When I was younger, I used to hear Harvard stories from a member of the class of 1885. Back then, old graduates of the College who could get to Cambridge on Commencement Day didn’t wait for reunion years to come back to the Yard. They’d just turn up, see old friends, look over the new crop, and have a cup of Commencement punch under the elms. The old man remembered one of those summer days when he was heading for the Square after lunch and crossed paths with a newly graduated senior, who had enjoyed quite a few cups of that punch. As the two men approached each other the younger one thrust out his new diploma and shouted, “Educated, by God.”Even with an honorary Harvard doctorate in my hands, I know enough not to shout that across the Yard, but the University’s generosity does make me bold enough to say that over the course of 19 years on the Supreme Court, I learned some lessons about the Constitution of the United States, and about what judges do when they apply it in deciding cases with constitutional issues. I’m going to draw on that experience in the course of the next few minutes, for it is as a judge that I have been given the honor to speak before you.The occasion for our coming together like this aligns with the approach of two separate events on the judicial side of the national public life: the end of the Supreme Court’s term, with its quickened pace of decisions, and a confirmation proceeding for the latest nominee to fill a seat on the court. We will as a consequence be hearing and discussing a particular sort of criticism that is frequently aimed at the more controversial Supreme Court decisions: criticism that the court is making up the law, that the court is announcing constitutional rules that cannot be found in the Constitution, and that the court is engaging in activism to extend civil liberties. A good many of us, I’m sure a good many of us here, intuitively react that this sort of commentary tends to miss the mark. But we don’t often pause to consider in any detail the conceptions of the Constitution and of constitutional judging that underlie the critical rhetoric, or to compare them with the notions that lie behind our own intuitive responses. I’m going to try to make some of those comparisons this afternoon.The charges of lawmaking and constitutional novelty seem to be based on an impression of the Constitution, and on a template for deciding constitutional claims, that go together something like this. A claim is made in court that the government is entitled to exercise a power, or an individual is entitled to claim the benefit of a right, that is set out in the terms of some particular provision of the Constitution. The claimant quotes the provision and provides evidence of facts that are said to prove the entitlement that is claimed. Once they have been determined, the facts on their face either do or do not support the claim. If they do, the court gives judgment for the claimant; if they don’t, judgment goes to the party contesting the claim. On this view, deciding constitutional cases should be a straightforward exercise of reading fairly and viewing facts objectively.There are, of course, constitutional claims that would be decided just about the way this fair reading model would have it. If one of today’s 21-year-old college graduates claimed a place on the ballot for one of the United States Senate seats open this year, the claim could be disposed of simply by showing the person’s age, quoting the constitutional provision that a senator must be at least 30 years old, and interpreting that requirement to forbid access to the ballot to someone who could not qualify to serve if elected. No one would be apt to respond that lawmaking was going on, or object that the age requirement did not say anything about ballot access. The fair reading model would describe pretty much what would happen. But cases like this do not usually come to court, or at least the Supreme Court. And for the ones that do get there, for the cases that tend to raise the national blood pressure, the fair reading model has only a tenuous connection to reality.Even a moment’s thought is enough to show why it is so unrealistic. The Constitution has a good share of deliberately open-ended guarantees, like rights to due process of law, equal protection of the law, and freedom from unreasonable searches. These provisions cannot be applied like the requirement for 30-year-old senators; they call for more elaborate reasoning to show why very general language applies in some specific cases but not in others, and over time the various examples turn into rules that the Constitution does not mention.But this explanation hardly scratches the surface. The reasons that constitutional judging is not a mere combination of fair reading and simple facts extend way beyond the recognition that constitutions have to have a lot of general language in order to be useful over long stretches of time. Another reason is that the Constitution contains values that may well exist in tension with each other, not in harmony. Yet another reason is that the facts that determine whether a constitutional provision applies may be very different from facts like a person’s age or the amount of the grocery bill; constitutional facts may require judges to understand the meaning that the facts may bear before the judges can figure out what to make of them. And this can be tricky. To show you what I’m getting at, I’ve picked two examples of what can really happen, two stories of two great cases. The two stories won’t, of course, give anything like a complete description either of the Constitution or of judging, but I think they will show how unrealistic the fair reading model can be.The first story is about what the Constitution is like. It’s going to show that the Constitution is no simple contract, not because it uses a certain amount of open-ended language that a contract draftsman would try to avoid, but because its language grants and guarantees many good things, and good things that compete with each other and can never all be realized, all together, all at once.The story is about a case that many of us here remember. It was argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on June 26, 1971, and is known as the Pentagon Papers. The New York Times and the Washington Post had each obtained copies of classified documents prepared and compiled by government officials responsible for conducting the Vietnam War. The newspapers intended to publish some of those documents, and the government sought a court order forbidding the publication.The issue had arisen in great haste, and had traveled from trial courts to the Supreme Court, not over the course of months, but in a matter of days. The time was one of high passion, and the claim made by the United States was the most extreme claim known to the constitutional doctrines of freedom to speak and publish. The government said it was entitled to a prior restraint, an