judicialsupport

Legal Writing for Legal Reading!

Archive for the month “July, 2016”

The United Shapes of Arithmetic: I am a Hexagon!

Nathan Rudolph, my friend and fellow parishioner at St. John the Evangelist Anglican Church, has started a comic strip which I have greatly enjoyed and appreciated.  With his permission, I will repost them here after he posts them.  I think my readers will appreciate them as much as I do as they are rather insightful with a snarky edge.  Enjoy!

Here are the links to the previously posted strips:

Here is the latest strip:

 

I'm A Hexagon

Advertisements

NEARFest 2007 Event Program

This post is in my series regarding the North East Art Rock Festival (NEARFest).  You can find all of my posts regarding NEARFest here and I started the series here.

At each NEARFest, the Festival organizers created a weekend event program.  I was lucky enough to have purchased one from all of the Festivals I attended, and I will post photographs of them all here.  These programs were expertly crafted with many beautiful photographs and well written descriptions and histories and such.  Of course, they also contain their fair share of ads, as one may expect.  I got most (maybe all) of the programs I purchased at NEARFest over the years autographed by the artist who drew its cover and, in this case, that was Yes and Asia cover artist Roger Dean.

I was able to purchase a program at NEARFest 2007, and I thought it would be fun to post it here for prog rock fans who may not have had the opportunity to go to the Festival and/or purchase the program.  Accordingly, I took photographs of each page of the program and posted them below.

I also posted a review of NEARFest 2007 which you can see here.  The review contains many photographs from the event.

Enjoy!

 

20160213_213057 20160213_213120 20160213_213134 20160213_213202 20160213_213215 20160213_213242 20160213_213257 20160213_213314 20160213_213339 20160213_213355 20160213_213421 20160213_213442 20160213_213458 20160213_213515 20160213_213528 20160213_213541 20160213_213554 20160213_213631 20160213_213646 20160213_213658 20160213_213708 20160213_213751 20160213_213805 20160213_213815 20160213_213823 20160213_213832 20160213_213840 20160213_213849

Denial of Use Permit Did Not Violate RLUIPA

This is from religionclause.blogspot.com which you can find here:

In Livingston Christian Schools v. Genoa Charter Township, (ED MI, Sept. 15, 2015), a Michigan federal district court denied a temporary restraining order to a Christian school that wants to move to property owned by the Brighton Church of the Nazarene.  The township board denied the Church’s application to amend its special use permit to allow the school to operate on the property because of objections from neighbors about traffic and non-compliance with the current special use permit. The school claims this violate its rights under RLUIPA.  The court held that the school had not shown a likelihood of success on that claim:

LCS cannot meet its burden in establishing that the denial has more than a minimal impact on its free exercise of religion. The township’s denial of the church’s special use permit does not preclude either the church … or LCS from freely exercising their religious tenets. The church is free to continue its normal operations pursuant to its existing special use permit. Similarly, LCS is free to continue operating as a religious school, and it has a building in Pinckney that it owns and has been using as the location for its school for the past nine years. Moreover, LCS recently found a second location from which it can operate. The fact that LCS has “ready alternatives” more than sufficient to meet its religious needs despite the township’s denial makes it unlikely that it has suffered a substantial burden on its free exercise of religion.

You can learn more about this issue here.

Big Science is Broken

Every now and again I come across a fantastic article that warrants posting here.  I have seen a recent proliferation of articles in respected publications pointing out, bemoaning, and/or highlighting increasing problems with the trustworthiness of the alleged findings of the contemporary scientific community.  I find these articles to be particularly interesting given how our society looks to science as a (the?) source of ultimate truths (often as a mutually exclusive alternative to spirituality).  This sort of scientism may be misplaced, and these articles delve into the pitfalls that come with such an approach.

Here are the links the other articles I posted on this subject:

Be edified.

___________________________

Science is broken.

That’s the thesis of a must-read article in First Things magazine, in which William A. Wilson accumulates evidence that a lot of published research is false. But that’s not even the worst part.

Advocates of the existing scientific research paradigm usually smugly declare that while some published conclusions are surely false, the scientific method has “self-correcting mechanisms” that ensure that, eventually, the truth will prevail. Unfortunately for all of us, Wilson makes a convincing argument that those self-correcting mechanisms are broken.

For starters, there’s a “replication crisis” in science. This is particularly true in the field of experimental psychology, where far too many prestigious psychology studies simply can’t be reliably replicated. But it’s not just psychology. In 2011, the pharmaceutical company Bayer looked at 67 blockbuster drug discovery research findings published in prestigious journals, and found that three-fourths of them weren’t right. Another study of cancer research found that only 11 percent of preclinical cancer research could be reproduced. Even in physics, supposedly the hardest and most reliable of all sciences, Wilson points out that “two of the most vaunted physics results of the past few years — the announced discovery of both cosmic inflation and gravitational waves at the BICEP2 experiment in Antarctica, and the supposed discovery of superluminal neutrinos at the Swiss-Italian border — have now been retracted, with far less fanfare than when they were first published.”

