How are you doing your target marketing? Are you guessing? Are you really doing the homework to find out what your prospects want? Are you taking advice from people who have never made a dime online?
Or did you simply buy a resell rights product and are attempting to sell in a niche that a thousand other people are already in?
All of these dilemmas can be solved via good market research. Market research online is something that is easy to do, and it can be easily done if you visit a few websites. When I say ?visit a few websites?, I mean visit the forums, Q & A sites, and consult with your own customers.
The information that can be gathered from these 3 sources is very valuable, and can help you to?learn about your prospects and customers in a simple manner. And in today?s lesson, I want to share with you how you should conduct yourself when visiting a forum that you want to start posting and participating on.
Let?s discuss forums:
- Forums
Participating in forums will give you a great understanding of your target market. People will visit the forums everyday with a new question or concern, and they are looking for people like YOU to help them solve their problem. Eventually, you will be perceived as an expert in your niche, and people will visit your website for more information.
Now you can?t just join any kind of forum, or attempt to create a niche where you shouldn?t. For example, my father was a cop, my sister is a cop, my brother in law is a cop, and my brother is a security job. Obviously my family enjoys the law enforcement industry (except for me), so I thought this would be a good niche to enter into, because I had family members in this niche.
But boy was I WRONG. I went on a police forum one day and tried to sell them my ?home business? product, and I was just spamming all over the forum. I was operating under a ?pen name?, so my real name wasn?t disclosed. But everyone was disgusted by me, and very soon, my account got banned.
Don?t let this happen to you. When you join a forum, stick with delivering helpful information that will be of much benefit to the people on the forum. This is something that is very important, and is something that can get you alot of traffic back to your website. Don?t ruin something that can eventually be incredibly profitable for you.
I?ve learned my lesson, and I stick with the ?help first? model. This is the best model that you can start off with. Keep these things in mind when posting on forums. Also, you will want to join more than 1 forum.
This will allow you to get more exposure, and will get you more traffic to your website. Not to mention also help to build your brand and credibility in your niche.
Good luck with using these forum tips to help you improve your traffic and sales.
For more internet marketing secrets, simply visit the website below:http://www.internetmarketing-rules.com/internetmarketing.html
If you are running a small business and filing your taxes on the Schedule C of the tax return form, then you need to be aware that the IRS scrutinizes such filers and that your chances of being audited are high. You therefore, need to ensure your documentation is on point and that the information provided is on board to avoid being identified for an audit. Below are some tips that can help you to reduce your chances of an audited: ?1. Use Accounting Software One of the ways of avoiding scrutiny by the IRS is by using accounting software to manage your accounts. Using accounting software makes you look more professional and accountable than using paper or spreadsheet accounts, as it is much harder to manipulate accounting software. If possible, use accounting software that is recognized and popular. ?2. Claim Ordinary Expenses One of the things that will definitely raise a red flag is claiming frivolous, unrelated and uncommon expenses. The IRS has statistics and information as to the expenses and the range of expense amount for different businesses and business sizes. Therefore, if your expense claim is too high, you increase the probability of an audit. However, where such expenses are unavoidable, ensure that you have the correct documentation to support the expense. ?3. Mileage Mileage is another area that the IRS gives more attention to. This is because it is easy to pass off personal mileage as a business expense. High mileage claim may attract the attention of the IRS auditors. Therefore, ensure that you have the support documentation for a lot of travel. Have a mileage log, an appointment book that shows where and why you travelled, and possibly some vehicle repair receipts to support your claim. ?4. Meals and Entertainment Business meals and entertainment are yet another area that is easy to misuse. The IRS therefore, scrutinizes such expense claims. When you make such claims, ensure that it is not excessive and frivolous. You should also ensure that you claim such expenses according to the IRS rules. ?5. Business Travel You should also be careful when claiming business travel, especially so when you combine such travel with leisure and holiday. Some destinations such as Las Vegas may attract more attention as such destinations are seen as being more vacation-like places. Therefore, ensure that you have support documentation to show business intent of the travel, such as an invite from a potential client, a trade fare that you are participating, or a business seminar that is related to your type of business. ?6. Home Office Home office expenses are another red flag as it has times, not a clear division between home and business expenses. To claim home office expenses, you will need to show that you spend extensive time working from your home towards your business. You also need some form of justification as to the way you allot home and business expenses. Some of the support documentation includes a photograph of the work area to show proportion of space occupied by the business. ?7. Use a Professional Accountant You can also increase your credibility with the IRS by hiring the services of a professional accountant to prepare your account reports according to professional standards. ?8. Consider Changing Business Model You may also consider changing your business model from a self employment business reporting on the Schedule C to a Limited Liability Company (LLC) or partnership as this attracts less scrutiny and reduces chances of an audit.