order forbidding publication in the first place, not merely one imposing a penalty for unlawful publication after the words are out. The argument included an exchange between a great lawyer appearing for the government and a great judge, and the colloquy between them was one of those instances of a grain of sand that reveals a universe.The great lawyer for the United States was a man who had spent many Commencement mornings in this Yard. He was Erwin Griswold, dean of the Law School for 21 years, who was serving a stint as solicitor general of the United States. The great judge who questioned the dean that day was Mr. Justice Black, the first of the New Deal justices, whom Justice Cardozo described as having one of the most brilliant legal minds he had ever met with. The constitutional provision on which their exchange centered was the First Amendment, which includes the familiar words that “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” Although that language by its literal terms forbade Congress from legislating to abridge free expression, the guarantees were understood to bind the whole government, and to limit what the president could ask a court to do. As for the remainder of the provision, though, Justice Black professed to read it literally. When it said there shall be no law allowed, it left no room for any exception; the prohibition against abridging freedom of speech and press was absolute. And in fairness to him, one must say that on their face the First Amendment clauses seem as clear as the requirement for 30-year-old senators, and that no guarantee of the Bill of Rights is more absolute in form.But that was not the end of the matter for Dean Griswold. Notwithstanding the language, he urged the court to say that a restraint would be constitutional when publication threatened irreparable harm to the security of the United States, and he contended there was enough in the record to show just that; he argued that the intended publications would threaten lives, and jeopardize the process of trying to end the war and recover prisoners, and erode the government’s capacity to negotiate with foreign governments and through foreign governments in the future.Justice Black responded that if a court could suppress publication when the risk to the national interest was great enough, the judges would be turned into censors. Dean Griswold said he did not know of any alternative. Justice Black shot back that respecting the First Amendment might be the alternative, and to that, Dean Griswold replied in words I cannot resist quoting:“The problem in this case,” he said, “is the construction of the First Amendment.“Now Mr. Justice, your construction of that is well-known, and I certainly respect it. You say that no law means no law, and that should be obvious. I can only say, Mr. Justice, that to me it is equally obvious that “no law” does not mean “no law,” and I would seek to persuade the Court that that is true.“As Chief Justice Marshall said, so long ago, it is a Constitution we are interpreting….”The government lost the case and the newspapers published, but Dean Griswold won his argument with Justice Black. To show, as he put it, that “no law” did not mean “no law,” Dean Griswold had pointed out that the First Amendment was not the whole Constitution. The Constitution also granted authority to the government to provide for the security of the nation, and authority to the president to manage foreign policy and command the military.And although he failed to convince the court that the capacity to exercise these powers would be seriously affected by publication of the papers, the court did recognize that at some point the authority to govern that Dean Griswold invoked could limit the right to publish. The court did not decide the case on the ground that the words “no law” allowed of no exception and meant that the rights of expression were absolute. The court’s majority decided only that the government had not met a high burden of showing facts that could justify a prior restraint, and particular members of the court spoke of examples that might have turned the case around, to go the other way. Threatened publication of something like the D-Day invasion plans could have been enjoined; Justice Brennan mentioned a publication that would risk a nuclear holocaust in peacetime.Even the First Amendment, then, expressing the value of speech and publication in the terms of a right as paramount as any fundamental right can be, does not quite get to the point of an absolute guarantee. It fails because the Constitution has to be read as a whole, and when it is, other values crop up in potential conflict with an unfettered right to publish, the value of security for the nation and the value of the president’s authority in matters foreign and military. The explicit terms of the Constitution, in other words, can create a conflict of approved values, and the explicit terms of the Constitution do not resolve that conflict when it arises. The guarantee of the right to publish is unconditional in its terms, and in its terms the power of the government to govern is plenary. A choice may have to be made, not because language is vague but because the Constitution embodies the desire of the American people, like most people, to have things both ways. We want order and security, and we want liberty. And we want not only liberty but equality as well. These paired desires of ours can clash, and when they do a court is forced to choose between them, between one constitutional good and another one. The court has to decide which of our approved desires has the better claim, right here, right now, and a court has to do more than read fairly when it makes this kind of choice. And choices like the ones that the justices envisioned in the Papers case make up much of what we call law.Let me ask a rhetorical question. Should the choice and its explanation be called illegitimate law making? Can it be an act beyond the judicial power when a choice must be made and the Constitution has not made it in advance in so many words? You know my answer. So much for the notion that all of constitutional law lies there in the Constitution waiting for a judge to read it fairly.Now let me tell a second story, not one illustrating the tensions within constitutional law, but one showing the subtlety of constitutional facts. Again the story is about a famous case, and a good many of us here remember this one, too: Brown v. Board of Education from 1954, in which the Supreme Court unanimously held that racial segregation in public schools imposed by law was unconstitutional, as violating the guarantee of equal protection of the law.Brown ended the era of separate-but-equal, whose paradigm was the decision in 1896 of the case called Plessy v. Ferguson, where the Supreme Court had held it was no violation of the equal protection guarantee to require black people to ride in a separate railroad car that was physically equal