Clubbing masculinities: Gender shifts in gay men's dance floor choreographies

This is an Author's Accepted Manuscript of an article published in Journal of Homosexuality, 58(5), 608-625, 2011 [copyright Taylor & Francis], available online at: http://www.tandfonline.com/10.1080/00918369.2011.563660This article adopts an interdisciplinary approach to understanding the intersections of gender, sexuality, and dance. It examines the expressions of sexuality among gay males through culturally popular forms of club dancing. Drawing on political and musical history, I outline an account of how gay men's gendered choreographies changed throughout the 1970s, 80s, and 90s. Through a notion of “technologies of the body,” I situate these developments in relation to cultural levels of homophobia, exploring how masculine expressions are entangled with and regulated by musical structures. My driving hypothesis is that as perceptions of cultural homophobia decrease, popular choreographies of gay men's dance have become more feminine in expression. Exploring this idea in the context of the first decade of the new millennium, I present a case study of TigerHeat, one of the largest weekly gay dance club events in the United States

Micro-Symposium on Orin Kerr\u27s \u27A Theory of Law\u27

For more than a century, careful readers of the Green Bag have known that “[t]here is nothing sacred in a theory of law...which has outlived its usefulness or which was radically wrong from the beginning...The question is What is the law and what is the true public policy?” Professor Orin Kerr bravely, creatively, and eloquently answered that question in his article, “A Theory of Law,” in the Autumn 2012 issue of the Green Bag. Uniquely among all theories of law that I know of, Kerr’s answer to the fundamental question of law and true public policy enables all scholars to answer that same question in their own ways. The Green Bag is pleased to be featuring his “A Theory of Law” in its first micro-symposium, and just as pleased with the quality, quantity, and diversity of the responses to the call for papers. Blessed with an abundance of good work but cursed by a shortage of space, we were compelled to select a small set – representative and excellent – of those essays to publish in the Green Bag or its sibling publication, the Journal of Law. We regret that we cannot do full justice to the outpouring of first-rate legal-theoretical commentary we received

Impact of pharmaceutical promotion on prescribing decisions of general practitioners in Eastern Turkey

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Commercial sources of information are known to have greater influence than scientific sources on general practitioners' (GPs) prescribing behavior in under developed and developing countries. The study aimed to determine the self-reported impact of pharmaceutical promotion on the decision-making process of prescription of GPs in Eastern Turkey.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A cross-sectional, exploratory survey was performed among 152 GPs working in the primary health centers and hospitals in Erzurum province of Eastern Turkey in 2006. A self-administered structured questionnaire was used. The questionnaire included questions regarding sociodemographics, number of patients per day, time per patient, frequency of sales representative visits to GPs, participation of GPs in training courses on prescribing (in-service training, drug companies), factors affecting prescribing decision, reference sources concerning prescribing and self-reported and self-rated effect of the activities of sales representatives on GPs prescribing decisions.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Of 152 subjects, 53.3% were male and 65.8% were working at primary health care centers, respectively. Mean patient per day was 58.3 ± 28.8 patients per GP. For majority of the GPs (73.7%), the most frequent resource used in case of any problems in prescribing process was drug guides of pharmaceutical companies. According to self-report of the GPs, their prescribing decisions were affected by participation in any training activity of drug companies, frequent visits by sales representatives, high number of patient examinations per day and low year of practice (p < 0.05 for all).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The results of this study suggest that for the majority of the GPs, primary reference sources concerning prescribing was commercial information provided by sales representatives of pharmaceutical companies, which were reported to be highly influential on their decision-making process of prescribing by GPs. Since this study was based on self-report, the influence reported by the GPs may have been underestimated.</p

Analisis Manajemen Operasional Pada Pt National Industrial Gases Indonesia

Penerapan manajemen operasional pada suatu perusahaan menjadi sangat penting untuk diimplementasikan. Terlepas dari berbagai proses operasional yang ada diperusahaan. Tidak menutup kemungkinan terdapat syarat dan kendala yang dimiliki. Tujuan penelitian ini untuk menganalisis penerapan manajemen operasional yang ada pada perusahaan local di Kota Batam, PT Nasional Industry Gasses Indonesia. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa terdapat penerapan manajemen operasional yang telah dilakukan PT NIGI, beberapa di antaranya adalah adanya manajemen kualitas dengan mengadakan ISO sebagai syarat operasional. Kemudian terdapat tahapan forecasting manajemen pertahun dan struktur rangkaian supply chain management yang jelas antara perusahaan, supplier, dan konsumen. Terakhir diketahui penerapan strategi lokasi yang optimal terhadap perusahaan. Penelitian ini menggunakan data kualitatif yang diperoleh dengan melakukan Teknik wawancara HR/HSE perusahaan. Tidak terdapat sampling yang digunakan pada penelitian, dan hanya menjadikan PT NIGI sebagai objektifitas penelitian dalam melakukan analisis manajemen operasional Kata Kunci: Manajemen Operasional, Manajemen Kualitas, Forecasting Management, Supply Chain Management, Strategy Locatio

