Professional authors – Za4etka Sun, 12 Jun 2022 22:18:58 +0000 en-US hourly 1 Professional authors – Za4etka 32 32 Pro-choice states should protect the right to travel for abortion Sun, 12 Jun 2022 22:18:58 +0000
Placeholder while loading article actions

Suppose Roe v. Wade be cancelled. A recent fanfare of concern is that a state would then be able to punish its citizens for traveling to other states to seek medical assistance to terminate their pregnancies. Missouri is considering legislation that would do just that, and activists in Texas are pushing a similar proposal. Other states may follow.

Would such a law be constitutional? It’s hard to be sure. The doctrine is a confusing hodgepodge, and the Supreme Court has declined to offer definitive guidance. Although legal scholars have been advocating for a right to travel for abortions since the 1990s, the last time judges directly addressed the issue of a state’s power to punish crimes beyond its borders, it was… uh… 1941.

In short, we cannot predict how a court would deal with an effort by one state to ban its citizens from having abortions in another. But you don’t have to be pro-choice to see the strength of the argument against such a law.

Let’s start with a fundamental question: can a state punish its citizens for breaking state laws while they are beyond its borders? It would seem that the answer is yes. In 1941, the Supreme Court ruled that Florida could punish its residents for breaking Florida law on the high seas. In the decades since, other states have successfully prosecuted crimes committed at sea.

It also seems that the answer is no. In the days of human slavery, the general rule was that a state could not enforce its own laws in this matter outside its borders. In Lemmon v. The People (1860), for example, the New York Court of Appeals ruled that the legal status of slaves brought to New York would be determined only by New York law; so they were released.

The process also worked the other way around. I recently came across an 1831 ruling that Indiana’s slavery prohibition could not prevent Indiana residents from owning slaves held in other states.

Here is a way to harmonize the cases. In the Florida case (as in many others involving conduct on the high seas), the crime is committed outside a state’s jurisdiction. There is no conflicting interest. The 1831 case, however, arose when the laws of two separate states were in conflict. Kentucky allowed slavery; Indiana did not; the court held that a legal act in Kentucky could not be prevented because the person who did it could not have done it at home.

I’m not saying that the pro-choice side should rely on cases from when human beings were property. But it should be noted that the pre-war cases arose because different states had different laws on the subject. So there is good reason to follow the advice of my Yale colleague, Lea Brilmayer, who argued that the right of a state to punish its citizens for doing what its own law prohibits should give way to the right of another State to adopt a strong political position in its favour.

The political point matters. As Brilmayer notes, there is no conflict “if the first state wished to prohibit certain types of conduct, while the second was simply indifferent”. The problem only arises when two states are actively promoting different answers to the question. If this argument is correct – and I believe it is – then in a country where Roe v. Wade is no longer constitutional law, pro-choice states would do well to pass laws explicitly recognizing the right to abortion. By enshrining their preferences in politics, they would create enough conflict to prevent the pro-life state from applying its law beyond its territory.

Even if all of this is unconvincing, there are still prudential reasons that states considering strict restrictions on abortion should not try to punish their residents for obtaining abortions in the neighboring state.

The most obvious reason is reciprocity. Consider two neighboring states, like Missouri and Illinois. Missouri is likely to ban all or most abortions. Illinois not only allows abortion, but in 2019 it enacted a law stating that women have a “fundamental right” to access abortion and that a “fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus is not no independent rights”. If abortion law crosses the border, why couldn’t Illinois law apply to Missouri if an Illinois travels there? (A similar caveat could apply if a state prohibits employers from paying the expenses of employees who travel for abortions, though the legal issues are somewhat different.)

There is another prudential concern, which has nothing to do with abortion. In March, the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear a challenge to a California law restricting the sale of pork products unless farms meet certain standards, even though nearly all of the farms in question are in out of state. The challenge builds on previous rulings, such as the 1996 case in which a majority of justices warned that “a state may not impose economic sanctions on violators of its laws for the purpose of altering the lawful conduct of perpetrators in other states”.

No, the problem is not the same at all. But this series of cases reminds us that we live in an age where states are trying all sorts of devices to regulate behavior beyond their borders, even when the behavior is legal elsewhere. We should take the time to ask ourselves if this is the direction we want to go.

More from Bloomberg Opinion:

• The Supreme Court has a bad surprise for companies: Noah Feldman

• 6 January. The panel argued against Trump: Jonathan Bernstein

• Democrats need Stacey Abrams’ playbook for the Roe fight: Julianna Goldman

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the Editorial Board or of Bloomberg LP and its owners.