to the car for whites. One argument offered in Plessy was that the separate black car was a badge of inferiority, to which the court majority responded that if black people viewed it that way, the implication was merely a product of their own minds. Sixty years later, Brown held that a segregated school required for black children was inherently unequal.For those whose exclusive norm for constitutional judging is merely fair reading of language applied to facts objectively viewed, Brown must either be flat-out wrong or a very mystifying decision. Those who look to that model are not likely to think that a federal court back in 1896 should have declared legally mandated racial segregation unconstitutional. But if Plessy was not wrong, how is it that Brown came out so differently? The language of the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection of the laws did not change between 1896 and 1954, and it would be hard to say that the obvious facts on which Plessy was based had changed, either. While Plessy was about railroad cars and Brown was about schools, that distinction was no great difference. Actually, the best clue to the difference between the cases is the dates they were decided, which I think lead to the explanation for their divergent results.As I’ve said elsewhere, the members of the Court in Plessy remembered the day when human slavery was the law in much of the land. To that generation, the formal equality of an identical railroad car meant progress. But the generation in power in 1954 looked at enforced separation without the revolting background of slavery to make it look unexceptional by contrast. As a consequence, the judges of 1954 found a meaning in segregating the races by law that the majority of their predecessors in 1896 did not see. That meaning is not captured by descriptions of physically identical schools or physically identical railroad cars. The meaning of facts arises elsewhere, and its judicial perception turns on the experience of the judges, and on their ability to think from a point of view different from their own. Meaning comes from the capacity to see what is not in some simple, objective sense there on the printed page. And when the judges in 1954 read the record of enforced segregation it carried only one possible meaning: It expressed a judgment of inherent inferiority on the part of the minority race. The judges who understood the meaning that was apparent in 1954 would have violated their oaths to uphold the Constitution if they had not held the segregation mandate unconstitutional.Again, a rhetorical question. Did the judges of 1954 cross some limit of legitimacy into law making by stating a conclusion that you will not find written in the Constitution? Was it activism to act based on the current meaning of facts that at a purely objective level were about the same as Plessy’s facts 60 years before? Again, you know my answer. So much for the assumption that facts just lie there waiting for an objective judge to view them.Let me, like the lawyer that I am, sum up the case I’ve tried to present this afternoon. The fair reading model fails to account for what the Constitution actually says, and it fails just as badly to understand what judges have no choice but to do. The Constitution is a pantheon of values, and a lot of hard cases are hard because the Constitution gives no simple rule of decision for the cases in which one of the values is truly at odds with another. Not even its most uncompromising and unconditional language can resolve every potential tension of one provision with another, tension the Constitution’s Framers left to be resolved another day; and another day after that, for our cases can give no answers that fit all conflicts, and no resolutions immune to rethinking when the significance of old facts may have changed in the changing world. These are reasons enough to show how egregiously it misses the point to think of judges in constitutional cases as just sitting there reading constitutional phrases fairly and looking at reported facts objectively to produce their judgments. Judges have to choose between the good things that the Constitution approves, and when they do, they have to choose, not on the basis of measurement, but of meaning.The fair reading model misses that, but it has even more to answer for. Remember that the tensions that are the stuff of judging in so many hard constitutional cases are, after all, the creatures of our aspirations: to value liberty, as well as order, and fairness and equality, as well as liberty. And the very opportunity for conflict between one high value and another reflects our confidence that a way may be found to resolve it when a conflict arises. That is why the simplistic view of the Constitution devalues our aspirations, and attacks that our confidence, and diminishes us. It is a view of judging that means to discourage our tenacity (our sometimes reluctant tenacity) to keep the constitutional promises the nation has made.So, it is tempting to dismiss the critical rhetoric of lawmaking and activism as simply a rejection of too many of the hopes we profess to share as the American people. But there is one thing more. I have to believe that something deeper is involved, and that behind most dreams of a simpler Constitution there lies a basic human hunger for the certainty and control that the fair reading model seems to promise. And who has not felt that same hunger? Is there any one of us who has not lived through moments, or years, of longing for a world without ambiguity, and for the stability of something unchangeable in human institutions? I don’t forget my own longings for certainty, which heartily resisted the pronouncement of Justice Holmes, that certainty generally is illusion and repose is not our destiny.But I have come to understand that he was right, and by the same token I understand that I differ from the critics I’ve described not merely in seeing the patent wisdom of the Brown decision, or in espousing the rule excluding unlawfully seized evidence, or in understanding the scope of habeas corpus. Where I suspect we differ most fundamentally is in my belief that in an indeterminate world I cannot control, it is still possible to live fully in the trust that a way will be found leading through the uncertain future. And to me, the future of the Constitution as the Framers wrote it can be staked only upon that same trust. If we cannot share every intellectual assumption that formed the minds of those who framed the charter, we can still address the constitutional uncertainties the way they must have envisioned, by relying on reason, by respecting all the words the Framers wrote, by facing facts, and by seeking to understand their meaning for living people.That is how a judge lives in a state of trust, and I know of no other way to make good on the aspirations that tell us who we are, and who we mean to be, as the people of the United States.D.H.S.
