Anyone, pls upload? ;D
Until you find the kindle mobi version of her book, as a substitute there is an article that Ms. Ward wrote called Dude-Sex: White Masculinities and Authentic Heterosexuality Among Dudes Who Have Sex With Dudes ―which served as the basis for her book "Not Gay" and which explores a lot of the same themes. You can download it here.
I have read some reviews and the book doesn´t seem to be good.
Review from Stephen Hemrick:
Not Gay: Sex Between Straight White Men
by Jane Ward
NYU Press. 238 pages, $25.
The title of Jane Ward’s book is not meant to be ironic. Her argument is that while sexual activity between straight white men (SWM) does take place, it doesn’t mean that the participants are gay. The book is about exploring the circumstances under which this situation can be said to arise.
Notions of particular sexual acts fitting a dichotomy between hetero- and homosexual, or some version thereof—the whole notion of “sexual orientation”—is really a modern Western concept, and one that is currently in flux. Many young people today reject sexual labels of any kind. This lack of commitment to a fixed “identity,” in turn, is allowing people to be more open and experimental in their sexual behavior.
The concept of a continuum of sexual orientations started with Alfred Kinsey’s groundbreaking research. The “Kinsey Scale” assumed that sexual orientation forms a spectrum rather than a simple dichotomy, with 0 being completely straight and 6 completely gay. Somewhat surprisingly, Ward mentions Kinsey only in passing. Like Kinsey, she argues that sex between SWM is quite commonplace, but it tends to be confined to particular social situations. Indeed it is Ward’s contention that these situations are ones that have the paradoxical effect of affirming heterosexuality while distancing participants from the same-sex behavior. Thus, for example, hazing rituals that involve homosexual behavior implicitly assume that such performances are an ordeal that inductees will be disgusted by.
Ward identifies three broad categories of same-sex behavior among SWM. The first is “homosexual necessity,” or situational homosexuality, which includes everything from casual sex between dudes when their girlfriends are away to sex in prison or on seagoing vessels when no women are available. Doubtless such outlets have existed forever and have little bearing on our concept of sexual identity.
A more interesting category is “homosocial” activity in which sexual contact plays a role, and here the range of possibilities is vast. It’s surprising how many hazing rituals at fraternities involve homosexual play. One example is the so-called “elephant walk,” in which the naked inductees are forced to form a circle and insert a finger into the ass of the guy in front of them, and then walk in formation. Hazing in the U.S. Navy’s “crossing the line” ceremony involves anal penetration and analingus, among other unlikely activities for heterosexual men.
Ward’s “homosocial” performances in general are a form of social bonding, their origins wrapped up in tribal culture and puberty rites of yore. Whether it signifies a genuine longing for intimacy and bonding with other men is the question. Thus, for example, psychologist Joe Kort asserts that many men possess “a deep longing to experience physical intimacy with other men that they are denied in a sexist and homophobic world.” On the other hand, sociologist Michael Kimmel demotes homosexual longings to a developmental phase, a delayed coming-of-age process that some SWM will pass through. Despite her larger thesis, Ward allows that some straight men have a real desire to engage in homosexual sex, and that the rituals she observed provide a “script of necessity” that allows them to negotiate a heterosexual identity and a desire for sex with men.
The third group is what Ward calls “accidental homosexuality,” which is when guys end up in situations in which both parties are “intoxicated, dumb, or subject to other unusual conditions beyond their control.” This condition is depicted in movies in the so-called “bromance” films, or perhaps in parodies of such films, such as Blades of Glory (2007), in which two zany SWM figure skaters (Will Ferrell and Jon Heder) forge a friendship and “tenderly embrace each other—and each other’s crotches—on the skating rink.” In a very different vein, in the “Jackass” movies an all-male cast (often scantily clad) submits to physical abuse that can involve each others’ nipples or butts or testicles.