Stephen L. Carter is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. A law professor at Yale University, he is the author, most recently, of “Invisible: the story of the black lawyer who shot down America’s most powerful gangster”.

More stories like this are available at

]]> Accomplished physicist Duncan Brown named next vice president for research at Syracuse University Fri, 10 Jun 2022 14:33:45 +0000

Gretchen Ritter, Vice Chancellor, Provost and Director of Academics, today announced that Duncan Brown, a Charles Brightman Endowed Professor of Physics and accomplished physicist, has been named the next Vice President for Research at Syracuse University. Brown’s appointment, which has been approved by the Executive Committee of the Board of Directors, is effective August 15, 2022.

Duncan Brown

“Duncan’s career here at Syracuse University is truly a model of leadership, scholarship, innovation, academic excellence, and mentorship,” says Ritter. “It has all the professional experience and personal qualities necessary to lead research, scholarship and creative enterprise and secure our position as a world-class research university. Duncan is highly respected among his peers, both on campus and at some of the world’s most prestigious institutions. Duncan is uniquely positioned to support Syracuse University faculty scholars in their efforts to seek and obtain external funding that advances their research, scholarship, and creative work.

In his new role, Brown will report directly to Provost Ritter; overseeing $100 million in extramural funding in the natural sciences, engineering, education, social sciences, and law; support and enhance Syracuse’s internationally recognized creative and scientific excellence among artists, architects, directors and writers; and advanced centers and institutes that lead the world in fields such as humanities, aging studies, autonomous systems politics, disability studies, environmental and energy systems, biological and intelligent materials, national security, veterans and military families, and quantum computing. Brown will also lead the Office of Research and its component units, including the Office of Sponsored Programs, Office of Research Integrity and Protections, Office of Technology Transfer, and Office of Undergraduate Research and of Syracuse’s creative commitment (SOURCE). Together, these departments form the backbone of Syracuse University’s research, scholarship, and creative support enterprise.

“The role of the vice president for research is to advance all areas of research, scholarship, and creative work at the University,” says Brown. “We have amazing faculty, staff, and students at Syracuse University, and we attract talented students from around the world who want to further their learning through innovation, creativity, and discovery. Our dynamic intellectual environment across a wide range of disciplines enables us to recruit world-class scholars. I am delighted to help all members of the university community obtain the resources they need to pursue their research, studies and artistic endeavours. Together, we can maintain and grow our Carnegie R1 designation, reach new heights as a leading research university, and change our community and our world for the better.

Brown is widely respected by faculty and staff at the University. He chairs the Senate Research Committee; played a critical role in the Hiring Cluster Review Task Force, established by Provost Ritter last year; and was a leader in establishing the university’s computer research group. He was the faculty representative on the university board (2017-19) and acts as a reviewer of proposals for funding agencies around the world. Brown has been actively involved in national searches for academic leaders. In fact, he was the chair of the search committee appointed to find the next vice president for research.

“We are fortunate to have an internal leader of Duncan’s caliber to take our research business to the next level,” says Ritter. “I look forward to working with him in his new role and have great confidence in his ability to inspire, empower and support our talented scholars.”

Brown earned a Ph.D. in physics from the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, was a postdoctoral fellow at Caltech, and came to Syracuse University in 2007. He is an internationally recognized leader in astronomy and gravitational wave astrophysics, and has served on integral to the discovery of gravitational waves by the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO). A Fellow of the American Physical Society and Cottrell Fellow of the Research Corporation for Science Advancement, he has taught large and small graduate and undergraduate courses, including the popular undergraduate course “Introduction to Astronomy.” , and created a National Science Foundation-funded program that provides pathways for students from underrepresented groups to pursue a Ph.D. in physics at the University. Over the past five years, Brown has co-authored more than 50 publications. He was instrumental in securing more than $15 million in outside funding during his 15-year career at Syracuse.

Ritter thanked Ramesh Raina, professor and former chair of the biology department, for serving as acting vice chair for research since January 2020.

“Ramesh took on the interim leadership role just as the pandemic gripped our nation. He engineered a remarkable recovery of our research business after the pandemic. As a result, this year will be one of the most productive years on record for Syracuse University. This is largely thanks to the vision, operational prowess and careful management of Ramesh Raina,” says Ritter. “In addition, he played a critical role in managing the University’s COVID response strategy. He was a key member of the public health team and was responsible for initiating and maintaining our effective testing program. Internal Oversight I thank him for his leadership and service.