One to watch: Emre CanThe Germany international scored the winner in last weekend’s tense 1-0 win over Hertha Berlin despite playing as part of a back three.The 26-year-old, who usually plays in midfield, has been a reliable figure for Dortmund since joining from Juventus in January.He has shown his versatility by adding steel to a sometimes vulnerable side while still providing an attacking threat, having also marked his debut in February with a stunning long-range strike against Bayer Leverkusen.Key stats39: Successive seasons in the Bundesliga for Werder Bremen.90: Bundesliga goals scored by Bayern this season. The club record is 101.12: Number of times Bayern have won the league and cup double.Fixtures (all times 1330 GMT unless stated)FridayHoffenheim v RB Leipzig (1830)SaturdayWolfsburg v Freiburg, Fortuna Duesseldorf v Borussia Dortmund, Hertha Berlin v Eintracht Frankfurt, Cologne v Union Berlin, Paderborn v Werder Bremen, Bayern Munich v Borussia Moenchengladbach (1630)SundayMainz v Augsburg, Schalke v Bayer Leverkusen (1600) Bayern Munich will be without Thomas Mueller (R) and Robert Lewandowski, who have contributed to 60 of Bayern’s 90 league goals this seasonBerlin, Germany | AFP | Bayern Munich could secure an eighth straight Bundesliga title this weekend, but host Borussia Moenchengladbach on Saturday without suspended duo Thomas Mueller and Robert Lewandowski.Bayern will be confirmed champions with a win on Saturday if second-placed Borussia Dortmund lose at relegation-threatened Fortuna Duesseldorf earlier in the day.That scenario would give Hansi Flick’s side an unassailable 10-point lead with three games remaining.But Bayern are without Lewandowski, the league’s top scorer this season with 30 goals, and Mueller, who is one short of the Bundesliga record of 21 assists in a single campaign.“It’s annoying, but we can’t do anything about it,” said Bayern coach Flick.Thiago Alcantara is likely to replace Mueller, while winger Serge Gnabry could take Lewandowski’s place up front if he is fit after a back injury.Bayern proved they can score goals without Lewandowski by thumping Hoffenheim 6-0 in late February when the Polish striker was injured.They had a scare in Wednesday’s German Cup semi-final win over Eintracht Frankfurt, when Danny da Costa equalised for the visitors before Lewandowski sealed a 2-1 win with his 45th goal this season.Mueller admitted Bayern were “tired”, “worn out” and scrapped their way to victory in the first of three games in six days.But they are still in the running to repeat their 2013 treble having beaten Chelsea 3-0 away in their Champions League last-16 first leg before the competition was suspended in mid-March due to the coronavirus pandemic.Fourth-placed Gladbach pulled off a shock 2-1 victory at Borussia Park when the sides met last December.But Marco Rose’s side have been erratic of late, crushing Union Berlin 4-1 at home at the end of May before stumbling to defeat at Freiburg last weekend.Rose hopes to include Swiss forward Breel Embolo, with the 23-year-old fit after an ankle knock.– Bremen’s basement battle –At the foot of the table, fallen giants Werder Bremen face a crucial game at Paderborn in a battle of the bottom two.Florian Kohfeldt’s Bremen are six points from safety in 17th and three off the relegation play-off place following back-to-back home defeats.Bremen, who were in the Champions League a decade ago, have spent more seasons in the top flight than any other club, but are running out of time.“We know how much is riding on this game,” said American forward Josh Sargent. “This club has such a long history, and no one wants to let the team or the city down.” Share on: WhatsApp
Columbus Blue Jackets goalie Sergei Bobrovsky (72) grabs a rebound on a shot by Pittsburgh Penguins’ Sidney Crosby (87) in the first overtime period of a first-round NHL playoff hockey game in Pittsburgh, Saturday, April 19, 2014. (AP Photo/Gene J. Puskar)COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) – Not so long ago, the Columbus Blue Jackets were the worst team in the NHL.Now they’re heading home for Monday night’s Game 3 of their first-round Stanley Cup playoff series with the star-studded Pittsburgh Penguins hoping to make even more history.“For our fans, it’s been 14 years and they haven’t seen a playoff victory,” budding star Ryan Johansen said after Saturday night’s stunning 4-3 win in Pittsburgh in two overtimes. “To be able to go back to Columbus now tied 1-1 with the momentum we have, it’s a great feeling.”The Blue Jackets, cellar dwellers for most of the franchise’s existence, got the first playoff victory in their 13 seasons when undersized pest Matt Calvert banged in a second-chance rebound 1:10 into the second overtime.It led to a writhing, laughing pile of humanity on the ice at Consol Energy Center – and also set in motion a lot of doubts and criticism of the mighty Penguins.Stocked with hockey celebrities such as Sidney Crosby and Evgeni Malkin, the Pens have come up short in the last four years since winning the Cup in 2009. Callers to sports-talk shows and those on social media are already questioning the club’s heart and commitment.