuroma?
Frequently Asked Questions
When Should I Seek Treatment?
Why can Theta Orthotics stop pain from Morton’s Neuroma and other arch supports and orthotics can not?
Can foot trauma cause Morton’s Neuroma?
Can you get more than one Morton’s Neuroma?
Can neuromas grow back after surgery?
Our Morton’s Neuroma Success Stories
Live Pain Free Today!
Content: Over the last 35 years, I have treated over 14 thousand neuroma patients without surgery. I have treated patients in the early stages and the advanced stages with this improved angular design. I have treated patients who have tried every treatment available, including multiple failed surgeries. Once I learned how to improve the way orthotics work significantly, it put me out of business as a neuroma surgeon. Orthotics do treat the cause of Morton’s neuroma, and when they control foot function enough to stop the progressive nerve pain. Do not consent to surgery, do not accept the pain, and do not eliminate activities that are important for a healthy lifestyle. For more information about non-surgical treatment options for Morton’s Neuroma, call 801-651-3067 to stop your pain, avoid surgery, resume a healthy lifestyle. Frequently Asked Questions
When Should I Seek Treatment? The point at which you consult a doctor for Morton’s Neuroma pain is a personal choice dependent upon your level of comfort in seeking help. Unfortunately, when caught early, the diagnosis is more difficult and less obvious.
|
http://thetaorthotics.com/conditions/mortons-neuroma/
|
msmarco_v2.1_doc_03_316600998#12_590070320
|
Title: Morton's Neuroma: Causes, Symptoms, Orthotics for Treatment
Headings: Morton's Neuroma
Morton's Neuroma
What is Morton’s Neuroma?
What Causes Morton’s Neuroma?
Call 801-651-3067 for a free, no obligation consultation with Dr. Brent Jarrett.
Symptoms of Morton’s Neuroma
Orthotics for Morton’s Neuroma
Standard Theta Custom Orthotics
Premium Theta Custom Orthotics
Dress Theta Orthotics
How Doctors Diagnose Morton’s Neuroma?
Treating and Managing Morton’s Neuroma
Self-Treatment Options to Improve Symptoms
Advanced Treatment Options
Do Theta Orthotics work for Morton’s neuroma?
Frequently Asked Questions
When Should I Seek Treatment?
Why can Theta Orthotics stop pain from Morton’s Neuroma and other arch supports and orthotics can not?
Can foot trauma cause Morton’s Neuroma?
Can you get more than one Morton’s Neuroma?
Can neuromas grow back after surgery?
Our Morton’s Neuroma Success Stories
Live Pain Free Today!
Content: Do not consent to surgery, do not accept the pain, and do not eliminate activities that are important for a healthy lifestyle. For more information about non-surgical treatment options for Morton’s Neuroma, call 801-651-3067 to stop your pain, avoid surgery, resume a healthy lifestyle. Frequently Asked Questions
When Should I Seek Treatment? The point at which you consult a doctor for Morton’s Neuroma pain is a personal choice dependent upon your level of comfort in seeking help. Unfortunately, when caught early, the diagnosis is more difficult and less obvious. Other conditions like stress fractures, arthritis, plantar plate tears, capsulitis, tendonitis, and Morton’s Neuroma are all grouped into a common diagnosis called metatarsalgia. It doesn’t matter if you catch this condition early or late, if you remain active the condition will worsen over time and fail to respond to both conservative and invasive techniques. To complicate the issue further, some doctors do not like to make the diagnosis of Morton’s Neuroma. Both the physician and the insurance companies see red flags when making a Morton’s Neuroma diagnosis. Why can Theta Orthotics stop pain from Morton’s Neuroma and other arch supports and orthotics can not?
|
http://thetaorthotics.com/conditions/mortons-neuroma/
|
msmarco_v2.1_doc_03_316600998#13_590072784
|
Title: Morton's Neuroma: Causes, Symptoms, Orthotics for Treatment
Headings: Morton's Neuroma
Morton's Neuroma
What is Morton’s Neuroma?
What Causes Morton’s Neuroma?
Call 801-651-3067 for a free, no obligation consultation with Dr. Brent Jarrett.
Symptoms of Morton’s Neuroma
Orthotics for Morton’s Neuroma
Standard Theta Custom Orthotics
Premium Theta Custom Orthotics
Dress Theta Orthotics
How Doctors Diagnose Morton’s Neuroma?
Treating and Managing Morton’s Neuroma
Self-Treatment Options to Improve Symptoms
Advanced Treatment Options
Do Theta Orthotics work for Morton’s neuroma?
Frequently Asked Questions
When Should I Seek Treatment?
Why can Theta Orthotics stop pain from Morton’s Neuroma and other arch supports and orthotics can not?
Can foot trauma cause Morton’s Neuroma?
Can you get more than one Morton’s Neuroma?
Can neuromas grow back after surgery?
Our Morton’s Neuroma Success Stories
Live Pain Free Today!
Content: Other conditions like stress fractures, arthritis, plantar plate tears, capsulitis, tendonitis, and Morton’s Neuroma are all grouped into a common diagnosis called metatarsalgia. It doesn’t matter if you catch this condition early or late, if you remain active the condition will worsen over time and fail to respond to both conservative and invasive techniques. To complicate the issue further, some doctors do not like to make the diagnosis of Morton’s Neuroma. Both the physician and the insurance companies see red flags when making a Morton’s Neuroma diagnosis. Why can Theta Orthotics stop pain from Morton’s Neuroma and other arch supports and orthotics can not? All orthotics attempt to supinate or hold a foot in a supinated position during function. Other orthotics and arch supports do not supinate the foot enough to stop the progression of Morton’s Neuroma and healing can not take place. Theta Orthotics use a progressive treatment to stop the pain whether your neuroma is in one or both feet. Whether you have tried conservative treatments or if you have had failed surgery. Theta Orthotics can stop the pain when every other treatment for Morton’s Neuroma has failed.
|
http://thetaorthotics.com/conditions/mortons-neuroma/
|
msmarco_v2.1_doc_03_316600998#14_590075192
|
Title: Morton's Neuroma: Causes, Symptoms, Orthotics for Treatment
Headings: Morton's Neuroma
Morton's Neuroma
What is Morton’s Neuroma?
What Causes Morton’s Neuroma?
Call 801-651-3067 for a free, no obligation consultation with Dr. Brent Jarrett.
Symptoms of Morton’s Neuroma
Orthotics for Morton’s Neuroma
Standard Theta Custom Orthotics
Premium Theta Custom Orthotics
Dress Theta Orthotics
How Doctors Diagnose Morton’s Neuroma?
Treating and Managing Morton’s Neuroma
Self-Treatment Options to Improve Symptoms
Advanced Treatment Options
Do Theta Orthotics work for Morton’s neuroma?
Frequently Asked Questions
When Should I Seek Treatment?
Why can Theta Orthotics stop pain from Morton’s Neuroma and other arch supports and orthotics can not?
Can foot trauma cause Morton’s Neuroma?
Can you get more than one Morton’s Neuroma?
Can neuromas grow back after surgery?
Our Morton’s Neuroma Success Stories
Live Pain Free Today!
Content: All orthotics attempt to supinate or hold a foot in a supinated position during function. Other orthotics and arch supports do not supinate the foot enough to stop the progression of Morton’s Neuroma and healing can not take place. Theta Orthotics use a progressive treatment to stop the pain whether your neuroma is in one or both feet. Whether you have tried conservative treatments or if you have had failed surgery. Theta Orthotics can stop the pain when every other treatment for Morton’s Neuroma has failed. Can foot trauma cause Morton’s Neuroma? A significant number of patients get their first real symptoms of an acute Morton’s Neuroma following some form of trauma to the foot. Trauma that involved a laceration of that same web space, heavy objects dropped on the top of the foot, impact from a fall, or the most common bedroom fractures (5th toe). The trauma creates swelling that spreads throughout the ball of the foot. This swelling compresses the beginnings of an asymptomatic neuroma and can awaken it in full glory quickly.
|
http://thetaorthotics.com/conditions/mortons-neuroma/
|
msmarco_v2.1_doc_03_316633826#2_590127175
|
Title: Stricter gun control laws needed - The Tartan
Headings: Stricter gun control laws needed
Forum
Stricter gun control laws needed
Content: The government isn’t doing enough in terms of enforcing gun control laws, thus making our streets more dangerous. As of 2010, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) stated that federal law does not prohibit members of terrorist organizations from purchasing or possessing firearms or explosives. Furthermore, the GAO reported that “between February 2004 and February 2010, 1,225 firearm and three explosives background checks for people on terrorist watch lists were processed through the federal background check system, [and that] of these, 91 percent of the firearm transactions and 100 percent of the explosives transactions were allowed.” If guns fall into the hands of potential terrorists, it defeats the purpose of the government’s pre-existing gun control measures. The problem of gun violence needs to be addressed both from a cultural point of view and a political perspective. Guns have always been a part of life, and finding a happy medium for gun control is a daunting task. The matter of finding a solution to gun violence is complicated by the fact that many gun activists believe gun control measures do not provide any proven benefit to the public. However, stricter gun control laws have shown an improved general safety outside the U.S.
Australia has succeeded in implementing effective gun control laws, leading to a decrease in both gun suicides and homicides. The Australian federal government persuaded all states and territories to enforce stricter bans on long guns that could be used in mass shootings. While there were 13 mass shootings in Australia between 1979 and 1996, there have not been any since then, demonstrating how such measures have helped make Australia a safer place to live.
|
http://thetartan.org/2012/8/19/forum/gun-control
|
msmarco_v2.1_doc_03_316633826#3_590129235
|
Title: Stricter gun control laws needed - The Tartan
Headings: Stricter gun control laws needed
Forum
Stricter gun control laws needed
Content: Guns have always been a part of life, and finding a happy medium for gun control is a daunting task. The matter of finding a solution to gun violence is complicated by the fact that many gun activists believe gun control measures do not provide any proven benefit to the public. However, stricter gun control laws have shown an improved general safety outside the U.S.
Australia has succeeded in implementing effective gun control laws, leading to a decrease in both gun suicides and homicides. The Australian federal government persuaded all states and territories to enforce stricter bans on long guns that could be used in mass shootings. While there were 13 mass shootings in Australia between 1979 and 1996, there have not been any since then, demonstrating how such measures have helped make Australia a safer place to live. The bottom line is that while guns should not be outlawed entirely, there should be stricter laws enforcing gun control policies. In our country, since just about anyone can legally own a gun, it is much easier for tragedies to occur. While outlawing the use of guns is unconstitutional and unrealistic, enforcing proper gun control laws would create a much safer environment for everyone.
|
http://thetartan.org/2012/8/19/forum/gun-control
|
msmarco_v2.1_doc_03_316730867#8_590324650
|
Title: 7 Reasons Why Asking Questions Helps Learning | The Teachers Digest
Headings: 7 Reasons Why Asking Questions Helps Learning
7 Reasons Why Asking Questions Helps Learning
Content: Teacher explaining answer to student’s question. 7. Students asking questions help you become a better teacher – Some questions posed by students can be stupefying because there is no one teacher in the world who has all the answers at her fingertips. If a question catches you off-guard because you don’t have the answer to it, don’t fret. Instead honestly let your students know that you don’t know the answer and that you will have the answer ready the next time you come to class. This will definitely endear you to your students because not only does it make you more approachable to them, but it also shows them not even adults know everything and that learning is a process that never ends. What is your opinion about questioning in classroom? Please share your ideas with us in the comments section below! Share
|
http://theteachersdigest.com/7-reasons-why-asking-questions-helps-learning/
|
msmarco_v2.1_doc_03_319581878#0_595506311
|
Title: Howard Gardner's 9 Types of Intelligence
Headings: Howard Gardner’s 9 Types of Intelligence
Howard Gardner’s 9 Types of Intelligence
The Nine Types of Intelligence
1. Naturalist Intelligence (“Nature Smart”)
2. Musical Intelligence (“Musical Smart”)
3. Logical-Mathematical Intelligence (Number/Reasoning Smart)
4. Existential Intelligence (Spirit Smart)
5. Interpersonal Intelligence (People Smart”)
6. Bodily-Kinesthetic Intelligence (“Body Smart”)
7. Linguistic Intelligence (Word Smart)
8. Intra-personal Intelligence (Self Smart”)
9. Spatial Intelligence (“Picture Smart”)
Content: Howard Gardner's 9 Types of Intelligence
05 December 2014
Howard Gardner’s 9 Types of Intelligence
Written by Kath Thoresen
Blog, Business Resource, Personal Growth education, personal growth, Professional Dev & Training Comments are off
Which type are you? Read about it then take the test. Many of us are familiar with three general categories in which people learn: visual learners, auditory learners, and kinesthetic learners. Beyond these three general categories, many theories of and approaches toward human potential have been developed. Among them is the theory of multiple intelligences, developed by Howard Gardner, Ph.D., Professor of Education at Harvard University. Gardner’s early work in psychology and later in human cognition and human potential led to the development of the initial six intelligences. Today there are nine intelligences and the possibility of others may eventually expand the list. These intelligences (or competencies) relate to a person’s unique aptitude set of capabilities and ways they might prefer to demonstrate intellectual abilities. People have different strengths and intelligences.
|
http://thetutorreport.com/howard-gardners-9-types-intelligence/
|
msmarco_v2.1_doc_03_319581878#1_595508307
|
Title: Howard Gardner's 9 Types of Intelligence
Headings: Howard Gardner’s 9 Types of Intelligence
Howard Gardner’s 9 Types of Intelligence
The Nine Types of Intelligence
1. Naturalist Intelligence (“Nature Smart”)
2. Musical Intelligence (“Musical Smart”)
3. Logical-Mathematical Intelligence (Number/Reasoning Smart)
4. Existential Intelligence (Spirit Smart)
5. Interpersonal Intelligence (People Smart”)
6. Bodily-Kinesthetic Intelligence (“Body Smart”)
7. Linguistic Intelligence (Word Smart)
8. Intra-personal Intelligence (Self Smart”)
9. Spatial Intelligence (“Picture Smart”)
Content: Among them is the theory of multiple intelligences, developed by Howard Gardner, Ph.D., Professor of Education at Harvard University. Gardner’s early work in psychology and later in human cognition and human potential led to the development of the initial six intelligences. Today there are nine intelligences and the possibility of others may eventually expand the list. These intelligences (or competencies) relate to a person’s unique aptitude set of capabilities and ways they might prefer to demonstrate intellectual abilities. People have different strengths and intelligences. For example, students who are “interviewed” as a means to gain access to a course may be mislabeled as being less than desirable because of inappropriate assessment (poorly written interview questions, bias toward a perceived “perfect student,” and other narrow criteria). “In life, we need people who collectively are good at different things. A well-balanced world, and well-balanced organizations and teams, are necessarily comprised of people who possess different mixtures of intelligences. This gives that group a fuller collective capacity than a group of identical able specialists”
Gardner’s multiple intelligences theory can be used for curriculum development, planning instruction, selection of course activities, and related assessment strategies. Instruction which is designed to help students develop their strengths can also trigger their confidence to develop areas in which they are not as strong.
|
http://thetutorreport.com/howard-gardners-9-types-intelligence/
|
msmarco_v2.1_doc_03_320787118#2_598336693
|
Title: Urbanization of America - TheUSAonline.com
Headings:
People
Urbanization of America
Growth of Cities
Move to Suburbia
Content: Growth of Cities
Until the middle of the 19th century, the center of the city was the most fashionable place to live. Merchants, lawyers, and manufacturers built substantial townhouses on the main thoroughfares within walking distance of the docks, warehouses, offices, courts, and shops where they worked. Poorer people lived in back alleys and courtyards of the central city. Markets, shops, taverns, and concert halls provided services and entertainment. The middle classes lived a little farther from the center, and other poor people lived in the suburbs, farther from the economic and governmental centers and away from urban amenities such as town watches, water pumps, and garbage collection. Cities were densely populated, as people had to live within walking distance of work and shops. Streets were narrow, just wide enough to accommodate pedestrians and wagons. The Industrial Revolution of the 19th and 20th centuries transformed urban life and gave people higher expectations for improving their standard of living. The increased number of jobs, along with technological innovations in transportation and housing construction, encouraged migration to cities. Development of railroads, streetcars, and trolleys in the 19th century enabled city boundaries to expand.
|
http://theusaonline.com/people/urbanization.htm
|
msmarco_v2.1_doc_03_321685095#0_600354882
|
Title: Economic Impact - The Impact Of The Vietnam War
Headings: The Economic Impact.
The Economic Impact.
Content: Economic Impact - The Impact Of The Vietnam War
Home
photos
videos
Human Impact
Political Impact
Economic Impact
Chat
The Economic Impact. The Vietnam War cost the United States 58,000 lives and 350,000 casualties. It also had several effects on the U.S. economy. The requirements of the war effort strained the nation's production capacities, leading to imbalances in the industrial sector. Factories that would have been producing consumer goods were being used to make items from the military, causing controversy over the government's handling of economic policy. In addition, the government's military spending caused several problems for the American economy. The funds were going overseas, which contributed to an imbalance in the balance of payments and a weak dollar, since no corresponding funds were returning to the country. In addition, military expenditures, combined with domestic social spending, created budget deficits which fueled inflation. Anti-war sentiments and dissatisfaction with government further eroded consumer confidence. Interest rates rose, restricting the amount of capital available for businesses and consumers.
|
http://thevietnamwarimpact.weebly.com/economic-impact.html
|
msmarco_v2.1_doc_03_321685095#1_600356339
|
Title: Economic Impact - The Impact Of The Vietnam War
Headings: The Economic Impact.
The Economic Impact.
Content: In addition, the government's military spending caused several problems for the American economy. The funds were going overseas, which contributed to an imbalance in the balance of payments and a weak dollar, since no corresponding funds were returning to the country. In addition, military expenditures, combined with domestic social spending, created budget deficits which fueled inflation. Anti-war sentiments and dissatisfaction with government further eroded consumer confidence. Interest rates rose, restricting the amount of capital available for businesses and consumers. Despite the success of many Kennedy and Johnson economic policies, the Vietnam War was an important factor in bringing down the American economy from the growth and affluence of the early 1960s to the economic crises of the 1970s. http://www.historycentral.com/sixty/Economics/Vietnam.html
Vietnam Economy
Before the US-Vietnam war (1959-1975), Vietnam had a highly centralized economy based on Marxist economic planning. After the war, Vietnam adopted a broad economic trend called 'Doi Moi' (Renovation) to recover from the ravages of the war, the loss of financial support from the Old Soviet Bloc. Later in 1986, the Communist regime changed its economic policy and moved towards the reform of the private sector similar to that seen in China. Since then Vietnam economy has improved, visible in its GDP growth that grew at the rate of 8 % annually from 1990 to 1997.The trend continued from 2000-2002 at a rate of 7 percent.
|
http://thevietnamwarimpact.weebly.com/economic-impact.html
|
msmarco_v2.1_doc_03_321685095#2_600358144
|
Title: Economic Impact - The Impact Of The Vietnam War
Headings: The Economic Impact.
The Economic Impact.
Content: Despite the success of many Kennedy and Johnson economic policies, the Vietnam War was an important factor in bringing down the American economy from the growth and affluence of the early 1960s to the economic crises of the 1970s. http://www.historycentral.com/sixty/Economics/Vietnam.html
Vietnam Economy
Before the US-Vietnam war (1959-1975), Vietnam had a highly centralized economy based on Marxist economic planning. After the war, Vietnam adopted a broad economic trend called 'Doi Moi' (Renovation) to recover from the ravages of the war, the loss of financial support from the Old Soviet Bloc. Later in 1986, the Communist regime changed its economic policy and moved towards the reform of the private sector similar to that seen in China. Since then Vietnam economy has improved, visible in its GDP growth that grew at the rate of 8 % annually from 1990 to 1997.The trend continued from 2000-2002 at a rate of 7 percent. All this led to changes in the Vietnam economy and made it the world's fastest growing economy. It also resulted in between one and two million Vietnamese deaths. http://www.asiarooms.com/en/travel-guide/vietnam/vietnam-overview/vietnam-politics-and-economy.html
|
http://thevietnamwarimpact.weebly.com/economic-impact.html
|
msmarco_v2.1_doc_03_324295628#1_604794188
|
Title: It's time to abolish the Interstate Highway System
Headings:
Content: The Interstate Highway System is often praised as one of President Eisenhower's greatest achievements. At the time the largest public works program in American history, its 41,000 miles of highway cost $25 billion to construct in 1956. Today, it's still a massive, centrally-planned network of freeways with a few regional toll roads sprinkled throughout. Ninety percent of its budget is supposed to be covered by the federal government's Highway Trust Fund. And that's where the problem lies. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the fund's budget shortfall will be about $15 billion every year. You can pretty easily chalk this up to the fact that the fund's coffers are sustained almost exclusively through the federal gas tax. Even as fuel efficiency has improved and Americans have cut back on driving, the tax itself hasn't been increased since 1993. To solve the issue, Democrats want to raise the tax. Many Republicans want to slowly phase out the federal funding altogether and turn it over to the states.
|
http://theweek.com/articles/442326/time-abolish-interstate-highway-system
|
msmarco_v2.1_doc_03_324295628#2_604795479
|
Title: It's time to abolish the Interstate Highway System
Headings:
Content: The Congressional Budget Office estimates the fund's budget shortfall will be about $15 billion every year. You can pretty easily chalk this up to the fact that the fund's coffers are sustained almost exclusively through the federal gas tax. Even as fuel efficiency has improved and Americans have cut back on driving, the tax itself hasn't been increased since 1993. To solve the issue, Democrats want to raise the tax. Many Republicans want to slowly phase out the federal funding altogether and turn it over to the states. I think Republicans could actually attract Democrats to their position, provided a few crucial policy choices are made. The most important thing that abolishing the Interstate Highway System will allow is for states to fund their highway infrastructure through tolls, which is strongly discouraged by the federal government. States would even have the option of taking the further step of privatizing their highways, as former Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels did very successfully with one road in 2006. Eliminating federal funding would also force states to abandon needlessly wasteful projects. One consequence of the DOT's need-based funding is that it encourages states to compete for dollars by wildly overstating how much infrastructure they actually need, even as the actual need continues to decline.
|
http://theweek.com/articles/442326/time-abolish-interstate-highway-system
|
msmarco_v2.1_doc_03_325173543#6_606827586
|
Title: How marriage has changed over centuries
Headings:
Content: When did romance enter the picture? In the 17th and 18th centuries, when Enlightenment thinkers pioneered the idea that life was about the pursuit of happiness. They advocated marrying for love rather than wealth or status. This trend was augmented by the Industrial Revolution and the growth of the middle class in the 19th century, which enabled young men to select a spouse and pay for a wedding, regardless of parental approval. As people took more control of their love lives, they began to demand the right to end unhappy unions. Divorce became much more commonplace. Did marriage change in the 20th century? Dramatically. For thousands of years, law and custom enforced the subordination of wives to husbands. But as the women's-rights movement gained strength in the late 19th and 20th centuries, wives slowly began to insist on being regarded as their husbands' equals, rather than their property. "
|
http://theweek.com/articles/475141/how-marriage-changed-over-centuries
|
msmarco_v2.1_doc_03_325173543#7_606828754
|
Title: How marriage has changed over centuries
Headings:
Content: Divorce became much more commonplace. Did marriage change in the 20th century? Dramatically. For thousands of years, law and custom enforced the subordination of wives to husbands. But as the women's-rights movement gained strength in the late 19th and 20th centuries, wives slowly began to insist on being regarded as their husbands' equals, rather than their property. " By 1970," said Marilyn Yalom, author of A History of the Wife, "marriage law had become gender-neutral in Western democracy." At the same time, the rise of effective contraception fundamentally transformed marriage: Couples could choose how many children to have, and even to have no children at all. If they were unhappy with each other, they could divorce — and nearly half of all couples did. Marriage had become primarily a personal contract between two equals seeking love, stability, and happiness.
|
http://theweek.com/articles/475141/how-marriage-changed-over-centuries
|
msmarco_v2.1_doc_03_325173543#8_606829899
|
Title: How marriage has changed over centuries
Headings:
Content: By 1970," said Marilyn Yalom, author of A History of the Wife, "marriage law had become gender-neutral in Western democracy." At the same time, the rise of effective contraception fundamentally transformed marriage: Couples could choose how many children to have, and even to have no children at all. If they were unhappy with each other, they could divorce — and nearly half of all couples did. Marriage had become primarily a personal contract between two equals seeking love, stability, and happiness. This new definition opened the door to gays and lesbians claiming a right to be married, too. " We now fit under the Western philosophy of marriage," said E.J. Graff, a lesbian and the author of What Is Marriage For? In one very real sense, Coontz says, opponents of gay marriage are correct when they say traditional marriage has been undermined. " But, for better and for worse, traditional marriage has already been destroyed," she says, "and the process began long before anyone even dreamed of legalizing same-sex marriage." Gay 'marriage' in medieval Europe
Same-sex unions aren't a recent invention.
|
http://theweek.com/articles/475141/how-marriage-changed-over-centuries
|
msmarco_v2.1_doc_03_325173543#9_606831284
|
Title: How marriage has changed over centuries
Headings:
Content: This new definition opened the door to gays and lesbians claiming a right to be married, too. " We now fit under the Western philosophy of marriage," said E.J. Graff, a lesbian and the author of What Is Marriage For? In one very real sense, Coontz says, opponents of gay marriage are correct when they say traditional marriage has been undermined. " But, for better and for worse, traditional marriage has already been destroyed," she says, "and the process began long before anyone even dreamed of legalizing same-sex marriage." Gay 'marriage' in medieval Europe
Same-sex unions aren't a recent invention. Until the 13th century, male-bonding ceremonies were common in churches across the Mediterranean. Apart from the couples' gender, these events were almost indistinguishable from other marriages of the era. Twelfth-century liturgies for same-sex unions — also known as "spiritual brotherhoods" — included the recital of marriage prayers, the joining of hands at the altar, and a ceremonial kiss. Some historians believe these unions were merely a way to seal alliances and business deals. But Eric Berkowitz, author of Sex and Punishment, says it is "difficult to believe that these rituals did not contemplate erotic contact.
|
http://theweek.com/articles/475141/how-marriage-changed-over-centuries
|
msmarco_v2.1_doc_03_325321914#8_607139888
|
Title: The origins of marriage
Headings:
Content: The rules were so strict that any American woman who married a foreigner immediately lost her citizenship. How did this tradition change? Women won the right to vote. When that happened, in 1920, the institution of marriage began a dramatic transformation. Suddenly, each union consisted of two full citizens, although tradition dictated that the husband still ruled the home. By the late 1960s, state laws forbidding interracial marriage had been thrown out, and the last states had dropped laws against the use of birth control. By the 1970s, the law finally recognized the concept of marital rape, which up to that point was inconceivable, as the husband owned his wifes sexuality. The idea that marriage is a private relationship for the fulfillment of two individuals is really very new, said historian Stephanie Coontz, author of The Way We Never Were: American Families and the Nostalgia Trap. Within the past 40 years, marriage has changed more than in the last 5,000.