Professional web design firm is really a substantial part of every website also it plays a crucial portion for making targeted traffic also keeping the website visitors. An online site serves as your identification on the internet. A good looking web page carries the potency to create a favorable thoughts and opinions on new visitor. An online site must be interactive enough to make web users intrigued and a web designer really should pay attention to designs that will enhance the simplicity and web visibility.
Performance suggests that the internet site navigation platform ought to be easy as well as hassle-free enough to create a website easily obtainable for a standard Web surfer. An easy professional web design firm will not merely boost a net surfer's experience on the site but will also lessens loading duration and will save bandwidth fees. Web designing has changed into a tricky process in present predicament considering Internet presently inundated with countless websites. A typical design can be bad to the prosperity of the concerned web site. Whether you're designing a private or a business oriented internet site, just be sure you are following the new styles in web design.
Following are many important options for effective professional web design firm:
1. If you build a website make perfectly sure that it's cross web browser appropriate. Meaning the function and views of the sites have to be alike on virtually all web browsers.
2. Look of a website is determined by the coloring structure employed. Opt for a suitable color pattern in your web design based on the target customers. Employ a company color structure in the event of a business internet site. Don't implement too many colors, they could mess the aesthetic design of the internet site.
3. Professional web design firm content needs to be fresh, pertinent and properly exposed. Targeted traffic will re-visit a site provided they see something essential and new. Apply the right headlines and keywords and phrases. Useful articles and other content just augments the style as well as helps make the site much more relevant and useful.
4. A web site should load effortlessly. Website users are eager and extended loading duration may lead to website traffic change. Furthermore, visitors working with a slower Internet pace may prefer looking at a quick loading website. Thus, make a website which loads rapidly.
5. Professional web design firm should be kept easy and tidy. Utilize KIS (Keep It Simple) theory. Placing too many illustrations or photos together with animation might give a messed up view to your website. It's fine to use some computer animation to make a site lively and fascinating but don't overload with this approach. A web designer must always use high-quality and suited fonts on a web site.
6. Computers have various resolutions such as 640 x 480 to 1024 x 768 or maybe even larger. You should guarantee that internet site is clearly apparent in every resolutions.
7. Way too many ads and pop-ups might divert a user; and for that reason reducing the functionality of your site. You need to be aware of positioning the advertisements at ideal places so you need to keep from stuffing the adverts uselessly.
8. Help make your website interactive with the help of discussion forums, research studies, feedback systems and also comment sections. Creating a chat program might be another excellent and creative strategy for your site.
9. Navigation is an important component of a professional web design firm. The routing system shouldn't be difficult and confusing. It should be easy to operate and consistent in all of the site pages. Use an index chart or site map as a way to lead the visitor.
Doing Bayesian Data Analysis: A Tutorial with R and BUGS by Academic Press
List Price : $89.95
SalesRank :9374
"In sum, this is a new more or less textbook to teach a roughly statistical diagnosis as a way to be new to its audience. It makes use of a tutorial method and instills in its pupils the devices of the trade: coding, debugging, simulating, and plotting. Though some will certainly look down on its folksy tone, its extended analogies and cautious commenting, these measures will almost certainly do far more just right than hurt. The textual content has the professionalspective to alter the methodological softwarebox of a brand new era of social scientists, bringing them up to a stage of computation, modeling, and prognosis that they may just not have thought to be inside their take dangle of. Where previous methodes to teaching facts to these in psychology and financials have no longer result in widespread perception, this tutorial approach may."--Journal of Economic Psychology
"Kruschke's textual content duvets a a lot broader range of traditional experimental designs.has the possible to alter the approach in which most cognitive scientists and testal psychologists strategy the planning and prognosis of their tests" -Prof..
Read more Doing Bayesian Data Analysis: A Tutorial with R and BUGS
Doing Bayesian Data Analysis: A Tutorial with R and BUGS Feature
.