“Our failed attempts to get it behind their defense kept our players on the ice,” coach Dan Bylsma said after the loss. “They got into the offensive zone, put it in there, hemmed us in.”Here’s five things to watch as the scene shifts to Nationwide Arena for Game 3:GOLDEN CROWD: Usually when the Penguins play in Columbus, their fans all but take over the place. When the teams met late in the regular season in Ohio’s capital city, as much as half of a sell-out crowd of 18,908-plus was rooting for the guys in gold and black.But when the seventh-seeded Blue Jackets drew the Penguins in the first round, the club’s front office sold tickets to fans with Ohio addresses first.That doesn’t mean that a large contingent of (owner and ex-Pen star) Mario Lemieux jerseys still won’t be seen. Just maybe not thousands of them.PENS MINDSET: After an injury-filled regular season, about the last thing the Penguins needed or expected was a major struggle early in the playoffs against a hard-working, physical team.Yet this has become a worst-case scenario for Pittsburgh, a finesse team that relies on its star power instead of gritty play, checking and greasy goals – like the Blue Jackets.Will the Penguins match the Blue Jackets’ effort?“We have to be better,” Crosby said. “That’s really, I think, the bottom line.”BUMPS AND BRUISES: The Blue Jackets may get yet another blue-collar player back for Game 3. Nick Foligno, who scored 18 goals and had 21 assists in the regular season, has missed the last seven games (knee) but has been cleared to play.Perhaps the team’s top defenseman, Fedor Tyutin, left after taking two big hits in the first period of Game 3. Coach Todd Richards would not discuss his availability.The Penguins have gotten a huge lift from forward Brian Gibbons, a 5-foot-8 rookie who finds open spaces. Bylsma moved him to the top line in the series opener and he responded by scoring their first two goals.But he was hurt on an awkward hit in Saturday night’s opening period and didn’t return. Lee Stempniak will replace him on the top line.LAST LINE: Columbus’ Sergei Bobrovsky and Pittsburgh’s Marc-Andre Fleury have been excellent for the most part although each had shaky moments in Game 1 but recovered.Neither can afford any more soft goals, that’s for certain, in what has turned out to be a tight series in which each team has scored seven goals.“He’s the Bob when we need him to be the Bob,” Blue Jacket Artem Anisimov said of his Russian counterpart, last year’s Vezina Trophy winner as the NHL’s top goalie.Fleury made several sterling saves in Game 2 to keep the Penguins alive, at least for a while.“There’s times where we get hemmed in our own end and he comes up huge and just gives us a chance to win,” Stempniak said.SUPPORTING ACTS: The loudest cheers at most Blue Jackets home games go to the singer of the National Anthem and a fat guy who tears off his shirt and dances suggestively while pouring beer over himself.Leo Welsh will again be greeted by thousands of fans screaming, “LEO!” when he’s introduced.And Kevin Schroeder, a portly fellow with inspirational sayings scribbled all over his massive frame, will undoubtedly get the crowd roaring when he pretends he’s Magic Mike late in the game.___Follow Rusty Miller on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/RustyMillerAP
By John BurtonRED BANK – A meeting between members of the local press and charter school officials seemed to turn up the heat on the antagonism over the school’s expansion proposal.Principal Meredith Pennotti, Board of Trustees Vice President Roger Foss and school business administrator David Block met with four area reporters on Feb. 10 at the Red Bank Charter School, 58 Oakland St., to offer the school’s perspective on its plans.The school is currently awaiting state Commissioner of Education David Hespe’s decision on its proposal to double enrollment to 400 students over the next three years, as well as expanding its facility space.Charter school officials planned to use its own public forum held earlier this month at recently leased 135 Monmouth St. space to “give the press an open forum” in addition to giving community members a chance to be heard, and for the school to announce it would amend its plan to stagger the future enrollment for the town’s benefit, Pennotti said.But given the large number of people in attendance that night, officials thought it would be better to dedicate the bulk of the time to public comments.“We don’t feel like we met that goal,” of giving reporters a chance to ask questions, Pennotti said.But some countered that the press meeting was an attempt to manipulate local media, to sway public opinion given the vocal opposition the charter school has faced since its plans became public last December.“I just keep feeling they keep reporting the same things over and over without anybody requesting they substantiate their claims,” charged Jared Rumage, Red Bank superintendent of schools.Rumage and others have pointed out that the charter school had an opportunity to present their views at a Jan. 22 forum at the middle school and at their own forum as well, where school officials sat silent as community members spoke. Charter school officials at the last minute decided to decline the invitation to appear at the middle school event, leaving Rumage to present the public school’s point of view.The deadline to submit public comment on the charter school’s proposal to the commissioner of education was Jan. 31. Hespe’s decision is expected by the end of February.