What explains this? In some cases, human error. Much of the research world exploded in rage and mockery when it was found out that a highly popularized finding by the economists Ken Rogoff and Carmen Reinhardt linking higher public debt to lower growth was due to an Excel error. Steven Levitt, of Freakonomics fame, largely built his career on a paper arguing that abortion led to lower crime rates 20 years later because the aborted babies were disproportionately future criminals. Two economists went through the painstaking work of recoding Levitt’s statistical analysis — and found a basic arithmetic error.

Then there is outright fraud. In a 2011 survey of 2,000 research psychologists, over half admitted to selectively reporting those experiments that gave the result they were after. The survey also concluded that around 10 percent of research psychologists have engaged in outright falsification of data, and more than half have engaged in “less brazen but still fraudulent behavior such as reporting that a result was statistically significant when it was not, or deciding between two different data analysis techniques after looking at the results of each and choosing the more favorable.”

Then there’s everything in between human error and outright fraud: rounding out numbers the way that looks better, checking a result less thoroughly when it comes out the way you like, and so forth.

Well, maybe not. There’s actually good reason to believe the exact opposite is happening.

The peer review process doesn’t work. Most observers of science guffaw at the so-called “Sokal affair,” where a physicist named Alan Sokal submitted a gibberish paper to an obscure social studies journal, which accepted it. Less famous is a similar hoodwinking of the very prestigious British Medical Journal, to which a paper with eight major errors was submitted. Not a single one of the 221 scientists who reviewed the paper caught all the errors in it, and only 30 percent of reviewers recommended that the paper be rejected. Amazingly, the reviewers who were warned that they were in a study and that the paper might have problems with it found no more flaws than the ones who were in the dark.

This is serious. In the preclinical cancer study mentioned above, the authors note that “some non-reproducible preclinical papers had spawned an entire field, with hundreds of secondary publications that expanded on elements of the original observation, but did not actually seek to confirm or falsify its fundamental basis.”

This gets into the question of the sociology of science. It’s a familiar bromide that “science advances one funeral at a time.” The greatest scientific pioneers were mavericks and weirdos. Most valuable scientific work is done by youngsters. Older scientists are more likely to be invested, both emotionally and from a career and prestige perspective, in the regnant paradigm, even though the spirit of science is the challenge of regnant paradigms.

Why, then, is our scientific process so structured as to reward the old and the prestigious? Government funding bodies and peer review bodies are inevitably staffed by the most hallowed (read: out of touch) practitioners in the field. The tenure process ensures that in order to further their careers, the youngest scientists in a given department must kowtow to their elders’ theories or run a significant professional risk. Peer review isn’t any good at keeping flawed studies out of major papers, but it can be deadly efficient at silencing heretical views.

All of this suggests that the current system isn’t just showing cracks, but is actually broken, and in need of major reform. There is very good reason to believe that much scientific research published today is false, there is no good way to sort the wheat from the chaff, and, most importantly, that the way the system is designed ensures that this will continue being the case.

As Wilson writes:

Even if self-correction does occur and theories move strictly along a lifecycle from less to more accurate, what if the unremitting flood of new, mostly false, results pours in faster? Too fast for the sclerotic, compromised truth-discerning mechanisms of science to operate? The result could be a growing body of true theories completely overwhelmed by an ever-larger thicket of baseless theories, such that the proportion of true scientific beliefs shrinks even while the absolute number of them continues to rise. Borges’ Library of Babel contained every true book that could ever be written, but it was useless because it also contained every false book, and both true and false were lost within an ocean of nonsense. [First Things]

This is a big problem, one that can’t be solved with a column. But the first step is admitting you have a problem.

Science, at heart an enterprise for mavericks, has become an enterprise for careerists. It’s time to flip the career track for science on its head. Instead of waiting until someone’s best years are behind her to award her academic freedom and prestige, abolish the PhD and grant fellowships to the best 22-year-olds, giving them the biggest budgets and the most freedoms for the first five or 10 years of their careers. Then, with only few exceptions, shift them away from research to teaching or some other harmless activity. Only then can we begin to fix Big Science.

Originally published in The Week on April 18, 2016 and can be found here.

The United Shapes of Arithmetic: When Am I Ever

Nathan Rudolph, my friend and fellow parishioner at St. John the Evangelist Anglican Church, has started a comic strip which I have greatly enjoyed and appreciated.  With his permission, I will repost them here after he posts them.  I think my readers will appreciate them as much as I do as they are rather insightful with a snarky edge.  Enjoy!

