Project Planning

This workshop provides a sound foundation in project planning and development. It is aimed primarily at those people who are relatively new to planning language projects. Over four sessions, participants will identify the project goals and objectives, proposed outcomes, the target audience, and the project team members and their skills and roles. They will map out the activities and projected timeline together with a preliminary implementation plan. We will explore strategic plans and look at how each step of a project fits strategically into wider goals for the language. We consider ethical issues, community protocols and regulations that need to be addressed. Participants will identify their key project goal, and will prepare a succinct summary of the project that can be used in the next stage of attracting publicity and seeking funding.2015 NSF/BCS 1500841: CoLang 2016: Institute on Collaborative Language Research – ALASKA Alaska Native Language Cente

The Problem of Spite

Spite is one of the most negative emotions. It ranges from the ruthless, malicious, and enormously destructive, to the trivial and seemingly harmless. Yet all spiteful acts seem to lack rational justification and to be preoccupied solely with the intent to harm—even at the risk of harm to oneself. To rid ourselves of this nasty emotion, I propose a solution which involves the elimination of the deep underlying causes that root spite within us. Drawing upon the emotion theories of Robert Solomon and Max Scheler, this thesis describes spite as an emotion, analyses what is wrong with spite, and proposes what needs to be done about spite. I argue that while spite may be an inherent human trait, it is a dysfunctional emotion that serves no conceivable good and only incites damage

Clinical application of penicillin

Mostly reprintsIncludes bibliographical references.10 pts. in 1 v.Title page and introduction only. The complete thesis in print form is available from the University Library.Thesis (M.D.)--University of Adelaide, Dept. of Medicin

Design Parameters in Multimodal Games for Rehabilitation

Published under the Liebert "Open Option"Objectives: The repetitive and sometimes mundane nature of conventional rehabilitation therapy provides an ideal opportunity for development of interactive and challenging therapeutic games that have the potential to engage and motivate the players. Certain game design parameters that may encourage patients to actively participate by making the games more enjoyable have been identified. In this article, we describe a formative study in which we designed and evaluated some of these parameters with healthy subjects. Materials and Methods: The ‘‘operant conditioning’’ and ‘‘scoring’’ design parameters were incorporated in a remake of a classic labyrinth game, ‘‘Marble Maze.’’ A group of participants (n = 37) played the game twice: Once in the control condition without both modalities and then with either one of the parameters or with both. Measures of game duration and number of fails in the game were recorded along with survey questionnaires to measure player perceptions of intrinsic motivation on the game. Results: Longer playtimes, higher levels of interest/enjoyment, and effort to play the game were recorded with the introduction of these parameters. Conclusions: This study provides an understanding on how game design parameters can be used to motivate and encourage people to play longer. With these positive results, future aims are to test the parameters with stroke patients, providing much clearer insight as to what influences these parameters have on patients un- dergoing therapy. The ultimate goal is to utilize game design in order to maintain longer therapeutic interaction between a patient and his or her therapy medium.Peer reviewedFinal Published versio

Making It Work: Tribal Innovation, State Reaction, and the Future of Tribes as Regulatory Laboratories

This Article examines a growing phenomenon: even as the Supreme Court has steadily contracted the scope of tribes’ regulatory authority, many tribes have in recent years passed innovative laws and ordinances, often extending well beyond any comparable initiatives at the state or local level. Recently, for example, the Navajo Nation passed a comprehensive taxation scheme designed to discourage the consumption of unhealthy food items and to subsidize the purchase of healthy ones—a scheme far more ambitious than the soda tax efforts that have stalled in many cities and states. Likewise, amid national controversy over marijuana legalization, the Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe sought to open a “marijuana resort” in a state with strict anti-marijuana policies; meanwhile, other tribes have moved in the opposite direction, banning on-reservation use of drugs and alcohol even where it would be allowable under state law. Yet while we are accustomed to thinking of states as Brandeisian laboratories of democracy that pioneer innovations from which other jurisdictions can benefit, no ready model exists for how states and tribes should interact within the realm of regulatory experimentation. In practice, state reactions to tribal innovations have ranged from indifference to hostility to imitation, and few doctrines or practices exist to mediate issues that may arise from state-tribal regulatory conflict. Against this unsettled backdrop—which includes 2016’s inconclusive Supreme Court decision in Dollar General Corp. v. Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians—this Article explores what contribution tribal regulation can and should make to the larger patchwork of regulatory innovation among states. It attempts, first, to survey some notable instances in which tribes have engaged in regulatory experimentation. It then considers the ways in which tribal innovation has affected and been affected by neighboring states, and the degree to which these effects resemble comparable dynamics in the interstate context. It closes by recommending several policies—among them tribal autonomy, clear delineation of tribal and state law’s respective territorial scope, and possible federal involvement—that may serve to foster a productive climate in which states and tribes can mutually influence and learn from each other

COVID-19 and Domestic Travel Restrictions

The strict controls that many jurisdictions, including most U.S. states, established to contain the COVID-19 pandemic have proven difficult to sustain over time, and most places are moving to lift them. Internationally, many plans to ease lockdowns have retained some form of travel restrictions, including the “green zone” plans adopted by France and Spain, which limit travel between regions with widespread community transmission of COVID-19 and those without it. By contrast, most U.S. states lifting shelter-in-place orders have opted to remove limits on movement as well. This Essay argues that this situation is unwise: it tends to create travel patterns that increase the spread of COVID-19 while at the same time hindering contact tracing and information gathering. While broad quarantines have a complicated and far from perfect record in the United States, more targeted measures are likely within states’ constitutional powers to impose, might be more palatable to the public, and could play a significant role in helping to contain the spread of COVID-19

Tribal Land, Tribal Territory

In the summer of 2020, two significant events brought into focus the relationship between Indigenous nations in the United States and the land they govern. First, in a controversy that made national headlines, several tribes in South Dakota clashed with Gov. Kristi Noem about their power to impose Covid-19-related checkpoints on state highways passing through Indian country. Borders have potent symbolism; by detaining drivers even briefly at theirs, the South Dakota tribes made plain that travelers were entering a separate jurisdiction in which different rules and policies applied. At the same time the checkpoint controversy was brewing, the Supreme Court decided the pathbreaking case McGirt v. Oklahoma. While only incidentally about tribal territorial jurisdiction, Justice Gorsuch’s opinion spoke directly to what it means for land to be tribal territory, suggesting that a tribe may retain jurisdiction over a reservation even if parts of it are sold to private owners. This would be an unremarkable statement in any other context, but it is near-revolutionary in federal Indian law, where Supreme Court–created doctrine has left tribes with very little ability to regulate non-Indians on fee land. This Article takes these two developments as a starting point for reflecting on the relationship between tribal land and tribal territory. It aims to undertake a comprehensive account of the varied strands of doctrine the Court has put forth on this subject, including the limits on tribal regulatory authority over fee land under Montana v. United States, the ever-shifting right to exclude that the Court has characterized in numerous and inconsistent ways, and the uncertain relationship between the two. After surveying current doctrine, the Article suggests a reimagining of both Montana and the right to exclude in a way that would facilitate a return to the territorial control tribes traditionally exercised