Ward devotes a chapter to the sociology of hooking up for SWM in the 1950s and ’60s. Outlets included the bike club Hell’s Angels for working-class men and a range of tearooms and public parks for middle-class men. And yet, at this point we’re talking about men who are actively seeking sex with other men; does there not come a point at which these “SWM” are in fact closeted gay men who’ve yet to come to terms with their sexuality? This question is of course at the core of this book: should these performances be seen as only the enactment of a social script or are they an outlet for authentic same-sex desires? Or are they something else? The prevalence of SM/BD scenarios, violence, and degradation suggests that there’s a strong element of power for its own sake. In other words, as always where sex is concerned, it’s complicated.[nb]Stephen Hemrick, "Review of 'Not Gay: Sex Between Straight White Men' by Jane Ward,
NYU Press," Gay & Lesbian Review Worldwide 22, no. 6 (November 2015): 46, http://www.glreview.org/article/swm%E2%80%88looking-for-same [/nb]
but all i downloaded is at DL
Add together the total file size of all the torrents you've downloaded from this site in the past week and subtract 172 Mb. Whatever amount you're left with is what was downloaded as freeleech and not counted. If you're left with 0, then the torrent you started as a freeleech expired within the time frame it took your client to obtain the entire file. The number you subtracted with earlier is the amount that was counted.
"Pervitin, widely used by Hitler's army and Hitler himself…"
Housewives, workers, soldiers bent on survival and kids looking for recreation ― they all had their own reasons and agendas for using Pervitin which didn't always go hand in hand with NSDAP policy. Its use was eventually restricted to small military groups like the Luftwaffe. Mostly it just made life more interesting for members of the Volksgemeinschaft without sacrificing too much of its social fabric.
Should I not upgrade?
The answer can be found in the last three paragraphs of torrentfreak.com's article.
In the scenario you've described, where one client is giving out pieces to >10 leechers, each client will only be broadcasting the same "here's what I have" for each handed out piece, thereby ensuring that sometime after the 50% mark each leecher in the swarm will end up possessing the exact same pieces.
This is because it's the seeding client that determines whom gets what. Some believe that's the job of the tracker, but the tracker never participates in the actual exchange of data. It's for the individual clients to determine what data is given out, by communicating to other clients what pieces they have. The broadness of your scenario's distribution will always be limited to how many different pieces one client can distribute over its 4-20 individual upload slots allowed for in the settings. A broader type of distribution almost always occurs in scenarios where there are >10 seeders.
Before Pope Francis Met Kim Davis, He Met With Gay Ex-Student
By Jim Yardley and Laurie Goodstein of The New York Times
OCT. 2, 2015
VATICAN CITY — Ever since it became public that Pope Francis met in Washington with Kim Davis, the Kentucky county clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses for same-sex couples, the questions have been swirling: Why did he meet with her, and was it meant as a political statement? As it turns out, the Vatican said on Friday, the pope did not mean to endorse Ms. Davis’s views. It also said he gave her no more than a typical brief greeting, despite what her lawyer described.
Instead, the Vatican said that Francis gave only one “real audience”: to someone later identified as one of his former students, Yayo Grassi, a gay man in Washington who says he brought his partner of 19 years to the Vatican’s embassy in Washington for a reunion. They even shot video.
The disclosure, after the Vatican’s unusual attempt to correct the impressions left by Francis’ meeting with Ms. Davis, added to days of speculation about whether Francis intended to send a message on the place of gays in the church, or conscientious objection, and whether his advisers had fully briefed him on Ms. Davis, or had their own agenda. The Vatican spokesman emphasized that the meeting with Ms. Davis was arranged by the office of the Vatican’s ambassador in Washington, not by anyone in Rome — including the pope.
“The pope did not enter into the details of the situation of Mrs. Davis, and his meeting with her should not be considered a form of support of her position in all of its particular and complex aspects,” the Rev. Federico Lombardi, the Vatican spokesman, said in a statement released Friday morning. The Vatican said that Archbishop Viganò had arranged the pope’s meetings in Washington, including the one with Ms. Davis.
The news of the meeting with Ms. Davis was disclosed late Tuesday night by Ms. Davis’s lawyer, Mathew D. Staver, at the same time it was reported on the website of Inside the Vatican, a conservative publication edited by an American who has covered the Vatican for years. For nearly eight hours, Vatican officials refused to confirm or deny that the meeting had occurred, before finally confirming it on Wednesday afternoon.