Ritter also credited Raina for increasing the professional development of research faculty and students and for effectively rolling out the CUSE Fellowship, Postdoctoral Fellowship, and Small Equipment Fellowship programs. Raina also led the execution of the faculty hiring strategy for the 2020-21 and 2021-22 academic years. He is Co-Director of the Interdisciplinary Major in Biotechnology and a faculty member of the Honors Program at Renée Crown University.

Breville Joule Oven Pro Air Fryer Review Wed, 08 Jun 2022 20:56:00 +0000

In July 2019, premium kitchen appliance brand Breville acquired ChefSteps, the company behind the popular Joule sous vide circulator. Breville has now launched the first Joule product under its own name, the Breville Joule Oven Air Fryer Pro, which adds IoT functions and app control to the existing Breville Smart Oven line.

We’ve spent several weeks using the Joule Oven and believe it can benefit home cooks who want a very streamlined experience and are looking for automation features to direct and assist them when trying new recipes or learning from new cooking techniques. Experienced cooks looking for fine control and customization with the goal of replicating restaurant-quality results or preparing meals to a very high level of “food glutton” will likely find the “smart” too limited or simply unnecessary.

A smart oven with an app that guides novices through recipe steps, from preparation to cooking

The Breville Joule Oven Air Fryer Pro adds app control to Breville’s Smart Oven design, with features that will help novice cooks navigate new recipes, but may be too limiting for those with more experience. in the kitchen.

Unboxed, the Breville Joule Oven closely resembles the Smart Oven Air Fryer Pro – available in brushed steel or black, the appliance is, as you’d expect, well-built and well-designed. It is on the long side for a 21.5″ x 17.3″ x 12.8″ countertop oven and weighs 23 lbs.

Considered an oven, the Joule has many of the same pros and cons as its cheaper sibling. It’s bigger and has a bigger capacity than their standard size smart ovens (14″ x 18.5″ x 11″), so you can cook bigger things in the oven cavity; it has more of rack space (8 rack positions in all) So as a small convection oven it works great.

The front panel features simple control knobs for temperature, time and mode selection with an illuminated LCD display for visual feedback. In addition to a “Start” button, there are also a few small specialty buttons for super convection/convection on-off, cooking from frozen, “Favorite” and “A little more”, which we’ll cover later.

But if you rely solely on physical controls, you’ll miss out on the essentials of the product: connectivity and programmability. The Joule Oven is connected (via WiFi and Bluetooth) and the Joule Oven app for Android and iOS gives you access to a variety of automated cooking and cooking modes, including Guided Recipes that walk you through food preparation tasks. meal.

The app, curated by the ChefSteps staff at Breville, gives you access to recipes in many categories. You can search by main ingredients (chicken, seafood, vegetables, etc.) or dietary requirements (gluten-free, vegetarian, healthy), type of meal (breakfast, dinner, snack, etc.). ) or other terms. When a recipe is selected, such as “Make it and forget it rotisserie style chicken”, the app shows you the list of ingredients and the equipment required (in this case, the cooking rack and roasting pan included with the oven).

Rather than simply setting the oven itself, the Joule Oven app guides you through all the steps necessary to produce the desired result, then prompts you to interact with the oven itself to start the necessary cooking phases. In the case of roast chicken, the app asks you to truss and season the chicken in two consecutive steps, then prompts you to start the roasting phase. The app’s intelligence then takes over, simulating the browning effect of a rotisserie using an “autopilot flight plan” in which air is circulated using the function convection while the unit rotates the main heating element and the upper broil.

This approach to programmed cooking is for the novice learning recipes and techniques rather than the experienced cook trying to achieve exact protein temperatures.

The oven can cook with variable heat profiles using these automatic programs, ranging from as low as 80°F (for rising dough) to 480°F. For other recipes, the autopilot flight plans will vary the oven temperature and convection (the oven’s PID control adjusts these settings based on application settings) and will alternate between heater and convection settings. of the grill according to the requirements of the dish.

We tried several app recipes, such as classic beef lasagna, and they worked well. However, it’s hard to say if it would have worked better than if we put the lasagna in the oven, manually set it to 350°F, bake mode, and come back in 40 minutes to check it out.