“We want to do more for the population of Red Bank,” Pennotti said of the school’s proposal. She pointed to her school’s continuing wait list, currently around 90 students. She added that the public school population is growing, with the schools “bursting at the seams.” She believed the expansion might offer some relief to the existing public school facility.The charter school’s application is on the school’s website and on record with the state Department of Education and available to the public.Much of the two-hour session revolved around points that the school has raised previously and countering some accusations from critics – which also have been expressed before.Rumage and others have said charter school students receive more money per student than their public school counterparts. But administrator Brock said that is misleading, given that actual dollars from the school district equates to less money per student than for the charter school students. The charter school receives an additional roughly a little more than $1 million in direct state aid.That, Rumage had countered, doesn’t negate the impact the charter school funding has on the public school district and what this expansion would mean for the public school and taxpayers – an often repeated refrain from opponents of the plan.“If this goes through, they’re failing to address this main concept,” Rumage said, “we will not be able to provide a thorough and efficient education for the kids who are left behind.”“The charter school is supposed to offer an alternative,” Pennotti offered another often repeated refrain of charter school supporters here and elsewhere. She said her school is providing innovative programs in a small school environment and offering families a choice, “That will attract families.”
Tony Award-winner Alice Ripley stars in the one-woman play “The Pink Unicorn” at Holmdel Theatre Jan. 30-31. Photo courtesy Holmdel Theatre Co. Cook is also a producer for “The Pink Unicorn.” Amy E. Jones is director and Tina Scariano is stage manager. Ripley is looking forward to spreading a message of love, hope and understanding with the Holmdel audience. “There’s no doubt thisreally rocks Trisha’s world,”said Ripley. “It blindsides her.I don’t have any kids, but I’mhonored to be chosen as thevoice for this character. WhatTrisha is going through, a lotof people are facing.” “I can’t wait to tell this important and timely story with the brilliant Alice Ripley and this incredible team again,” she said. Arts and entertainment reporter Mary Ann Bourbeau can be reached at [email protected] Ripley won critical acclaim for her performance as Diana Goodman in the Pulitzer Prize-winning show, “Next to Normal,” for which she took home the 2009 Tony Award for Best Actress in a Musical. She also appeared on Broadway in “Side Show” (Tony nomination), “American Psycho,” “The Rocky Horror Show,” “Sunset Boulevard,” “The Who’s Tommy” and “Les Miserables.” “The Pink Unicorn” was originally produced in 2013 by DogTown Theatre in Washington, D.C. and has since been performed throughout the U.S. and Canada, including a run at United Solo Theatre Festival in New York, where Elise Forier Edie won Best Storyteller. The show was produced Off-Broadway in 2018 by Out of the Box Theatrics and starred Ripley. HOLMDEL – What does a Christian widow living in a conservative Texas town do when her teenage daughter announces she is gender queer and is starting a chapter of the Gay Straight Alliance in her high school? Tickets for “The Pink Unicorn” are $50 and can be purchased at holmdeltheatrecompany.org or by calling the box office at 732-946-0427. “I took one look at the script and it didn’t take me long to say yes,” she said. Liz Flemming, producing consultant and artistic director for Out of the Box Theatrics, is excited to revisit “The Pink Unicorn” with Ripley at the Holmdel Theatre Company’s Duncan Smith Theater. “It’s OK to make mistakes along the way,” she said. “Nobody’s perfect. But if Trisha has to choose between the church and her daughter, it’s no contest.” By Mary Ann Bourbeau “A lot of people are dealing with this issue and it’s important to feel like you can talk about it,” she said. “It’s a happy ending, but it’s not easy getting there. Hopefully, seeing Trisha going through what she goes through will give the audience courage.” This crisis of gender issues is one that Trisha Lee never saw coming. Tony Award winner Alice Ripley brings Trisha to life in a one-woman play called “The Pink Unicorn,” which will be presented as part of Broadway at the Barn at the Holmdel Theatre Jan. 30 and 31. The story begins as amonologue and turns intoan immersive play in whichTrisha makes a lot of wrongchoices, but also a lot ofright choices, said Ripley. “It really hits people in theheart,” she said. “It’s hardfor a kid to say somethinglike that to their parent. Thishelps people understand thatit’s important to keep talkingabout it, and maybe it willhelp give them an idea of thekind of language to use. Wesee this as an introductionto the conversation. If you’recoming from a place of love,that’s a good place to start.” “We are thrilled to have Alice Ripley back in the Barn,” said Colleen Cook, Holmdel Theatre Company’s executive director. In June 2019, she kickedoff Holmdel Theatre’s“Broadway at the Barn”series with her solo show,“Ripley Prescription,” whichwas recently named BestCabaret Performance in the2019 BroadwayWorld NewJersey Awards. Ripley said the humor inflected in Elise Forier Edie’s script helps Trisha get through this situation and come to a place of understanding and acceptance. This article originally appeared in the Jan. 23, 2020 print edition of The Two River Times.