VDO Related :Doing Bayesian Data Analysis: A Tutorial with R and BUGS
How do you define marriage? Well, it really depends on the time period and society which you are from. In Comanche society, women are pressured into marriage but benefit little from such an arrangement. Unmarried women are eyed enviously. In ancient Roman society, newly-wed brides lost all rights with their old family and gained them with the groom's. She became property of her husband's family. This is where the tradition of the father ?giving away? her daughter at marriage ceremonies came from. In some Chinese cultures, interestingly, a husband would live in his wife's house with her family. Confucius, in describing marriage, was primarily concerned with family and honor:
?Marriage is the union of two different surnames, in friendship and in love, in order to continue the posterity of the former sages, and to furnish those who shall preside at the sacrifices to heaven and earth, at those in the ancestral temple, and at those at the altars to the spirits of the land and grain.? - Confucius
In 110 A.D., the bishop Ignatius of Antioch wrote that both men and women who marry must form their marriage with the approval of a bishop according to God's will, and not be tempted to choose a partner on the basis of lust. The Bible, commonly used as an argument against same-sex marriage, was actually far more focused on sexual exclusivity. (See Hebrews 13:4) In Medieval France there was a contract known as the affr?rement, or ?brotherment?. Anglo-Saxons viewed marriage as a strategic tool used to establish trading agreements and working relationships. In 1965, the Supreme Court provided its analysis of what marriage is:
?Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.? - Justice William O. Douglas, Griswold v. Connecticut
According to the affr?rement, ?bothers? pledged to live together sharing ?one bread, one wine, and one purse?. There have been scattered instances of same-sex marriages being performed throughout human history, but it wasn't until the turn of the millennium that the Netherlands became the first country to officially sanction same-sex marriage.
An interesting hypothesis emerges from this study. Consider this fact: since post-WWII Western society, traditional gender roles have started blurring. Stay-at-home fathers have become a more common sight, women are increasingly working in traditionally male-dominated fields, and as a result, the gender roles that used to serve marriage began crumbling. When looking at polls, it is clear that younger people support same-sex marriage with an increasingly higher frequency than their parents. Is this because younger people grew up in a society where gender roles are less clear? This is an interesting thought to keep in mind as you read.
In California, despite increasingly liberal state fundamentals, state law continues to stubbornly treat marriage as an institution between a man and woman only. Far from being hostile to LGBT persons, however, California first decriminalized homosexuality in 1975 (almost thirty years before Lawrence v. Texas was decided) and hasn't looked back since.
It currently provides its LGBT residents with one of the most comprehensive anti-discrimination protections available in the United States, ranging from housing to employment.
State law requires public schools to teach students of the contributions of important LGBT historical figures, so that tolerant ideals are expressed and LGBT children can go to school confident that it will provide a safe learning environment.
State courts treat sexual orientation as a protected class deserving of heightened scrutiny during discrimination disputes, and state law enforcement and prosecutors have the jurisdiction to treat violence against LGBT people as a hate crime.
Just recently, California became the first state to protect minors from ?pray away the gay? therapies that have been medically dismissed as junk science by the most reputable medical organizations in America.
Even in its treatment of committed same-sex couples, California's domestic partnership arrangement is among the most comprehensive in the country. First passed in 1999 (the first state-wide law in the United States), domestic partnerships has been legislatively expanded sixteen times since to address every civil benefit married couples get and to give them to domestic partners as well.
These gains weren't achieved easily; the majority didn't just simply hand over the rights to the repressed minority. California has had a tough history concerning gay rights ? with the Moscone-Milk massacre being one of the defining moments of the state's difficult historical relationship with the gay rights movement. But through the years, California has made incredible strides when it comes to gay rights. Like I mentioned above, LGBT Californians enjoy more legal rights and protections than any other time in history. But same-sex marriage is still not legal, and if a gay couple married in a jurisdiction where same-sex is legal and later moved to California, the state will respect that marriage and grant all the civil benefits that come with marriage, but will refuse to grant the use of the legal designation, ?marriage?. To understand the importance of this term in the context of California law and why, even in such a state where gay citizens are granted every legal protection under the sun but same-sex marriage is still not legal, we must glance back in time.
In 1993, Judge Steven H. Levinson of the Hawaii State Supreme Court catapulted gay marriage into the national spotlight for the first time when he delivered the court's plurality decision, ruling that denying same-sex couples marriage violated the Equal Protection Clause by discriminating on the basis of sex. Panic ensued and Congress passed and President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act, prohibiting the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages and giving states the right to do the same. It was the first time that the federal government offered a legal definition of marriage, a realm traditionally dealt with by the states. Denying the rights of icky gays was more important than state's rights.