News of his meeting with Ms. Davis buoyed Christian conservatives, who had been dismayed that the pope, in his emphasis on the poor, barely mentioned issues like abortion and homosexuality during his visit to Washington, New York and Philadelphia. It also puzzled and angered more liberal observers. It also led observers of the Vatican to speculate about whether the encounter with Ms. Davis was a signal of support for her cause. On Friday, the Vatican appeared to be distancing itself from Ms. Davis’s camp. At the Vatican on Friday, a spokesman, the Rev. Thomas Rosica, said the invitation had been extended by the nuncio’s office — not from Rome.
“Who brought her in? The nuncio,” said Father Rosica, who is working with the Vatican’s media office in advance of a major meeting of bishops that begins this weekend. “The Nunciature was able to bring in donors, benefactors.” Father Rosica said of the controversy: “I would simply say: Her case is a very complex case. It’s got all kinds of intricacies. Was there an opportunity to brief the pope on this beforehand? I don’t think so. A list is given — these are the people you are going to meet.”
Mr. Staver, for his part, said he had been briefly introduced to the nuncio — Archbishop Viganò — in April, when he spoke at a large rally in Washington against same-sex marriage, before the Supreme Court ruled on the issue. The Rev. James Martin, editor at large of the Jesuit magazine America, had cautioned in an article this week that the pope meets many well-wishers on his trips, and that news of the meeting with Ms. Davis had been manipulated.
“I was very disappointed to see the pope having been used that way, and that his willingness to be friendly to someone was turned against him,” Father Martin said in an interview on Friday. “What may originally have prevented them from issuing a statement was the desire not to give this story too much air. But what they eventually came to realize was that they needed to correct some gross misrepresentations of what had happened. It shows that Pope Francis met with many people on the trip, and that she was simply another person who he tried to be kind to.” Father Rosica’s statement seemed to square with that account.
Asked on Friday if the Vatican press office had been unaware that Ms. Davis had met the pope, Father Rosica said: “No, but I think we may not have been aware of the full impact of the meeting. It is very difficult sometimes when you are looking at things in America from here.”
If Archbishop Viganò is held responsible for what is seen as a grave misstep on an important papal trip, he is likely to be removed at the first respectable opportunity, according to several church analysts. "The pope has to be able to rely on his own system, and in this case the system failed him. The question is, was it a mistake, or was it done with full knowledge of how toxic she was?”
Pope Francis Met With Kim Davis, Kentucky County Clerk, in Washington
By Jim Yardley and Laurie Goodstein of The New York Times
SEPT. 30, 2015
ROME — Pope Francis met privately in Washington last week with Kim Davis, the county clerk in Kentucky who defied a court order to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, adding a new element to an American tour that saw Francis attract huge crowds and articulate left-leaning positions on poverty, immigration, the environment and inequality. Vatican officials initially would not confirm that the meeting occurred, finally doing so on Wednesday afternoon, while refusing to discuss any details.
Ms. Davis, the clerk in Rowan County, Ky., has been at the center of a nationwide controversy over whether government employees and private businesses have a legal right to refuse to serve same-sex couples. She spent five days in jail for disobeying a federal court order to issue the licenses. On Tuesday night, her lawyer, Mathew D. Staver, said that Ms. Davis and her husband, Joe, were sneaked into the Vatican Embassy by car on Thursday afternoon. Francis gave her rosaries and told her to “stay strong,” the lawyer said. The couple met for about 15 minutes with the pope, who was accompanied by security guards, aides and photographers.
“I put my hand out and he reached and he grabbed it, and I hugged him and he hugged me,” Ms. Davis said Wednesday in an interview with ABC News. ‘Thank you for your courage.’”
“I had tears coming out of my eyes,” she said. “I’m just a nobody, so it was really humbling to think he would want to meet or know me.”
The secretiveness of the meeting, and the Vatican’s refusal to give any information, will inevitably raise questions about why Francis chose to meet with Ms. Davis — and why he kept the meeting secret. Mr. Staver said that he, the Davises and Vatican officials had agreed to not publicize the meeting until after the pope had left the United States because, he said, “we didn’t want the pope’s visit to be focused on Kim Davis.” Mr. Staver said the idea for a meeting was first discussed on Sept. 14, more than a week before the pope’s arrival. He declined to say who proposed the meeting.