Men who married men
Gay marriage is rare in historybut not unknown.
|
http://theweek.com/articles/528746/origins-marriage
|
msmarco_v2.1_doc_03_325479453#0_607488381
|
Title: The ancestral immigrant history of anti-immigrant crusader Donald Trump
Headings:
Content: The ancestral immigrant history of anti-immigrant crusader Donald Trump
When Donald Trump declared his candidacy for president at Trump Tower on June 16, the real kickoff wasn't the actual announcement ("I am officially running") but his remarks on immigration. " The U.S. has become a dumping ground for everybody else's problems," he said, and then went on to denounce Mexican immigrants as criminals, drug dealers, and rapists. " We have no protection and we have no competence, we don't know what's happening. And it's got to stop and it's got to stop fast." Fact checkers squawked. They pointed out that net immigration from Mexico is now zero, if not negative (that is, the number of people returning to Mexico from the U.S. is at least as great as the number of new arrivals), and that there are now more arrivals from Asia than from Latin America. When questioned, Trump refused to back down. Instead he accelerated, pointing to a handful of criminal acts by undocumented immigrants as a virtual crime wave. Trump has since widened his scope of attack on immigrants by saying on Face The Nation that Syrian refugees may be "the greatest Trojan horse" — that is, there may be terrorists among them — and should be steered away from American shores. But fact checkers aren't Trump's intended audience.
|
http://theweek.com/articles/580042/ancestral-immigrant-history-antiimmigrant-crusader-donald-trump
|
msmarco_v2.1_doc_03_329872101#0_615162209
|
Title: Top 9 Things In Entertainment From The 1990’s – The Wise Guise
Headings: Top 9 Things In Entertainment From The 1990’s
Top 9 Things In Entertainment From The 1990’s
9. The ‘Jurassic Park’ Franchise (1993-1997)
8. ‘Jagged Little Pill,’ Alanis Morissette (1995)
7. WCW vs. WWE – The Monday Night Wars (1995-1999)
6. The Work of Tupac Shakur (1990-1996)
5. The SEGA/Nintendo Rivalry (1992-1999)
4. Seinfeld (1990-1998)
3. ‘Smells Like Teen Spirit,’ Nirvana (1991)
2. The Disney Renaissance (1990-1999)
1. Saturday Night Live (1990 – 1999)
Content: Top 9 Things In Entertainment From The 1990’s – The Wise Guise
Top 9 Things In Entertainment From The 1990’s
September 27, 2012
February 2, 2018
Darrell Tucker
Ah, 90’s entertainment. For today’s generation of youngsters, it’s probably an era akin to the digital Stone Age. Internet was dial-up, cell phones were attached to bulky bags in our cars and Google was some search engine weird people used (all the cool kids in computer lab were on Yahoo! or Netscape). For those of us who grew up in this decade, though, it brings up a whirlwind of nostalgia. Like the primitive cell phones attached to those big, black bags, the 90s were gigantic, brash and over-the-top, yet at the time and even today, we still view them as being cool. The American exceptionalism that returned in the 1980s kicked into full blast in the 90s, as the U.S. set global trends for the emerging presence of online and, of course, our number one export: entertainment. Movies, music, TV and other mediums saw radical departures from prior decades. The mainstream altered into one of non-conformity, fueled by an anxious consumer base that kept giving up more cash as entertainers pushed the social boundaries of language, sexuality, violence and more.
|
http://thewiseguise.com/2012/09/top-9-things-in-entertainment-from-the-1990s/
|
msmarco_v2.1_doc_03_329872101#1_615164288
|
Title: Top 9 Things In Entertainment From The 1990’s – The Wise Guise
Headings: Top 9 Things In Entertainment From The 1990’s
Top 9 Things In Entertainment From The 1990’s
9. The ‘Jurassic Park’ Franchise (1993-1997)
8. ‘Jagged Little Pill,’ Alanis Morissette (1995)
7. WCW vs. WWE – The Monday Night Wars (1995-1999)
6. The Work of Tupac Shakur (1990-1996)
5. The SEGA/Nintendo Rivalry (1992-1999)
4. Seinfeld (1990-1998)
3. ‘Smells Like Teen Spirit,’ Nirvana (1991)
2. The Disney Renaissance (1990-1999)
1. Saturday Night Live (1990 – 1999)
Content: Like the primitive cell phones attached to those big, black bags, the 90s were gigantic, brash and over-the-top, yet at the time and even today, we still view them as being cool. The American exceptionalism that returned in the 1980s kicked into full blast in the 90s, as the U.S. set global trends for the emerging presence of online and, of course, our number one export: entertainment. Movies, music, TV and other mediums saw radical departures from prior decades. The mainstream altered into one of non-conformity, fueled by an anxious consumer base that kept giving up more cash as entertainers pushed the social boundaries of language, sexuality, violence and more. Today, these things seem commonplace, but during the 90s, they were groundbreaking. And so let us celebrate the decade that was. It was extremely difficult to produce a list of just nine things, and I’m sure everyone reading this will have their own thoughts on what should and shouldn’t have been included. Ultimately, this list is intended to provide those reading a time capsule of what it meant to live in this great time. 9.
|
http://thewiseguise.com/2012/09/top-9-things-in-entertainment-from-the-1990s/
|
msmarco_v2.1_doc_03_329872101#2_615166219
|
Title: Top 9 Things In Entertainment From The 1990’s – The Wise Guise
Headings: Top 9 Things In Entertainment From The 1990’s
Top 9 Things In Entertainment From The 1990’s
9. The ‘Jurassic Park’ Franchise (1993-1997)
8. ‘Jagged Little Pill,’ Alanis Morissette (1995)
7. WCW vs. WWE – The Monday Night Wars (1995-1999)
6. The Work of Tupac Shakur (1990-1996)
5. The SEGA/Nintendo Rivalry (1992-1999)
4. Seinfeld (1990-1998)
3. ‘Smells Like Teen Spirit,’ Nirvana (1991)
2. The Disney Renaissance (1990-1999)
1. Saturday Night Live (1990 – 1999)
Content: Today, these things seem commonplace, but during the 90s, they were groundbreaking. And so let us celebrate the decade that was. It was extremely difficult to produce a list of just nine things, and I’m sure everyone reading this will have their own thoughts on what should and shouldn’t have been included. Ultimately, this list is intended to provide those reading a time capsule of what it meant to live in this great time. 9. The ‘Jurassic Park’ Franchise (1993-1997)
There were many culturally defining films of the 1990s, from ‘Titanic’ to ‘Forest Gump.’ So many, in fact, if I started to rank them, they’d make up a list of more than nine alone. When thinking back to films that really impacted the entire decade, nothing comes to mind more quickly than ‘Jurassic Park.’ Steven Spielberg’s 1993 masterpiece was revolutionary for its use of computer-generated effects, which are now used in pretty much all films and TV series out of Hollywood. It wasn’t just the imagery, though;
|
http://thewiseguise.com/2012/09/top-9-things-in-entertainment-from-the-1990s/
|
msmarco_v2.1_doc_03_329872101#3_615168092
|
Title: Top 9 Things In Entertainment From The 1990’s – The Wise Guise
Headings: Top 9 Things In Entertainment From The 1990’s
Top 9 Things In Entertainment From The 1990’s
9. The ‘Jurassic Park’ Franchise (1993-1997)
8. ‘Jagged Little Pill,’ Alanis Morissette (1995)
7. WCW vs. WWE – The Monday Night Wars (1995-1999)
6. The Work of Tupac Shakur (1990-1996)
5. The SEGA/Nintendo Rivalry (1992-1999)
4. Seinfeld (1990-1998)
3. ‘Smells Like Teen Spirit,’ Nirvana (1991)
2. The Disney Renaissance (1990-1999)
1. Saturday Night Live (1990 – 1999)
Content: The ‘Jurassic Park’ Franchise (1993-1997)
There were many culturally defining films of the 1990s, from ‘Titanic’ to ‘Forest Gump.’ So many, in fact, if I started to rank them, they’d make up a list of more than nine alone. When thinking back to films that really impacted the entire decade, nothing comes to mind more quickly than ‘Jurassic Park.’ Steven Spielberg’s 1993 masterpiece was revolutionary for its use of computer-generated effects, which are now used in pretty much all films and TV series out of Hollywood. It wasn’t just the imagery, though; the ‘Jurassic Park’ films fueled the culture’s fascination with developments in science and technology. Innovations were being announced on what felt like a daily basis, and these films played into the idea that perhaps man could even resurrect the dinosaurs. I remember when ‘Jurassic Park’ came out, I went to see it three times. Keep in mind, I was five-years-old at the time. I have no idea what my parents were thinking.
|
http://thewiseguise.com/2012/09/top-9-things-in-entertainment-from-the-1990s/
|
msmarco_v2.1_doc_03_329872101#4_615169976
|
Title: Top 9 Things In Entertainment From The 1990’s – The Wise Guise
Headings: Top 9 Things In Entertainment From The 1990’s
Top 9 Things In Entertainment From The 1990’s
9. The ‘Jurassic Park’ Franchise (1993-1997)
8. ‘Jagged Little Pill,’ Alanis Morissette (1995)
7. WCW vs. WWE – The Monday Night Wars (1995-1999)
6. The Work of Tupac Shakur (1990-1996)
5. The SEGA/Nintendo Rivalry (1992-1999)
4. Seinfeld (1990-1998)
3. ‘Smells Like Teen Spirit,’ Nirvana (1991)
2. The Disney Renaissance (1990-1999)
1. Saturday Night Live (1990 – 1999)
Content: the ‘Jurassic Park’ films fueled the culture’s fascination with developments in science and technology. Innovations were being announced on what felt like a daily basis, and these films played into the idea that perhaps man could even resurrect the dinosaurs. I remember when ‘Jurassic Park’ came out, I went to see it three times. Keep in mind, I was five-years-old at the time. I have no idea what my parents were thinking. I couldn’t get enough of that big T-Rex or the creepy scene with the raptors attacking the children in the cafeteria. My head ducked below my seat for that one. The 1997 follow-up, ‘The Lost World’ is a decent successor, but the franchise as a whole was really what opened the imaginations of many filmmakers and young people alike. 8. ‘ Jagged Little Pill,’ Alanis Morissette (1995)
Was it the album of the decade?
|
http://thewiseguise.com/2012/09/top-9-things-in-entertainment-from-the-1990s/
|
msmarco_v2.1_doc_03_329872101#5_615171689
|
Title: Top 9 Things In Entertainment From The 1990’s – The Wise Guise
Headings: Top 9 Things In Entertainment From The 1990’s
Top 9 Things In Entertainment From The 1990’s
9. The ‘Jurassic Park’ Franchise (1993-1997)
8. ‘Jagged Little Pill,’ Alanis Morissette (1995)
7. WCW vs. WWE – The Monday Night Wars (1995-1999)
6. The Work of Tupac Shakur (1990-1996)
5. The SEGA/Nintendo Rivalry (1992-1999)
4. Seinfeld (1990-1998)
3. ‘Smells Like Teen Spirit,’ Nirvana (1991)
2. The Disney Renaissance (1990-1999)
1. Saturday Night Live (1990 – 1999)
Content: I couldn’t get enough of that big T-Rex or the creepy scene with the raptors attacking the children in the cafeteria. My head ducked below my seat for that one. The 1997 follow-up, ‘The Lost World’ is a decent successor, but the franchise as a whole was really what opened the imaginations of many filmmakers and young people alike. 8. ‘ Jagged Little Pill,’ Alanis Morissette (1995)
Was it the album of the decade? I certainly could make the case for it. Regardless of where it measures among the musical works of the 90s, ‘Jagged Little Pill’ was undoubtedly one of the most influential albums of modern times. The angry young woman who spewed contempt for her past boyfriends, adolescence and even her very own existence was just like a massive bomb being dropped on American culture. By the end of the decade, it moved over 30 million copies, more than any other in the same time period. Fans will lovingly remember ‘Ironic’ and ‘You Oughta Know,’ but sleeper hits like ‘Hand in My Pocket’ and ‘You Learn’ shouldn’t be forgotten either.
|
http://thewiseguise.com/2012/09/top-9-things-in-entertainment-from-the-1990s/
|
msmarco_v2.1_doc_03_329872101#6_615173631
|
Title: Top 9 Things In Entertainment From The 1990’s – The Wise Guise
Headings: Top 9 Things In Entertainment From The 1990’s
Top 9 Things In Entertainment From The 1990’s
9. The ‘Jurassic Park’ Franchise (1993-1997)
8. ‘Jagged Little Pill,’ Alanis Morissette (1995)
7. WCW vs. WWE – The Monday Night Wars (1995-1999)
6. The Work of Tupac Shakur (1990-1996)
5. The SEGA/Nintendo Rivalry (1992-1999)
4. Seinfeld (1990-1998)
3. ‘Smells Like Teen Spirit,’ Nirvana (1991)
2. The Disney Renaissance (1990-1999)
1. Saturday Night Live (1990 – 1999)
Content: I certainly could make the case for it. Regardless of where it measures among the musical works of the 90s, ‘Jagged Little Pill’ was undoubtedly one of the most influential albums of modern times. The angry young woman who spewed contempt for her past boyfriends, adolescence and even her very own existence was just like a massive bomb being dropped on American culture. By the end of the decade, it moved over 30 million copies, more than any other in the same time period. Fans will lovingly remember ‘Ironic’ and ‘You Oughta Know,’ but sleeper hits like ‘Hand in My Pocket’ and ‘You Learn’ shouldn’t be forgotten either. Alanis’ stringy dark hair, large, dark clothing and screw-you attitude embodied the anxious youth movement of the generation. More importantly, the album really paved the way for the female artists of today, who are mixing crude lyrics with the latest tunes in pop. 7. WCW vs. WWE – The Monday Night Wars (1995-1999)
For the first half of the 1900s, professional wrestling was primarily viewed as an actual sport among most Americans. Well, that was until they discovered the matches were pre-determined and most of the action was composed of fake punches.
|
http://thewiseguise.com/2012/09/top-9-things-in-entertainment-from-the-1990s/
|
msmarco_v2.1_doc_03_329872101#7_615175699
|
Title: Top 9 Things In Entertainment From The 1990’s – The Wise Guise
Headings: Top 9 Things In Entertainment From The 1990’s
Top 9 Things In Entertainment From The 1990’s
9. The ‘Jurassic Park’ Franchise (1993-1997)
8. ‘Jagged Little Pill,’ Alanis Morissette (1995)
7. WCW vs. WWE – The Monday Night Wars (1995-1999)
6. The Work of Tupac Shakur (1990-1996)
5. The SEGA/Nintendo Rivalry (1992-1999)
4. Seinfeld (1990-1998)
3. ‘Smells Like Teen Spirit,’ Nirvana (1991)
2. The Disney Renaissance (1990-1999)
1. Saturday Night Live (1990 – 1999)
Content: Alanis’ stringy dark hair, large, dark clothing and screw-you attitude embodied the anxious youth movement of the generation. More importantly, the album really paved the way for the female artists of today, who are mixing crude lyrics with the latest tunes in pop. 7. WCW vs. WWE – The Monday Night Wars (1995-1999)
For the first half of the 1900s, professional wrestling was primarily viewed as an actual sport among most Americans. Well, that was until they discovered the matches were pre-determined and most of the action was composed of fake punches. Since then, the business rightfully took its place as entertainment. In the 1990s, that business really rose to prominence when Ted Turner’s World Championship Wrestling opted to produce a Monday night show called ‘Nitro’ that would go head-to-head with Vince McMahon’s World Wrestling Entertainment and its flagship program, ‘RAW,’ which aired on the same night. The decisions was seen early on as loony by some industry insiders, but would go on to produce the most viewed era in the history of professional wrestling. Week-after-week, over 10 million viewers would tune in to watch both programs. Fans would eagerly await each week to see ‘Stone Cold’ Steve Austin get the best of his boss Mr. McMahon or Goldberg extend his winning streak.
|
http://thewiseguise.com/2012/09/top-9-things-in-entertainment-from-the-1990s/
|
msmarco_v2.1_doc_03_329872101#8_615177871
|
Title: Top 9 Things In Entertainment From The 1990’s – The Wise Guise
Headings: Top 9 Things In Entertainment From The 1990’s
Top 9 Things In Entertainment From The 1990’s
9. The ‘Jurassic Park’ Franchise (1993-1997)
8. ‘Jagged Little Pill,’ Alanis Morissette (1995)
7. WCW vs. WWE – The Monday Night Wars (1995-1999)
6. The Work of Tupac Shakur (1990-1996)
5. The SEGA/Nintendo Rivalry (1992-1999)
4. Seinfeld (1990-1998)
3. ‘Smells Like Teen Spirit,’ Nirvana (1991)
2. The Disney Renaissance (1990-1999)
1. Saturday Night Live (1990 – 1999)
Content: Since then, the business rightfully took its place as entertainment. In the 1990s, that business really rose to prominence when Ted Turner’s World Championship Wrestling opted to produce a Monday night show called ‘Nitro’ that would go head-to-head with Vince McMahon’s World Wrestling Entertainment and its flagship program, ‘RAW,’ which aired on the same night. The decisions was seen early on as loony by some industry insiders, but would go on to produce the most viewed era in the history of professional wrestling. Week-after-week, over 10 million viewers would tune in to watch both programs. Fans would eagerly await each week to see ‘Stone Cold’ Steve Austin get the best of his boss Mr. McMahon or Goldberg extend his winning streak. The revenue generated by the rivalry would be so great, by the year 2000, WWE became a billion-dollar publicly traded company and a cornerstone of cable television. WCW, on the other hand, would go out of business due to declining ratings and tickets sales in 2001. Fans of the business still look back on the time as a shining moment that personified the ‘Attitude Era’ of the 1990s. 6. The Work of Tupac Shakur (1990-1996)
Nothing else could better sum up the 1990s rap scene than one name:
|
http://thewiseguise.com/2012/09/top-9-things-in-entertainment-from-the-1990s/
|
msmarco_v2.1_doc_03_329872101#9_615179979
|
Title: Top 9 Things In Entertainment From The 1990’s – The Wise Guise
Headings: Top 9 Things In Entertainment From The 1990’s
Top 9 Things In Entertainment From The 1990’s
9. The ‘Jurassic Park’ Franchise (1993-1997)
8. ‘Jagged Little Pill,’ Alanis Morissette (1995)
7. WCW vs. WWE – The Monday Night Wars (1995-1999)
6. The Work of Tupac Shakur (1990-1996)
5. The SEGA/Nintendo Rivalry (1992-1999)
4. Seinfeld (1990-1998)
3. ‘Smells Like Teen Spirit,’ Nirvana (1991)
2. The Disney Renaissance (1990-1999)
1. Saturday Night Live (1990 – 1999)
Content: The revenue generated by the rivalry would be so great, by the year 2000, WWE became a billion-dollar publicly traded company and a cornerstone of cable television. WCW, on the other hand, would go out of business due to declining ratings and tickets sales in 2001. Fans of the business still look back on the time as a shining moment that personified the ‘Attitude Era’ of the 1990s. 6. The Work of Tupac Shakur (1990-1996)
Nothing else could better sum up the 1990s rap scene than one name: 2Pac. 2Pac defined the genre throughout the 1990s, with his electric lyrics and controversial statements on inner-city life. The artist was at the middle of many dilemmas between the east and west hip-hop cultures. And of course, he famously became the first man to have a number one album – ‘Me Against the World’ – while serving out a prison sentence. Then, in the 1996, it all tragically ended.
|
http://thewiseguise.com/2012/09/top-9-things-in-entertainment-from-the-1990s/
|
msmarco_v2.1_doc_03_329872101#10_615181721
|
Title: Top 9 Things In Entertainment From The 1990’s – The Wise Guise
Headings: Top 9 Things In Entertainment From The 1990’s
Top 9 Things In Entertainment From The 1990’s
9. The ‘Jurassic Park’ Franchise (1993-1997)
8. ‘Jagged Little Pill,’ Alanis Morissette (1995)
7. WCW vs. WWE – The Monday Night Wars (1995-1999)
6. The Work of Tupac Shakur (1990-1996)
5. The SEGA/Nintendo Rivalry (1992-1999)
4. Seinfeld (1990-1998)
3. ‘Smells Like Teen Spirit,’ Nirvana (1991)
2. The Disney Renaissance (1990-1999)
1. Saturday Night Live (1990 – 1999)
Content: 2Pac. 2Pac defined the genre throughout the 1990s, with his electric lyrics and controversial statements on inner-city life. The artist was at the middle of many dilemmas between the east and west hip-hop cultures. And of course, he famously became the first man to have a number one album – ‘Me Against the World’ – while serving out a prison sentence. Then, in the 1996, it all tragically ended. While some elitist music critics will undoubtedly snub my very suggestion, I think the shooting of 2pac left just as big a dent on the world of music as John Lennon’s assassination did. He was a god of the rap culture that embodied the violence and hardship of life for many during the era. His legacy was amazing, with over 75 million albums sold in his short career. However, the more telling impact is how much he is still referred to by today’s artists. Hell, he’s even being hologramed in.
|
http://thewiseguise.com/2012/09/top-9-things-in-entertainment-from-the-1990s/
|
msmarco_v2.1_doc_03_329872101#11_615183470
|
Title: Top 9 Things In Entertainment From The 1990’s – The Wise Guise
Headings: Top 9 Things In Entertainment From The 1990’s
Top 9 Things In Entertainment From The 1990’s
9. The ‘Jurassic Park’ Franchise (1993-1997)
8. ‘Jagged Little Pill,’ Alanis Morissette (1995)
7. WCW vs. WWE – The Monday Night Wars (1995-1999)
6. The Work of Tupac Shakur (1990-1996)
5. The SEGA/Nintendo Rivalry (1992-1999)
4. Seinfeld (1990-1998)
3. ‘Smells Like Teen Spirit,’ Nirvana (1991)
2. The Disney Renaissance (1990-1999)
1. Saturday Night Live (1990 – 1999)
Content: While some elitist music critics will undoubtedly snub my very suggestion, I think the shooting of 2pac left just as big a dent on the world of music as John Lennon’s assassination did. He was a god of the rap culture that embodied the violence and hardship of life for many during the era. His legacy was amazing, with over 75 million albums sold in his short career. However, the more telling impact is how much he is still referred to by today’s artists. Hell, he’s even being hologramed in. 5. The SEGA/Nintendo Rivalry (1992-1999)
“Which one do you like more – Genesis or Super Nintendo?” That was question is engrained in the minds of many young men from the early 1990s. It was also a sign of the booming video game business, which was getting just as important in the culture as movies and music. Gaming initially rose in the 1980s, thanks to the Nintendo Entertainment System, but by the early 90s, those gamers were getting older.
|
http://thewiseguise.com/2012/09/top-9-things-in-entertainment-from-the-1990s/
|
msmarco_v2.1_doc_03_329872101#12_615185263
|
Title: Top 9 Things In Entertainment From The 1990’s – The Wise Guise
Headings: Top 9 Things In Entertainment From The 1990’s
Top 9 Things In Entertainment From The 1990’s
9. The ‘Jurassic Park’ Franchise (1993-1997)
8. ‘Jagged Little Pill,’ Alanis Morissette (1995)
7. WCW vs. WWE – The Monday Night Wars (1995-1999)
6. The Work of Tupac Shakur (1990-1996)
5. The SEGA/Nintendo Rivalry (1992-1999)
4. Seinfeld (1990-1998)
3. ‘Smells Like Teen Spirit,’ Nirvana (1991)
2. The Disney Renaissance (1990-1999)
1. Saturday Night Live (1990 – 1999)
Content: 5. The SEGA/Nintendo Rivalry (1992-1999)
“Which one do you like more – Genesis or Super Nintendo?” That was question is engrained in the minds of many young men from the early 1990s. It was also a sign of the booming video game business, which was getting just as important in the culture as movies and music. Gaming initially rose in the 1980s, thanks to the Nintendo Entertainment System, but by the early 90s, those gamers were getting older. SEGA capitalized on this with aggressive marketing, including their BLAST processing and “SEGA does what Nintendon’t.” And it actually worked for a while. The Genesis outsold the SNES in the U.S. early on. The fortunes would eventually change, though. Nintendo would continue to innovate and move with the times and is still in business till this very day.
|
http://thewiseguise.com/2012/09/top-9-things-in-entertainment-from-the-1990s/
|
msmarco_v2.1_doc_03_329872101#13_615186918
|
Title: Top 9 Things In Entertainment From The 1990’s – The Wise Guise
Headings: Top 9 Things In Entertainment From The 1990’s
Top 9 Things In Entertainment From The 1990’s
9. The ‘Jurassic Park’ Franchise (1993-1997)
8. ‘Jagged Little Pill,’ Alanis Morissette (1995)
7. WCW vs. WWE – The Monday Night Wars (1995-1999)
6. The Work of Tupac Shakur (1990-1996)
5. The SEGA/Nintendo Rivalry (1992-1999)
4. Seinfeld (1990-1998)
3. ‘Smells Like Teen Spirit,’ Nirvana (1991)
2. The Disney Renaissance (1990-1999)
1. Saturday Night Live (1990 – 1999)
Content: SEGA capitalized on this with aggressive marketing, including their BLAST processing and “SEGA does what Nintendon’t.” And it actually worked for a while. The Genesis outsold the SNES in the U.S. early on. The fortunes would eventually change, though. Nintendo would continue to innovate and move with the times and is still in business till this very day. In contrast, SEGA would have a string of console failures before leaving the gaming hardware business for good in 2001. Fans look back on this time as a golden one for gaming’s birth, and calls from some for SEGA to get back in the hardware business show the lasting impact the two companies left on consumers during the decade. 4. Seinfeld (1990-1998)
No TV series left more of a lasting impact on the culture of the 1990s than ‘Seinfeld.’ Its footprint was so large that it still continues to air in syndication on a nightly basis in most regular markets.