While RT shares many of the same features as Windows 8 and Windows 8 Pro, it is not fully compatible with the entire Windows ecosystem. On its website, Microsoft outlines the major differences between RT and its other operating systems. For a consumer starting from scratch, Windows RT and applications available through the Windows Store may be more than enough. For enteprise IT managers, though, the differences become more troubling. The most significant IT concern is the lack of support for “legacy” applications. Windows RT simply cannot run applications designed for previous versions of Windows. Depending on your existing investment in Windows apps and their business necessity, this can be an annoyance – or an absolute showstopper.Other missing features, like Remote Desktop and Domain Join, may be less essential, but still add to the support burden for RT devices and could complicate efforts to create a simple, comprehensive management solution. In an all-Intel, Windows 8 environment, IT managers can leverage time-tested, existing management applications to extend their reach without writing custom software. As soon as one RT device is added to the mix, custom coding is required.Not all consequences of a heterogeneous environment are technical. Employee-owned devices are already notorious for violating enterprise software licenses. When classes of employee devices come stocked with different software than your other devices, your existing license agreements may not provide coverage. For example, Windows RT comes pre-loaded with Office Home & Student 2013 RT Preview. Unless a business anticipated supporting that device and took the necessary legal steps, using that program in a business setting could violate the software’s licensing provisions.Hardware-Based AssistanceChipsets rarely fail, for good reason. Once it’s pressed and placed into a computer, a processor is essentially untouchable by applications, the operating system, or overzealous users. That’s why hardware is the perfect place to store low-level security, management, and networking features. All Intel processors are built with management in mind, allowing administrators to reach below the operating system level for additional security and accessibility. For example, all current Intel Core processors support remote device locking through Intel Anti-Theft (AT) Technology. Unlike pure software Mobile Device Management (MDM) solutions, this approach will work even if a device is corrupted or rooted.Newer third-generation Intel Core vPro processors (found in newer enterprise and small-business laptops, Ultrabooks and even some tablets) add two-factor PKI-based authentication with Intel Identity Protection Technology, and pre-boot system integrity verification through Intel Trusted Execution Technology (TXT). By using devices themselves as authentication tokens, IT can remove a layer of complexity and cost created by third-party tokens.Intel builds on this hardware foundation with tightly integrated software. For example, on the security front, McAfee DeepSAFE leverages vPro’s TXT to install security monitoring software below the operating system, while Deep Command provides endpoint management tools for AT and other low-level features.In some cases, security or management software can run only on complementary processors. In other situations, those processors simply run the software better. For example, Intel has tuned its newer Core processors to support the AES-NI instruction set, which speeds encryption products like McAfee Endpoint Encryption to near real-time. Other compatible systems can certainly run the same program, but processors without AES-NI support could incur up to a 10X slowdown.The processor is the heart of any device. It may not be the flashiest part of your BYOD strategy, but it’s the foundation. A bit of time considering processor choice during your planning phase can save a lot of money and headaches down the road.Top two images courtesy of Shutterstock. When IT managers build a Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) plan, chip architecture usually isn’t high on their list of considerations. At first glance, it’s easy to see why. After all, processors work or they don’t – there isn’t a lot of support to be done, right?But there’s more here than meets the eye. Thinking about the silicon that powers your supported devices can pay off big, providing better performance, security and manageability. It might even keep your legal department happy. Simplicity FirstThere are plenty of exciting consumer devices to catch your employees’ eyes, each with its own combination of processor, operating system and form factor. The task of a BYOD program is not necessarily to support all of them, but to choose the devices that best match customer needs, security concerns, business demands and available resources. New devices introduce risk and complexity to every aspect of your ecosystem, from provisioning and training to security and support. The more varied the range of devices you allow, the greater the stress on your operations. The keys to meeting your goals are platform simplicity and consistency. Choosing to minimize deviation simplifies administration and allows IT to leverage as much existing infrastructure as possible. That choice starts with the processor.The Processor