But “this was not a generic meeting in which Kim Davis happened to appear,” Mr. Staver said. The Davises snapped selfies inside the Vatican Embassy. However, he said, “out of deference and respect they didn’t want to pull out a cellphone with the pope. The Vatican had their own photographers there and we’re told the pictures will be released later.” No photographs had been released by Wednesday evening in Rome.
Throughout his six-day American tour, Francis carefully navigated the country’s political divisions and seemed to be deliberately trying to strike a balance, if also to reframe entrenched debates. He spoke to Congress about the importance of “life” but elaborated on the theme by decrying the death penalty, not abortion. He also offered broad strokes about the importance of religious freedom — a big issue for American conservatives — but often in the context of preventing extremism and promoting interfaith tolerance. Yet his meeting with Ms. Davis raises the question of whether the pontiff was again shifting directions, seizing on an issue — conscientious objection — typically embraced by liberals but instead framing it around Ms. Davis.
Francis did make an unscheduled visit to the Little Sisters of the Poor, an order of nuns suing the federal government over the contraception mandate of the Affordable Care Act. Reporters were not present at the meeting, which was announced later the same day by the Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi. Asked on Wednesday why the Vatican noted that visit, but not the meeting with Ms. Davis, Father Lombardi drew a distinction. “That meeting with the pope and the Little Sisters was a specific event,” he said, noting that he had informed the news media because the pontiff had diverted from his public schedule.
For the most part, Francis has avoided any incendiary talk about same-sex marriage, and early in his papacy he even signaled a tolerant attitude about homosexuals with his now famous comment, “Who am I to judge?” Francis opposes same-sex marriage and has often defined marriage as between a man and a woman. In his final Mass, in Philadelphia hours before his departure, Francis said that God is revealed through the “covenant of man and woman.” But he then immediately signaled a more welcoming tone: “Anyone who wants to bring into this world a family which teaches children to be excited by every gesture aimed at overcoming evil — a family which shows that the Spirit is alive and at work — will encounter our gratitude and our appreciation. Whatever the family, people, or religion to which they belong!”
Francis’ meeting with Ms. Davis was first reported by Inside the Vatican, a publication edited by Robert Moynihan, an American who has covered the Vatican for many years. Some analysts argued that the meeting was less about same-sex marriage and more about Francis’ uncompromising support for conscientious objection — a stance he emphasized at a news conference onboard the papal airplane during the return trip to Rome on Sunday. Toward the end of the news conference, an American television reporter asked Francis about government officials who refused to perform their duties because of religious objections to same-sex marriage.
In answering the question, Francis did not mention the Davis case and began with what, in hindsight, seems like a curious disclaimer: “I can’t have in mind all cases that can exist about conscientious objection,” he said. Then he continued, by saying that “conscientious objection is a right that is a part of every human right.”
i thought helicobacter pylori is a virus thats transferred via faecal-oral route which happens when people dont wash their hands
.
It's a bacteria, not a virus, and it's likely transmitted oral-oral or oral-fecal (drinking unfiltered or untreated water). The bacteria does not live long on a person's hands.
The main source into the system is from dirty milk that has not been pasteurized properly.
This is correct, although I wouldn't call it the main source ― anything unpasteurized can be a source for transmission.
First I must be perfect in cleaning my mouth, then cleaning my hands and taking antibiotics
First you must not get infected ― but in your case that's too late. You join the other 50% of humankind who already have this bacteria in their gut. For a small amount of you this can lead to cancer, but for most people the only adverse affects are an inflammation of the stomach. In your case this led to respiratory problems.
After taking antibiotics to clear the bacteria from the stomach, some people may find the bacteria (and the inflammation) reappears after a time. They may think this is because the antibiotics stopped working―or weren't strong enough―but their reinfection most likely came from the reservoir of bacteria already found to be present in that person's dental plaque. Removal of the plaque may lessen the chance for reinfection of the stomach.
No amount of antibiotics will eradicate the bacteria completely from the body. Once someone has it, they likely have it for life.
In this meta-analysis the prevalence of H. pylori infection in the mouth was increased in stomach H. pylori patients, compared with those who didn't have it in their mouths ― indicating an association between infections of the mouth and stomach.