|
http://thewiseguise.com/2012/09/top-9-things-in-entertainment-from-the-1990s/
|
msmarco_v2.1_doc_03_329872101#14_615188685
|
Title: Top 9 Things In Entertainment From The 1990’s – The Wise Guise
Headings: Top 9 Things In Entertainment From The 1990’s
Top 9 Things In Entertainment From The 1990’s
9. The ‘Jurassic Park’ Franchise (1993-1997)
8. ‘Jagged Little Pill,’ Alanis Morissette (1995)
7. WCW vs. WWE – The Monday Night Wars (1995-1999)
6. The Work of Tupac Shakur (1990-1996)
5. The SEGA/Nintendo Rivalry (1992-1999)
4. Seinfeld (1990-1998)
3. ‘Smells Like Teen Spirit,’ Nirvana (1991)
2. The Disney Renaissance (1990-1999)
1. Saturday Night Live (1990 – 1999)
Content: In contrast, SEGA would have a string of console failures before leaving the gaming hardware business for good in 2001. Fans look back on this time as a golden one for gaming’s birth, and calls from some for SEGA to get back in the hardware business show the lasting impact the two companies left on consumers during the decade. 4. Seinfeld (1990-1998)
No TV series left more of a lasting impact on the culture of the 1990s than ‘Seinfeld.’ Its footprint was so large that it still continues to air in syndication on a nightly basis in most regular markets. The ‘show about nothing’ that revolved around four friends trying to make it socially and professionally in New York captured the evolving idea of everyday life as being the primary source of humor. ‘Seinfeld’ was more often than not the highest rated comedy series on television until its end in 1998. The decision was made for the show to go out on top as opposed to lingering around, and it was a wise one. Fans clamoring for a reunion have had their hopes dashed many times, but were given a glimpse into the idea on a recent season of ‘Curb Your Enthusiasm,’ starring ‘Seinfeld’ creator Larry David. As for the stars of the show, they became iconic.
|
http://thewiseguise.com/2012/09/top-9-things-in-entertainment-from-the-1990s/
|
msmarco_v2.1_doc_03_329872101#15_615190775
|
Title: Top 9 Things In Entertainment From The 1990’s – The Wise Guise
Headings: Top 9 Things In Entertainment From The 1990’s
Top 9 Things In Entertainment From The 1990’s
9. The ‘Jurassic Park’ Franchise (1993-1997)
8. ‘Jagged Little Pill,’ Alanis Morissette (1995)
7. WCW vs. WWE – The Monday Night Wars (1995-1999)
6. The Work of Tupac Shakur (1990-1996)
5. The SEGA/Nintendo Rivalry (1992-1999)
4. Seinfeld (1990-1998)
3. ‘Smells Like Teen Spirit,’ Nirvana (1991)
2. The Disney Renaissance (1990-1999)
1. Saturday Night Live (1990 – 1999)
Content: The ‘show about nothing’ that revolved around four friends trying to make it socially and professionally in New York captured the evolving idea of everyday life as being the primary source of humor. ‘Seinfeld’ was more often than not the highest rated comedy series on television until its end in 1998. The decision was made for the show to go out on top as opposed to lingering around, and it was a wise one. Fans clamoring for a reunion have had their hopes dashed many times, but were given a glimpse into the idea on a recent season of ‘Curb Your Enthusiasm,’ starring ‘Seinfeld’ creator Larry David. As for the stars of the show, they became iconic. So much so most of the leading cast members had a hard time anchoring other TV series after the show ended because of how identified they were with their ‘Seinfeld’ characters. Who can blame viewers though? This remains perhaps the greatest series in TV history and has produced enough one-liners to fill daily desk calendars for years to come. 3. ‘ Smells Like Teen Spirit,’ Nirvana (1991)
If you wanted a summary of 1990s music, really all you would need to do is make someone listen to this killer 1991 track that brilliantly kicked off the alternative rock culture of the 1990s.
|
http://thewiseguise.com/2012/09/top-9-things-in-entertainment-from-the-1990s/
|
msmarco_v2.1_doc_03_329872101#16_615192895
|
Title: Top 9 Things In Entertainment From The 1990’s – The Wise Guise
Headings: Top 9 Things In Entertainment From The 1990’s
Top 9 Things In Entertainment From The 1990’s
9. The ‘Jurassic Park’ Franchise (1993-1997)
8. ‘Jagged Little Pill,’ Alanis Morissette (1995)
7. WCW vs. WWE – The Monday Night Wars (1995-1999)
6. The Work of Tupac Shakur (1990-1996)
5. The SEGA/Nintendo Rivalry (1992-1999)
4. Seinfeld (1990-1998)
3. ‘Smells Like Teen Spirit,’ Nirvana (1991)
2. The Disney Renaissance (1990-1999)
1. Saturday Night Live (1990 – 1999)
Content: So much so most of the leading cast members had a hard time anchoring other TV series after the show ended because of how identified they were with their ‘Seinfeld’ characters. Who can blame viewers though? This remains perhaps the greatest series in TV history and has produced enough one-liners to fill daily desk calendars for years to come. 3. ‘ Smells Like Teen Spirit,’ Nirvana (1991)
If you wanted a summary of 1990s music, really all you would need to do is make someone listen to this killer 1991 track that brilliantly kicked off the alternative rock culture of the 1990s. And that culture spilled into every other aspect of entertainment, lavishly coating the era with an aggressive attitude wildly different from past decades. The single was revered as an ‘anthem for apathetic kids,’ but it became so much more. It shaped the the perception of anxious youth in the 90s, a bunch of angry young men and women who were ready to see the boundaries set up by the parents torn down. It was, in a sense, culture shock, wrapped up in a sweet, little song. ‘Smells Like Teen Spirit’ would launch Nirvana into superstardom, something they were not crazy about.
|
http://thewiseguise.com/2012/09/top-9-things-in-entertainment-from-the-1990s/
|
msmarco_v2.1_doc_03_329872101#17_615194921
|
Title: Top 9 Things In Entertainment From The 1990’s – The Wise Guise
Headings: Top 9 Things In Entertainment From The 1990’s
Top 9 Things In Entertainment From The 1990’s
9. The ‘Jurassic Park’ Franchise (1993-1997)
8. ‘Jagged Little Pill,’ Alanis Morissette (1995)
7. WCW vs. WWE – The Monday Night Wars (1995-1999)
6. The Work of Tupac Shakur (1990-1996)
5. The SEGA/Nintendo Rivalry (1992-1999)
4. Seinfeld (1990-1998)
3. ‘Smells Like Teen Spirit,’ Nirvana (1991)
2. The Disney Renaissance (1990-1999)
1. Saturday Night Live (1990 – 1999)
Content: And that culture spilled into every other aspect of entertainment, lavishly coating the era with an aggressive attitude wildly different from past decades. The single was revered as an ‘anthem for apathetic kids,’ but it became so much more. It shaped the the perception of anxious youth in the 90s, a bunch of angry young men and women who were ready to see the boundaries set up by the parents torn down. It was, in a sense, culture shock, wrapped up in a sweet, little song. ‘Smells Like Teen Spirit’ would launch Nirvana into superstardom, something they were not crazy about. Within a few short years, lead singer Kurt Cobain would be dead, and the band’s legacy would be seen as all-too brief. You would think this would cause their work to be forgotten, but it was quite the opposite. The single is still seen by many music critics as one of the best rock songs of all time and deservedly so. 2. The Disney Renaissance (1990-1999)
It must seem odd to go from aggressive youth to the very opposite of such.
|
http://thewiseguise.com/2012/09/top-9-things-in-entertainment-from-the-1990s/
|
msmarco_v2.1_doc_03_329872101#18_615196781
|
Title: Top 9 Things In Entertainment From The 1990’s – The Wise Guise
Headings: Top 9 Things In Entertainment From The 1990’s
Top 9 Things In Entertainment From The 1990’s
9. The ‘Jurassic Park’ Franchise (1993-1997)
8. ‘Jagged Little Pill,’ Alanis Morissette (1995)
7. WCW vs. WWE – The Monday Night Wars (1995-1999)
6. The Work of Tupac Shakur (1990-1996)
5. The SEGA/Nintendo Rivalry (1992-1999)
4. Seinfeld (1990-1998)
3. ‘Smells Like Teen Spirit,’ Nirvana (1991)
2. The Disney Renaissance (1990-1999)
1. Saturday Night Live (1990 – 1999)
Content: Within a few short years, lead singer Kurt Cobain would be dead, and the band’s legacy would be seen as all-too brief. You would think this would cause their work to be forgotten, but it was quite the opposite. The single is still seen by many music critics as one of the best rock songs of all time and deservedly so. 2. The Disney Renaissance (1990-1999)
It must seem odd to go from aggressive youth to the very opposite of such. But the switch had to
|
http://thewiseguise.com/2012/09/top-9-things-in-entertainment-from-the-1990s/
|
msmarco_v2.1_doc_03_332198446#20_619157679
|
Title: Why We Write: Four Reasons
Headings: Why We Write: Four Reasons
Why We Write: Four Reasons
This post was first published in July, 2012.
4 Reasons Why We Write
Why Do We Write? To be fully alive.
We write to make a name for ourselves.
We write to change the world.
We write to discover meaning.
PRACTICE
Joe Bunting
Content: My thoughts, however fleeting, my feelings, how ever deep or shallow at the time, my memories of why I am this way at this time, my love of self, gone. I just recently started writing again. This is the first very public piece. Thank you for giving me my voice back, holding my hand as I stand back up from being knocked down, so to spesk. see more
Show more replies
−
+
anonymous • 2 years ago
How can someone truly express their feelings and opinions without offending someone. This world has become so argumentative over the years that I have witnessed. Everyone has an opinion and there will always be someone to tell you your wrong or how it affects someone particular. Writing is such a critical thing dissecting everything you say for each consumer, exhausting! You can't keep everyone happy and interested. You can however, keep a group of people interested and write on that particular subject and run with it.
|
http://thewritepractice.com/why-we-write/
|
msmarco_v2.1_doc_03_338148110#0_627606428
|
Title: Free Speech, The Framers' Greatest Contribution excerpted from the book Why Societies Need Dissent by Cass R. Sunstein
Headings:
Free Speech,
The Framers' Greatest Contribution
excerpted from the book
Why Societies Need Dissent
by Cass R. Sunstein
Harvard University Press, 2003, paper
p97
The free speech principle forbids government from punishing people for publicly rejecting widely held opinions. To this extent, it creates crucial protection against the blunders and pathologies that can come from social influences on behavior and belief. At the same time, freedom of expression diminishes the gap between a nation's leaders and its citizens, and for that reason promotes monitoring of the former by the latter. James Madison, the author of the first amendment, used this point to object to the whole idea of a "Sedition Act," which would criminalize certain forms of criticism of public officials. Madison urged that "the right of electing the members of the Government constitutes ... the essence of a free and responsible government" and that the "value and efficacy of this right depends on the knowledge of the comparative merits and demerits of the candidates for the public trust."'
But what, in particular, does the free speech principle require In the common understanding, the principle bans government from "censoring" speech of which it disapproves. In the usual cases, the government attempts to impose penalties, whether civil or criminal, on political dissent, art, commercial advertising, or sexually explicit speech. In most cases, these penalties are unacceptable. The constitutional question is whether the government has a legitimate and sufficiently weighty reason for restricting the speech that it seeks to control. In a free society, government cannot defend restrictions by pointing to the risk that the speech will prove dangerous or harmful. Even a significant risk is insufficient to justify censorship. Dissenters are permitted to criticize official policy in both war and peace. Nor is it enough for government to say that the speech is likely to persuade people to reject received beliefs-or even to accept false beliefs. Officials cannot regulate speech on the ground that people will be convinced by it. If government is going to restrict speech that it fears, it must show that the speech is likely to cause, and is intended to cause, imminent lawless action. This burden might be met in rare cases, as, for example, when someone is disclosing the names of undercover agents for the Central Intelligence Agency in an effort to put their lives at risk. But speech under this highly protective standard is rarely subject to government control.
Of course, the right to free speech extends well beyond politics. But at its core, that right is designed to protect political disagreement and dissent. In this way, it furnishes the foundation for democratic self-government. The protection of dissenters is intended not only to protect individual speakers but also to protect the countless number of people who benefit from the courage, or foolhardiness, of those who dissent. When someone blows the whistle on government fraud or deceit, the real winners are members of the public, not the whistleblower. Legal protection of whistleblowing is an effort to ensure the free flow of information.
As an illustration of this particular point, consider the Pentagon Papers case.' In 1969 and 1970 Daniel Ellsberg, a former official in the Department of State, copied a top-secret study of the Vietnam War. The study explored the formulation of U.S. policy toward Indochina. Its forty-seven volumes included discussions of secret diplomatic negotiations and military operations. Ellsberg gave the Pentagon Papers to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator William Fulbright, and later to The New York Times and The Washington Post, both of which sought to publish excerpts. Ellsberg was a classic whistleblower. He believed that the government had lied to its citizens and that the release of the Pentagon Papers was necessary to set the record straight. For its part, the government's fears extended beyond its own embarrassment; officials claimed that disclosure would impair the nation's ability to negotiate with its enemy, thus prolonging the war and leading to countless avoidable deaths. Invoking this concern, the government sought to enjoin publication.
Dividing five to four, the Supreme Court rejected the government's arguments. Justice Hugo Black wrote that government cannot "halt the publication of current news of vital importance to the people of this country." He added that the government's "power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censor the Government. The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people." To say the least, judges do not usually take a strong stand against the President in the midst of war. Other Supreme Courts, with other justices, might not show similar courage. But it is revealing that the government's fears proved unjustified. The publication of the Pentagon Papers did not cause demonstrable harm. Decades later, the Pentagon Papers case stands as a dramatic symbol of the constitutional protection afforded to disclosure and dissent... With an appreciation of the importance of dissent, we can better understand what has become the "core" of modern free speech law: a prohibition on government discrimination against any point of view.
p106
The twentieth century saw the emergence of the great .' "general interest intermediaries"-daily newspapers, weekly news-magazines, commercial broadcasters, and public museums. These private institutions came to serve, for better or worse, some of the functions of traditional public forums. They did, and do, this by exposing people to topics and ideas that they have not specifically selected and also by creating, much of the time, something like a shared culture. To the (limited) extent that dissenters are able to reach a diverse public, it is because they are able to have access to information sources that themselves serve diverse people.
p107
if the daily newspaper is doing a decent job, readers will come across a wide range of topics and opinions, including those in which they might have expressed no interest in advance.
p107
Newspapers, weekly newsmagazines, and evening news shows have some such effects every day. One of their primary social functions is to expose readers and viewers to a range of new topics and dissenting opinions.
p109
... a well-functioning system of free speech. But it should be clear that such a system depends not only on freedom from censorship but also on private and public institutions ensuring that a wide range of views will be heard.
p109
Free societies depend on a high degree of receptivity, in which many perspectives are heard and in which dissent and disagreement are not unwelcome.
p109
Even in democracies, disparities in power play a large role in silencing dissent-sometimes by ensuring that dissenters keep quiet, but more insidiously by ensuring that dissenters are not really heard. Social science offers relevant lessons here; it shows that members of low-status groups-less educated people, African Americans, sometimes women-carry less influence within deliberating groups than their higher-status peers. In the actual world of deliberation, powerless dissenters face an array of obstacles to a fair hearing.
The point underlies a broader one: The free speech principle is mostly about law, not about culture. A legal system that is committed to free speech forbids government from silencing dissenters. That is an extraordinary accomplishment, but it is not nearly enough... people often silence themselves not because of law but because they defer to the crowd... A well-functioning democracy has a culture of free speech, not simply legal protection of free speech. It encourages independence of mind. It imparts a willingness to challenge prevailing opinion through both words and deeds. Equally important, it encourages a certain set of attitudes in listeners, one that gives a respectful hearing to those who do not embrace the conventional wisdom. In a culture of free speech, the attitude of listeners is no less important than that of speakers.
p111
Greater information reduces conformity effects ...
p112
Political extremism is often a product of group polarization. In fact, a good way to create an extremist group, or cult of any kind, is to separate members from the rest of society. The separation can occur physically or psychologically, by creating a sense of suspicion about nonmembers. With such separation, the information and views of those outside the group can be discredited and hence nothing will disturb the process of polarization as group members continue to talk.
p145
... the American founders' largest contribution consisted in their design of a system that would ensure a place for diverse views in government. The founding period saw an extraordinary debate over the nature of republican institutions, and in particular over the legacy of Montesquieu. Montesquieu was a revered source for all sides and a central figure in the development of the idea of separation of powers. The antifederalists, eloquent opponents of the proposed Constitution, complained that the framers had betrayed Montesquieu by attempting to create a powerful central government, one that was impossibly ill-suited to American diversity. In their public writings during the debates over whether the Constitution should be ratified, many of the antifederalists urged that a republic could flourish only in homogenous areas of like-minded people. An especially articulate antifederalist wrote under the name "Brutus," in honor of the Roman republican who participated in the assassination of Julius Caesar to prevent Caesar from overthrowing the Roman republic. Brutus spoke for the republican tradition when he told the American people: "In a republic, the manners, sentiments, and interests of the people should be similar. If this be not the case, there will be constant clashing of opinions; and the representatives of one part will be continually striving against those of the other."
Advocates of the Constitution believed that Brutus had it exactly backwards. They welcomed the diversity and the "constantly clashing of opinions." They affirmatively sought a situation in which "the representatives of one part will be continually striving against those of the other." Alexander Hamilton spoke most clearly on the point, urging that the "differences of opinion, and the jarring of parties in [the legislative] department of the government... often promote deliberation and circumspection; and serve to check the excesses of the majority."
p146
Luther Gulick was a high-level official in the Roosevelt administration during World War II. In 1948, shortly after the Allied victory, Gulick delivered a series of lectures, unimaginatively titled Administrative Reflections from World War II, which offered, in some (tedious) detail, a set of observations about bureaucratic structure and administrative reform.' In a brief and far-from-tedious epilogue, Gulick set out to compare the warmaking capacities of democracies with those of their Fascist adversaries.
Gulick began by noting that the initial evaluation of the United States among leaders of Germany and Japan was "not flattering. We were, in their view, "incapable of quick or effective national action even in our own defense because under democracy we were divided by our polyglot society and under capitalism deadlocked by our conflicting private interests." Our adversaries said that we could not fight. And dictatorships did seem to have real advantages. They were free of delays, inertia, and sharp internal divisions. They did not have to deal on a continuing basis with the contending opinions of a mass of citizens, some with little education and little intelligence. Dictatorships could also rely on a single leader and an integrated hierarchy, making it easier to develop national unity and enthusiasm, to avoid the surprises and reversals that come from a free citizenry, and to act vigorously and with dispatch. But these claims about the advantages of totalitarian regimes turned out to be bogus.
The United States and its allies performed far better than Germany, Italy, and Japan. Gulick linked their superiority directly to democracy itself. In particular, he emphasized "the kind of review and criticism which democracy alone affords. With a totalitarian regime, plans "are hatched in secret by a small group of partially informed men and then enforced through dictatorial authority." Such plans are likely to contain fatal weaknesses. By contrast, a democracy allows wide criticism and debate, thus avoiding "many a disaster." In a totalitarian system, criticisms and suggestions are neither wanted nor heeded. "Even the leaders tend to believe their own propaganda. All of the stream of authority and information is from the top down," so that when change is needed, the high command never learns of that need. This is a description of groupthink in action. In a democracy, by contrast, "the public and the press have no hesitation in observing and criticizing the first evidence of failure once a program has been put into operation." Information flows within the government-between the lowest and highest ranks-and via public opinion.
With a combination of melancholy and surprise, Gulick note that the United States and its allies did not show more unity than Germany, Japan, and Italy. "The gregarious social impulses of men around the world are apparently much the same, giving rise to the same reactions of group loyalty when men are subjected to the same true or imagined group threats."' Top-down management of mass morale by German and Japanese leaders actually worked.
Dictatorships are less successful in war not because of less loyalty or more distrust from the public but because leaders do not receive the checks and corrections that come from democratic processes. (The military failures of Saddam Hussein are a recent case in point, though Saddam also faced widespread internal disloyalty.)
Gulick is claiming here that institutions perform better when challenges are frequent, when people do not stifle themselves, and when information flows freely. Of course, Gulick is providing his personal account of a particular set of events, and we do not really know to what extent success in war is a product of democratic institutions. The Soviet Union, for example, fought valiantly and well even under the tyranny of Stalin. But Gulick's general claim contains a great deal of truth. Institutions are far more likely to succeed if they subject leaders to critical scrutiny and if they ensure that courses of action will face continuing monitoring and review from outsiders-if, in short, they use diversity and dissent to reduce the risks of error that come from social influences.
Gulick's emphasis on the values of open debate is strengthened by one of the most striking findings in the last half-century of social science: In the history of the world, no society with democratic elections and a free press has ever experienced a famine. As Nobel Prize recipient Amartya Sen has shown, famines are a product not merely of food scarcity but also of social responses to food scarcity. If a nation is determined to prevent mass starvation, and if it has even a minimal level of resources, mass starvation will not occur. An authoritarian government might lack the will or the information to prevent thousands of people from dying. But a democratic government, checked by the people and the press, is likely to take all reasonable measures to prevent this catastrophe, if only because it needs to do so to stay in office. At the same time, a free society facing the risk of famine is likely to have a great deal of information, at every stage, about the nature of the emerging problem and the effectiveness of current or possible responses. If famine relief plans are (in Gulick's words) "hatched in secret by a small group of partially informed men and then enforced through dictatorial authority," failure is far more likely. In a free society, some dissenters or malcontents will point out that a famine is on the horizon. If they offer evidence, leaders are going to have to respond to the risk of catastrophe.
Sen's finding is an especially vivid reminder of what happens every day in democracies. Diversity, openness, and dissent reveal actual and incipient problems. They improve society's pool of information and make it more likely that serious issues will be addressed. I do not deny that great suffering can be found in democracies as elsewhere. There is no guarantee, from civil liberties alone, that such suffering will be minimized. One reason is unequal distributions of political power, which decrease the likelihood that important information will actually reach public officials and that such officials will have the proper incentive to respond to suffering. But at least it can be said that a society which permits dissent and does not impose conformity is in a far better position to be aware of, and to correct, serious social problems.
Or consider the problem of witch-hunts-mass movements against made-up internal conspiracies. Witch-hunts are often conducted by public officials, aspiring or actual. They can also be carried out by people in the private sector, seeking to "purge" society of perceived threats. As the McCarthy period in the United States demonstrates, witch-hunts are far from impossible in democracies. We have seen that cascades and group polarization occur in free societies, and witch-hunts, including McCarthyism, are made possible by these social influences. But witch-hunts are far less likely, and far less damaging, in a system in which dissenters are able to disclose what they know and to check any claims about the disloyalty of fellow citizens." If civil liberties are firmly protected and if information is permitted to flow, skeptics can establish that the supposed internal conspiracies are a myth.
... Above all, the Constitution attempts to create a deliberative democracy, that is, a system that combines accountability to the 1 people with a measure of reflection and reason-giving. 12 In the last decades, many people have discussed the framers' aspiration to deliberative democracy. Their goal has been to show that a well-functioning democratic system attempts to ensure not merely responsiveness to the people through elections but also an exchange of reasons in the public sphere. In a deliberative democracy, the exercise of public power must be justified by legitimate reasons-not merely by the will of some segment of society, and indeed not merely by the will of the majority.
Both the opponents and the advocates of the Constitution were firmly committed to political deliberation. They also considered themselves "republicans," committed to a high degree of self-government without embracing pure populism. But deliberative democracies come in many different forms. The framers' greatest innovation consisted not in their emphasis on deliberation, which was uncontested at the time, but in their skepticism about homogeneity, their enthusiasm for disagreement and diversity, and their effort to accommodate and to structure that diversity. In the founding period, a large part of the country's discussion turned on the possibility of having a republican form of government in a nation with a heterogeneous citizenry.
The antifederalists, opponents of the proposed Constitution, thought this was impossible. [They ... insisted that the people "should be similar" and feared that without similarity "there will be constant clashing of opinions." The framers welcomed such clashing and urged that the "jarring of parties" would "promote deliberation and circumspection." As the framers stressed, widespread error is likely to result when likeminded people, insulated from others, deliberate on their own. In their view, heterogeneity of opinion can be a creative force. A Constitution that ensures the "jarring of parties" and "differences of opinion" will provide safeguards against unjustified extremism and unsupportable movements of view.
A similar point emerges from one of the most illuminating early debates, which raised the question whether the Bill of Rights should include a "right to instruct" representatives. Those in favor of that right argued that citizens of a particular region ought to have the authority to bind their representatives to vote in accordance with the citizens' views. This argument might appear reasonable as a way of improving the political accountability of representatives, and so it seemed to many at the time. In fact I suspect that many people in America and elsewhere would favor the "right to instruct" today. Shouldn't representatives do as their constituents wish? But there is a problem with this view, especially in an era in which political interest was closely aligned with geography. Citizens of a particular region, influenced by one another's views, are more likely to end up with indefensible positions, very possibly as a result of their own insularity ...
p152
... federalism permits states to restrain one another. A particularly important part of this process involves the right of individual citizens to exit. If one state oppresses its citizens, they have the freedom to leave. That very freedom creates a before-the-fact deterrent to oppressive legislation. It also creates an after-the-fact safeguard. In this sense, the right to travel from one sovereign state to another is first and foremost a political right, akin to the right to vote itself.
p155
An understanding of group influences also casts fresh light on one of the most important and controversial provisions in the American Constitution: the grant of power to Congress, and not the President, to declare war." The debates in the framing period suggest a fear of two risks: the President might make war without sufficient authorization from the citizenry, and he might do so without sufficient deliberation and debate among diverse people. Thus, Charles Pinkney of South Carolina urged that the Senate "would be the best depository, being more acquainted with foreign affairs, and most capable of proper resolutions." 'By contrast, another delegate from that state, Peirce Butler, sought to vest the power of war in the President, urging that he "will have all the requisite qualities, and will not make war but when the Nation will support it." Madison and Elbridge Gerry made the key compromise, suggesting that Congress should have the power to "declare" war. This provision was understood to permit the President "to repel sudden attacks." But otherwise, the President would be required to seek congressional approval, in part on the theory that (in Mason's words) this would amount "to clogging rather than facilitating war" and to "facilitating peace.
If warmaking is seen to be an especially grave act, we might be troubled about permitting the President to make war on his own. This is not at all because the President is immune from political checks. It is because group dynamics within the executive branch create a risk of polarization, as like-minded people push one another to indefensible extremes, while hidden profiles remain hidden. A requirement of congressional authorization ensures a check from another institution, with diverse voices and a degree of independence from the executive branch. There are few guarantees in life, but the result is to increase the likelihood that when the nation goes to war, it is for good and sufficient reasons.
p160
Thomas Jefferson wrote, turbulence can be
"productive of good. It prevents the degeneracy of government, and nourishes a general attention to ... public affairs. I hold ... that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing.
p165
... what three words in the English language "can define a person's character" He answered his own question with those three words: "I was wrong."