MarketIntel and ARM Holdings are the two primary competitors in the mobile chipset market. Intel’s high-performing Core-series processors power the majority of laptops, Ultrabooks and notebooks, and its low-power Atom processors are gaining market share in tablets, smartphones and hybrid devices. ARM-based chips – most commonly found in tablets and smartphones – have recently begun to appear in laptops and hybrid devices.Intel and ARM take very different approaches to chip production. ARM licenses its designs to semiconductor manufacturers, which then fabricate their own processors based on those designs. This flexibility is attractive to hardware companies, and allows ARM-based chips to power a wide assortment of devices, from appliances to servers.The downside of that flexibility is inconsistency among ARM-based designs. Samsung and AMD both manufacture ARM-based chips, but their processors are substantially different. Intel follows a different business model, designing and producing all of its own silicon. This approach establishes a baseline across multiple manufacturers. This consistency is the reason Intel-powered Apple MacBooks are capable of running Windows natively, for example. Application And OS SupportBusinesses run on applications, and processor choice can impact how (or whether) those applications run. The most obvious example is as basic as the operating system itself – most notably in Microsoft Windows.When it launched Windows 8, Microsoft decided to support ARM-based chips for the first time. Windows RT, an operating system targeted at lower-cost consumer devices, like the Microsoft Surface, is the company’s first ARM-based OS. ReadWrite Sponsors Related Posts 3 Areas of Your Business that Need Tech Now Cognitive Automation is the Immediate Future of… IT + Project Management: A Love Affair Massive Non-Desk Workforce is an Opportunity fo… Tags:#AMD#antivirus#ARM#BYOD#BYOD Grows Up#Intel#microprocessors
Members of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) on Tuesday staged a demonstration outside the office of the State Coordinator for National Register of Citizens (NRC) in Guwahati to protest the “sudden” notices served on thousands of people belonging to the minority communities for reverification of their documents. The protestors demanded the revocation of the “inhuman” reverification process for people who were asked to go to NRC centres 300-500 km away within 24-36 hours. “This was unnecessary as the Supreme Court had rejected the Centre and State government’s plea for reverification,” CPI(M) secretary Deben Bhattacharya said.
Man Utd, Liverpool informed of price for Bayer Leverkusen whiz Havertzby Paul Vegasa month agoSend to a friendShare the loveBayer Leverkusen whiz Kai Havertz is attracting big Premier League interest.The Daily Express says Manchester United and Liverpool have been told they must pay £90million to sign Havertz.German midfielder Havertz is expected to be one of next summer’s hottest transfer properties after he said he could be on the move next summer.Speaking to Sportbuzzer, Havertz said: “I am happy to stay at Leverkusen for one more year. What happens next summer will be experienced in the future.”The 20-year-old has been linked with interest from United and Liverpool as well as Manchester City and Borussia Dortmund.And while he is contracted to Leverkusen until the summer of 2022, it is believed the Bundesliga club are ready to cash in. TagsTransfersAbout the authorPaul VegasShare the loveHave your say
Michigan The VictorsMichigan’s “The Victors” is one of the most recognizable fight songs in college football, but we’re not sure if it’s ever been performed quite like this. This video emerged over the weekend, and it features 22 Michigan musical theatre grads doing their own rendition of “The Victors” at a graduation party. The footage was posted by Scott Orr yesterday. This version of the song is very different, and pretty impressive. Listen to this! What happens when 22 talented UMich musical theatre grads sing their version of the University of Michigan fight song at their graduation party. Awesome!Posted by Scott Orr on Sunday, May 3, 2015
FORT ST. JOHN, B.C. – JD Knives and Custom Works and Northern Hydrographics FSJ have come together to raise funds to support the Fort St. John Charitable Society(FSJFFCS).Through the collection of donations, each $20.00 gives you an opportunity to choose one of two custom gifts while raising money to help support families throughout the Peace Region needing assistance covering medical costs and travel expenses.JD Knives and Custom Works are offering a Custom San Mai JD Bird & Trout 6” knife with the retail value of $700 and an (FSJFFCS) challenge coin. Each suggested entry of $20.00 will enter your name in the draw.The draw date will be Tuesday, May 21, 2019To view JD Knives and Custom Works; CLICK HERETo view Northern Hydrographics FSJ; CLICK HERE Northern Hydrographics FSJ is offering a customized firefighters helmet valued at over $500.Donations can be made in person to the following locations;JD Knives & Custom WorksUnit 8 10404 101 ave.Fort St. John, BCNorthern HydrographicsUnit 9 10404 101 ave.Fort St. John, BCFort St. John Fire Department9312 93 Ave, Fort St John, BCOr by E-transfers which can be sent to [email protected] with the password: “knife”