That [desc=A statistical technique for combining the findings from independent studies.]meta-analysis[/desc] also found significant differences in the rates of eradication success between the stomach and the mouth (85.8% vs. 5.7%) indicating that the mouth can serve as a permanent reservoir of H. pylori, and it can also be a potential source for stomach reinfection after successful antibiotic therapy.
The reservoir for these infections appears to be dental plaque. This can be explained by the structure of dental plaque itself, as it contains proliferating microorganisms, along with a scattering of epithelial cells, leukocytes, and macrophages, which make the H. pylori harbored in it inaccessible to any drug taken for treatment. Another meta-analysis suggests that rigorous oral hygiene focusing on the removal of dental plaque was one way of preventing your own reinfection of the stomach.
Typically this is because they've either not forwarded their port correctly; their client has not been added as a firewall/router exception; or their client has reached the programmed limit of its upload authority. Many connection problems like these which originate from other clients cannot be solved from yours.
Alternatively the Request Re-Seed function may be selected from the torrent's page in an attempt to increase the number of connectable seeders.
Before you have to fuel your body with energy and proteins give not so much energy, so carbs. Some nuts (few as they contain fat) are good for a snack, but no big meals right before because the blood will go to the digestion instead to the muscles during the workout.
Despite claims that immediate post-exercise nutrition is essential to maximize muscle building, evidence-based support for these "tiny windows of opportunity" is far from definitive. The whole idea of "timing your nutrition" originated as a response to those who exercised in a fasted state, where muscle protein breakdown caused a pre-exercise net negative amino acid balance to persist in the post-exercise period. The general idea that pre and post-exercise meals should never be seperated by more than 3–4 hours ensures that the person gets protein and carbohydrates in the best time frame possible to promote muscle protein synthesis and reduce tissue loss — thereby switching a net catabolic state into an anabolic one.
As far as the need for carbs before exercising, it's tempting to recommend them but they really only matter in exercise routines that stress endurance as opposed to strength or muscle building.
Do you think with private internet access vpn running with DNS security on he could see which computers were on?
Thanks for finding this information!
If you use PIA then you have OpenVPN SSL based encryption layers over your tunneled connection, meaning the information in its particulars would not likely be available to him. That being said, your use of his router as an endpoint is still added to the [desc= the sum of the data rates that are delivered to all terminals in a network]aggregate throughput[/desc], which remains as general information available to anyone in possession of the router.
Timing-out and then requiring a login back to the site is a security measure meant to protect the integrity of your account.
he also said he can see traffic
The Netgear genie is capable of measuring not monitoring network traffic, through the program's Traffic Meter. The Traffic Meter measures the amount of Internet traffic for today, yesterday, this week, this month, or last month. Each time period measured includes data for connection time, upload/average, download/average, and total/average. An app may be placed on a person's phone displaying the Traffic Meter, which looks like this:
The Traffic Meter does not display where the traffic comes from. However, on top of genie's configurable parental control feature from OpenDNS called FamilyShield which blocks pornography, proxy servers, and phishing sites en masse is a capability to perform TraceRoute and DNS lookups on the IP numbers you're connected to, giving whomever has access to genie access to information on the sites you're connected to.[nb]NETGEAR genie User Manual, http://www.downloads.netgear.com/files/GDC/WNDR3800/genie_apps_UM_24nov2014.pdf[/nb]
Clerk in Kentucky Chooses Jail Over Deal on Same-Sex Marriage
By Alan Blinder and Tamar Lewin of The New York Times
September 3, 2015
ASHLAND, Ky. — A county clerk who, through her defiance of a federal court order to issue marriage licenses to gay couples, became a national symbol of religious opposition to same-sex marriage was jailed Thursday after a federal judge here declared her in contempt of court.
The clerk, Kim Davis of Rowan County, Ky., was ordered detained and later rejected a proposal to allow her deputies to process same-sex marriage licenses that could have prompted her release.
Instead, on a day when Ms. Davis’s lawyer said she would not retreat from or modify her stand despite a Supreme Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage, Judge David L. Bunning of United States District Court secured commitments from five of Ms. Davis’s deputies to begin providing the licenses. At least two couples planned to seek marriage licenses Friday.
The court cannot condone the willful disobedience of its lawfully issued order,” Judge Bunning said. “If you give people the opportunity to choose which orders they follow, that’s what potentially causes problems.”