Recognizing the Shared Ownership of Subsurface Resources

In this Article, we argue that property theory, appropriately understood, shows that subsurface water, oil, and gas ought to be treated as shared property that can be exploited, if it is to be exploited at all, by the coordinating agreements of owners of the surface property, or their licensees, supervised by common law courts. We therefore offer the paradigm of shared property as the appropriate analysis for thinking about the law\u27s approach to rights in oil and natural gas. We also argue that the shared property paradigm is largely consistent with the common law\u27s approach to subsurface resource pools, even though conventional understanding of the law vacillates between the private property and commons property paradigms. Much of this Article is revisionist. We argue, unconventionally, that the common law embraced the paradigm of shared property in much of its regulation of subsurface resource pools because it essentially treated those resources as owned by tenants in common, as modified by the common law nuisance exception for injuries to subsurface resource pools. Under this reading, the special common law rules regarding subsurface resource pools have been misunderstood either as providing for (1) commons property treatment of subsurface resource pools underground followed by private property treatment after the resources are extracted from the subsurface pools or (2) private property treatment of the resources even while underground but subject to loss of title if the resources crossed property boundaries. Under our reading of the cases, when interpreted against the paradigm of shared property, the common law consistently recognized shared ownership of subsurface resource pools yet limited surface owner\u27s rights to quiet enjoyment of subsurface resource pools based solely on courts\u27 own perceived incapacity, because the resources are hidden, to understand the causal relationship between land use and disruption of enjoyment of subsurface resource pools. But this limit did not prevent courts from coordinating the exploitation of subsurface resource pools between surface owners by *1043 recognizing causes of action for malicious interference, waste, and unreasonable exploitation. This analysis supports our claim that the property issues inherent in today\u27s concerns over horizontal slickwater fracturing can be addressed under private agreements that are subject to judicial supervision. Moreover, because we now have the seismic technology to understand resource location and flows, the common law\u27s reluctance to provide common owners of shared property with an accounting should dissipate

Recognizing the Shared Ownership of Subsurface Resources

In this Article, we argue that property theory, appropriately understood, shows that subsurface water, oil, and gas ought to be treated as shared property that can be exploited, if it is to be exploited at all, by the coordinating agreements of owners of the surface property, or their licensees, supervised by common law courts. We therefore offer the paradigm of shared property as the appropriate analysis for thinking about the law\u27s approach to rights in oil and natural gas. We also argue that the shared property paradigm is largely consistent with the common law\u27s approach to subsurface resource pools, even though conventional understanding of the law vacillates between the private property and commons property paradigms. Much of this Article is revisionist. We argue, unconventionally, that the common law embraced the paradigm of shared property in much of its regulation of subsurface resource pools because it essentially treated those resources as owned by tenants in common, as modified by the common law nuisance exception for injuries to subsurface resource pools. Under this reading, the special common law rules regarding subsurface resource pools have been misunderstood either as providing for (1) commons property treatment of subsurface resource pools underground followed by private property treatment after the resources are extracted from the subsurface pools or (2) private property treatment of the resources even while underground but subject to loss of title if the resources crossed property boundaries. Under our reading of the cases, when interpreted against the paradigm of shared property, the common law consistently recognized shared ownership of subsurface resource pools yet limited surface owner\u27s rights to quiet enjoyment of subsurface resource pools based solely on courts\u27 own perceived incapacity, because the resources are hidden, to understand the causal relationship between land use and disruption of enjoyment of subsurface resource pools. But this limit did not prevent courts from coordinating the exploitation of subsurface resource pools between surface owners by *1043 recognizing causes of action for malicious interference, waste, and unreasonable exploitation. This analysis supports our claim that the property issues inherent in today\u27s concerns over horizontal slickwater fracturing can be addressed under private agreements that are subject to judicial supervision. Moreover, because we now have the seismic technology to understand resource location and flows, the common law\u27s reluctance to provide common owners of shared property with an accounting should dissipate