In the grand scheme of things, though, the gay rights movement (and in particular, equal marriage rights) has seen successes more rapidly than any previous civil rights movement in American history. In 2003, a mere six years after DOMA came into effect, the United States Supreme Court decided in Lawrence v. Texas that Texas' state law criminalizing sodomy between consenting adults was unconstitutional, overturning Bowers v. Hardwick a mere eighteen years after that case was decided. In Supreme Court speed, this kind of pacing is like the speed of light. Months later, Massachusetts became the first state to legalize same-sex marriage when the state Supreme Court ruled that denying gay marriage violated constitutional provisions guaranteeing liberty and equality and was also not rationally related to a legitimate state interest. In that decade, same-sex marriage was propelled into the national conversation, homosexuality had been decriminalized nationwide, and one state had legalized same-sex marriage.
In 2004, the young, relatively unknown, and newly-elected mayor of San Francisco directed his city-county clerk to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples based on California's guarantee of equal protection under the law. At a press conference announcing his decision, Mayor Gavin Newsom asserted that ?what we were doing before eleven o'clock this morning was discriminatory.? Although the marriages performed during this time were later voided by the state Supreme Court, what Mayor Newsom did was to set the wheels in motion for a real debate in California over the future of marriage equality.
In its opinion voiding the San Francisco marriages, the Supreme Court suggested that the city could bring a legal challenge against the state if it wished, which it did. That suit and five others were later consolidated into one case, In re Marriage Cases. While that case slowly wound up California's courts, the state legislature took initiative and passed a same-sex marriage bill twice, both times vetoed by Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. His veto message? Allow the issue to have its turn in the court systems, and he will abide by whatever ruling the Supreme Court issued. Essentially, it was a cop-out for the moderate Republican to avoid taking a stance on the contentious issue.
In 2008, four years after the original San Francisco weddings, the court finally decided In re Marriage Cases in favor of the plaintiffs and held that offering marriage to opposite-sex couples but a different designation of ?domestic partnership? to same-sex couples amounted to irrational discrimination. In his majority opinion, Chief Justice Ronald George ruled that "the right to marry is not properly viewed simply as a benefit or privilege that a government may establish or abolish as it sees fit, but rather that the right constitutes a basic civil or human right of all people." Here's an interesting thing to note: six of the justices on the court were appointed by Republican governors, and only one by a Democratic governor. In any case, the Court removed all remaining legal obstacles by June 17th of that year and county clerks across the state began issuing same-sex marriage licenses.
Months before the court's ruling, however, a coalition of conservative groups under the umbrella group ProtectMarriage.com had begun circulating petitions to add a constitutional amendment to the 2008 ballot to ban same-sex marriage. This amendment would later qualify for the ballot as 'Proposition 8'. While the rest of the country was was absorbed by the unfolding Presidential election, California voters were bombarded by campaign advertisements by the opposing sides of the Proposition 8 debate. The campaign manager for the Yes on Prop 8 campaign was Frank Schubert, a former corporate public relations executive. Despite having a lesbian sister in a committed relationship and raising two children, Schubert took on the cause of ending same-sex marriage in California. Deceptively cunning, Schubert was the mastermind behind the messaging that gay rights activists have only recently figured out how to counter. Using images of children as innocent victims of the icky gays, Schubert's campaign caught the poorly-organized No on Prop 8 campaign off guard.
The No on Prop 8 campaign thought they were cruising to an easy victory. They racked up bi-partisan endorsements from every prominent politician in the state, including Governor Schwarzenegger, Lt. Governor John Garamendi, Attorney General Jerry Brown, Senators Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Mayors Gavin Newsom (San Francisco), Antonio Villaraigosa (Los Angeles), and Jerry Sanders (San Diego). Big-name Hollywood figures like George Clooney, George Takei, Tom hanks, Ellen DeGeneres, Brad Pitt, and Steven Spielberg lined up to endorse the No on 8 campaign. They received donations and public proclamations of support from tech companies like Google and Apple, entities who had never before taken such public political stances. Labor and teachers unions, potent forces in California politics, stood with No on 8, as did the editorial boards of every major newspaper in the state. On the flip side, the proponents had mainly the Knights of Columbus and the LDS church behind their backs. They were out-raised by the No campaign by nearly $5 million, and polling up until the day of the election showed a comfortable margin of victory for the No campaign. The largest newspaper to endorse Yes on 8 was the Los Altos Town Crier, which boasted a circulation of 16,000 in a state with 37 million residents. Even then, the Crier's comically illogical endorsement wasn't enough to convince Los Altos voters to vote yes). But in the end, Proposition 8 passed 52%-48%. So what went wrong?
Prop 8 lost only in the liberal coastal areas.