The judge’s decision to jail Ms. Davis, a 49-year-old Democrat who was elected last year, immediately intensified the attention focused on her, a longtime government worker who is one of three of Kentucky’s 120 county clerks who contend that their religious beliefs keep them from recognizing same-sex nuptials. Within hours of Ms. Davis’s imprisonment, some Republican presidential candidates declared their support for her, a sign that her case was becoming an increasingly charged cause for Christian conservatives.
“Today, judicial lawlessness crossed into judicial tyranny,” Senator Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas, said in a statement.
A lawyer for Ms. Davis, Roger Gannam, sharply criticized the ruling and portrayed it as a stark warning to Christians across the country.
“Today, for the first time in history, an American citizen has been incarcerated for having the belief of conscience that marriage is the union of one man and one woman,” Mr. Gannam said after a hearing that stretched deep into Thursday afternoon. “And she’s been ordered to stay there until she’s willing to change her mind, until she’s willing to change her conscience about what belief is.”
In Washington, the White House press secretary, Josh Earnest, said he had not discussed the judge’s decision with President Obama, but he added that it was not up to Ms. Davis to defy the Supreme Court.
“Every public official in our democracy is subject to the rule of law,” Mr. Earnest said. “No one is above the law. That applies to the president of the United States and that applies to the county clerk of Rowan County, Ky., as well.”
Judge Bunning’s decision went beyond the wishes of the couples who sued the clerk this summer; their lawyers had asked that she be fined. Some advocates for gay rights quickly expressed concern that Ms. Davis’s jailing would make her a sympathetic figure to religious conservatives and prompt lawmakers in Kentucky and elsewhere to push for new laws exempting public officials from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. But they also described Ms. Davis as an outlier.
“I think this is a tempest in a teapot,” said Marc Solomon, national campaign director of Freedom to Marry, which was active in the push for same-sex marriages to be recognized. “If the big backlash and the mass resistance that our opponents promised is one clerk from a county of under 25,000 people, I think we’re in very good shape.”
Ms. Davis’s appearance before Judge Bunning, and her subsequent detention, was a signal development in a case that surfaced soon after the Supreme Court’s ruling in June. Faced with the ruling, Ms. Davis, an Apostolic Christian, directed her office to stop providing marriage licenses to any applicants.
“Marriage is between one man and one woman,” Ms. Davis said during a frequently tearful turn on the witness stand on Thursday. When Mr. Gannam, one of her lawyers, asked whether she approved of same-sex marriage, she replied, “It’s not of God.”
The legal odyssey of Ms. Davis, who was being held Thursday night at a county detention center, began with a ruling last month that ordered her to issue licenses. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and, on Monday, the United States Supreme Court denied her requests to prevent the order from taking effect.
Ms. Davis’s decision on Tuesday to refuse licenses to gay couples led to the contempt hearing, and she testified that she had not hesitated to maintain her opposition to licensing same-sex couples.
“I didn’t have to think about it,” Ms. Davis said. “There was no choice there.”
But after seeing their boss jailed, most of Ms. Davis’s deputy clerks said Thursday that they were willing to break from her demands and comply with Judge Bunning’s order, even if they did so with deep reluctance.
“I don’t really want to, but I will follow the law,” one deputy, Melissa Thompson, told the judge. “I’m a preacher’s daughter, and this is the hardest thing I’ve ever done in my life.”
Another deputy clerk, Nathan Davis, who is also Ms. Davis’s son, said he would not issue licenses, but Judge Bunning did not impose any penalties against him.
On Friday, the focus of the case will shift back to Morehead, where the clerk’s office is. Despite lingering disputes about whether Ms. Davis’s deputies have the authority to act without her explicit consent, couples are expected to begin receiving marriage licenses Friday morning.
“We expect at the end of the day for the court’s orders to be complied with,” Judge Bunning told a crowded, quiet courtroom. “That’s how things work here in America.”
He later added, “I hope there’s no shenanigans.”
Amid complex questions about the scope of the judge’s authority and the application of Kentucky law, it was unclear how long Ms. Davis might remain jailed. Civil contempt is a murky area that is largely dependent on the discretion of the judge whose will has been defied.