Why Societies Need Dissent
Home Page
Content: Free Speech, The Framers' Greatest Contribution excerpted from the book Why Societies Need Dissent by Cass R. Sunstein
Free Speech,
The Framers' Greatest Contribution
excerpted from the book
Why Societies Need Dissent
by Cass R. Sunstein
Harvard University Press, 2003, paper
p97
The free speech principle forbids government from punishing people for publicly rejecting widely held opinions. To this extent, it creates crucial protection against the blunders and pathologies that can come from social influences on behavior and belief. At the same time, freedom of expression diminishes the gap between a nation's leaders and its citizens, and for that reason promotes monitoring of the former by the latter. James Madison, the author of the first amendment, used this point to object to the whole idea of a "Sedition Act," which would criminalize certain forms of criticism of public officials. Madison urged that "the right of electing the members of the Government constitutes ... the essence of a free and responsible government" and that the "value and efficacy of this right depends on the knowledge of the comparative merits and demerits of the candidates for the public trust."' But what, in particular, does the free speech principle require In the common understanding, the principle bans government from "censoring" speech of which it disapproves. In the usual cases, the government attempts to impose penalties, whether civil or criminal, on political dissent, art, commercial advertising, or sexually explicit speech. In most cases, these penalties are unacceptable. The constitutional question is whether the government has a legitimate and sufficiently weighty reason for restricting the speech that it seeks to control. In a free society, government cannot defend restrictions by pointing to the risk that the speech will prove dangerous or harmful.
|
http://thirdworldtraveler.com/Dissent/Free_Speech_WSND.html
|
msmarco_v2.1_doc_03_338148110#1_627632912
|
Title: Free Speech, The Framers' Greatest Contribution excerpted from the book Why Societies Need Dissent by Cass R. Sunstein
Headings:
Free Speech,
The Framers' Greatest Contribution
excerpted from the book
Why Societies Need Dissent
by Cass R. Sunstein
Harvard University Press, 2003, paper
p97
The free speech principle forbids government from punishing people for publicly rejecting widely held opinions. To this extent, it creates crucial protection against the blunders and pathologies that can come from social influences on behavior and belief. At the same time, freedom of expression diminishes the gap between a nation's leaders and its citizens, and for that reason promotes monitoring of the former by the latter. James Madison, the author of the first amendment, used this point to object to the whole idea of a "Sedition Act," which would criminalize certain forms of criticism of public officials. Madison urged that "the right of electing the members of the Government constitutes ... the essence of a free and responsible government" and that the "value and efficacy of this right depends on the knowledge of the comparative merits and demerits of the candidates for the public trust."'
But what, in particular, does the free speech principle require In the common understanding, the principle bans government from "censoring" speech of which it disapproves. In the usual cases, the government attempts to impose penalties, whether civil or criminal, on political dissent, art, commercial advertising, or sexually explicit speech. In most cases, these penalties are unacceptable. The constitutional question is whether the government has a legitimate and sufficiently weighty reason for restricting the speech that it seeks to control. In a free society, government cannot defend restrictions by pointing to the risk that the speech will prove dangerous or harmful. Even a significant risk is insufficient to justify censorship. Dissenters are permitted to criticize official policy in both war and peace. Nor is it enough for government to say that the speech is likely to persuade people to reject received beliefs-or even to accept false beliefs. Officials cannot regulate speech on the ground that people will be convinced by it. If government is going to restrict speech that it fears, it must show that the speech is likely to cause, and is intended to cause, imminent lawless action. This burden might be met in rare cases, as, for example, when someone is disclosing the names of undercover agents for the Central Intelligence Agency in an effort to put their lives at risk. But speech under this highly protective standard is rarely subject to government control.
Of course, the right to free speech extends well beyond politics. But at its core, that right is designed to protect political disagreement and dissent. In this way, it furnishes the foundation for democratic self-government. The protection of dissenters is intended not only to protect individual speakers but also to protect the countless number of people who benefit from the courage, or foolhardiness, of those who dissent. When someone blows the whistle on government fraud or deceit, the real winners are members of the public, not the whistleblower. Legal protection of whistleblowing is an effort to ensure the free flow of information.
As an illustration of this particular point, consider the Pentagon Papers case.' In 1969 and 1970 Daniel Ellsberg, a former official in the Department of State, copied a top-secret study of the Vietnam War. The study explored the formulation of U.S. policy toward Indochina. Its forty-seven volumes included discussions of secret diplomatic negotiations and military operations. Ellsberg gave the Pentagon Papers to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator William Fulbright, and later to The New York Times and The Washington Post, both of which sought to publish excerpts. Ellsberg was a classic whistleblower. He believed that the government had lied to its citizens and that the release of the Pentagon Papers was necessary to set the record straight. For its part, the government's fears extended beyond its own embarrassment; officials claimed that disclosure would impair the nation's ability to negotiate with its enemy, thus prolonging the war and leading to countless avoidable deaths. Invoking this concern, the government sought to enjoin publication.
Dividing five to four, the Supreme Court rejected the government's arguments. Justice Hugo Black wrote that government cannot "halt the publication of current news of vital importance to the people of this country." He added that the government's "power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censor the Government. The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people." To say the least, judges do not usually take a strong stand against the President in the midst of war. Other Supreme Courts, with other justices, might not show similar courage. But it is revealing that the government's fears proved unjustified. The publication of the Pentagon Papers did not cause demonstrable harm. Decades later, the Pentagon Papers case stands as a dramatic symbol of the constitutional protection afforded to disclosure and dissent... With an appreciation of the importance of dissent, we can better understand what has become the "core" of modern free speech law: a prohibition on government discrimination against any point of view.
p106
The twentieth century saw the emergence of the great .' "general interest intermediaries"-daily newspapers, weekly news-magazines, commercial broadcasters, and public museums. These private institutions came to serve, for better or worse, some of the functions of traditional public forums. They did, and do, this by exposing people to topics and ideas that they have not specifically selected and also by creating, much of the time, something like a shared culture. To the (limited) extent that dissenters are able to reach a diverse public, it is because they are able to have access to information sources that themselves serve diverse people.
p107
if the daily newspaper is doing a decent job, readers will come across a wide range of topics and opinions, including those in which they might have expressed no interest in advance.
p107
Newspapers, weekly newsmagazines, and evening news shows have some such effects every day. One of their primary social functions is to expose readers and viewers to a range of new topics and dissenting opinions.
p109
... a well-functioning system of free speech. But it should be clear that such a system depends not only on freedom from censorship but also on private and public institutions ensuring that a wide range of views will be heard.
p109
Free societies depend on a high degree of receptivity, in which many perspectives are heard and in which dissent and disagreement are not unwelcome.
p109
Even in democracies, disparities in power play a large role in silencing dissent-sometimes by ensuring that dissenters keep quiet, but more insidiously by ensuring that dissenters are not really heard. Social science offers relevant lessons here; it shows that members of low-status groups-less educated people, African Americans, sometimes women-carry less influence within deliberating groups than their higher-status peers. In the actual world of deliberation, powerless dissenters face an array of obstacles to a fair hearing.
The point underlies a broader one: The free speech principle is mostly about law, not about culture. A legal system that is committed to free speech forbids government from silencing dissenters. That is an extraordinary accomplishment, but it is not nearly enough... people often silence themselves not because of law but because they defer to the crowd... A well-functioning democracy has a culture of free speech, not simply legal protection of free speech. It encourages independence of mind. It imparts a willingness to challenge prevailing opinion through both words and deeds. Equally important, it encourages a certain set of attitudes in listeners, one that gives a respectful hearing to those who do not embrace the conventional wisdom. In a culture of free speech, the attitude of listeners is no less important than that of speakers.
p111
Greater information reduces conformity effects ...
p112
Political extremism is often a product of group polarization. In fact, a good way to create an extremist group, or cult of any kind, is to separate members from the rest of society. The separation can occur physically or psychologically, by creating a sense of suspicion about nonmembers. With such separation, the information and views of those outside the group can be discredited and hence nothing will disturb the process of polarization as group members continue to talk.
p145
... the American founders' largest contribution consisted in their design of a system that would ensure a place for diverse views in government. The founding period saw an extraordinary debate over the nature of republican institutions, and in particular over the legacy of Montesquieu. Montesquieu was a revered source for all sides and a central figure in the development of the idea of separation of powers. The antifederalists, eloquent opponents of the proposed Constitution, complained that the framers had betrayed Montesquieu by attempting to create a powerful central government, one that was impossibly ill-suited to American diversity. In their public writings during the debates over whether the Constitution should be ratified, many of the antifederalists urged that a republic could flourish only in homogenous areas of like-minded people. An especially articulate antifederalist wrote under the name "Brutus," in honor of the Roman republican who participated in the assassination of Julius Caesar to prevent Caesar from overthrowing the Roman republic. Brutus spoke for the republican tradition when he told the American people: "In a republic, the manners, sentiments, and interests of the people should be similar. If this be not the case, there will be constant clashing of opinions; and the representatives of one part will be continually striving against those of the other."
Advocates of the Constitution believed that Brutus had it exactly backwards. They welcomed the diversity and the "constantly clashing of opinions." They affirmatively sought a situation in which "the representatives of one part will be continually striving against those of the other." Alexander Hamilton spoke most clearly on the point, urging that the "differences of opinion, and the jarring of parties in [the legislative] department of the government... often promote deliberation and circumspection; and serve to check the excesses of the majority."
p146
Luther Gulick was a high-level official in the Roosevelt administration during World War II. In 1948, shortly after the Allied victory, Gulick delivered a series of lectures, unimaginatively titled Administrative Reflections from World War II, which offered, in some (tedious) detail, a set of observations about bureaucratic structure and administrative reform.' In a brief and far-from-tedious epilogue, Gulick set out to compare the warmaking capacities of democracies with those of their Fascist adversaries.
Gulick began by noting that the initial evaluation of the United States among leaders of Germany and Japan was "not flattering. We were, in their view, "incapable of quick or effective national action even in our own defense because under democracy we were divided by our polyglot society and under capitalism deadlocked by our conflicting private interests." Our adversaries said that we could not fight. And dictatorships did seem to have real advantages. They were free of delays, inertia, and sharp internal divisions. They did not have to deal on a continuing basis with the contending opinions of a mass of citizens, some with little education and little intelligence. Dictatorships could also rely on a single leader and an integrated hierarchy, making it easier to develop national unity and enthusiasm, to avoid the surprises and reversals that come from a free citizenry, and to act vigorously and with dispatch. But these claims about the advantages of totalitarian regimes turned out to be bogus.
The United States and its allies performed far better than Germany, Italy, and Japan. Gulick linked their superiority directly to democracy itself. In particular, he emphasized "the kind of review and criticism which democracy alone affords. With a totalitarian regime, plans "are hatched in secret by a small group of partially informed men and then enforced through dictatorial authority." Such plans are likely to contain fatal weaknesses. By contrast, a democracy allows wide criticism and debate, thus avoiding "many a disaster." In a totalitarian system, criticisms and suggestions are neither wanted nor heeded. "Even the leaders tend to believe their own propaganda. All of the stream of authority and information is from the top down," so that when change is needed, the high command never learns of that need. This is a description of groupthink in action. In a democracy, by contrast, "the public and the press have no hesitation in observing and criticizing the first evidence of failure once a program has been put into operation." Information flows within the government-between the lowest and highest ranks-and via public opinion.
With a combination of melancholy and surprise, Gulick note that the United States and its allies did not show more unity than Germany, Japan, and Italy. "The gregarious social impulses of men around the world are apparently much the same, giving rise to the same reactions of group loyalty when men are subjected to the same true or imagined group threats."' Top-down management of mass morale by German and Japanese leaders actually worked.
Dictatorships are less successful in war not because of less loyalty or more distrust from the public but because leaders do not receive the checks and corrections that come from democratic processes. (The military failures of Saddam Hussein are a recent case in point, though Saddam also faced widespread internal disloyalty.)
Gulick is claiming here that institutions perform better when challenges are frequent, when people do not stifle themselves, and when information flows freely. Of course, Gulick is providing his personal account of a particular set of events, and we do not really know to what extent success in war is a product of democratic institutions. The Soviet Union, for example, fought valiantly and well even under the tyranny of Stalin. But Gulick's general claim contains a great deal of truth. Institutions are far more likely to succeed if they subject leaders to critical scrutiny and if they ensure that courses of action will face continuing monitoring and review from outsiders-if, in short, they use diversity and dissent to reduce the risks of error that come from social influences.
Gulick's emphasis on the values of open debate is strengthened by one of the most striking findings in the last half-century of social science: In the history of the world, no society with democratic elections and a free press has ever experienced a famine. As Nobel Prize recipient Amartya Sen has shown, famines are a product not merely of food scarcity but also of social responses to food scarcity. If a nation is determined to prevent mass starvation, and if it has even a minimal level of resources, mass starvation will not occur. An authoritarian government might lack the will or the information to prevent thousands of people from dying. But a democratic government, checked by the people and the press, is likely to take all reasonable measures to prevent this catastrophe, if only because it needs to do so to stay in office. At the same time, a free society facing the risk of famine is likely to have a great deal of information, at every stage, about the nature of the emerging problem and the effectiveness of current or possible responses. If famine relief plans are (in Gulick's words) "hatched in secret by a small group of partially informed men and then enforced through dictatorial authority," failure is far more likely. In a free society, some dissenters or malcontents will point out that a famine is on the horizon. If they offer evidence, leaders are going to have to respond to the risk of catastrophe.
Sen's finding is an especially vivid reminder of what happens every day in democracies. Diversity, openness, and dissent reveal actual and incipient problems. They improve society's pool of information and make it more likely that serious issues will be addressed. I do not deny that great suffering can be found in democracies as elsewhere. There is no guarantee, from civil liberties alone, that such suffering will be minimized. One reason is unequal distributions of political power, which decrease the likelihood that important information will actually reach public officials and that such officials will have the proper incentive to respond to suffering. But at least it can be said that a society which permits dissent and does not impose conformity is in a far better position to be aware of, and to correct, serious social problems.
Or consider the problem of witch-hunts-mass movements against made-up internal conspiracies. Witch-hunts are often conducted by public officials, aspiring or actual. They can also be carried out by people in the private sector, seeking to "purge" society of perceived threats. As the McCarthy period in the United States demonstrates, witch-hunts are far from impossible in democracies. We have seen that cascades and group polarization occur in free societies, and witch-hunts, including McCarthyism, are made possible by these social influences. But witch-hunts are far less likely, and far less damaging, in a system in which dissenters are able to disclose what they know and to check any claims about the disloyalty of fellow citizens." If civil liberties are firmly protected and if information is permitted to flow, skeptics can establish that the supposed internal conspiracies are a myth.
... Above all, the Constitution attempts to create a deliberative democracy, that is, a system that combines accountability to the 1 people with a measure of reflection and reason-giving. 12 In the last decades, many people have discussed the framers' aspiration to deliberative democracy. Their goal has been to show that a well-functioning democratic system attempts to ensure not merely responsiveness to the people through elections but also an exchange of reasons in the public sphere. In a deliberative democracy, the exercise of public power must be justified by legitimate reasons-not merely by the will of some segment of society, and indeed not merely by the will of the majority.
Both the opponents and the advocates of the Constitution were firmly committed to political deliberation. They also considered themselves "republicans," committed to a high degree of self-government without embracing pure populism. But deliberative democracies come in many different forms. The framers' greatest innovation consisted not in their emphasis on deliberation, which was uncontested at the time, but in their skepticism about homogeneity, their enthusiasm for disagreement and diversity, and their effort to accommodate and to structure that diversity. In the founding period, a large part of the country's discussion turned on the possibility of having a republican form of government in a nation with a heterogeneous citizenry.
The antifederalists, opponents of the proposed Constitution, thought this was impossible. [They ... insisted that the people "should be similar" and feared that without similarity "there will be constant clashing of opinions." The framers welcomed such clashing and urged that the "jarring of parties" would "promote deliberation and circumspection." As the framers stressed, widespread error is likely to result when likeminded people, insulated from others, deliberate on their own. In their view, heterogeneity of opinion can be a creative force. A Constitution that ensures the "jarring of parties" and "differences of opinion" will provide safeguards against unjustified extremism and unsupportable movements of view.
A similar point emerges from one of the most illuminating early debates, which raised the question whether the Bill of Rights should include a "right to instruct" representatives. Those in favor of that right argued that citizens of a particular region ought to have the authority to bind their representatives to vote in accordance with the citizens' views. This argument might appear reasonable as a way of improving the political accountability of representatives, and so it seemed to many at the time. In fact I suspect that many people in America and elsewhere would favor the "right to instruct" today. Shouldn't representatives do as their constituents wish? But there is a problem with this view, especially in an era in which political interest was closely aligned with geography. Citizens of a particular region, influenced by one another's views, are more likely to end up with indefensible positions, very possibly as a result of their own insularity ...
p152
... federalism permits states to restrain one another. A particularly important part of this process involves the right of individual citizens to exit. If one state oppresses its citizens, they have the freedom to leave. That very freedom creates a before-the-fact deterrent to oppressive legislation. It also creates an after-the-fact safeguard. In this sense, the right to travel from one sovereign state to another is first and foremost a political right, akin to the right to vote itself.
p155
An understanding of group influences also casts fresh light on one of the most important and controversial provisions in the American Constitution: the grant of power to Congress, and not the President, to declare war." The debates in the framing period suggest a fear of two risks: the President might make war without sufficient authorization from the citizenry, and he might do so without sufficient deliberation and debate among diverse people. Thus, Charles Pinkney of South Carolina urged that the Senate "would be the best depository, being more acquainted with foreign affairs, and most capable of proper resolutions." 'By contrast, another delegate from that state, Peirce Butler, sought to vest the power of war in the President, urging that he "will have all the requisite qualities, and will not make war but when the Nation will support it." Madison and Elbridge Gerry made the key compromise, suggesting that Congress should have the power to "declare" war. This provision was understood to permit the President "to repel sudden attacks." But otherwise, the President would be required to seek congressional approval, in part on the theory that (in Mason's words) this would amount "to clogging rather than facilitating war" and to "facilitating peace.
If warmaking is seen to be an especially grave act, we might be troubled about permitting the President to make war on his own. This is not at all because the President is immune from political checks. It is because group dynamics within the executive branch create a risk of polarization, as like-minded people push one another to indefensible extremes, while hidden profiles remain hidden. A requirement of congressional authorization ensures a check from another institution, with diverse voices and a degree of independence from the executive branch. There are few guarantees in life, but the result is to increase the likelihood that when the nation goes to war, it is for good and sufficient reasons.
p160
Thomas Jefferson wrote, turbulence can be
"productive of good. It prevents the degeneracy of government, and nourishes a general attention to ... public affairs. I hold ... that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing.
p165
... what three words in the English language "can define a person's character" He answered his own question with those three words: "I was wrong."
Why Societies Need Dissent
Home Page
Content: But what, in particular, does the free speech principle require In the common understanding, the principle bans government from "censoring" speech of which it disapproves. In the usual cases, the government attempts to impose penalties, whether civil or criminal, on political dissent, art, commercial advertising, or sexually explicit speech. In most cases, these penalties are unacceptable. The constitutional question is whether the government has a legitimate and sufficiently weighty reason for restricting the speech that it seeks to control. In a free society, government cannot defend restrictions by pointing to the risk that the speech will prove dangerous or harmful. Even a significant risk is insufficient to justify censorship. Dissenters are permitted to criticize official policy in both war and peace. Nor is it enough for government to say that the speech is likely to persuade people to reject received beliefs-or even to accept false beliefs. Officials cannot regulate speech on the ground that people will be convinced by it. If government is going to restrict speech that it fears, it must show that the speech is likely to cause, and is intended to cause, imminent lawless action.
|
http://thirdworldtraveler.com/Dissent/Free_Speech_WSND.html
|
msmarco_v2.1_doc_03_338148110#2_627658723
|
Title: Free Speech, The Framers' Greatest Contribution excerpted from the book Why Societies Need Dissent by Cass R. Sunstein
Headings:
Free Speech,
The Framers' Greatest Contribution
excerpted from the book
Why Societies Need Dissent
by Cass R. Sunstein
Harvard University Press, 2003, paper
p97
The free speech principle forbids government from punishing people for publicly rejecting widely held opinions. To this extent, it creates crucial protection against the blunders and pathologies that can come from social influences on behavior and belief. At the same time, freedom of expression diminishes the gap between a nation's leaders and its citizens, and for that reason promotes monitoring of the former by the latter. James Madison, the author of the first amendment, used this point to object to the whole idea of a "Sedition Act," which would criminalize certain forms of criticism of public officials. Madison urged that "the right of electing the members of the Government constitutes ... the essence of a free and responsible government" and that the "value and efficacy of this right depends on the knowledge of the comparative merits and demerits of the candidates for the public trust."'
But what, in particular, does the free speech principle require In the common understanding, the principle bans government from "censoring" speech of which it disapproves. In the usual cases, the government attempts to impose penalties, whether civil or criminal, on political dissent, art, commercial advertising, or sexually explicit speech. In most cases, these penalties are unacceptable. The constitutional question is whether the government has a legitimate and sufficiently weighty reason for restricting the speech that it seeks to control. In a free society, government cannot defend restrictions by pointing to the risk that the speech will prove dangerous or harmful. Even a significant risk is insufficient to justify censorship. Dissenters are permitted to criticize official policy in both war and peace. Nor is it enough for government to say that the speech is likely to persuade people to reject received beliefs-or even to accept false beliefs. Officials cannot regulate speech on the ground that people will be convinced by it. If government is going to restrict speech that it fears, it must show that the speech is likely to cause, and is intended to cause, imminent lawless action. This burden might be met in rare cases, as, for example, when someone is disclosing the names of undercover agents for the Central Intelligence Agency in an effort to put their lives at risk. But speech under this highly protective standard is rarely subject to government control.
Of course, the right to free speech extends well beyond politics. But at its core, that right is designed to protect political disagreement and dissent. In this way, it furnishes the foundation for democratic self-government. The protection of dissenters is intended not only to protect individual speakers but also to protect the countless number of people who benefit from the courage, or foolhardiness, of those who dissent. When someone blows the whistle on government fraud or deceit, the real winners are members of the public, not the whistleblower. Legal protection of whistleblowing is an effort to ensure the free flow of information.
As an illustration of this particular point, consider the Pentagon Papers case.' In 1969 and 1970 Daniel Ellsberg, a former official in the Department of State, copied a top-secret study of the Vietnam War. The study explored the formulation of U.S. policy toward Indochina. Its forty-seven volumes included discussions of secret diplomatic negotiations and military operations. Ellsberg gave the Pentagon Papers to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator William Fulbright, and later to The New York Times and The Washington Post, both of which sought to publish excerpts. Ellsberg was a classic whistleblower. He believed that the government had lied to its citizens and that the release of the Pentagon Papers was necessary to set the record straight. For its part, the government's fears extended beyond its own embarrassment; officials claimed that disclosure would impair the nation's ability to negotiate with its enemy, thus prolonging the war and leading to countless avoidable deaths. Invoking this concern, the government sought to enjoin publication.
Dividing five to four, the Supreme Court rejected the government's arguments. Justice Hugo Black wrote that government cannot "halt the publication of current news of vital importance to the people of this country." He added that the government's "power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censor the Government. The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people." To say the least, judges do not usually take a strong stand against the President in the midst of war. Other Supreme Courts, with other justices, might not show similar courage. But it is revealing that the government's fears proved unjustified. The publication of the Pentagon Papers did not cause demonstrable harm. Decades later, the Pentagon Papers case stands as a dramatic symbol of the constitutional protection afforded to disclosure and dissent... With an appreciation of the importance of dissent, we can better understand what has become the "core" of modern free speech law: a prohibition on government discrimination against any point of view.
p106
The twentieth century saw the emergence of the great .' "general interest intermediaries"-daily newspapers, weekly news-magazines, commercial broadcasters, and public museums. These private institutions came to serve, for better or worse, some of the functions of traditional public forums. They did, and do, this by exposing people to topics and ideas that they have not specifically selected and also by creating, much of the time, something like a shared culture. To the (limited) extent that dissenters are able to reach a diverse public, it is because they are able to have access to information sources that themselves serve diverse people.
p107
if the daily newspaper is doing a decent job, readers will come across a wide range of topics and opinions, including those in which they might have expressed no interest in advance.
p107
Newspapers, weekly newsmagazines, and evening news shows have some such effects every day. One of their primary social functions is to expose readers and viewers to a range of new topics and dissenting opinions.
p109
... a well-functioning system of free speech. But it should be clear that such a system depends not only on freedom from censorship but also on private and public institutions ensuring that a wide range of views will be heard.
p109
Free societies depend on a high degree of receptivity, in which many perspectives are heard and in which dissent and disagreement are not unwelcome.
p109
Even in democracies, disparities in power play a large role in silencing dissent-sometimes by ensuring that dissenters keep quiet, but more insidiously by ensuring that dissenters are not really heard. Social science offers relevant lessons here; it shows that members of low-status groups-less educated people, African Americans, sometimes women-carry less influence within deliberating groups than their higher-status peers. In the actual world of deliberation, powerless dissenters face an array of obstacles to a fair hearing.
The point underlies a broader one: The free speech principle is mostly about law, not about culture. A legal system that is committed to free speech forbids government from silencing dissenters. That is an extraordinary accomplishment, but it is not nearly enough... people often silence themselves not because of law but because they defer to the crowd... A well-functioning democracy has a culture of free speech, not simply legal protection of free speech. It encourages independence of mind. It imparts a willingness to challenge prevailing opinion through both words and deeds. Equally important, it encourages a certain set of attitudes in listeners, one that gives a respectful hearing to those who do not embrace the conventional wisdom. In a culture of free speech, the attitude of listeners is no less important than that of speakers.
p111
Greater information reduces conformity effects ...
p112
Political extremism is often a product of group polarization. In fact, a good way to create an extremist group, or cult of any kind, is to separate members from the rest of society. The separation can occur physically or psychologically, by creating a sense of suspicion about nonmembers. With such separation, the information and views of those outside the group can be discredited and hence nothing will disturb the process of polarization as group members continue to talk.
p145
... the American founders' largest contribution consisted in their design of a system that would ensure a place for diverse views in government. The founding period saw an extraordinary debate over the nature of republican institutions, and in particular over the legacy of Montesquieu. Montesquieu was a revered source for all sides and a central figure in the development of the idea of separation of powers. The antifederalists, eloquent opponents of the proposed Constitution, complained that the framers had betrayed Montesquieu by attempting to create a powerful central government, one that was impossibly ill-suited to American diversity. In their public writings during the debates over whether the Constitution should be ratified, many of the antifederalists urged that a republic could flourish only in homogenous areas of like-minded people. An especially articulate antifederalist wrote under the name "Brutus," in honor of the Roman republican who participated in the assassination of Julius Caesar to prevent Caesar from overthrowing the Roman republic. Brutus spoke for the republican tradition when he told the American people: "In a republic, the manners, sentiments, and interests of the people should be similar. If this be not the case, there will be constant clashing of opinions; and the representatives of one part will be continually striving against those of the other."