Firstly, the No on 8 campaign messaging campaign was not designed to combat the deceptive ads aired by Schubert's campaign. While No on 8 was whining about the inequality and unfairness of it all (which was true, but that isn't how you persuade undecided voters), ProtectMarriage.com was saturating the airwaves with images of children being harmed and the institution of marriage crumbling, capped off with scary music. Voters who were on the fence before the election swung in support of the constitutional amendment on election day, and the Proposition eked into victory.
Secondly, supporters of same-sex marriage became too arrogant. I submit that Mayor Newsom's ?Whether You Like It Or Not? speech unwittingly helped flip enough voters to the Yes side to ensure Schubert's campaign a victory.
Thirdly, demographics played a huge role. There was much controversy in the aftermath of the Prop 8 vote that the No campaign did not leverage candidate Obama's letter of support well enough to persuade enough African American voters. I am skeptical that minority voters were swingy enough to have made much of a difference, especially in a state where African Americans constitute a distinct minority and many Latinos are socially conservative. In any case, polling has consistently shown in Maryland and other states where there will be same-sex marriage questions this fall that President Obama's declared support for marriage equality has swayed many on-the-fence African American voters. We shall see.
Whatever the other reasons were, the No campaign had failed to win Los Angeles County and the majority of its three million voters ? and that failure I believe was enough to cost the election.
How consistent polling done by respected pollsters like SurveyUSA and The Field Poll could have so dramatically miscalculated the actual result have raised many questions about the nature of polling on the same-sex marriage issue. It appears that historically, same-sex marriage under-performs at the ballot box compared to the polling. One hypothesis is that it has become increasingly politically incorrect to oppose marriage equality. As a result, especially with live-person phone interviews, people tend to lie and say they support gay marriage when, in fact, they do not. Building upon this idea is the reasoning that the trend also carries over to undecided voters, that many of them end up voting against marriage equality when the time comes.
Nate Silver adjusted for this effect in an excellent state-by-state analysis of each year a state wold vote in favor of marriage equality based on their previous votes on the issue (essentially side-stepping the polling). By his calculations, California would have voted to approve same-sex marriage in 2010. Proposition 8 was put to the voters one election cycle too soon.
Soon after Proposition 8 passed, a number of parties in the state sued the state government to enjoin enforcement of the constitutional amendment. The plaintiffs included same-sex couples who had planned to marry (represented by the groups that won In re Marriage Cases), Santa Clara, Alameda, Marin, San Mateo, and Santa Cruz counties and the cities of San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego, Oakland. At the time, it was quite unprecedented for so many local governments to sue the state over the contentious social issue. Even more amazing was the actions of the defendants, or the state officials.
?The Article 1 provision guaranteeing basic liberty, which includes the right to marry, took precedence over the initiative. Based on my duty to defend the law and the entire Constitution, I concluded the court should protect the right to marry even in the face of the 52 percent vote.? - Attorney General Jerry Brown
Usually charged with defending all state laws, this was a highly unusual (but not unheard of) move from the Attorney General, and it infuriated those on the right, forcing them to legally intervene as a party in the case to defend the proposition. Future state Supreme Court Justice Goodwin Liu filed an amicus curiae with the state legislature supporting the plaintiff's position. Even so, with a vote of 7-1, the court ruled in Strauss v. Horton that Proposition 8 was a valid citizen's constitutional amendment and should continue to be enforced. It offered one silver lining, however: all marriages performed before Proposition 8's passage are valid under the law and will continue to be treated so. The result? California's yes/no/maybe so treatment of gay marriage law since, only made crazier by Gov. Schwarzenegger signing a bill that kinda/sorta recognized out-of-state same-sex marriages. But the silver lining is that approximately 18,000 committed couples who legally married would not lose their lawfully gained status. Four years after the San Francisco weddings were annulled, that was a real fear that thankfully never came to be.
Before the ruling in Strauss was handed down, wealthy gay activists and donors had begun organizing a federal lawsuit. Chad Griffin, founder of the organization dedicated to filing the lawsuit, heard word that the controversial Solicitor General of the Bush era, Theodore Olson, might be interested in the cause. Olson, as it turns out, had supported same-sex marriage for decades. Not only was this court case a chance to prove his deeply-held convictions about personal liberty, Proposition 8 hit close to home: Olson had grown up in the Bay Area suburb of Mountain View.
He contacted David Boies, lawyer for the opposing counsel in Bush v. Gore, and he imeediately signed on. The next step was to find same-sex couples in committed relationships who had not gotten married. This is an important step: they needed to find another Loving, and not a Norma McCorvey of Roe v. Wade infamy. The plaintiffs that they found: Paul Katami, Jeffery Zarillo, Kristin Perry, and Sandra Stier, were perfect for the role. Each were in a committed relationship, and Perry and Stier were raising children together. They had stable families that could withstand media scrutiny. ?We had to digest the magnitude of what potentially could happen: how long this [case] could last, where this could go, and how historic it could be,? Zarillo recalled thinking as he deliberated joining the case.