“Civil contempt is not supposed to be punitive; it’s supposed to coerce the person to obey the judge’s order,” said Adam Winkler, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles. “Once she promises to obey, or once the judge determines that more jail time will not encourage her to obey, they’ll let her out. But she could be in there for a year; it’s conceivable. Judges really don’t like it when people disobey their order.”
Jurists like Judge Bunning have few options to prod compliance, but they are powerful: fines or incarceration. The legal issue — that no one, whether a government or an individual engaged in civil disobedience has standing to flout a court order — is well established.
The standoff here, many law professors said, is somewhat reminiscent of the 1960s civil rights battles, with Ms. Davis in the role of George C. Wallace, the segregationist Alabama governor who stood in the doorway of the University of Alabama to try to block its integration.
“In a way, she’s out George Wallace-ing George Wallace,” said Howard M. Wasserman, a law professor at Florida International University. “It does now feel like the civil rights era, with people ignoring court orders, taking a stand and being held in contempt.”
And Judge Bunning’s decision to jail Ms. Davis, instead of fining her as her challengers sought, came as a surprise in the courtroom and well beyond Ashland.
“It’s unusual for the court to go beyond what the plaintiffs asked for,” Suzanna Sherry, a law professor at Vanderbilt University, said.
Judge Bunning, however, said from the bench that he believed fining Ms. Davis would “not bring about the desired result of compliance.”
With Ms. Davis jailed, the agreements by her deputy clerks left gay and straight couples poised to receive marriage licenses in the county for the first time in months.
“We’re going to the courthouse tomorrow to get our marriage license; we’re very excited about that,” said April Miller, who sued after she and her partner were denied a license. “We’re saddened by the fact that Ms. Davis has been incarcerated. We look forward to tomorrow; as a couple, it will be a very important day in our lives.”
A lawyer for the couples, William Sharp, said Thursday’s ruling demonstrated that “religious liberty is not a sword with which government, through its employees, may impose particular religious beliefs on others.”
Outside the courthouse, protesters expressed disparate messages. The rainbow flag, a symbol of the gay rights movement, was on display along with signs that carried messages like “Sodomy is sin.” Some people shouted their opinions through loudspeakers and megaphones, and faced off, sometimes inches apart, with their opponents.
After the ruling, Ms. Davis’s husband, Joe Davis, was among those unhappy with the proceedings inside.
“Tell Judge Bunning,” Mr. Davis said, “he’s a butt.”
Which one is the best option?
I believe that your focus should be on hydrating yourself before exercising in general, and that because the shake will hydrate you, having it before is your best option.
Lots of people start their routines in a state of hypohydration, depriving themselves of liquids before they begin. Stover et al. examined the hydration status of recreational gym users prior to completing their normal exercise routine and found that 46% of them were hypohydrated. Volpe, Poule, and Bland examined the pre-practice hydration status in NCAA Division I athletes and found that 66% of them were hypohydrated.
There seems to be a problem with people who erroneously believe that drinking anything before a workout "slows them down"– but they should know better. Saltin found that decreases in aerobic capacity occur through increases in cardiovascular strain, increases in heat strain, and increases in core and muscle temperature with as little as 2% hypohydration. If you're trying to decide whether to have the shake after because you believe it may slow you down before, then you may be inadvertently hypohydrating yourself, and if that's the case then you should take the shake before.
But if you feel you're hydrated enough, then by all means have the shake after. Just remember that your endurance performance is also affected by ambient temperature and humidity, which in turn affect sweating and thus hypohydration, so the choice of environment should also influence when you drink the shake.
they normally agree to mess around after they see me or he tells them he has a friend
What's key here is the part you've de-emphasized, which is the role that your presence plays in getting them to agree to stay, after being apparently disappointed by your homely friend. You are their consolation prize.
As for your friend, what he lacks in looks he makes up for in networking―being the better, more connected, bonhomie of your pair. But alas, even that payoff is anhedonic for him, in that he does 100% of the legwork finding these guys and reaps only 50% of the attention―if even that―and thus not the full reward for his efforts. Who was it that was feeling used again? Cause you might have to clarify that, like what it is youre doing after theyve agreed to stay. You didn't specify, but my guess is, it isnt playing metal gear solid in the next room. But then again, hes is getting something at least, and I guess something is better than nothing.