Advocates of the Constitution believed that Brutus had it exactly backwards. They welcomed the diversity and the "constantly clashing of opinions." They affirmatively sought a situation in which "the representatives of one part will be continually striving against those of the other." Alexander Hamilton spoke most clearly on the point, urging that the "differences of opinion, and the jarring of parties in [the legislative] department of the government... often promote deliberation and circumspection; and serve to check the excesses of the majority."
p146
Luther Gulick was a high-level official in the Roosevelt administration during World War II. In 1948, shortly after the Allied victory, Gulick delivered a series of lectures, unimaginatively titled Administrative Reflections from World War II, which offered, in some (tedious) detail, a set of observations about bureaucratic structure and administrative reform.' In a brief and far-from-tedious epilogue, Gulick set out to compare the warmaking capacities of democracies with those of their Fascist adversaries.
Gulick began by noting that the initial evaluation of the United States among leaders of Germany and Japan was "not flattering. We were, in their view, "incapable of quick or effective national action even in our own defense because under democracy we were divided by our polyglot society and under capitalism deadlocked by our conflicting private interests." Our adversaries said that we could not fight. And dictatorships did seem to have real advantages. They were free of delays, inertia, and sharp internal divisions. They did not have to deal on a continuing basis with the contending opinions of a mass of citizens, some with little education and little intelligence. Dictatorships could also rely on a single leader and an integrated hierarchy, making it easier to develop national unity and enthusiasm, to avoid the surprises and reversals that come from a free citizenry, and to act vigorously and with dispatch. But these claims about the advantages of totalitarian regimes turned out to be bogus.
The United States and its allies performed far better than Germany, Italy, and Japan. Gulick linked their superiority directly to democracy itself. In particular, he emphasized "the kind of review and criticism which democracy alone affords. With a totalitarian regime, plans "are hatched in secret by a small group of partially informed men and then enforced through dictatorial authority." Such plans are likely to contain fatal weaknesses. By contrast, a democracy allows wide criticism and debate, thus avoiding "many a disaster." In a totalitarian system, criticisms and suggestions are neither wanted nor heeded. "Even the leaders tend to believe their own propaganda. All of the stream of authority and information is from the top down," so that when change is needed, the high command never learns of that need. This is a description of groupthink in action. In a democracy, by contrast, "the public and the press have no hesitation in observing and criticizing the first evidence of failure once a program has been put into operation." Information flows within the government-between the lowest and highest ranks-and via public opinion.
With a combination of melancholy and surprise, Gulick note that the United States and its allies did not show more unity than Germany, Japan, and Italy. "The gregarious social impulses of men around the world are apparently much the same, giving rise to the same reactions of group loyalty when men are subjected to the same true or imagined group threats."' Top-down management of mass morale by German and Japanese leaders actually worked.
Dictatorships are less successful in war not because of less loyalty or more distrust from the public but because leaders do not receive the checks and corrections that come from democratic processes. (The military failures of Saddam Hussein are a recent case in point, though Saddam also faced widespread internal disloyalty.)
Gulick is claiming here that institutions perform better when challenges are frequent, when people do not stifle themselves, and when information flows freely. Of course, Gulick is providing his personal account of a particular set of events, and we do not really know to what extent success in war is a product of democratic institutions. The Soviet Union, for example, fought valiantly and well even under the tyranny of Stalin. But Gulick's general claim contains a great deal of truth. Institutions are far more likely to succeed if they subject leaders to critical scrutiny and if they ensure that courses of action will face continuing monitoring and review from outsiders-if, in short, they use diversity and dissent to reduce the risks of error that come from social influences.
Gulick's emphasis on the values of open debate is strengthened by one of the most striking findings in the last half-century of social science: In the history of the world, no society with democratic elections and a free press has ever experienced a famine. As Nobel Prize recipient Amartya Sen has shown, famines are a product not merely of food scarcity but also of social responses to food scarcity. If a nation is determined to prevent mass starvation, and if it has even a minimal level of resources, mass starvation will not occur. An authoritarian government might lack the will or the information to prevent thousands of people from dying. But a democratic government, checked by the people and the press, is likely to take all reasonable measures to prevent this catastrophe, if only because it needs to do so to stay in office. At the same time, a free society facing the risk of famine is likely to have a great deal of information, at every stage, about the nature of the emerging problem and the effectiveness of current or possible responses. If famine relief plans are (in Gulick's words) "hatched in secret by a small group of partially informed men and then enforced through dictatorial authority," failure is far more likely. In a free society, some dissenters or malcontents will point out that a famine is on the horizon. If they offer evidence, leaders are going to have to respond to the risk of catastrophe.
Sen's finding is an especially vivid reminder of what happens every day in democracies. Diversity, openness, and dissent reveal actual and incipient problems. They improve society's pool of information and make it more likely that serious issues will be addressed. I do not deny that great suffering can be found in democracies as elsewhere. There is no guarantee, from civil liberties alone, that such suffering will be minimized. One reason is unequal distributions of political power, which decrease the likelihood that important information will actually reach public officials and that such officials will have the proper incentive to respond to suffering. But at least it can be said that a society which permits dissent and does not impose conformity is in a far better position to be aware of, and to correct, serious social problems.
Or consider the problem of witch-hunts-mass movements against made-up internal conspiracies. Witch-hunts are often conducted by public officials, aspiring or actual. They can also be carried out by people in the private sector, seeking to "purge" society of perceived threats. As the McCarthy period in the United States demonstrates, witch-hunts are far from impossible in democracies. We have seen that cascades and group polarization occur in free societies, and witch-hunts, including McCarthyism, are made possible by these social influences. But witch-hunts are far less likely, and far less damaging, in a system in which dissenters are able to disclose what they know and to check any claims about the disloyalty of fellow citizens." If civil liberties are firmly protected and if information is permitted to flow, skeptics can establish that the supposed internal conspiracies are a myth.
... Above all, the Constitution attempts to create a deliberative democracy, that is, a system that combines accountability to the 1 people with a measure of reflection and reason-giving. 12 In the last decades, many people have discussed the framers' aspiration to deliberative democracy. Their goal has been to show that a well-functioning democratic system attempts to ensure not merely responsiveness to the people through elections but also an exchange of reasons in the public sphere. In a deliberative democracy, the exercise of public power must be justified by legitimate reasons-not merely by the will of some segment of society, and indeed not merely by the will of the majority.
Both the opponents and the advocates of the Constitution were firmly committed to political deliberation. They also considered themselves "republicans," committed to a high degree of self-government without embracing pure populism. But deliberative democracies come in many different forms. The framers' greatest innovation consisted not in their emphasis on deliberation, which was uncontested at the time, but in their skepticism about homogeneity, their enthusiasm for disagreement and diversity, and their effort to accommodate and to structure that diversity. In the founding period, a large part of the country's discussion turned on the possibility of having a republican form of government in a nation with a heterogeneous citizenry.
The antifederalists, opponents of the proposed Constitution, thought this was impossible. [They ... insisted that the people "should be similar" and feared that without similarity "there will be constant clashing of opinions." The framers welcomed such clashing and urged that the "jarring of parties" would "promote deliberation and circumspection." As the framers stressed, widespread error is likely to result when likeminded people, insulated from others, deliberate on their own. In their view, heterogeneity of opinion can be a creative force. A Constitution that ensures the "jarring of parties" and "differences of opinion" will provide safeguards against unjustified extremism and unsupportable movements of view.
A similar point emerges from one of the most illuminating early debates, which raised the question whether the Bill of Rights should include a "right to instruct" representatives. Those in favor of that right argued that citizens of a particular region ought to have the authority to bind their representatives to vote in accordance with the citizens' views. This argument might appear reasonable as a way of improving the political accountability of representatives, and so it seemed to many at the time. In fact I suspect that many people in America and elsewhere would favor the "right to instruct" today. Shouldn't representatives do as their constituents wish? But there is a problem with this view, especially in an era in which political interest was closely aligned with geography. Citizens of a particular region, influenced by one another's views, are more likely to end up with indefensible positions, very possibly as a result of their own insularity ...
p152
... federalism permits states to restrain one another. A particularly important part of this process involves the right of individual citizens to exit. If one state oppresses its citizens, they have the freedom to leave. That very freedom creates a before-the-fact deterrent to oppressive legislation. It also creates an after-the-fact safeguard. In this sense, the right to travel from one sovereign state to another is first and foremost a political right, akin to the right to vote itself.
p155
An understanding of group influences also casts fresh light on one of the most important and controversial provisions in the American Constitution: the grant of power to Congress, and not the President, to declare war." The debates in the framing period suggest a fear of two risks: the President might make war without sufficient authorization from the citizenry, and he might do so without sufficient deliberation and debate among diverse people. Thus, Charles Pinkney of South Carolina urged that the Senate "would be the best depository, being more acquainted with foreign affairs, and most capable of proper resolutions." 'By contrast, another delegate from that state, Peirce Butler, sought to vest the power of war in the President, urging that he "will have all the requisite qualities, and will not make war but when the Nation will support it." Madison and Elbridge Gerry made the key compromise, suggesting that Congress should have the power to "declare" war. This provision was understood to permit the President "to repel sudden attacks." But otherwise, the President would be required to seek congressional approval, in part on the theory that (in Mason's words) this would amount "to clogging rather than facilitating war" and to "facilitating peace.
If warmaking is seen to be an especially grave act, we might be troubled about permitting the President to make war on his own. This is not at all because the President is immune from political checks. It is because group dynamics within the executive branch create a risk of polarization, as like-minded people push one another to indefensible extremes, while hidden profiles remain hidden. A requirement of congressional authorization ensures a check from another institution, with diverse voices and a degree of independence from the executive branch. There are few guarantees in life, but the result is to increase the likelihood that when the nation goes to war, it is for good and sufficient reasons.
p160
Thomas Jefferson wrote, turbulence can be
"productive of good. It prevents the degeneracy of government, and nourishes a general attention to ... public affairs. I hold ... that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing.
p165
... what three words in the English language "can define a person's character" He answered his own question with those three words: "I was wrong."
Why Societies Need Dissent
Home Page
Content: Even a significant risk is insufficient to justify censorship. Dissenters are permitted to criticize official policy in both war and peace. Nor is it enough for government to say that the speech is likely to persuade people to reject received beliefs-or even to accept false beliefs. Officials cannot regulate speech on the ground that people will be convinced by it. If government is going to restrict speech that it fears, it must show that the speech is likely to cause, and is intended to cause, imminent lawless action. This burden might be met in rare cases, as, for example, when someone is disclosing the names of undercover agents for the Central Intelligence Agency in an effort to put their lives at risk. But speech under this highly protective standard is rarely subject to government control. Of course, the right to free speech extends well beyond politics. But at its core, that right is designed to protect political disagreement and dissent. In this way, it furnishes the foundation for democratic self-government.
|
http://thirdworldtraveler.com/Dissent/Free_Speech_WSND.html
|
msmarco_v2.1_doc_03_338148110#9_627838872
|
Title: Free Speech, The Framers' Greatest Contribution excerpted from the book Why Societies Need Dissent by Cass R. Sunstein
Headings:
Free Speech,
The Framers' Greatest Contribution
excerpted from the book
Why Societies Need Dissent
by Cass R. Sunstein
Harvard University Press, 2003, paper
p97
The free speech principle forbids government from punishing people for publicly rejecting widely held opinions. To this extent, it creates crucial protection against the blunders and pathologies that can come from social influences on behavior and belief. At the same time, freedom of expression diminishes the gap between a nation's leaders and its citizens, and for that reason promotes monitoring of the former by the latter. James Madison, the author of the first amendment, used this point to object to the whole idea of a "Sedition Act," which would criminalize certain forms of criticism of public officials. Madison urged that "the right of electing the members of the Government constitutes ... the essence of a free and responsible government" and that the "value and efficacy of this right depends on the knowledge of the comparative merits and demerits of the candidates for the public trust."'
But what, in particular, does the free speech principle require In the common understanding, the principle bans government from "censoring" speech of which it disapproves. In the usual cases, the government attempts to impose penalties, whether civil or criminal, on political dissent, art, commercial advertising, or sexually explicit speech. In most cases, these penalties are unacceptable. The constitutional question is whether the government has a legitimate and sufficiently weighty reason for restricting the speech that it seeks to control. In a free society, government cannot defend restrictions by pointing to the risk that the speech will prove dangerous or harmful. Even a significant risk is insufficient to justify censorship. Dissenters are permitted to criticize official policy in both war and peace. Nor is it enough for government to say that the speech is likely to persuade people to reject received beliefs-or even to accept false beliefs. Officials cannot regulate speech on the ground that people will be convinced by it. If government is going to restrict speech that it fears, it must show that the speech is likely to cause, and is intended to cause, imminent lawless action. This burden might be met in rare cases, as, for example, when someone is disclosing the names of undercover agents for the Central Intelligence Agency in an effort to put their lives at risk. But speech under this highly protective standard is rarely subject to government control.
Of course, the right to free speech extends well beyond politics. But at its core, that right is designed to protect political disagreement and dissent. In this way, it furnishes the foundation for democratic self-government. The protection of dissenters is intended not only to protect individual speakers but also to protect the countless number of people who benefit from the courage, or foolhardiness, of those who dissent. When someone blows the whistle on government fraud or deceit, the real winners are members of the public, not the whistleblower. Legal protection of whistleblowing is an effort to ensure the free flow of information.
As an illustration of this particular point, consider the Pentagon Papers case.' In 1969 and 1970 Daniel Ellsberg, a former official in the Department of State, copied a top-secret study of the Vietnam War. The study explored the formulation of U.S. policy toward Indochina. Its forty-seven volumes included discussions of secret diplomatic negotiations and military operations. Ellsberg gave the Pentagon Papers to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator William Fulbright, and later to The New York Times and The Washington Post, both of which sought to publish excerpts. Ellsberg was a classic whistleblower. He believed that the government had lied to its citizens and that the release of the Pentagon Papers was necessary to set the record straight. For its part, the government's fears extended beyond its own embarrassment; officials claimed that disclosure would impair the nation's ability to negotiate with its enemy, thus prolonging the war and leading to countless avoidable deaths. Invoking this concern, the government sought to enjoin publication.
Dividing five to four, the Supreme Court rejected the government's arguments. Justice Hugo Black wrote that government cannot "halt the publication of current news of vital importance to the people of this country." He added that the government's "power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censor the Government. The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people." To say the least, judges do not usually take a strong stand against the President in the midst of war. Other Supreme Courts, with other justices, might not show similar courage. But it is revealing that the government's fears proved unjustified. The publication of the Pentagon Papers did not cause demonstrable harm. Decades later, the Pentagon Papers case stands as a dramatic symbol of the constitutional protection afforded to disclosure and dissent... With an appreciation of the importance of dissent, we can better understand what has become the "core" of modern free speech law: a prohibition on government discrimination against any point of view.
p106
The twentieth century saw the emergence of the great .' "general interest intermediaries"-daily newspapers, weekly news-magazines, commercial broadcasters, and public museums. These private institutions came to serve, for better or worse, some of the functions of traditional public forums. They did, and do, this by exposing people to topics and ideas that they have not specifically selected and also by creating, much of the time, something like a shared culture. To the (limited) extent that dissenters are able to reach a diverse public, it is because they are able to have access to information sources that themselves serve diverse people.
p107
if the daily newspaper is doing a decent job, readers will come across a wide range of topics and opinions, including those in which they might have expressed no interest in advance.
p107
Newspapers, weekly newsmagazines, and evening news shows have some such effects every day. One of their primary social functions is to expose readers and viewers to a range of new topics and dissenting opinions.
p109
... a well-functioning system of free speech. But it should be clear that such a system depends not only on freedom from censorship but also on private and public institutions ensuring that a wide range of views will be heard.
p109
Free societies depend on a high degree of receptivity, in which many perspectives are heard and in which dissent and disagreement are not unwelcome.
p109
Even in democracies, disparities in power play a large role in silencing dissent-sometimes by ensuring that dissenters keep quiet, but more insidiously by ensuring that dissenters are not really heard. Social science offers relevant lessons here; it shows that members of low-status groups-less educated people, African Americans, sometimes women-carry less influence within deliberating groups than their higher-status peers. In the actual world of deliberation, powerless dissenters face an array of obstacles to a fair hearing.
The point underlies a broader one: The free speech principle is mostly about law, not about culture. A legal system that is committed to free speech forbids government from silencing dissenters. That is an extraordinary accomplishment, but it is not nearly enough... people often silence themselves not because of law but because they defer to the crowd... A well-functioning democracy has a culture of free speech, not simply legal protection of free speech. It encourages independence of mind. It imparts a willingness to challenge prevailing opinion through both words and deeds. Equally important, it encourages a certain set of attitudes in listeners, one that gives a respectful hearing to those who do not embrace the conventional wisdom. In a culture of free speech, the attitude of listeners is no less important than that of speakers.
p111
Greater information reduces conformity effects ...
p112
Political extremism is often a product of group polarization. In fact, a good way to create an extremist group, or cult of any kind, is to separate members from the rest of society. The separation can occur physically or psychologically, by creating a sense of suspicion about nonmembers. With such separation, the information and views of those outside the group can be discredited and hence nothing will disturb the process of polarization as group members continue to talk.
p145
... the American founders' largest contribution consisted in their design of a system that would ensure a place for diverse views in government. The founding period saw an extraordinary debate over the nature of republican institutions, and in particular over the legacy of Montesquieu. Montesquieu was a revered source for all sides and a central figure in the development of the idea of separation of powers. The antifederalists, eloquent opponents of the proposed Constitution, complained that the framers had betrayed Montesquieu by attempting to create a powerful central government, one that was impossibly ill-suited to American diversity. In their public writings during the debates over whether the Constitution should be ratified, many of the antifederalists urged that a republic could flourish only in homogenous areas of like-minded people. An especially articulate antifederalist wrote under the name "Brutus," in honor of the Roman republican who participated in the assassination of Julius Caesar to prevent Caesar from overthrowing the Roman republic. Brutus spoke for the republican tradition when he told the American people: "In a republic, the manners, sentiments, and interests of the people should be similar. If this be not the case, there will be constant clashing of opinions; and the representatives of one part will be continually striving against those of the other."
Advocates of the Constitution believed that Brutus had it exactly backwards. They welcomed the diversity and the "constantly clashing of opinions." They affirmatively sought a situation in which "the representatives of one part will be continually striving against those of the other." Alexander Hamilton spoke most clearly on the point, urging that the "differences of opinion, and the jarring of parties in [the legislative] department of the government... often promote deliberation and circumspection; and serve to check the excesses of the majority."
p146
Luther Gulick was a high-level official in the Roosevelt administration during World War II. In 1948, shortly after the Allied victory, Gulick delivered a series of lectures, unimaginatively titled Administrative Reflections from World War II, which offered, in some (tedious) detail, a set of observations about bureaucratic structure and administrative reform.' In a brief and far-from-tedious epilogue, Gulick set out to compare the warmaking capacities of democracies with those of their Fascist adversaries.
Gulick began by noting that the initial evaluation of the United States among leaders of Germany and Japan was "not flattering. We were, in their view, "incapable of quick or effective national action even in our own defense because under democracy we were divided by our polyglot society and under capitalism deadlocked by our conflicting private interests." Our adversaries said that we could not fight. And dictatorships did seem to have real advantages. They were free of delays, inertia, and sharp internal divisions. They did not have to deal on a continuing basis with the contending opinions of a mass of citizens, some with little education and little intelligence. Dictatorships could also rely on a single leader and an integrated hierarchy, making it easier to develop national unity and enthusiasm, to avoid the surprises and reversals that come from a free citizenry, and to act vigorously and with dispatch. But these claims about the advantages of totalitarian regimes turned out to be bogus.
The United States and its allies performed far better than Germany, Italy, and Japan. Gulick linked their superiority directly to democracy itself. In particular, he emphasized "the kind of review and criticism which democracy alone affords. With a totalitarian regime, plans "are hatched in secret by a small group of partially informed men and then enforced through dictatorial authority." Such plans are likely to contain fatal weaknesses. By contrast, a democracy allows wide criticism and debate, thus avoiding "many a disaster." In a totalitarian system, criticisms and suggestions are neither wanted nor heeded. "Even the leaders tend to believe their own propaganda. All of the stream of authority and information is from the top down," so that when change is needed, the high command never learns of that need. This is a description of groupthink in action. In a democracy, by contrast, "the public and the press have no hesitation in observing and criticizing the first evidence of failure once a program has been put into operation." Information flows within the government-between the lowest and highest ranks-and via public opinion.
With a combination of melancholy and surprise, Gulick note that the United States and its allies did not show more unity than Germany, Japan, and Italy. "The gregarious social impulses of men around the world are apparently much the same, giving rise to the same reactions of group loyalty when men are subjected to the same true or imagined group threats."' Top-down management of mass morale by German and Japanese leaders actually worked.
Dictatorships are less successful in war not because of less loyalty or more distrust from the public but because leaders do not receive the checks and corrections that come from democratic processes. (The military failures of Saddam Hussein are a recent case in point, though Saddam also faced widespread internal disloyalty.)
Gulick is claiming here that institutions perform better when challenges are frequent, when people do not stifle themselves, and when information flows freely. Of course, Gulick is providing his personal account of a particular set of events, and we do not really know to what extent success in war is a product of democratic institutions. The Soviet Union, for example, fought valiantly and well even under the tyranny of Stalin. But Gulick's general claim contains a great deal of truth. Institutions are far more likely to succeed if they subject leaders to critical scrutiny and if they ensure that courses of action will face continuing monitoring and review from outsiders-if, in short, they use diversity and dissent to reduce the risks of error that come from social influences.
Gulick's emphasis on the values of open debate is strengthened by one of the most striking findings in the last half-century of social science: In the history of the world, no society with democratic elections and a free press has ever experienced a famine. As Nobel Prize recipient Amartya Sen has shown, famines are a product not merely of food scarcity but also of social responses to food scarcity. If a nation is determined to prevent mass starvation, and if it has even a minimal level of resources, mass starvation will not occur. An authoritarian government might lack the will or the information to prevent thousands of people from dying. But a democratic government, checked by the people and the press, is likely to take all reasonable measures to prevent this catastrophe, if only because it needs to do so to stay in office. At the same time, a free society facing the risk of famine is likely to have a great deal of information, at every stage, about the nature of the emerging problem and the effectiveness of current or possible responses. If famine relief plans are (in Gulick's words) "hatched in secret by a small group of partially informed men and then enforced through dictatorial authority," failure is far more likely. In a free society, some dissenters or malcontents will point out that a famine is on the horizon. If they offer evidence, leaders are going to have to respond to the risk of catastrophe.
Sen's finding is an especially vivid reminder of what happens every day in democracies. Diversity, openness, and dissent reveal actual and incipient problems. They improve society's pool of information and make it more likely that serious issues will be addressed. I do not deny that great suffering can be found in democracies as elsewhere. There is no guarantee, from civil liberties alone, that such suffering will be minimized. One reason is unequal distributions of political power, which decrease the likelihood that important information will actually reach public officials and that such officials will have the proper incentive to respond to suffering. But at least it can be said that a society which permits dissent and does not impose conformity is in a far better position to be aware of, and to correct, serious social problems.
Or consider the problem of witch-hunts-mass movements against made-up internal conspiracies. Witch-hunts are often conducted by public officials, aspiring or actual. They can also be carried out by people in the private sector, seeking to "purge" society of perceived threats. As the McCarthy period in the United States demonstrates, witch-hunts are far from impossible in democracies. We have seen that cascades and group polarization occur in free societies, and witch-hunts, including McCarthyism, are made possible by these social influences. But witch-hunts are far less likely, and far less damaging, in a system in which dissenters are able to disclose what they know and to check any claims about the disloyalty of fellow citizens." If civil liberties are firmly protected and if information is permitted to flow, skeptics can establish that the supposed internal conspiracies are a myth.
... Above all, the Constitution attempts to create a deliberative democracy, that is, a system that combines accountability to the 1 people with a measure of reflection and reason-giving. 12 In the last decades, many people have discussed the framers' aspiration to deliberative democracy. Their goal has been to show that a well-functioning democratic system attempts to ensure not merely responsiveness to the people through elections but also an exchange of reasons in the public sphere. In a deliberative democracy, the exercise of public power must be justified by legitimate reasons-not merely by the will of some segment of society, and indeed not merely by the will of the majority.
Both the opponents and the advocates of the Constitution were firmly committed to political deliberation. They also considered themselves "republicans," committed to a high degree of self-government without embracing pure populism. But deliberative democracies come in many different forms. The framers' greatest innovation consisted not in their emphasis on deliberation, which was uncontested at the time, but in their skepticism about homogeneity, their enthusiasm for disagreement and diversity, and their effort to accommodate and to structure that diversity. In the founding period, a large part of the country's discussion turned on the possibility of having a republican form of government in a nation with a heterogeneous citizenry.
The antifederalists, opponents of the proposed Constitution, thought this was impossible. [They ... insisted that the people "should be similar" and feared that without similarity "there will be constant clashing of opinions." The framers welcomed such clashing and urged that the "jarring of parties" would "promote deliberation and circumspection." As the framers stressed, widespread error is likely to result when likeminded people, insulated from others, deliberate on their own. In their view, heterogeneity of opinion can be a creative force. A Constitution that ensures the "jarring of parties" and "differences of opinion" will provide safeguards against unjustified extremism and unsupportable movements of view.
A similar point emerges from one of the most illuminating early debates, which raised the question whether the Bill of Rights should include a "right to instruct" representatives. Those in favor of that right argued that citizens of a particular region ought to have the authority to bind their representatives to vote in accordance with the citizens' views. This argument might appear reasonable as a way of improving the political accountability of representatives, and so it seemed to many at the time. In fact I suspect that many people in America and elsewhere would favor the "right to instruct" today. Shouldn't representatives do as their constituents wish? But there is a problem with this view, especially in an era in which political interest was closely aligned with geography. Citizens of a particular region, influenced by one another's views, are more likely to end up with indefensible positions, very possibly as a result of their own insularity ...
p152
... federalism permits states to restrain one another. A particularly important part of this process involves the right of individual citizens to exit. If one state oppresses its citizens, they have the freedom to leave. That very freedom creates a before-the-fact deterrent to oppressive legislation. It also creates an after-the-fact safeguard. In this sense, the right to travel from one sovereign state to another is first and foremost a political right, akin to the right to vote itself.
p155
An understanding of group influences also casts fresh light on one of the most important and controversial provisions in the American Constitution: the grant of power to Congress, and not the President, to declare war." The debates in the framing period suggest a fear of two risks: the President might make war without sufficient authorization from the citizenry, and he might do so without sufficient deliberation and debate among diverse people. Thus, Charles Pinkney of South Carolina urged that the Senate "would be the best depository, being more acquainted with foreign affairs, and most capable of proper resolutions." 'By contrast, another delegate from that state, Peirce Butler, sought to vest the power of war in the President, urging that he "will have all the requisite qualities, and will not make war but when the Nation will support it." Madison and Elbridge Gerry made the key compromise, suggesting that Congress should have the power to "declare" war. This provision was understood to permit the President "to repel sudden attacks." But otherwise, the President would be required to seek congressional approval, in part on the theory that (in Mason's words) this would amount "to clogging rather than facilitating war" and to "facilitating peace.