On May 22, 2009, anticipating an adverse ruling in Strauss, an associate with Olson's firm quietly filed Perry v. Schwarzenegger at San Francisco's Federal Building five minutes before it closed for the Memorial Day weekend.
The news broke five days later to general surprise and alarm. Gay rights groups had, up until that point, been fighting a state-by-state battle to change hearts and minds as well as to convince state judges. A federal case ?has the potential to have devastating consequences?, said attorney Kate Kendall of the National Center for Lesbian Rights. Gay rights groups, unsure and critical of Olson's and Boies' motives, tried to intervene in the case. The judge assigned to the case, Chief Justice Vaughn Walker, did not allow it. The lawsuit would proceed with only the plaintiff's counsel and limited input from the San Francisco Deputy Attorney's office.
On August 19, Judge Walker surprised both sides when he scheduled a non-jury trial to deliberate issues relating to same-sex marriage, including parentage and children, history of anti-gay discrimination, and whether or not Proposition 8 was passed by taking advantage of general anti-gay animus. The trial was an unprecedented and unexpected coup for the gay rights movement. The plaintiffs called up expert witnesses from prestigious universities worldwide, each presenting testimony from a different perspective.
Nancy Cott, a history scholar, pointed out that marriage had historically never been universally defined as between a man and a woman, and that the evolution of gender roles in the late 20th century had changed the institution of marriage.
George Chauncey, a Yale University social history professor, illustrated definitively how previous political campaigns had sought to paint gay people as dangerous sexual deviants and child molesters.
Gary Segura, professor of political science at Stanford, empirically proved that gay people were the target of more restrictive ballot initiatives than any other minority group in history, and were disproportionately under-represented in positions of political power.
Gregory Herek, a psychology professor at UC Davis, presented evidence of social stigma against gays and lesbians and how these forms of discrimination factored into the race.
Michael Lamb, another psychology professor from Cambridge University, cited over a hundred peer reviewed studies since the late 1970s that showed no negative developmental differences between children brought up in same-sex households than those brought up in traditional ones.
Ryan Kendall, a gay man who was forced to undergo anti-gay ?conversion therapy?, described the ?mental anguish he endured? and his terrifying experiences to the shocked courtroom.
Dr. William Tam, a 'hostile witness' and one of the proponents of Proposition 8, revealed how the campaign delivered messages about how gay people caused disease, polygamy, and pedophilia.
Overall, the plaintiffs provided seventeen witnesses who testified on a myriad of different issues. It was a savage and complete obliteration of arguments usually presented by the anti-equality crowd.
During the few days the proponents of Proposition 8 were arguing their case, I can't imagine Olson or Boies doing anything else but dancing in joy. They brought to the witness stand only two experts (one of whom would later be struck from the record for not actually being an expert in his stated field). The proponent's arguments were unorganized and messy. David Boies did an excellent job cross-examining them. I suspect many of the proponent's 'expert' witnesses dropped out because they didn't want to be cross-examined by Boies and to have the truthfulness of their testimony tested under a court of law. Some highlights from the testimonies:
?When you find someone who is not only your best friend but your best advocate and supporter in life, it?s a natural next step for me to want to be married to that person. I can safely say that if I were married to Jeff, I know that the struggle that we have validating ourselves to other people would be diminished and potentially eradicated.? ?Paul Katami, plaintiff
?Young children do not aspire to be domestic partners, marriage is a common, socially approved goal.? ?Dr. Illan H. Meyer, UCLA
?Boies: 'Studies show that homosexuality is linked to pedophilia.' Do you see that? Tam: Yes. Boies: Do you believe that was true?? Tam: Yes, I do. ? Dr. William Tam, proponent of Prop 8
?We would be more American on the day we permitted same-sex marriage than we were on the day before.? ?David Blankenhorn, witness for the proponents of Prop 8
The testimony was lopsided and the defendant's trial performance was universally panned by the media. Lea Brilmayer of Yale University called the defendant-intervenor's performance ?sorry lawyering?. According to Andrew Cohen of CBS:
?During the trial, Walker practically begged and cajoled the Prop 8 lawyers to do better for their cause. He asked them written questions to draw them out. He scolded them during closing arguments to make more persuasive arguments. They simply didn't or couldn't or wouldn't respond.?