In any event, I'd suggest not rocking the boat you two are in. You never know how good you have something until its gone.
Boy Scouts Expected to End Ban on Gay Leaders
by Erik Eckholm of The New York Times
JULY 26, 2015
The Boy Scouts of America is expected on Monday to end its blanket ban on gay leaders — a turning point for an organization that has been in turmoil over the issue. But some scouting groups will still be able to limit leadership jobs to heterosexuals. To gain the acquiescence of conservative religious groups that sponsor many dens and troops, like the Mormon and Roman Catholic Churches, the policy will allow church-run units to pick leaders who agree with their moral precepts.
Already struggling to reverse a long-term decline in membership, the Boy Scouts have been increasingly consumed over the last two decades by battles over the exclusion of gay people, divisions that threatened to fracture the organization. Conservative partners saw the policy as a bulwark against unwanted social change, but the Boy Scouts’ anti-gay stance was costing it public support and cachet as well as corporate funders, and lately has brought on the threat of costly lawsuits.
In a contentious meeting in 2013, the Scouts decided to permit participation by gay youths but not adults. On Monday, bowing to still-accelerating shifts in opinion and law, the Scouts will relax their policy barring openly gay adults from serving as the den leaders, scoutmasters and camp counselors who are at the heart of the scouting experience. The Scouts will also on Monday bar discrimination based on sexual orientation in all official facilities and paying jobs across the country, heading off potential suits and violations of employment discrimination laws.
But to keep some of the larger church sponsors in the fold, Scout executives concluded that they must allow for diverse policies for local volunteers. Church-based units may “continue to choose adult leaders whose beliefs are consistent with their own,” according to a statement that the Scouts’ top executives sent this month to regional board members. The step, if incomplete in the view of many gay rights campaigners, is nonetheless a momentous one for an organization that has struggled to keep the allegiance of conservatives as it faced open rebellion from more liberal regions.
The proposal follows a public warning in May by Robert M. Gates, the Scouts’ voluntary two-year president and a former defense secretary, that the ban on gay adults “cannot be sustained.” The national governing board, which includes scores of corporate, civic and church leaders who share a devotion to scouting, is expected to provide overwhelming support for the resolution in a meeting to be conducted Monday by telephone.
With this latest change, Mr. Gates and other Scout executives hope to defuse an issue that has caused growing turmoil, even as membership — more than 2.4 million youths in 2014, with nearly a million adult volunteers — has steadily declined. Over time, the share of units sponsored by churches of all denominations has climbed to 70 percent, with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the United Methodists and the Roman Catholics accounting for the largest shares.
Mr. Gates has won praise for acting decisively to resolve a conflict that threatened to fracture the Boy Scouts. An Eagle Scout who ran the C.I.A. and who served as defense secretary under Republican and Democratic presidents, he oversaw the end of the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on gay service in the military. “Because of his history, he was in a position to exercise leadership on this issue,” said Zach Wahls, 24, an Eagle Scout and executive director of Scouts for Equality, which has mounted public campaigns for change. “The people in the Scouts trusted him to handle it well.”
The Boy Scouts have a tortured history on gay rights, reflecting both the wider culture wars and the pull of regions and partners with conflicting views. In 2000, the Scouts’ exclusionary policy prevailed before the Supreme Court. In a 5-to-4 decision, the court said the Scouts had the right to force out a gay assistant scoutmaster because the private organization’s stance that homosexuality was not “morally straight” was part of the group’s “expressive message.”
But the victory proved Pyrrhic. Many schools and public agencies severed their ties. At the same time, the share of religious sponsors climbed, and the Scouts began attracting more conservative families. In 2012, the group announced that it would retain the ban on gay members. But gay rights groups like Glaad and Scouts for Equality helped publicize cases of discrimination and push several major corporate donors, including Intel, United Parcel Service and Merck, to withdraw their support.
In 2013, the national leadership proposed what proved to be an illusory middle ground — to permit gay youths, a less sensitive issue with conservatives, but to continue to ban openly gay adults. The change was welcomed, but brought little peace. More corporate donors withdrew, and lawsuits claiming illegal discrimination under state laws were brewing that, the Scouts’ own lawyers concluded, the group was sure to lose.