Here are the links to the previously posted strips:

Here is the latest strip:

The United Shapes of Arithmetic

Editing: Dialogue

Here is the latest post by Angela and Daz Croucher to their blog A.D. Croucher! They are up-and-coming young adult authors. Check them out!

A.D. Croucher

Have you ever been in such a rush to get to the reveal in a book that you skim through the descriptive paragraphs and just focus on the dialogue? As writers and lovers of writing, we can’t really condone this (every word counts, man!), but there’s no denying that this happens, and that it’s really tempting, especially in YA or thrillers or any kind of story where you just NEED TO KNOW WHAT HAPPENS NEXT RIGHT NOW. You know how that goes. It’s easy to focus on dialogue: that’s often the strongest component of a piece of writing. Not only does it further the plot, but it also reveals more about the character who’s speaking. It shows you the characters’ dynamics with each other, as well as their perception of the world, and of themselves.

So yeah, dialogue’s kind of important.

Think of just about any Shakespeare play, and you’ll…

View original post 1,043 more words

NEARFest 2006 Event Program

This post is in my series regarding the North East Art Rock Festival (NEARFest).  You can find all of my posts regarding NEARFest here and I started the series here.

At each NEARFest, the Festival organizers created a weekend event program.  I was lucky enough to have purchased one from all of the Festivals I attended, and I will post photographs of them all here.  These programs were expertly crafted with many beautiful photographs and well written descriptions and histories and such.  Of course, they also contain their fair share of ads, as one may expect.  I got most (maybe all) of the programs I purchased at NEARFest over the years autographed by the artist who drew its cover and, in this case, that was Yes and Asia cover artist Roger Dean.

I was able to purchase a program at NEARFest 2006, and I thought it would be fun to post it here for prog rock fans who may not have had the opportunity to go to the Festival and/or purchase the program.  Accordingly, I took photographs of each page of the program and posted them below.

I also posted a review of NEARFest 2006 which you can see here.  The review contains many photographs from the event.

Enjoy!

 

20160213_212246 20160213_212331 20160213_212342 20160213_212422 20160213_212430 20160213_212450 20160213_212459(0) 20160213_212459 20160213_212512 20160213_212527 20160213_212541 20160213_212558 20160213_212611 20160213_212624 20160213_212641 20160213_212650 20160213_212703 20160213_212712 20160213_212722 20160213_212732 20160213_212742 20160213_212753 20160213_212810 20160213_212823 20160213_212836 20160213_212851 20160213_212905 20160213_212924 20160213_212935 20160213_212958 20160213_213007

We Are All Sadists Now

Every now and again I come across a fantastic article the warrants posting here; I just came across one in First Things, which is a journal (print and online) published by the Institute on Religion and Public Life.  It is a scholarly and rather academic publication which has many well respected contributors.  I have been a commentator on the changes of sexual culture in the West and its abandonment of traditional sexual ethics and mores (see here for an example).  It should not be a shock to anyone who knows me or reads my material that I think these changes are and/or will be a disaster to our culture, children, families, and marriages.  This article reveals one of the consequences of abandoning traditional sexual morality.  Be edified.

______________________

An article on campus sexual mores by Rod Dreher this week drove me to reflect on who is the most influential thinker of our present age. Thirty years ago as an undergraduate in England, I would have argued that it was Karl Marx. Yet Marx looks increasingly like a nineteenth century figure, as Jonathan Sperber has so deftly demonstrated. Even the twentieth century revolutions inspired by his thought now seem more often like ethnic conflicts merely pretending to be class war. Perhaps a more persuasive case can be made for Nietzsche and Freud, as Phillip Rieff thought. Certainly the advent of ‘Psychological Man’ is one of the dominant master narratives of our day. But Dreher made me think the real prophet of this present age might be someone else: the Marquis DeSade.

In the popular mind, DeSade is associated with the idea of achieving sexual gratification through inflicting pain on another. Yet that notion rests upon a more sophisticated understanding of sex and personhood.  DeSade’s specific sexual predilections assumed the notion of sex simply as one more consumer commodity in the marketplace and upon the idea of other people as merely instrumental to the achievement of personal sexual pleasure. DeSade turned the sexual relationship into an economic relationship of exchange aimed at the satisfaction of the individual consumer.  He was truly a prophet born out of time and, like all such, doomed to be decried in his own day as a madman.

DeSade’s ideal world is that to which we appear to be heading.   Like him, we deny any intrinsic moral significance to sexual activity whatsoever and thus see it as something which is of no more ethical importance than buying a cup of coffee or eating a sandwich. In such a world, the celibate and the monogamous are increasingly counted as freaks, representatives of a defective, repressive cultural vision. Thus, the social pressure to be promiscuous becomes an integral part of the culture and the withholding of consent comes to be increasingly difficult, the act of social schismatics, freaks, and (to use the favored clichés of the day) the inauthentic, those who do not wish to flourish.