Like I said before, this trial was a major coup for gay rights activists. Here, in a court of law, the flimsy arguments against same-sex marriage were tested against rationality and logic, and one-by-one, each of them fell against the tide of truth. The plaintiffs called in historians, political scientists, community activists, psychologists, an economist, and a mayor to testify on a wide range of social disadvantages plaguing gay people in California ? all factors that influenced the passage of Proposition 8. The defendants had nothing to say in response. When shined with the light of transparency, all of their flimsy arguments simply fell apart. When pressed on how marriage equality would hurt heterosexual marriage, the opposing counsel simply responded: ?I don't know?. The best part is that the entire trial was filmed and the clown show of a performance ProtectMarriage.com's lawyers provided is visually preserved for future generations to see (and hopefully not repeat). Perry was a huge coup for the gay rights movement on a public relations front, and a disaster for the anti-equality side.
Watch Ted Olson explain why he brought the case to court:
About half a year later, on August 4, 2010, Judge Vaughn Walker laid waste to the flimsy arguments ProtectMarriage.com's lawyers came up with. In a devastatingly meticulous opinion, Walker laid out supporting evidence for 80 ?findings of fact?. According to judicial tradition, higher courts generally defer to the lower court (which witnessed the trial first-hand) on findings of fact, which made them that much more devastating for the anti-equality side. Among these findings of fact included:
#19: Marriage is a civil, not religious, matter. #46: Individuals do not generally choose their own sexual orientation. An individual does not, through conscious decision, therapeutic intervention or other method, change sexual orientation. #51: Marrying a person of the opposite sex is an unrealistic option for gays and lesbians. #70: A parent's gender is not a factor in a child's adjustment. An individual's sexual orientation does not determine whether an individual can be a good parent. Children raised by gay or lesbian parents are as likely as children raised by heterosexual parents to be healthy, successful, and well-adjusted. #74: Gays and lesbians have a long history of being victims of discrimination.
And his closing statement:
?An initiative measure adopted by the voters deserves great respect. The considered views and opinions of even the most highly qualified scholars and experts seldom outweigh the determinations of the voters. When challenged, however, the voters? determinations must find at least some support in evidence. This is especially so when those determinations enact into law classifications of persons. Conjecture, speculation and fears are not enough. Still less will the moral disapprobation of a group or class of citizens suffice, no matter how large the majority that shares that view. The evidence demonstrated beyond serious reckoning that Proposition 8 finds support only in such disapproval. As such, Proposition 8 is beyond the constitutional reach of the voters or their representatives.?
...
Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.?
If the trial was an amazing victory for the gay rights movement, this decision was cause for joy and celebration across the nation. Having a federal court strike down a same-sex marriage ban enacted by voters ? and with such tough language and meticulous research to boot ? was unprecedented. The findings of fact were brutal, and one-by-one he decimated every argument ProtectMarriage.com presented. His corresponding analysis was written in such a way that higher courts would find difficult to disregard. Even though the case was moving up at a snail's pace, victory seemed near.
Two years later, after two oral arguments in front of the Ninth Circuit and a long detour with the California Supreme Court over a procedural question, a three-judge panel on the Ninth Circuit struck down Proposition 8 on a much more narrower basis than Walker did. By this time, the whole dynamic had changed. Whereas Olson and Boies had originally championed Perry as a potential game-changer to bring marriage equality to the nation, four years later they filed briefs asking the Supreme Court to deny cert. What happened in the interim?
First and most important was the Ninth Circuit decision that liberal stalwart Justice Stephen Reinhardt penned. Far from taking the all-or-nothing approach Judge Walker did, Reinhardt probably realized that the conservative Supreme Court would likely not, in one stroke, approve same-sex marriage nationwide but also give LGBT people the many legal protections enjoyed by the historically disadvantaged. In his highly realist opinion, Reinhardt instantly changed the dynamic of the case, in my opinion for the better. His ruling took a far more narrow approach, relying on the fact that California was the first state to legalize same-sex marriage, and then to take that right away:
?By using their initiative power to target a minority group and withdraw a right that it possessed, without a legitimate reason for doing so, the People of California violated the Equal Protection Clause. We hold Proposition 8 to be unconstitutional on this ground. We do not doubt the importance of the more general questions presented to us concerning the rights of same-sex couples to marry, nor do we doubt that these questions will likely be resolved in other states, and for the nation as a whole, by other courts. For now, it suffices to conclude that the People of California may not, consistent with the Federal Constitution, add to their state constitution a provision that has no more practical effect than to strip gays and lesbians of their right to use the official designation that the State and society give to committed relationships, thereby adversely affecting the status and dignity of the members of a disfavored class. -Justice Stephen Reinhardt?