If warmaking is seen to be an especially grave act, we might be troubled about permitting the President to make war on his own. This is not at all because the President is immune from political checks. It is because group dynamics within the executive branch create a risk of polarization, as like-minded people push one another to indefensible extremes, while hidden profiles remain hidden. A requirement of congressional authorization ensures a check from another institution, with diverse voices and a degree of independence from the executive branch. There are few guarantees in life, but the result is to increase the likelihood that when the nation goes to war, it is for good and sufficient reasons.
p160
Thomas Jefferson wrote, turbulence can be
"productive of good. It prevents the degeneracy of government, and nourishes a general attention to ... public affairs. I hold ... that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing.
p165
... what three words in the English language "can define a person's character" He answered his own question with those three words: "I was wrong."
Why Societies Need Dissent
Home Page
Content: These private institutions came to serve, for better or worse, some of the functions of traditional public forums. They did, and do, this by exposing people to topics and ideas that they have not specifically selected and also by creating, much of the time, something like a shared culture. To the (limited) extent that dissenters are able to reach a diverse public, it is because they are able to have access to information sources that themselves serve diverse people. p107
if the daily newspaper is doing a decent job, readers will come across a wide range of topics and opinions, including those in which they might have expressed no interest in advance. p107
Newspapers, weekly newsmagazines, and evening news shows have some such effects every day. One of their primary social functions is to expose readers and viewers to a range of new topics and dissenting opinions. p109
... a well-functioning system of free speech. But it should be clear that such a system depends not only on freedom from censorship but also on private and public institutions ensuring that a wide range of views will be heard. p109
Free societies depend on a high degree of receptivity, in which many perspectives are heard and in which dissent and disagreement are not unwelcome. p109
Even in democracies, disparities in power play a large role in silencing dissent-sometimes by ensuring that dissenters keep quiet, but more insidiously by ensuring that dissenters are not really heard.
|
http://thirdworldtraveler.com/Dissent/Free_Speech_WSND.html
|
msmarco_v2.1_doc_03_338148110#10_627864951
|
Title: Free Speech, The Framers' Greatest Contribution excerpted from the book Why Societies Need Dissent by Cass R. Sunstein
Headings:
Free Speech,
The Framers' Greatest Contribution
excerpted from the book
Why Societies Need Dissent
by Cass R. Sunstein
Harvard University Press, 2003, paper
p97
The free speech principle forbids government from punishing people for publicly rejecting widely held opinions. To this extent, it creates crucial protection against the blunders and pathologies that can come from social influences on behavior and belief. At the same time, freedom of expression diminishes the gap between a nation's leaders and its citizens, and for that reason promotes monitoring of the former by the latter. James Madison, the author of the first amendment, used this point to object to the whole idea of a "Sedition Act," which would criminalize certain forms of criticism of public officials. Madison urged that "the right of electing the members of the Government constitutes ... the essence of a free and responsible government" and that the "value and efficacy of this right depends on the knowledge of the comparative merits and demerits of the candidates for the public trust."'
But what, in particular, does the free speech principle require In the common understanding, the principle bans government from "censoring" speech of which it disapproves. In the usual cases, the government attempts to impose penalties, whether civil or criminal, on political dissent, art, commercial advertising, or sexually explicit speech. In most cases, these penalties are unacceptable. The constitutional question is whether the government has a legitimate and sufficiently weighty reason for restricting the speech that it seeks to control. In a free society, government cannot defend restrictions by pointing to the risk that the speech will prove dangerous or harmful. Even a significant risk is insufficient to justify censorship. Dissenters are permitted to criticize official policy in both war and peace. Nor is it enough for government to say that the speech is likely to persuade people to reject received beliefs-or even to accept false beliefs. Officials cannot regulate speech on the ground that people will be convinced by it. If government is going to restrict speech that it fears, it must show that the speech is likely to cause, and is intended to cause, imminent lawless action. This burden might be met in rare cases, as, for example, when someone is disclosing the names of undercover agents for the Central Intelligence Agency in an effort to put their lives at risk. But speech under this highly protective standard is rarely subject to government control.
Of course, the right to free speech extends well beyond politics. But at its core, that right is designed to protect political disagreement and dissent. In this way, it furnishes the foundation for democratic self-government. The protection of dissenters is intended not only to protect individual speakers but also to protect the countless number of people who benefit from the courage, or foolhardiness, of those who dissent. When someone blows the whistle on government fraud or deceit, the real winners are members of the public, not the whistleblower. Legal protection of whistleblowing is an effort to ensure the free flow of information.
As an illustration of this particular point, consider the Pentagon Papers case.' In 1969 and 1970 Daniel Ellsberg, a former official in the Department of State, copied a top-secret study of the Vietnam War. The study explored the formulation of U.S. policy toward Indochina. Its forty-seven volumes included discussions of secret diplomatic negotiations and military operations. Ellsberg gave the Pentagon Papers to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator William Fulbright, and later to The New York Times and The Washington Post, both of which sought to publish excerpts. Ellsberg was a classic whistleblower. He believed that the government had lied to its citizens and that the release of the Pentagon Papers was necessary to set the record straight. For its part, the government's fears extended beyond its own embarrassment; officials claimed that disclosure would impair the nation's ability to negotiate with its enemy, thus prolonging the war and leading to countless avoidable deaths. Invoking this concern, the government sought to enjoin publication.
Dividing five to four, the Supreme Court rejected the government's arguments. Justice Hugo Black wrote that government cannot "halt the publication of current news of vital importance to the people of this country." He added that the government's "power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censor the Government. The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people." To say the least, judges do not usually take a strong stand against the President in the midst of war. Other Supreme Courts, with other justices, might not show similar courage. But it is revealing that the government's fears proved unjustified. The publication of the Pentagon Papers did not cause demonstrable harm. Decades later, the Pentagon Papers case stands as a dramatic symbol of the constitutional protection afforded to disclosure and dissent... With an appreciation of the importance of dissent, we can better understand what has become the "core" of modern free speech law: a prohibition on government discrimination against any point of view.
p106
The twentieth century saw the emergence of the great .' "general interest intermediaries"-daily newspapers, weekly news-magazines, commercial broadcasters, and public museums. These private institutions came to serve, for better or worse, some of the functions of traditional public forums. They did, and do, this by exposing people to topics and ideas that they have not specifically selected and also by creating, much of the time, something like a shared culture. To the (limited) extent that dissenters are able to reach a diverse public, it is because they are able to have access to information sources that themselves serve diverse people.
p107
if the daily newspaper is doing a decent job, readers will come across a wide range of topics and opinions, including those in which they might have expressed no interest in advance.
p107
Newspapers, weekly newsmagazines, and evening news shows have some such effects every day. One of their primary social functions is to expose readers and viewers to a range of new topics and dissenting opinions.
p109
... a well-functioning system of free speech. But it should be clear that such a system depends not only on freedom from censorship but also on private and public institutions ensuring that a wide range of views will be heard.
p109
Free societies depend on a high degree of receptivity, in which many perspectives are heard and in which dissent and disagreement are not unwelcome.
p109
Even in democracies, disparities in power play a large role in silencing dissent-sometimes by ensuring that dissenters keep quiet, but more insidiously by ensuring that dissenters are not really heard. Social science offers relevant lessons here; it shows that members of low-status groups-less educated people, African Americans, sometimes women-carry less influence within deliberating groups than their higher-status peers. In the actual world of deliberation, powerless dissenters face an array of obstacles to a fair hearing.
The point underlies a broader one: The free speech principle is mostly about law, not about culture. A legal system that is committed to free speech forbids government from silencing dissenters. That is an extraordinary accomplishment, but it is not nearly enough... people often silence themselves not because of law but because they defer to the crowd... A well-functioning democracy has a culture of free speech, not simply legal protection of free speech. It encourages independence of mind. It imparts a willingness to challenge prevailing opinion through both words and deeds. Equally important, it encourages a certain set of attitudes in listeners, one that gives a respectful hearing to those who do not embrace the conventional wisdom. In a culture of free speech, the attitude of listeners is no less important than that of speakers.
p111
Greater information reduces conformity effects ...
p112
Political extremism is often a product of group polarization. In fact, a good way to create an extremist group, or cult of any kind, is to separate members from the rest of society. The separation can occur physically or psychologically, by creating a sense of suspicion about nonmembers. With such separation, the information and views of those outside the group can be discredited and hence nothing will disturb the process of polarization as group members continue to talk.
p145
... the American founders' largest contribution consisted in their design of a system that would ensure a place for diverse views in government. The founding period saw an extraordinary debate over the nature of republican institutions, and in particular over the legacy of Montesquieu. Montesquieu was a revered source for all sides and a central figure in the development of the idea of separation of powers. The antifederalists, eloquent opponents of the proposed Constitution, complained that the framers had betrayed Montesquieu by attempting to create a powerful central government, one that was impossibly ill-suited to American diversity. In their public writings during the debates over whether the Constitution should be ratified, many of the antifederalists urged that a republic could flourish only in homogenous areas of like-minded people. An especially articulate antifederalist wrote under the name "Brutus," in honor of the Roman republican who participated in the assassination of Julius Caesar to prevent Caesar from overthrowing the Roman republic. Brutus spoke for the republican tradition when he told the American people: "In a republic, the manners, sentiments, and interests of the people should be similar. If this be not the case, there will be constant clashing of opinions; and the representatives of one part will be continually striving against those of the other."
Advocates of the Constitution believed that Brutus had it exactly backwards. They welcomed the diversity and the "constantly clashing of opinions." They affirmatively sought a situation in which "the representatives of one part will be continually striving against those of the other." Alexander Hamilton spoke most clearly on the point, urging that the "differences of opinion, and the jarring of parties in [the legislative] department of the government... often promote deliberation and circumspection; and serve to check the excesses of the majority."
p146
Luther Gulick was a high-level official in the Roosevelt administration during World War II. In 1948, shortly after the Allied victory, Gulick delivered a series of lectures, unimaginatively titled Administrative Reflections from World War II, which offered, in some (tedious) detail, a set of observations about bureaucratic structure and administrative reform.' In a brief and far-from-tedious epilogue, Gulick set out to compare the warmaking capacities of democracies with those of their Fascist adversaries.
Gulick began by noting that the initial evaluation of the United States among leaders of Germany and Japan was "not flattering. We were, in their view, "incapable of quick or effective national action even in our own defense because under democracy we were divided by our polyglot society and under capitalism deadlocked by our conflicting private interests." Our adversaries said that we could not fight. And dictatorships did seem to have real advantages. They were free of delays, inertia, and sharp internal divisions. They did not have to deal on a continuing basis with the contending opinions of a mass of citizens, some with little education and little intelligence. Dictatorships could also rely on a single leader and an integrated hierarchy, making it easier to develop national unity and enthusiasm, to avoid the surprises and reversals that come from a free citizenry, and to act vigorously and with dispatch. But these claims about the advantages of totalitarian regimes turned out to be bogus.
The United States and its allies performed far better than Germany, Italy, and Japan. Gulick linked their superiority directly to democracy itself. In particular, he emphasized "the kind of review and criticism which democracy alone affords. With a totalitarian regime, plans "are hatched in secret by a small group of partially informed men and then enforced through dictatorial authority." Such plans are likely to contain fatal weaknesses. By contrast, a democracy allows wide criticism and debate, thus avoiding "many a disaster." In a totalitarian system, criticisms and suggestions are neither wanted nor heeded. "Even the leaders tend to believe their own propaganda. All of the stream of authority and information is from the top down," so that when change is needed, the high command never learns of that need. This is a description of groupthink in action. In a democracy, by contrast, "the public and the press have no hesitation in observing and criticizing the first evidence of failure once a program has been put into operation." Information flows within the government-between the lowest and highest ranks-and via public opinion.
With a combination of melancholy and surprise, Gulick note that the United States and its allies did not show more unity than Germany, Japan, and Italy. "The gregarious social impulses of men around the world are apparently much the same, giving rise to the same reactions of group loyalty when men are subjected to the same true or imagined group threats."' Top-down management of mass morale by German and Japanese leaders actually worked.
Dictatorships are less successful in war not because of less loyalty or more distrust from the public but because leaders do not receive the checks and corrections that come from democratic processes. (The military failures of Saddam Hussein are a recent case in point, though Saddam also faced widespread internal disloyalty.)
Gulick is claiming here that institutions perform better when challenges are frequent, when people do not stifle themselves, and when information flows freely. Of course, Gulick is providing his personal account of a particular set of events, and we do not really know to what extent success in war is a product of democratic institutions. The Soviet Union, for example, fought valiantly and well even under the tyranny of Stalin. But Gulick's general claim contains a great deal of truth. Institutions are far more likely to succeed if they subject leaders to critical scrutiny and if they ensure that courses of action will face continuing monitoring and review from outsiders-if, in short, they use diversity and dissent to reduce the risks of error that come from social influences.
Gulick's emphasis on the values of open debate is strengthened by one of the most striking findings in the last half-century of social science: In the history of the world, no society with democratic elections and a free press has ever experienced a famine. As Nobel Prize recipient Amartya Sen has shown, famines are a product not merely of food scarcity but also of social responses to food scarcity. If a nation is determined to prevent mass starvation, and if it has even a minimal level of resources, mass starvation will not occur. An authoritarian government might lack the will or the information to prevent thousands of people from dying. But a democratic government, checked by the people and the press, is likely to take all reasonable measures to prevent this catastrophe, if only because it needs to do so to stay in office. At the same time, a free society facing the risk of famine is likely to have a great deal of information, at every stage, about the nature of the emerging problem and the effectiveness of current or possible responses. If famine relief plans are (in Gulick's words) "hatched in secret by a small group of partially informed men and then enforced through dictatorial authority," failure is far more likely. In a free society, some dissenters or malcontents will point out that a famine is on the horizon. If they offer evidence, leaders are going to have to respond to the risk of catastrophe.
Sen's finding is an especially vivid reminder of what happens every day in democracies. Diversity, openness, and dissent reveal actual and incipient problems. They improve society's pool of information and make it more likely that serious issues will be addressed. I do not deny that great suffering can be found in democracies as elsewhere. There is no guarantee, from civil liberties alone, that such suffering will be minimized. One reason is unequal distributions of political power, which decrease the likelihood that important information will actually reach public officials and that such officials will have the proper incentive to respond to suffering. But at least it can be said that a society which permits dissent and does not impose conformity is in a far better position to be aware of, and to correct, serious social problems.
Or consider the problem of witch-hunts-mass movements against made-up internal conspiracies. Witch-hunts are often conducted by public officials, aspiring or actual. They can also be carried out by people in the private sector, seeking to "purge" society of perceived threats. As the McCarthy period in the United States demonstrates, witch-hunts are far from impossible in democracies. We have seen that cascades and group polarization occur in free societies, and witch-hunts, including McCarthyism, are made possible by these social influences. But witch-hunts are far less likely, and far less damaging, in a system in which dissenters are able to disclose what they know and to check any claims about the disloyalty of fellow citizens." If civil liberties are firmly protected and if information is permitted to flow, skeptics can establish that the supposed internal conspiracies are a myth.
... Above all, the Constitution attempts to create a deliberative democracy, that is, a system that combines accountability to the 1 people with a measure of reflection and reason-giving. 12 In the last decades, many people have discussed the framers' aspiration to deliberative democracy. Their goal has been to show that a well-functioning democratic system attempts to ensure not merely responsiveness to the people through elections but also an exchange of reasons in the public sphere. In a deliberative democracy, the exercise of public power must be justified by legitimate reasons-not merely by the will of some segment of society, and indeed not merely by the will of the majority.
Both the opponents and the advocates of the Constitution were firmly committed to political deliberation. They also considered themselves "republicans," committed to a high degree of self-government without embracing pure populism. But deliberative democracies come in many different forms. The framers' greatest innovation consisted not in their emphasis on deliberation, which was uncontested at the time, but in their skepticism about homogeneity, their enthusiasm for disagreement and diversity, and their effort to accommodate and to structure that diversity. In the founding period, a large part of the country's discussion turned on the possibility of having a republican form of government in a nation with a heterogeneous citizenry.
The antifederalists, opponents of the proposed Constitution, thought this was impossible. [They ... insisted that the people "should be similar" and feared that without similarity "there will be constant clashing of opinions." The framers welcomed such clashing and urged that the "jarring of parties" would "promote deliberation and circumspection." As the framers stressed, widespread error is likely to result when likeminded people, insulated from others, deliberate on their own. In their view, heterogeneity of opinion can be a creative force. A Constitution that ensures the "jarring of parties" and "differences of opinion" will provide safeguards against unjustified extremism and unsupportable movements of view.
A similar point emerges from one of the most illuminating early debates, which raised the question whether the Bill of Rights should include a "right to instruct" representatives. Those in favor of that right argued that citizens of a particular region ought to have the authority to bind their representatives to vote in accordance with the citizens' views. This argument might appear reasonable as a way of improving the political accountability of representatives, and so it seemed to many at the time. In fact I suspect that many people in America and elsewhere would favor the "right to instruct" today. Shouldn't representatives do as their constituents wish? But there is a problem with this view, especially in an era in which political interest was closely aligned with geography. Citizens of a particular region, influenced by one another's views, are more likely to end up with indefensible positions, very possibly as a result of their own insularity ...
p152
... federalism permits states to restrain one another. A particularly important part of this process involves the right of individual citizens to exit. If one state oppresses its citizens, they have the freedom to leave. That very freedom creates a before-the-fact deterrent to oppressive legislation. It also creates an after-the-fact safeguard. In this sense, the right to travel from one sovereign state to another is first and foremost a political right, akin to the right to vote itself.
p155
An understanding of group influences also casts fresh light on one of the most important and controversial provisions in the American Constitution: the grant of power to Congress, and not the President, to declare war." The debates in the framing period suggest a fear of two risks: the President might make war without sufficient authorization from the citizenry, and he might do so without sufficient deliberation and debate among diverse people. Thus, Charles Pinkney of South Carolina urged that the Senate "would be the best depository, being more acquainted with foreign affairs, and most capable of proper resolutions." 'By contrast, another delegate from that state, Peirce Butler, sought to vest the power of war in the President, urging that he "will have all the requisite qualities, and will not make war but when the Nation will support it." Madison and Elbridge Gerry made the key compromise, suggesting that Congress should have the power to "declare" war. This provision was understood to permit the President "to repel sudden attacks." But otherwise, the President would be required to seek congressional approval, in part on the theory that (in Mason's words) this would amount "to clogging rather than facilitating war" and to "facilitating peace.
If warmaking is seen to be an especially grave act, we might be troubled about permitting the President to make war on his own. This is not at all because the President is immune from political checks. It is because group dynamics within the executive branch create a risk of polarization, as like-minded people push one another to indefensible extremes, while hidden profiles remain hidden. A requirement of congressional authorization ensures a check from another institution, with diverse voices and a degree of independence from the executive branch. There are few guarantees in life, but the result is to increase the likelihood that when the nation goes to war, it is for good and sufficient reasons.
p160
Thomas Jefferson wrote, turbulence can be
"productive of good. It prevents the degeneracy of government, and nourishes a general attention to ... public affairs. I hold ... that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing.
p165
... what three words in the English language "can define a person's character" He answered his own question with those three words: "I was wrong."
Why Societies Need Dissent
Home Page
Content: One of their primary social functions is to expose readers and viewers to a range of new topics and dissenting opinions. p109
... a well-functioning system of free speech. But it should be clear that such a system depends not only on freedom from censorship but also on private and public institutions ensuring that a wide range of views will be heard. p109
Free societies depend on a high degree of receptivity, in which many perspectives are heard and in which dissent and disagreement are not unwelcome. p109
Even in democracies, disparities in power play a large role in silencing dissent-sometimes by ensuring that dissenters keep quiet, but more insidiously by ensuring that dissenters are not really heard. Social science offers relevant lessons here; it shows that members of low-status groups-less educated people, African Americans, sometimes women-carry less influence within deliberating groups than their higher-status peers. In the actual world of deliberation, powerless dissenters face an array of obstacles to a fair hearing. The point underlies a broader one: The free speech principle is mostly about law, not about culture.
|
http://thirdworldtraveler.com/Dissent/Free_Speech_WSND.html
|
msmarco_v2.1_doc_03_338148110#11_627890704
|
Title: Free Speech, The Framers' Greatest Contribution excerpted from the book Why Societies Need Dissent by Cass R. Sunstein
Headings:
Free Speech,
The Framers' Greatest Contribution
excerpted from the book
Why Societies Need Dissent
by Cass R. Sunstein
Harvard University Press, 2003, paper
p97
The free speech principle forbids government from punishing people for publicly rejecting widely held opinions. To this extent, it creates crucial protection against the blunders and pathologies that can come from social influences on behavior and belief. At the same time, freedom of expression diminishes the gap between a nation's leaders and its citizens, and for that reason promotes monitoring of the former by the latter. James Madison, the author of the first amendment, used this point to object to the whole idea of a "Sedition Act," which would criminalize certain forms of criticism of public officials. Madison urged that "the right of electing the members of the Government constitutes ... the essence of a free and responsible government" and that the "value and efficacy of this right depends on the knowledge of the comparative merits and demerits of the candidates for the public trust."'
But what, in particular, does the free speech principle require In the common understanding, the principle bans government from "censoring" speech of which it disapproves. In the usual cases, the government attempts to impose penalties, whether civil or criminal, on political dissent, art, commercial advertising, or sexually explicit speech. In most cases, these penalties are unacceptable. The constitutional question is whether the government has a legitimate and sufficiently weighty reason for restricting the speech that it seeks to control. In a free society, government cannot defend restrictions by pointing to the risk that the speech will prove dangerous or harmful. Even a significant risk is insufficient to justify censorship. Dissenters are permitted to criticize official policy in both war and peace. Nor is it enough for government to say that the speech is likely to persuade people to reject received beliefs-or even to accept false beliefs. Officials cannot regulate speech on the ground that people will be convinced by it. If government is going to restrict speech that it fears, it must show that the speech is likely to cause, and is intended to cause, imminent lawless action. This burden might be met in rare cases, as, for example, when someone is disclosing the names of undercover agents for the Central Intelligence Agency in an effort to put their lives at risk. But speech under this highly protective standard is rarely subject to government control.
Of course, the right to free speech extends well beyond politics. But at its core, that right is designed to protect political disagreement and dissent. In this way, it furnishes the foundation for democratic self-government. The protection of dissenters is intended not only to protect individual speakers but also to protect the countless number of people who benefit from the courage, or foolhardiness, of those who dissent. When someone blows the whistle on government fraud or deceit, the real winners are members of the public, not the whistleblower. Legal protection of whistleblowing is an effort to ensure the free flow of information.
As an illustration of this particular point, consider the Pentagon Papers case.' In 1969 and 1970 Daniel Ellsberg, a former official in the Department of State, copied a top-secret study of the Vietnam War. The study explored the formulation of U.S. policy toward Indochina. Its forty-seven volumes included discussions of secret diplomatic negotiations and military operations. Ellsberg gave the Pentagon Papers to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator William Fulbright, and later to The New York Times and The Washington Post, both of which sought to publish excerpts. Ellsberg was a classic whistleblower. He believed that the government had lied to its citizens and that the release of the Pentagon Papers was necessary to set the record straight. For its part, the government's fears extended beyond its own embarrassment; officials claimed that disclosure would impair the nation's ability to negotiate with its enemy, thus prolonging the war and leading to countless avoidable deaths. Invoking this concern, the government sought to enjoin publication.
Dividing five to four, the Supreme Court rejected the government's arguments. Justice Hugo Black wrote that government cannot "halt the publication of current news of vital importance to the people of this country." He added that the government's "power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censor the Government. The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people." To say the least, judges do not usually take a strong stand against the President in the midst of war. Other Supreme Courts, with other justices, might not show similar courage. But it is revealing that the government's fears proved unjustified. The publication of the Pentagon Papers did not cause demonstrable harm. Decades later, the Pentagon Papers case stands as a dramatic symbol of the constitutional protection afforded to disclosure and dissent... With an appreciation of the importance of dissent, we can better understand what has become the "core" of modern free speech law: a prohibition on government discrimination against any point of view.
p106
The twentieth century saw the emergence of the great .' "general interest intermediaries"-daily newspapers, weekly news-magazines, commercial broadcasters, and public museums. These private institutions came to serve, for better or worse, some of the functions of traditional public forums. They did, and do, this by exposing people to topics and ideas that they have not specifically selected and also by creating, much of the time, something like a shared culture. To the (limited) extent that dissenters are able to reach a diverse public, it is because they are able to have access to information sources that themselves serve diverse people.
p107
if the daily newspaper is doing a decent job, readers will come across a wide range of topics and opinions, including those in which they might have expressed no interest in advance.
p107
Newspapers, weekly newsmagazines, and evening news shows have some such effects every day. One of their primary social functions is to expose readers and viewers to a range of new topics and dissenting opinions.
p109
... a well-functioning system of free speech. But it should be clear that such a system depends not only on freedom from censorship but also on private and public institutions ensuring that a wide range of views will be heard.
p109
Free societies depend on a high degree of receptivity, in which many perspectives are heard and in which dissent and disagreement are not unwelcome.
p109
Even in democracies, disparities in power play a large role in silencing dissent-sometimes by ensuring that dissenters keep quiet, but more insidiously by ensuring that dissenters are not really heard. Social science offers relevant lessons here; it shows that members of low-status groups-less educated people, African Americans, sometimes women-carry less influence within deliberating groups than their higher-status peers. In the actual world of deliberation, powerless dissenters face an array of obstacles to a fair hearing.