That is the world Dreher describes in his article and this is the world which pornography, Tinder and other personal pimping programs promote. Of course, the underlying assumption of consent is presumably still assumed by Tinder users. Rape is still rape, at least in theory. Yet if sex is evacuated of any intrinsic ethical significance, and the culture turns against celibacy and monogamy, the notion of consent itself may eventually become as morally meaningless as the orgasms it is supposed to legitimate.  Indeed, one could even see a case eventually being made in DeSade world for the withholding of sex being considered an act of oppression, like the withholding of a wedding cake or a photo-shoot.  It will never happen, you say.  Well, more than any other history, that of sexuality and the laws surrounding it indicates that one should never say never.

Yet there is another force at play today which seems to be in conflict with the above: The belief that our sexual desires determine who we are at the deepest level.  This is somewhat ironic: The age which denies any real significance to sex also wants to argue that sexual desires are of paramount importance to personal identity and fulfillment.  Squaring that particular circle will no doubt generate a whole textbook full of neuroses in the coming years.

This age thus embodies a twofold sadism. It is sadistic because it turns people into nothing more than objects for the achievement of the sexual desires of others. And it is sadistic because it tells people their sexual desires are of the utmost importance to who they are while simultaneously denying that these desires point to anything of any real intrinsic importance whatsoever. That is cruelty of a peculiarly pernicious and nihilistic kind. Freud and Nietzsche may have played their part in making today’s world. But the success of Tinder indicates that the victor’s laurels should probably go to DeSade.

By Carl R. Trueman and originally published in First Things on August 13, 2015 and can be found here.

Coordinating Unemployment Compensation With Severance Packages

When one applies for unemployment compensation, it is important to coordinate said application based on when one’s severance package expires and whether one is still within one’s base year, which is the length of time preceding an application for unemployment compensation.  The base year and one’s income earned over that period of time determines the calculations of the amount of one’s unemployment compensation benefits (see 43 P.S. §753(a)).  A credit week is a week within a base year where an employee (i.e.: a claimant for unemployment compensation benefits) has worked and earned above a specific threshold income (see 43 P.S. §753(g.1)).  In order to be eligible for benefits, one must receive employment income for a minimum of eighteen (18) credit weeks within a base year (see 43 P.S. §804(c)).

 

43 P.S. § 804(d)(1)(iii) states the following: “[n]otwithstanding any other provisions of this section each eligible employe who is unemployed with respect to any week ending subsequent to July 1, 1980 shall be paid with respect to such week, compensation in an amount equal to his weekly benefit rate less the total of … the amount of severance pay that is attributed to the week.”  In other words, when one applies for unemployment compensation benefits one must report the income received from a severance package and that income is deducted from the unemployment compensation benefits if they are collected simultaneously.

 

A severance package can be paid over time or in a lump sum.  If it is paid over time, usually in consecutive payroll periods, each week one receives a severance payment, said payment is considered income for a credit week which goes toward the unemployment compensation claimant’s base year, and this should be considered and accounted for before a claim for unemployment compensation benefits is made.  If the severance payment is received as a lump sum, the Court and the Department of Labor have tended to aggregate the severance on a pro-rata basis based on one’s typical earnings.  By example, if someone earns $1,000 per week, a $10,000 severance payment would be considered a ten (10) week severance.  (See: Ross v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 127 Pa.Cmwlth. 457 (1989)).

 

“Severance pay” is considered to be one or more payments made by a employer to an employee due to an employee’ separation from employment (without regard to whether the employer is contractually obligated to provide the pay).  Severance specifically does not include payments from a pension, retirement package, or accrued leave and/or supplemental unemployment benefits.  The law, pursuant to Section 43 P.S. §§ 804(e)(1)(2)(ii) and 804(d)(1) of the Unemployment Compensation law, lays out how severance packages are calculated and attributed for the purposes of benefits.

 

Based on the above, it would seem, in most cases, that the best time to apply for unemployment compensation benefits is after the expiration of one’s receipt of a severance package. As receipt of a severance package counts toward one’s base year, waiting until after the package is fully paid will not affect one’s eligibility for unemployment compensation benefits.  Furthermore, waiting until after one’s severance is paid avoids having one’s benefits deducted by the value of the severance package.  Instead, waiting until the severance package is fully paid before applying for benefits allows one to potentially receive the full severance package and a full complement of unemployment compensation benefits.  On the other hand, one ought not wait too long after the severance package expires before applying for benefits.  Regardless of the source or type of income one receives, one must always have at least eighteen (18) credit weeks within a base year to be eligible for benefits, and benefits always begin upon application for them not on one’s last day of work or receipt of the last severance payment.

Originally published in The Legal Intelligencer Blog on October 23, 2015 and can be found here.

Post Navigation