The ruling was tailored for one person: Justice Anthony Kennedy. In its arguments of federalism and personal liberty, this opinion was a soliloquy written solely to win the vote of the very libertarian swing justice. Yet it also had one other consequence: by changing the nature of the case, Reinhardt also made it far less controversial and thus easier for the justices to simply disregard Perry for a later time and deny cert.
Secondly, national gay rights groups started to come out of their shells. Previously shy about bringing up federal cases, the victory of Perry at the district level gave them the motivation to bring up multiple challenges against Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Today, eight federal courts have struck it down, including an immigration court, bankruptcy court, military court, several district courts, and two circuit courts. In Windsor, the Second Circuit became the first federal circuit court to give gay people heightened scrutiny protection. Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management, a court case originating from California that likewise challenges Section 3 of DOMA, is currently awaiting response from the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is more likely to grant cert to this group of DOMA cases, as they now present conflicts between different circuit courts (and also strike down an act of Congress). In the two years since Perry was decided, the important legal questions shifted from Proposition 8 to Section 3 of DOMA. This gives the Supreme Court an easy exit strategy to avoid commenting on the Proposition 8 case and to allow same-sex marriage to resume in California.
We are now on the precipice of an important human rights victory. In a few short years, the gay rights movement has risen nationally with a series of important victories. This fall, those victories will be put to the test ? legislatively, judicially, and at the ballot box. And how has marriage changed in the last decade? Very little, actually. In states where same-sex marriage is legal, like Massachusetts, divorce rates are plummeting. Every election cycle minds change and a new group of young people enter the voting pool who are overwhelming in favor of same-sex marriage. And every year committed same-sex and opposite-sex couples seek the ultimate validation of one's relationship: marriage. We are nearing the end of an important chapter of American history. Soon, California will once again permit same-sex marriage within its borders, and I am sure the rest of the country will follow.
To finish off, watch a video of one of the witnesses on the anti-equality side of Perry as he explains his journey towards acceptance of same-sex marriage:
ScienceDaily (Oct. 26, 2012) ? U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) research confirms that the time-tested practice of amending crop soils with manure also can help restore soils on damaged post-mining landscapes.
Thousands of acres of land with little or no vegetation, once mined for lead and zinc, remain throughout an area of southwestern Missouri, southeastern Kansas, and northeastern Oklahoma. The mining activities also left behind a legacy of lead-contaminated acidic soils, toxic smelter sites, and large quantities of mine tailings called "chat."
Soil scientist Paul White at the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) Sugarcane Research Unit in Houma, La., was part of a team that studied whether adding beef manure compost to soil at post-mining sites would provide the carbon needed to support a healthy plant cover. The scientists also wanted to determine if the compost could reduce levels of lead and zinc that could contaminate runoff during heavy rain. ARS is USDA's chief intramural scientific research agency.
The team amended soils in experimental plots from the mine sites with 20 or 120 tons of beef manure compost per acre, and established a cover crop of switchgrass on all the plots. Then they took soil samples from the sites five times during the two-year study.
Two years after the study began, soils in the high-compost plots had significant increases in pH, plant-available phosphorus, total nitrogen, carbon and available water. High-compost amendments also increased microbial biomass, enzyme activity and nitrification potential, all of which create and support favorable conditions for plant establishment and growth.
High rates of compost also lowered lead and zinc availability by about 90 percent, which may reduce the amount of lead and zinc that could run off and pollute nearby waterways. Since high levels of bioavailable zinc inhibit plant growth, this binding action also helps to promote the establishment of a vegetative cover that minimizes runoff and soil erosion.
The team published its findings in Applied Soil Ecology in 2011.
Read more about this study in the October 2012 issue of Agricultural Research magazine: http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/oct12/soils1012.htm
Share this story on Facebook, Twitter, and Google:
Other social bookmarking and sharing tools:
Story Source:
The above story is reprinted from materials provided by USDA/Agricultural Research Service. The original article was written by Ann Perry.
Note: Materials may be edited for content and length. For further information, please contact the source cited above.
Journal Reference:
Luke R. Baker, Paul M. White, Gary M. Pierzynski. Changes in microbial properties after manure, lime, and bentonite application to a heavy metal-contaminated mine waste. Applied Soil Ecology, 2011; 48 (1): 1 DOI: 10.1016/j.apsoil.2011.02.007
Note: If no author is given, the source is cited instead.
Disclaimer: Views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of ScienceDaily or its staff.