The point underlies a broader one: The free speech principle is mostly about law, not about culture. A legal system that is committed to free speech forbids government from silencing dissenters. That is an extraordinary accomplishment, but it is not nearly enough... people often silence themselves not because of law but because they defer to the crowd... A well-functioning democracy has a culture of free speech, not simply legal protection of free speech. It encourages independence of mind. It imparts a willingness to challenge prevailing opinion through both words and deeds. Equally important, it encourages a certain set of attitudes in listeners, one that gives a respectful hearing to those who do not embrace the conventional wisdom. In a culture of free speech, the attitude of listeners is no less important than that of speakers.
p111
Greater information reduces conformity effects ...
p112
Political extremism is often a product of group polarization. In fact, a good way to create an extremist group, or cult of any kind, is to separate members from the rest of society. The separation can occur physically or psychologically, by creating a sense of suspicion about nonmembers. With such separation, the information and views of those outside the group can be discredited and hence nothing will disturb the process of polarization as group members continue to talk.
p145
... the American founders' largest contribution consisted in their design of a system that would ensure a place for diverse views in government. The founding period saw an extraordinary debate over the nature of republican institutions, and in particular over the legacy of Montesquieu. Montesquieu was a revered source for all sides and a central figure in the development of the idea of separation of powers. The antifederalists, eloquent opponents of the proposed Constitution, complained that the framers had betrayed Montesquieu by attempting to create a powerful central government, one that was impossibly ill-suited to American diversity. In their public writings during the debates over whether the Constitution should be ratified, many of the antifederalists urged that a republic could flourish only in homogenous areas of like-minded people. An especially articulate antifederalist wrote under the name "Brutus," in honor of the Roman republican who participated in the assassination of Julius Caesar to prevent Caesar from overthrowing the Roman republic. Brutus spoke for the republican tradition when he told the American people: "In a republic, the manners, sentiments, and interests of the people should be similar. If this be not the case, there will be constant clashing of opinions; and the representatives of one part will be continually striving against those of the other."
Advocates of the Constitution believed that Brutus had it exactly backwards. They welcomed the diversity and the "constantly clashing of opinions." They affirmatively sought a situation in which "the representatives of one part will be continually striving against those of the other." Alexander Hamilton spoke most clearly on the point, urging that the "differences of opinion, and the jarring of parties in [the legislative] department of the government... often promote deliberation and circumspection; and serve to check the excesses of the majority."
p146
Luther Gulick was a high-level official in the Roosevelt administration during World War II. In 1948, shortly after the Allied victory, Gulick delivered a series of lectures, unimaginatively titled Administrative Reflections from World War II, which offered, in some (tedious) detail, a set of observations about bureaucratic structure and administrative reform.' In a brief and far-from-tedious epilogue, Gulick set out to compare the warmaking capacities of democracies with those of their Fascist adversaries.
Gulick began by noting that the initial evaluation of the United States among leaders of Germany and Japan was "not flattering. We were, in their view, "incapable of quick or effective national action even in our own defense because under democracy we were divided by our polyglot society and under capitalism deadlocked by our conflicting private interests." Our adversaries said that we could not fight. And dictatorships did seem to have real advantages. They were free of delays, inertia, and sharp internal divisions. They did not have to deal on a continuing basis with the contending opinions of a mass of citizens, some with little education and little intelligence. Dictatorships could also rely on a single leader and an integrated hierarchy, making it easier to develop national unity and enthusiasm, to avoid the surprises and reversals that come from a free citizenry, and to act vigorously and with dispatch. But these claims about the advantages of totalitarian regimes turned out to be bogus.
The United States and its allies performed far better than Germany, Italy, and Japan. Gulick linked their superiority directly to democracy itself. In particular, he emphasized "the kind of review and criticism which democracy alone affords. With a totalitarian regime, plans "are hatched in secret by a small group of partially informed men and then enforced through dictatorial authority." Such plans are likely to contain fatal weaknesses. By contrast, a democracy allows wide criticism and debate, thus avoiding "many a disaster." In a totalitarian system, criticisms and suggestions are neither wanted nor heeded. "Even the leaders tend to believe their own propaganda. All of the stream of authority and information is from the top down," so that when change is needed, the high command never learns of that need. This is a description of groupthink in action. In a democracy, by contrast, "the public and the press have no hesitation in observing and criticizing the first evidence of failure once a program has been put into operation." Information flows within the government-between the lowest and highest ranks-and via public opinion.
With a combination of melancholy and surprise, Gulick note that the United States and its allies did not show more unity than Germany, Japan, and Italy. "The gregarious social impulses of men around the world are apparently much the same, giving rise to the same reactions of group loyalty when men are subjected to the same true or imagined group threats."' Top-down management of mass morale by German and Japanese leaders actually worked.
Dictatorships are less successful in war not because of less loyalty or more distrust from the public but because leaders do not receive the checks and corrections that come from democratic processes. (The military failures of Saddam Hussein are a recent case in point, though Saddam also faced widespread internal disloyalty.)
Gulick is claiming here that institutions perform better when challenges are frequent, when people do not stifle themselves, and when information flows freely. Of course, Gulick is providing his personal account of a particular set of events, and we do not really know to what extent success in war is a product of democratic institutions. The Soviet Union, for example, fought valiantly and well even under the tyranny of Stalin. But Gulick's general claim contains a great deal of truth. Institutions are far more likely to succeed if they subject leaders to critical scrutiny and if they ensure that courses of action will face continuing monitoring and review from outsiders-if, in short, they use diversity and dissent to reduce the risks of error that come from social influences.
Gulick's emphasis on the values of open debate is strengthened by one of the most striking findings in the last half-century of social science: In the history of the world, no society with democratic elections and a free press has ever experienced a famine. As Nobel Prize recipient Amartya Sen has shown, famines are a product not merely of food scarcity but also of social responses to food scarcity. If a nation is determined to prevent mass starvation, and if it has even a minimal level of resources, mass starvation will not occur. An authoritarian government might lack the will or the information to prevent thousands of people from dying. But a democratic government, checked by the people and the press, is likely to take all reasonable measures to prevent this catastrophe, if only because it needs to do so to stay in office. At the same time, a free society facing the risk of famine is likely to have a great deal of information, at every stage, about the nature of the emerging problem and the effectiveness of current or possible responses. If famine relief plans are (in Gulick's words) "hatched in secret by a small group of partially informed men and then enforced through dictatorial authority," failure is far more likely. In a free society, some dissenters or malcontents will point out that a famine is on the horizon. If they offer evidence, leaders are going to have to respond to the risk of catastrophe.
Sen's finding is an especially vivid reminder of what happens every day in democracies. Diversity, openness, and dissent reveal actual and incipient problems. They improve society's pool of information and make it more likely that serious issues will be addressed. I do not deny that great suffering can be found in democracies as elsewhere. There is no guarantee, from civil liberties alone, that such suffering will be minimized. One reason is unequal distributions of political power, which decrease the likelihood that important information will actually reach public officials and that such officials will have the proper incentive to respond to suffering. But at least it can be said that a society which permits dissent and does not impose conformity is in a far better position to be aware of, and to correct, serious social problems.
Or consider the problem of witch-hunts-mass movements against made-up internal conspiracies. Witch-hunts are often conducted by public officials, aspiring or actual. They can also be carried out by people in the private sector, seeking to "purge" society of perceived threats. As the McCarthy period in the United States demonstrates, witch-hunts are far from impossible in democracies. We have seen that cascades and group polarization occur in free societies, and witch-hunts, including McCarthyism, are made possible by these social influences. But witch-hunts are far less likely, and far less damaging, in a system in which dissenters are able to disclose what they know and to check any claims about the disloyalty of fellow citizens." If civil liberties are firmly protected and if information is permitted to flow, skeptics can establish that the supposed internal conspiracies are a myth.
... Above all, the Constitution attempts to create a deliberative democracy, that is, a system that combines accountability to the 1 people with a measure of reflection and reason-giving. 12 In the last decades, many people have discussed the framers' aspiration to deliberative democracy. Their goal has been to show that a well-functioning democratic system attempts to ensure not merely responsiveness to the people through elections but also an exchange of reasons in the public sphere. In a deliberative democracy, the exercise of public power must be justified by legitimate reasons-not merely by the will of some segment of society, and indeed not merely by the will of the majority.
Both the opponents and the advocates of the Constitution were firmly committed to political deliberation. They also considered themselves "republicans," committed to a high degree of self-government without embracing pure populism. But deliberative democracies come in many different forms. The framers' greatest innovation consisted not in their emphasis on deliberation, which was uncontested at the time, but in their skepticism about homogeneity, their enthusiasm for disagreement and diversity, and their effort to accommodate and to structure that diversity. In the founding period, a large part of the country's discussion turned on the possibility of having a republican form of government in a nation with a heterogeneous citizenry.
The antifederalists, opponents of the proposed Constitution, thought this was impossible. [They ... insisted that the people "should be similar" and feared that without similarity "there will be constant clashing of opinions." The framers welcomed such clashing and urged that the "jarring of parties" would "promote deliberation and circumspection." As the framers stressed, widespread error is likely to result when likeminded people, insulated from others, deliberate on their own. In their view, heterogeneity of opinion can be a creative force. A Constitution that ensures the "jarring of parties" and "differences of opinion" will provide safeguards against unjustified extremism and unsupportable movements of view.
A similar point emerges from one of the most illuminating early debates, which raised the question whether the Bill of Rights should include a "right to instruct" representatives. Those in favor of that right argued that citizens of a particular region ought to have the authority to bind their representatives to vote in accordance with the citizens' views. This argument might appear reasonable as a way of improving the political accountability of representatives, and so it seemed to many at the time. In fact I suspect that many people in America and elsewhere would favor the "right to instruct" today. Shouldn't representatives do as their constituents wish? But there is a problem with this view, especially in an era in which political interest was closely aligned with geography. Citizens of a particular region, influenced by one another's views, are more likely to end up with indefensible positions, very possibly as a result of their own insularity ...
p152
... federalism permits states to restrain one another. A particularly important part of this process involves the right of individual citizens to exit. If one state oppresses its citizens, they have the freedom to leave. That very freedom creates a before-the-fact deterrent to oppressive legislation. It also creates an after-the-fact safeguard. In this sense, the right to travel from one sovereign state to another is first and foremost a political right, akin to the right to vote itself.
p155
An understanding of group influences also casts fresh light on one of the most important and controversial provisions in the American Constitution: the grant of power to Congress, and not the President, to declare war." The debates in the framing period suggest a fear of two risks: the President might make war without sufficient authorization from the citizenry, and he might do so without sufficient deliberation and debate among diverse people. Thus, Charles Pinkney of South Carolina urged that the Senate "would be the best depository, being more acquainted with foreign affairs, and most capable of proper resolutions." 'By contrast, another delegate from that state, Peirce Butler, sought to vest the power of war in the President, urging that he "will have all the requisite qualities, and will not make war but when the Nation will support it." Madison and Elbridge Gerry made the key compromise, suggesting that Congress should have the power to "declare" war. This provision was understood to permit the President "to repel sudden attacks." But otherwise, the President would be required to seek congressional approval, in part on the theory that (in Mason's words) this would amount "to clogging rather than facilitating war" and to "facilitating peace.
If warmaking is seen to be an especially grave act, we might be troubled about permitting the President to make war on his own. This is not at all because the President is immune from political checks. It is because group dynamics within the executive branch create a risk of polarization, as like-minded people push one another to indefensible extremes, while hidden profiles remain hidden. A requirement of congressional authorization ensures a check from another institution, with diverse voices and a degree of independence from the executive branch. There are few guarantees in life, but the result is to increase the likelihood that when the nation goes to war, it is for good and sufficient reasons.
p160
Thomas Jefferson wrote, turbulence can be
"productive of good. It prevents the degeneracy of government, and nourishes a general attention to ... public affairs. I hold ... that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing.
p165
... what three words in the English language "can define a person's character" He answered his own question with those three words: "I was wrong."
Why Societies Need Dissent
Home Page
Content: Social science offers relevant lessons here; it shows that members of low-status groups-less educated people, African Americans, sometimes women-carry less influence within deliberating groups than their higher-status peers. In the actual world of deliberation, powerless dissenters face an array of obstacles to a fair hearing. The point underlies a broader one: The free speech principle is mostly about law, not about culture. A legal system that is committed to free speech forbids government from silencing dissenters. That is an extraordinary accomplishment, but it is not nearly enough... people often silence themselves not because of law but because they defer to the crowd... A well-functioning democracy has a culture of free speech, not simply legal protection of free speech. It encourages independence of mind. It imparts a willingness to challenge prevailing opinion through both words and deeds. Equally important, it encourages a certain set of attitudes in listeners, one that gives a respectful hearing to those who do not embrace the conventional wisdom.
|
http://thirdworldtraveler.com/Dissent/Free_Speech_WSND.html
|
msmarco_v2.1_doc_03_339770629#6_632275512
|
Title: Land-Use Controls: Comprehensive Plans, Zoning, and Property Restrictions
Headings: Land-Use Controls: Comprehensive Plans, Zoning, and Property Restrictions
Land-Use Controls: Comprehensive Plans, Zoning, and Property Restrictions
Legality for Land-Use Controls
Comprehensive Plan
Zoning
Subdivisions
Building Codes and Certificates of Occupancy
Changing Zoning: Zoning Boards, Variances, and Conditional Use Permits
Private Land-Use Controls
Content: Zoning ordinances must also not violate the state constitution or other applicable provisions in state law. Generally, zoning ordinances: must be exercised in a reasonable manner
be clear and specific
be nondiscriminatory
apply to all property in a similar manner
promote public health, safety, or the general welfare under the state's police power
Comprehensive Plan
Before the details for land-use controls can be mapped out, there must be a comprehensive plan (aka master plan) that will satisfy objectives and prevent conflicts in future development, providing a blueprint for sustainable growth, while balancing social, economic, environmental, and aesthetic desires. Land-use controls specify quantity and location of parcels for residents, business, agriculture, industry, utilities, community facilities, parks and recreations, traffic and transit facilities, as well as marking off floodplains and potential hazards. A major consideration is for housing, both present and future needs, while preventing or rehabilitating declining neighborhoods. A transportation infrastructure must also be provided: highways, public transit, parking, and possibly pedestrian and bicycle paths. To protect health and the environment, there must be a comprehensive plan for utilities, including water sources, sewage, storm drainage, flood management, waste treatment and disposal. A comprehensive plan will also consider means of conserving resources, such as energy. For instance, the efficiency of transportation will depend on decisions regarding the location of traffic signals, timing of the signals, two-way or one-way traffic and which directions for the one-way traffic.
|
http://thismatter.com/money/real-estate/land-use-controls.htm
|
msmarco_v2.1_doc_03_339770629#7_632277840
|
Title: Land-Use Controls: Comprehensive Plans, Zoning, and Property Restrictions
Headings: Land-Use Controls: Comprehensive Plans, Zoning, and Property Restrictions
Land-Use Controls: Comprehensive Plans, Zoning, and Property Restrictions
Legality for Land-Use Controls
Comprehensive Plan
Zoning
Subdivisions
Building Codes and Certificates of Occupancy
Changing Zoning: Zoning Boards, Variances, and Conditional Use Permits
Private Land-Use Controls
Content: A transportation infrastructure must also be provided: highways, public transit, parking, and possibly pedestrian and bicycle paths. To protect health and the environment, there must be a comprehensive plan for utilities, including water sources, sewage, storm drainage, flood management, waste treatment and disposal. A comprehensive plan will also consider means of conserving resources, such as energy. For instance, the efficiency of transportation will depend on decisions regarding the location of traffic signals, timing of the signals, two-way or one-way traffic and which directions for the one-way traffic. Zoning
If the comprehensive plan is the general blueprint, then zoning is the details, local laws enacted according to the comprehensive plan, usually designating specific districts for particular types of structures or activities, such as residences and businesses. A zoning ordinance generally defines: the purpose of the ordinance
the zoning classifications of permitted uses for the different sections of land
restrictions, such as setbacks and height limits
procedure for allowing nonconforming uses
procedure for granting variances, amendments, and hearing appeals
penalties for violations
Zoning determines: permitted uses for each parcel of land
lot sizes
types of structures
building heights
setbacks, being the minimum distance between structures on the property and streets or sidewalks
density, either population density or the amount of structures per unit area of land
style and appearances of structures
protection of natural resources. The city planning department creates and maintains a zoning map, a diagram of the existing zoning classifications:
|
http://thismatter.com/money/real-estate/land-use-controls.htm
|
msmarco_v2.1_doc_03_342775555#6_636222240
|
Title: Native Americans and the Law : Native Americans Under Current United States Law
Headings:
Native Americans and the Law: Native Americans Under Current United States Law
Suggestions for Further Reading
Content: As non-parties to the United States Constitution, the tribes are not subject to the restrictions contained in the Bill of Rights or subsequent amendments. Talton v. Maves, 163 U.S.. 376 (1896). Thus tribes have been free historically to legislate to the extent allowed by their own constitutions. Many of these constitutions contained provisions equivalent or analogous to the Bill of Rights provisions. Nevertheless, in 1968, inspired by the Civil Rights movement, Congress passed a statute imposing on tribal governments many of the Bill of Rights provisions and other limitations as well. Some of the Bill of Rights provisions were not included in the Indian Civil Rights Act. The Act does not, for example, prohibit the establishment of religion by tribal governments. On the other hand, in some instances the Act is more limiting than the Bill of Rights. Under the Act in its present version, for example, tribal courts are denied the power to impose sentences in criminal cases in excess of $5000 and/or one year in jail. This restriction has made it difficult for many tribal courts to address criminal activity in their jurisdictions.
|
http://thorpe.ou.edu/guide/robertson.html
|
msmarco_v2.1_doc_03_342775555#7_636223766
|
Title: Native Americans and the Law : Native Americans Under Current United States Law
Headings:
Native Americans and the Law: Native Americans Under Current United States Law
Suggestions for Further Reading
Content: Some of the Bill of Rights provisions were not included in the Indian Civil Rights Act. The Act does not, for example, prohibit the establishment of religion by tribal governments. On the other hand, in some instances the Act is more limiting than the Bill of Rights. Under the Act in its present version, for example, tribal courts are denied the power to impose sentences in criminal cases in excess of $5000 and/or one year in jail. This restriction has made it difficult for many tribal courts to address criminal activity in their jurisdictions. The Indian Civil Rights Act provides statutory, but not constitutional, limitations. Individuals who feel their Indian Civil Rights Act rights have been violated by a tribal government cannot bring a federal civil rights suit to challenge the allegedly violating act. Instead, as the Supreme Court made clear in Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49 (1978), persons wishing to bring Indian Civil Rights Act claims may do so only in tribal court, and then only if the tribe has accorded that court jurisdiction. Congress has also limited the power of tribes by making tribal governments subject to certain laws of general application, for example, environmental protection laws. Where these laws fail to mention tribes and their application impinges on treaty rights, courts must make individual deterrninations to assess whether a given law applies to a tribe.
|
http://thorpe.ou.edu/guide/robertson.html
|
msmarco_v2.1_doc_03_342775555#8_636225567
|
Title: Native Americans and the Law : Native Americans Under Current United States Law
Headings:
Native Americans and the Law: Native Americans Under Current United States Law
Suggestions for Further Reading
Content: The Indian Civil Rights Act provides statutory, but not constitutional, limitations. Individuals who feel their Indian Civil Rights Act rights have been violated by a tribal government cannot bring a federal civil rights suit to challenge the allegedly violating act. Instead, as the Supreme Court made clear in Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49 (1978), persons wishing to bring Indian Civil Rights Act claims may do so only in tribal court, and then only if the tribe has accorded that court jurisdiction. Congress has also limited the power of tribes by making tribal governments subject to certain laws of general application, for example, environmental protection laws. Where these laws fail to mention tribes and their application impinges on treaty rights, courts must make individual deterrninations to assess whether a given law applies to a tribe. Congress has the power to abrogate Indian treaty rights, but when it does so it is liable to pay the tribe compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Before a court will find a Fifth Amendment taking to have occurred it will look to Congress' intent. Current federal circuit court splits include tribal accountability under the Occupational Safety and Health Act and the federal collective bargaining laws. Since the late 1970s, the Supreme Court has also been an active participant in placing limits on the scope of tribal sovereign power. The Supreme Court is the architect and custodian of a federal common law doctrine called the "discovery doctrine."
|
http://thorpe.ou.edu/guide/robertson.html
|
msmarco_v2.1_doc_03_342775555#10_636229316
|
Title: Native Americans and the Law : Native Americans Under Current United States Law
Headings:
Native Americans and the Law: Native Americans Under Current United States Law
Suggestions for Further Reading
Content: Introduced in the 1823 case of Johnson v. M'Intosh, 2 1 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 543, the discovery doctrine provided that at the discovery of the New World by Europeans, title to all discovered lands vested in the discovering European sovereign, while the tribes retained an occupancy right alienable only to the same discovering sovereign. Discovery had deprived the tribes of the power to alienate their lands freely. In 1978, in Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 435 U.S. 191, the Supreme Court held that discovery also deprived the tribes of the power to conduct criminal prosecutions of non-Indians. In 1990, in Duro v. Reina, 495 U.S. 676, the Oliphant holding was expanded to proscribe tribal criminal prosecutions of non-member Indians. The Duro decision prompted a federal legislative override; the constitutionality of this override has been questioned, and its effect remains uncertain. Other discovery-related limitations on tribal power involve the exercise of civil jurisdiction. In Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544 (198 l), the Supreme Court held that tribes could not exercise civil regulatory jurisdiction over non-Indian activities on non-Indian-owned lands within the bounds of reservations, unless the non-Indian had some commercial relationship with the tribe or the activity threatened or had some direct upon the tribe's political integrity, economic security, or health or welfare. In Strate v. A-l Contractors, 520 U.S. 438 (1997), the Court expanded this rule to deny a tribal court the right to hear a civil dispute brought by a non-Indian against another non-Indian for a tort arising on a state right-of way within the reservation.
|
http://thorpe.ou.edu/guide/robertson.html
|
msmarco_v2.1_doc_03_342775555#11_636231360
|
Title: Native Americans and the Law : Native Americans Under Current United States Law
Headings:
Native Americans and the Law: Native Americans Under Current United States Law
Suggestions for Further Reading
Content: The Duro decision prompted a federal legislative override; the constitutionality of this override has been questioned, and its effect remains uncertain. Other discovery-related limitations on tribal power involve the exercise of civil jurisdiction. In Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544 (198 l), the Supreme Court held that tribes could not exercise civil regulatory jurisdiction over non-Indian activities on non-Indian-owned lands within the bounds of reservations, unless the non-Indian had some commercial relationship with the tribe or the activity threatened or had some direct upon the tribe's political integrity, economic security, or health or welfare. In Strate v. A-l Contractors, 520 U.S. 438 (1997), the Court expanded this rule to deny a tribal court the right to hear a civil dispute brought by a non-Indian against another non-Indian for a tort arising on a state right-of way within the reservation. Tribes exercise jurisdiction over Indian Country, as defined in 11 U.S.C. 8 115 1. Indian Country includes all land within the limits of Indian reservations, all "dependent Indian communities", and all restricted Indian allotments, i.e., individual restricted parcels formerly part of reservations but allotted to Individual tribal members pursuant to the General Allotment Act of 1887 or similar statute. Reservations, for the most part, resulted from treaties. Conceptually, "reservations" were not lands given to the tribes, but tribal lands reserved by the tribes from larger tracts other parts of which were ceded to the United States. This applies to other treaty rights as well:
|
http://thorpe.ou.edu/guide/robertson.html
|
msmarco_v2.1_doc_03_347627186#5_645489572
|
Title: what to do with artichoke hearts
Headings: what to do with artichoke hearts
what to do with artichoke hearts
Comments (13)
Browse Gardening and Landscaping Stories on Houzz See all Stories
Content: They should be fully cooked, so don't overcook them if you put them in a recipe. You can use them to make artichoke dip. Just make the base first and add the artichoke just long enough to heat. You can also use them in omelettes and pasta dishes on the same basis--make everything else first and just add them in long enough to get hot through, and if they're not already seasoned, to pick up a little flavor of the dish. If they're not already marinated, you could put the wedges in with some really yummy herbs and seasoning, and eat them right out of the jar as snacks. Like Save June 15, 2014 at 3:35PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Islay_Corbel
I'm supposing that if they're hearts, then there shouldn't be any fuzz or leaves! I love them in a bean salad, with tuna. I wouldn't freeze them either. You can also warm them up in some melted butter and seasoning and serve with meat.
|
http://ths.gardenweb.com/discussions/2425969/what-to-do-with-artichoke-hearts
|
msmarco_v2.1_doc_03_349299576#1_648212015
|
Title: What is furikake? | Thyme Bombe
Headings:
What is furikake?
What is your favorite seasoning or spice?
Content: Furikake is a popular Japanese condiment used mainly as a seasoning for rice. There are dozens, if not hundreds of varieties of this stuff available and there are really no rules as to what they should be made up of. The usual suspects include toasted sesame, bits of nori, bonito flake, dried vegetables, dried egg or other proteins, puffed and toasted rice, and usually salt and spices. The two we have currently are a noritamago flavor and a katsuo mirin flavor. Noritamago is a combination of the words “nori” and “tamago.” You know nori as the dark green seaweed sheets used to wrap maki sushi. In this furikake, the nori is cut into tiny pieces and serves as the salty element. Tamago is the Japanese word for egg, and this furikake contains lots of dried egg bits. There is also toasted sesame and a tiny bit of bonito flake in there too. We like to eat this on top of plain rice, on fried rice, and sometimes mixed into plain rice and pressed into a ball to form what is known as an onigiri.
|
http://thymebombe.com/2011/02/23/what-is-furikake/
|
msmarco_v2.1_doc_03_350029426#11_649577371
|
Title: Neotraditionalism
Headings: A Critique of Neotraditionalism
A Critique of Neotraditionalism
What is Neotraditionalism?
What is Metro?
Alternatives to Zoning
Content: Planners are nostalgic for a time before any of them were born--a time that people in their profession said was so bad that it could only be fixed by zoning. But zoning created many of the problems planners want to fix. And how are we supposed to fix them? More zoning. This time, however, planners want zoning with an attitude. Says Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk, most zoning codes are proscriptive--they just try to prevent things from happening. For example, a zone calling for 5,000-square-foot building lots is a minimum, allowing people to use 10,000- or 20,000-foot building lots if they want. In contrast, says Plater-Zyberk, neotraditional zoning is prescriptive. We want the streets to feel and act a certain way. In other words, a zone might call for building lots with a maximum size of 5,000-square feet.
|
http://ti.org/neotrad.html
|
msmarco_v2.1_doc_03_350029426#12_649578508
|
Title: Neotraditionalism
Headings: A Critique of Neotraditionalism
A Critique of Neotraditionalism
What is Neotraditionalism?
What is Metro?
Alternatives to Zoning
Content: Says Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk, most zoning codes are proscriptive--they just try to prevent things from happening. For example, a zone calling for 5,000-square-foot building lots is a minimum, allowing people to use 10,000- or 20,000-foot building lots if they want. In contrast, says Plater-Zyberk, neotraditional zoning is prescriptive. We want the streets to feel and act a certain way. In other words, a zone might call for building lots with a maximum size of 5,000-square feet. Such prescriptive zoning is used in many places, including parts of the Portland area. The multifamily residential zone being considered for Oak Grove is prescriptive; it forbids anyone from building a single-family home. Planners got it wrong before and the urban blight that they now decry is their fault. How is it that giving them more power--the power not just to prevent certain uses but to prescribe certain uses--will fix the problem?
|
http://ti.org/neotrad.html
|
msmarco_v2.1_doc_03_351046758#1_651127525
|
Title: Sea Level Trends - Frequently Asked Questions
Headings: Frequently Asked Questions
Frequently Asked Questions
Content: Global Sea Level Rise" refers to the increase currently observed in the average Global Sea Level Trend, which is primarily attributed to changes in ocean volume due to two factors: ice melt and thermal expansion. Melting of glaciers and continental ice masses, such as the Greenland ice sheet, which are linked to changes in atmospheric temperature, can contribute significant amounts of freshwater input to the Earth's oceans. Additionally, a steady increase in global atmospheric temperature creates an expansion of saline sea water (i.e., salt water) molecules (called thermal expansion), thereby increasing ocean volume. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Report estimates that the global sea level rise was approximately 1.7-1.8 millimeters per year (mm/yr) over the past century (IPCC, 2007), based on tide station measurements around the world, with projected increased trends in sea level in the 20th Century based on global climate models. Tide stations measure Local Sea Level, which refers to the height of the water as measured along the coast relative to a specific point on land. Water level measurements at tide stations are referenced to stable vertical points (or bench marks) on the land and a known relationship is established. However, the measurements at any given tide station include both global sea level rise and vertical land motion, such as subsidence, glacial rebound, or large-scale tectonic motion. Because the heights of both the land and the water are changing, the land-water interface can vary spatially and temporally and must be defined over time. Depending on the rates of vertical land motion relative to changes in sea level, observed local sea level trends may differ greatly from the average rate of global sea level rise, and vary widely from one location to the next.
|
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/faq.htm
|
msmarco_v2.1_doc_03_353227227#0_655835080
|
Title: Here Are 6 Huge Websites China is Censoring Right Now | Time
Headings: Here Are 6 Huge Websites China is Censoring Right Now
Here Are 6 Huge Websites China is Censoring Right Now
Google
Wikipedia
The Wall Street Journal
RedTube.com
LinkedIn
Facebook
Get The Brief. Sign up to receive the top stories you need to know right now.
Content: Here Are 6 Huge Websites China is Censoring Right Now | Time
Here Are 6 Huge Websites China is Censoring Right Now
A pedestrian walks past Google Inc.'s China headquarters in Beijing, China, on Tuesday, June 29, 2010. Bloomberg—Bloomberg via Getty Images
By Sam Frizell
June 4, 2014 10:46 AM EDT
I t’s widely known that the Chinese government has long exerted tight control over Internet access on the mainland, deploying an extensive apparatus to regulate what its citizens can read and publish on the web. The Chinese authorities employed more than 2 million people in 2013 to monitor web activity on blogs and social media sites like the wildly popular social media site Weibo, and blocks access to topics it deems sensitive, like the Free Tibet movement, for instance, and democratic activism. But ahead of the 25th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre, Chinese authorities are cracking down even further on news outlets and search engines, blocking access to websites including Google and the Wall Street Journal. Wednesday marks 25 years since the Chinese army killed hundreds, perhaps thousands of students and protestors in Beijing, and the tightening of media control that followed. It’s part of the Chinese government’s concerted effort to limit information about the incipient pro-democratic movement that ended in bloodshed. Here are 6 websites the Chinese government is currently blocking or restricting. Google
The activist blog GreatFire.org, which tracks web censorship in China, published a post Monday saying that Chinese authorities had blocked a variety of Google services in China. As of Monday, Google’s Chrome start page would not load, nor would many other Google sites like the Picasa photo program, Maps service and Calendar application, according to the New York Times. The GreatFire said that the block is far-reaching, and that Google simply isn’t working.
|
http://time.com/2820452/china-censor-web/
|
msmarco_v2.1_doc_03_354762726#1_659751188
|
Title: Ford Edsel History: Why the Car Flopped | Time
Headings: What Happened to the Car Industry's Most Famous Flop?
What Happened to the Car Industry's Most Famous Flop?
Get our History Newsletter. Put today's news in context and see highlights from the archives.
Content: At the heart of any big flop–like when Ford ended the Edsel 55 years ago, on Nov. 19, 1959–lies high expectations. The Edsel was named after Henry Ford’s son, no small honor, and it had its own division of the company devoted to its creation. As TIME reported in 1957 when the car debuted, the company had spent 10 years and $250 million on planning one of its first brand-new cars in decades. The Edsel came in 18 models but, in order to reach its sales goals, it would have to do wildly better than any other car in 1957 was expected to do. The September day that the car first went on the market, thousands of eager buyers showed up at dealers, but before the year was over monthly sales had fallen by about a third. When Ford announced that they were pulling the plug on the program, here’s how TIME explained what had gone wrong: As it turned out, the Edsel was a classic case of the wrong car for the wrong market at the wrong time. It was also a prime example of the limitations of market research, with its “depth interviews” and “motivational” mumbo-jumbo. On the research, Ford had an airtight case for a new medium-priced car to compete with Chrysler’s Dodge and DeSoto, General Motors’ Pontiac, Oldsmobile and Buick. Studies showed that by 1965 half of all U.S. families would be in the $5,000-and-up bracket, would be buying more cars in the medium-priced field, which already had 60% of the market.
|
http://time.com/3586398/ford-edsel-history/
|
msmarco_v2.1_doc_03_356627842#1_664124103
|
Title: Racism Is Poisoning Our Society | Time
Headings: Racism Is Poisoning Our Society
Racism Is Poisoning Our Society
Ideas
Sign up for Inside TIME. Be the first to see the new cover of TIME and get our most compelling stories delivered straight to your inbox.
Content: A Call to Unity in a Fragmented World, and holds a doctoral degree from Phillips Theological Seminary and Master of Divinity from the Yale Divinity School. R ecently I posted a prayer. It was in response to the events in Baltimore: a young black man was mortally injured while in police custody, citizens took to the streets, and on the day of the funeral, the protests turned violent. My prayer was for all: those who mourn, those who are injured, the protesters, the police. I prayed for a release from the sin of racism and our dependence on violence to solve our ills. As so often happens, the word “racism” triggered angry responses. “ How can you say ‘racism’ when we don’t even know what happened?” Let me try to explain.
|
http://time.com/3843203/racism-is-poisoning-our-society/
|
msmarco_v2.1_doc_03_356627842#2_664125318
|
Title: Racism Is Poisoning Our Society | Time
Headings: Racism Is Poisoning Our Society
Racism Is Poisoning Our Society
Ideas
Sign up for Inside TIME. Be the first to see the new cover of TIME and get our most compelling stories delivered straight to your inbox.
Content: those who mourn, those who are injured, the protesters, the police. I prayed for a release from the sin of racism and our dependence on violence to solve our ills. As so often happens, the word “racism” triggered angry responses. “ How can you say ‘racism’ when we don’t even know what happened?” Let me try to explain. Racism is more than what is in the heart of an individual person at the moment of a particular act. Racism is the cumulative history of all those thoughts and acts. They add up to a pattern in which people of color are routinely and systematically treated differently than white people. Unfair racial stereotypes have taken root in the hearts of people. They cause us to react to people differently—in stores, on the streets, in encounters between police and citizens.
|
http://time.com/3843203/racism-is-poisoning-our-society/
|
msmarco_v2.1_doc_03_357518345#3_666244001
|
Title: Air Conditioner and Health: Is My Air Conditioning Killing Me? | Time
Headings: You Asked: Is My Air Conditioner Killing Me?
You Asked: Is My Air Conditioner Killing Me?
Get our Health Newsletter. Sign up to receive the latest health and science news, plus answers to wellness questions and expert tips.
Content: He also mentions an ominous-sounding phenomenon: sick building syndrome. “We started seeing it in the 70s and 80s,” Mendell says. “ People in office buildings started saying the building was making them sick.” He says sick building syndrome was associated with a range of seemingly unrelated symptoms: nasal congestion, breathing problems, headaches, fatigue and irritated skin. His own research has linked AC systems in office buildings to many of those same symptoms. “The most likely explanation is that there may be some microorganisms growing in the system that may have some subtle effect on certain people,” Mendell says. “ But it’s not clear how many people are sensitive to this or how big of a problem it is.” Unlike heating systems, the process of cooling hot air creates a lot of moisture and condensation, which must be channeled away, Mendell explains.
|
http://time.com/3942050/air-conditioner-healthy/
|
msmarco_v2.1_doc_03_357518345#4_666245404
|
Title: Air Conditioner and Health: Is My Air Conditioning Killing Me? | Time
Headings: You Asked: Is My Air Conditioner Killing Me?
You Asked: Is My Air Conditioner Killing Me?
Get our Health Newsletter. Sign up to receive the latest health and science news, plus answers to wellness questions and expert tips.
Content: nasal congestion, breathing problems, headaches, fatigue and irritated skin. His own research has linked AC systems in office buildings to many of those same symptoms. “The most likely explanation is that there may be some microorganisms growing in the system that may have some subtle effect on certain people,” Mendell says. “ But it’s not clear how many people are sensitive to this or how big of a problem it is.” Unlike heating systems, the process of cooling hot air creates a lot of moisture and condensation, which must be channeled away, Mendell explains. If your AC system does a bad job of this, whether due to poor maintenance, damage or shoddy design, it can become a breeding ground for bacteria and fungi. To protect yourself, he says, your best defense is a well-maintained and routinely serviced AC unit. ( HVAC repairmen, you owe this guy!) But Mendell is also quick to point out that AC has been firmly linked to many health benefits. “ Outdoor air pollution is common in urban environments, and especially in heavy traffic,” he says as just one example. “
|
http://time.com/3942050/air-conditioner-healthy/
|
msmarco_v2.1_doc_03_357518345#7_666250324
|
Title: Air Conditioner and Health: Is My Air Conditioning Killing Me? | Time
Headings: You Asked: Is My Air Conditioner Killing Me?
You Asked: Is My Air Conditioner Killing Me?
Get our Health Newsletter. Sign up to receive the latest health and science news, plus answers to wellness questions and expert tips.
Content: If this seesawing between AC’s benefits and risks feels disorienting, you’re not alone. “ Anyone who does research on these systems will admit there’s still a lot of things we don’t know,” Mendell says. What isn’t in doubt, though, is air conditioning’s very real and harmful impact on the planet. “The headline issue is its contribution to greenhouse warming,” says Cox, the Land Institute environmental researcher. Indoor heating has long been a bigger contributor than AC to the accumulation of harmful greenhouse gasses, Cox says. But the U.S. population’s southward shift has allowed AC to catch up—and maybe draw even. Despite his concern for the planet, Cox says that AC can be life saving and beneficial. But he takes issue with what he calls our “lavish” use of any climate control conveniences. Setting our thermostats a bit higher in summer and a little lower in winter would benefit the environment without affecting anyone’s health, he says. In fact, a little thermal discomfort could be good for you.
|
http://time.com/3942050/air-conditioner-healthy/
|
msmarco_v2.1_doc_03_357518345#8_666251905
|
Title: Air Conditioner and Health: Is My Air Conditioning Killing Me? | Time
Headings: You Asked: Is My Air Conditioner Killing Me?
You Asked: Is My Air Conditioner Killing Me?
Get our Health Newsletter. Sign up to receive the latest health and science news, plus answers to wellness questions and expert tips.
Content: But the U.S. population’s southward shift has allowed AC to catch up—and maybe draw even. Despite his concern for the planet, Cox says that AC can be life saving and beneficial. But he takes issue with what he calls our “lavish” use of any climate control conveniences. Setting our thermostats a bit higher in summer and a little lower in winter would benefit the environment without affecting anyone’s health, he says. In fact, a little thermal discomfort could be good for you. People tend to eat more and gain more weight when the temperature is perfectly cozy, Cox says. “ When we’re a little cold or a little warm, our metabolism runs faster,” he says. Research backs him up: One recent study found exposure to cold temps—enough to make you shiver—may increase your body’s stores of healthy, energy-burning brown fat. Cox adds that your body can adapt to a range of temperatures. (
|
http://time.com/3942050/air-conditioner-healthy/
|
msmarco_v2.1_doc_03_357518345#9_666253338
|
Title: Air Conditioner and Health: Is My Air Conditioning Killing Me? | Time
Headings: You Asked: Is My Air Conditioner Killing Me?
You Asked: Is My Air Conditioner Killing Me?
Get our Health Newsletter. Sign up to receive the latest health and science news, plus answers to wellness questions and expert tips.
Content: People tend to eat more and gain more weight when the temperature is perfectly cozy, Cox says. “ When we’re a little cold or a little warm, our metabolism runs faster,” he says. Research backs him up: One recent study found exposure to cold temps—enough to make you shiver—may increase your body’s stores of healthy, energy-burning brown fat. Cox adds that your body can adapt to a range of temperatures. ( This is why you break out the shorts and T-shirts on that first 65-degree spring day, but the same thermostat reading in autumn sends you hunting for jeans and sweaters.) So if you can cut out the heat or cold for a week or two, your body will often acclimate to temperatures you found unpleasant at first—and easing up a bit on the AC will make the planet thank you, too. Watch: A Timelapse of Climate Change
Volume 0%
Press shift question mark to access a list of keyboard shortcuts
Keyboard Shortcuts
Enabled Disabled
Play/Pause SPACE
Increase Volume ↑
Decrease Volume ↓
Seek Forward →
Seek Backward ←
Captions On/Off c
Fullscreen/Exit Fullscreen f
Mute/Unmute m
Seek % 0-9
Settings
Off
captions_en
Font Color
White
Font Opacity
100%
Font Size
100%
Font Family
Arial
Character Edge
None
Background Color
Black
Background Opacity
50%
Window Color
Black
Window Opacity
0%
Reset
White
Black
Red
Green
Blue
Yellow
Magenta
Cyan
100%
75%
25%
200%
175%
150%
125%
100%
75%
50%
Arial
Courier
Georgia
Impact
Lucida Console
Tahoma
Times New Roman
Trebuchet MS
Verdana
None
Raised
Depressed
Uniform
Drop Shadow
White
Black
Red
Green
Blue
Yellow
Magenta
Cyan
100%
75%
50%
25%
0%
White
Black
Red
Green
Blue
Yellow
Magenta
Cyan
100%
75%
50%
25%
0%
facebook
twitter
Email
Link
https://time.com/3942050/air-conditioner-healthy/?jwsource=cl
Copied
Live
00:00
00:48
00:48
Subscribe to TIME
Get our Health Newsletter. Sign up to receive the latest health and science news, plus answers to wellness questions and expert tips.
|
http://time.com/3942050/air-conditioner-healthy/
|
msmarco_v2.1_doc_03_357518345#10_666255904
|
Title: Air Conditioner and Health: Is My Air Conditioning Killing Me? | Time
Headings: You Asked: Is My Air Conditioner Killing Me?
You Asked: Is My Air Conditioner Killing Me?
Get our Health Newsletter. Sign up to receive the latest health and science news, plus answers to wellness questions and expert tips.
Content: This is why you break out the shorts and T-shirts on that first 65-degree spring day, but the same thermostat reading in autumn sends you hunting for jeans and sweaters.) So if you can cut out the heat or cold for a week or two, your body will often acclimate to temperatures you found unpleasant at first—and easing up a bit on the AC will make the planet thank you, too. Watch: A Timelapse of Climate Change
Volume 0%
Press shift question mark to access a list of keyboard shortcuts
Keyboard Shortcuts
Enabled Disabled
Play/Pause SPACE
Increase Volume ↑
Decrease Volume ↓
Seek Forward →
Seek Backward ←
Captions On/Off c
Fullscreen/Exit Fullscreen f
Mute/Unmute m
Seek % 0-9
Settings
Off
captions_en
Font Color
White
Font Opacity
100%
Font Size
100%
Font Family
Arial
Character Edge
None
Background Color
Black
Background Opacity
50%
Window Color
Black
Window Opacity
0%
Reset
White
Black
Red
Green
Blue
Yellow
Magenta
Cyan
100%
75%
25%
200%
175%
150%
125%
100%
75%
50%
Arial
Courier
Georgia
Impact
Lucida Console
Tahoma
Times New Roman
Trebuchet MS
Verdana
None
Raised
Depressed
Uniform
Drop Shadow
White
Black
Red
Green
Blue
Yellow
Magenta
Cyan
100%
75%
50%
25%
0%
White
Black
Red
Green
Blue
Yellow
Magenta
Cyan
100%
75%
50%
25%
0%
facebook
twitter
Email
Link
https://time.com/3942050/air-conditioner-healthy/?jwsource=cl
Copied
Live
00:00
00:48
00:48
Subscribe to TIME
Get our Health Newsletter. Sign up to receive the latest health and science news, plus answers to wellness questions and expert tips. Please enter a valid email address. * The request timed out and you did not successfully sign up. Please attempt to sign up again. Sign Up Now
An unexpected error has occurred with your sign up. Please try again later.
|
http://time.com/3942050/air-conditioner-healthy/
|
msmarco_v2.1_doc_03_360961898#12_674340939
|
Title: Banned Books Week: What the List Says About Society's Fears | Time
Headings: What the List of Most Banned Books Says About Our Society's Fears
What the List of Most Banned Books Says About Our Society's Fears
Ideas
Most-challenged books of 2001:
Most-challenged books of 2015:
Sign up for Inside TIME. Be the first to see the new cover of TIME and get our most compelling stories delivered straight to your inbox.
Content: The ALA usually learns that a book has been challenged either from librarians at schools or public or academic libraries calling in incidents, or from reports in local newspapers. In recent years there’s actually been a decline in reports—the ALA recorded 311 challenges in 2014 and only 275 in 2015. On the surface, that may seem like a good thing—but it probably indicates that fewer people are speaking up when a book is removed, meaning more banning is going on under the radar, LaRue says. “ We have reason to believe that where censorship starts to succeed, there’s less reporting about it,” LaRue says. “ So we can say it’s hard for us to know, we know that challenges are underreported, but we don’t know by how much.” It doesn’t help that school librarians are frequently the victims of school layoffs, meaning there are fewer professionals “trained to use this language of intellectual freedom.” Still, one thing hasn’t changed since the dawn of censorship: having your book banned is very, very good for an author’s sales. “ If what you’re trying to do is stop this book from getting into the hands of a minor,” LaRue says, “the surest way to [fail] is to declare it forbidden.” Subscribe to TIME
Sign up for Inside TIME.
|
http://time.com/4505713/banned-books-week-reasons-change/
|
msmarco_v2.1_doc_03_360961898#13_674342887
|
Title: Banned Books Week: What the List Says About Society's Fears | Time
Headings: What the List of Most Banned Books Says About Our Society's Fears
What the List of Most Banned Books Says About Our Society's Fears
Ideas
Most-challenged books of 2001:
Most-challenged books of 2015:
Sign up for Inside TIME. Be the first to see the new cover of TIME and get our most compelling stories delivered straight to your inbox.
Content: It doesn’t help that school librarians are frequently the victims of school layoffs, meaning there are fewer professionals “trained to use this language of intellectual freedom.” Still, one thing hasn’t changed since the dawn of censorship: having your book banned is very, very good for an author’s sales. “ If what you’re trying to do is stop this book from getting into the hands of a minor,” LaRue says, “the surest way to [fail] is to declare it forbidden.” Subscribe to TIME
Sign up for Inside TIME. Be the first to see the new cover of TIME and get our most compelling stories delivered straight to your inbox. Please enter a valid email address. * The request timed out and you did not successfully sign up. Please attempt to sign up again. Sign Up Now
An unexpected error has occurred with your sign up.
|
http://time.com/4505713/banned-books-week-reasons-change/
|
msmarco_v2.1_doc_03_364032937#13_681065067
|
Title: Capital Punishment: The end of the death penalty
Headings: Death
the
Death
of the
Death Penalty
Why the era of capital punishment is ending
130
593
Content: Suffice it to say, a legal system that requires half a lifetime to conclude the case of a proven lethal recidivist is not a well-functioning operation. Nor is that case unusual. In Florida alone, three other men who arrived on death row in 1975 are still there, marking their 40-year anniversaries—part of a total death-row population in that state of 394. ( In those 40 years, Florida has carried out 90 executions. At that rate, the Sunshine State would need about 175 years to clear out its death row.) Of the 14 inmates executed so far this year in the U.S., five spent from 20 to 30 years on death row, five more languished from 15 to 19 years, and not one spent less than a decade awaiting execution. On May 24, Nebraska death-row inmate Michael Ryan died of cancer, nearly 30 years after he was sentenced to be executed by the state. State and federal courts are so backlogged with capital cases that they can never catch up. Roughly half of California’s 750 condemned inmates have not even begun their appeals because they are waiting for the state’s underfunded defense bureaucracy to give them a lawyer. Moving faster creates its own problems.
|
http://time.com/deathpenalty/
|
msmarco_v2.1_doc_03_364032937#14_681066564
|
Title: Capital Punishment: The end of the death penalty
Headings: Death
the
Death
of the
Death Penalty
Why the era of capital punishment is ending
130
593
Content: Of the 14 inmates executed so far this year in the U.S., five spent from 20 to 30 years on death row, five more languished from 15 to 19 years, and not one spent less than a decade awaiting execution. On May 24, Nebraska death-row inmate Michael Ryan died of cancer, nearly 30 years after he was sentenced to be executed by the state. State and federal courts are so backlogged with capital cases that they can never catch up. Roughly half of California’s 750 condemned inmates have not even begun their appeals because they are waiting for the state’s underfunded defense bureaucracy to give them a lawyer. Moving faster creates its own problems. The risks involved in trying to speed executions are apparent in the growing list of innocent and likely innocent death-row prisoners set free— more than 150 since 1975. In Ohio, Wiley Bridgeman walked free 39 years after he was sentenced to death when the key witness at his trial—a 12-year-old boy at the time—admitted that he invented his story to try to help the police. In general, scientific advances have undermined confidence in the reliability of eyewitness testimony and exposed flaws in the use of hair and fiber evidence. DNA analysis, meanwhile, has offered concrete proof that the criminal justice system can go disastrously wrong, even in major felony cases. In North Carolina last year, two men sentenced to death as teenagers were released after DNA evidence proved they weren’t guilty.
|
http://time.com/deathpenalty/
|
msmarco_v2.1_doc_03_364407715#0_681763368
|
Title: Honduras | Time
Headings: Honduras
Honduras
Trump’s Deadline for an Asylum Deal With Mexico Is Monday. Here’s What We Know
‘There Is No Way We Can Turn Back.’ Why Thousands of Refugees Will Keep Coming to America Despite Trump’s Crackdown
Parents Are Facing a Nightmare at the U.S. Border
President Trump Threatens NAFTA and Foreign Aid to Honduras Over Immigrant 'Caravan'
The Trump Administration Ended Protection for Nicaraguans Who Fled Disaster. These Three Countries Could Be Next
There May Already Be a 'Trump Effect' at the Southern Border
Two Weeks After the Murder of Berta Cáceres, Another Activist Is Killed in Honduras
Content: Honduras | Time
Honduras
Trump’s Deadline for an Asylum Deal With Mexico Is Monday. Here’s What We Know
Donald Trump stood on the South Lawn of the White House on June 11, waving ...
Donald Trump stood on the South Lawn of the White House on June 11, waving a folded piece of paper in front of the cameras that he said was an agreement with Mexico to address...
‘There Is No Way We Can Turn Back.’ Why Thousands of Refugees Will Keep Coming to America Despite Trump’s Crackdown
For thousands in the Northern Triangle of Central America, there is no easy...
For thousands in the Northern Triangle of Central America, there is no easy choice
Parents Are Facing a Nightmare at the U.S. Border
Earlier this year, a young Honduran woman named Mirian gathered her 18-mont...
Earlier this year, a young Honduran woman named Mirian gathered her 18-month-old son into her arms and walked across the bridge between Matamoros, Mexico, and Brownsville, Texas, where she presented herself to U.S. border agents...
President Trump Threatens NAFTA and Foreign Aid to Honduras Over Immigrant 'Caravan'
"The big Caravan of People from Honduras... had better be stopped"
"The big Caravan of People from Honduras... had better be stopped"
The Trump Administration Ended Protection for Nicaraguans Who Fled Disaster. These Three Countries Could Be Next
The Trump Administration is moving to end a program that allowed some Nicar...
The Trump Administration is moving to end a program that allowed some Nicaraguan citizens who fled after a natural disaster to stay in the U.S., as part of an overall stricter approach to immigration. The...
There May Already Be a 'Trump Effect' at the Southern Border
New data from the Department of Homeland Security shows President Trump's r...
New data from the Department of Homeland Security shows President Trump's recent executive actions on immigration may have led to fewer crossings at the U.S. border with Mexico. In January, over 31,000 people were apprehended...
Two Weeks After the Murder of Berta Cáceres, Another Activist Is Killed in Honduras
Those who resist mining, logging and hydropower developments are often targ...
Those who resist mining, logging and hydropower developments are often targeted in the Central American country
|
http://time.com/tag/honduras/
|
msmarco_v2.1_doc_03_367257100#1_684961221
|
Title:
Headings:
Content: A Learning Platform is a comprehensive systemenabling secure, web-based training and e-learning solution that employs a simple and intuitive user interface. How does this platform make Learning easy? Content Management: The tools that the Learning Platform uses enable the delivery of electronic learning content, whether it is written in house, or imported from other commercial packages; it enables the teachers, professors as well as trainers to create, store and repurpose resources and coursework which can be accessed online. Curriculum mapping and planning: provides tools and storage to support assessment for learning, personalisation, lesson planning etc. Communications: The various tools integrated into the Learning System facilitate communication by means of email, messaging, discussion forums, bulletin boards and blogs. Management:
|
http://timelesslearntech.com/learning-platform.php
|
msmarco_v2.1_doc_03_367257100#2_684962269
|
Title:
Headings:
Content: Curriculum mapping and planning: provides tools and storage to support assessment for learning, personalisation, lesson planning etc. Communications: The various tools integrated into the Learning System facilitate communication by means of email, messaging, discussion forums, bulletin boards and blogs. Management: This includes systems and tools that support the management of the teaching and learning process by tracking the progress of the students, users, trainees with assessment tests. Besides, administration of the entire online classroom setup, that is - enabling access to pupil information, attendance, timetabling, e-portfolios and management information, all this is effectively managed through a Learning Platform. The Learning Platform can be used in educational institutes mainly-schools, colleges and universities. Besides, corporate organizations, banks can also use this system for training purpose and easy employee assessment. The confidential data and official documents of the organization can be easily managed and organized with the help of learning platform.
|
http://timelesslearntech.com/learning-platform.php
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.