It turned out that the lasagna was slightly undercooked on the first pass. So we pressed Breville’s specialized button labeled “A Bit More” (there’s one on the oven and it’s available in the app), which adds cooking time at the end, adjusted proportionally to each recipe. . In this case, it gave us the appropriate extra cooking time and our lasagna was ready. Perhaps this feature is used to teach learning algorithms (or human recipe authors at ChefSteps) to fine-tune recipes in the app – the company wasn’t completely transparent about how the system “learns” from use, but they told me that the recipes in the app are constantly being updated and refined from cooking activity.

ChefSteps tests recipes to guarantee results. A six-month subscription to ChefSteps Studio Pass premium content (which isn’t required to use the app and oven, but adds many more recipes and covers a wider range of cooking techniques) is included with the Joule oven, after which it is $5.75 per month billed annually.

The intelligence of the Joule Oven is quite limited. More importantly, the companion app doesn’t allow you to create your own recipes – you can create favorites within the app, but you can’t share them with others directly or on social media (which the Anova Precision Smart Oven’s smart app enables ). While we understand that Breville and ChefSteps try to provide a proven experience for beginning cooks, we found the app’s lack of basic functionality frustrating, missing recipe creation and customization, recipe sharing, and history. of the kitchen.

You can connect your device to Alexa or Google Assistant, but functionality is minimal, like requesting status updates and basic manual control, for example, “Set the oven to bake at 350 degrees for thirty minutes.”

Given all of this, as seasoned cooks, we’ve found ourselves ignoring the app altogether and using the manual controls instead, which means experienced shoppers may want to save some cash and opt simply for the $350 Smart Air Fryer Pro instead.

We didn’t feel the extra features provided enough usability. The air fryer in particular wasn’t as efficient in our tests as a dedicated air fryer (perhaps due to the Joule’s larger chamber; the more compact dedicated air fryer did a better job of heating up and air convection around food.

As a toaster, the Joule is nowhere near as good as a smaller toaster oven (like one of the smaller Smart Ovens) or a dedicated toaster. To get browning on your toast, we had to set the toast setting to level 7 (for four slices), even if you’re only toasting one slice of homemade sourdough. And even then, sometimes we needed “a little more” to get the job done.

The Joule Oven is Breville’s first attempt to create a truly connected smart oven, with features more aimed at the home cook who wants to learn how to cook more sophisticated meals, but needs the extra guidance than recipe testing and cooking. application control bring to the table. And it delivers for this type of cook.

We think this may disappoint those looking for more advanced features or customization. The Joule oven lacks the combination steam and sous vide oven functions and temperature probe-based functions that some of its smart oven rivals (such as the Anova Precision Oven) offer, limiting its usefulness for a true precision cooking, which was surprising, given the Joule brand’s history in sous vide precision cooking.

Nevertheless, we hope that Breville will reiterate the idea and add features in later Joule ovens. But for now, we recommend this one primarily for beginners who want a tool that amounts to a built-in cooking instructor.

Shootings reveal divisions over gun issue in religious communities Sat, 04 Jun 2022 13:06:37 +0000

After a gunman killed 19 children and two teachers at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas on May 24, several pastors across the country challenged their conservative counterparts with this question: Are you pro-life if you are you pro-gun?

One such religious leader is the Reverend Steven Marsh, senior pastor of the Geneva Presbyterian Church in Laguna Woods, California. It was there that a gunman, who officials say was fueled by hatred against Taiwan, opened fire on May 15 during a luncheon hosted by members of the Taiwanese Presbyterian Church in Irvine, killing one and wounding five others.

“I’ve heard people tell me I’m not a Christian because I’m pro-choice,” Marsh said. “I ask these people: how can you be pro-life and not support the elimination of assault rifles? You can’t choose where you want to be pro-life.

A d

Marsh’s emotional statement is a vignette in the larger narrative of a divided nation over how — or if — guns should be regulated. The religious community is not monolithic on this issue.

Believers fed up with years of failed gun control efforts and mourning the latest mass shooting victims point to what they say is hypocrisy – conservative Christians pushing to abolish abortion and granting unhindered access to firearms. Those who disagree argue that the real problem is sin and easy targets. It’s not guns, but “evil” in people and abortions that kill, they say.

These entrenched partisan divisions in the United States over abortion and gun rights are stark after high-profile massacres in New York, California, Texas and elsewhere as the country awaits a ruling from the state Supreme Court. States that could override the constitutional right to abortion.

A d

According to 2017 Pew Research Center data analyzed for Christianity Today, 41% of white evangelicals own a gun compared to 30% of all Americans — the highest share of any religious group. The survey also shows that 74% of all gun owners in the United States agree that their right to gun ownership is essential to their sense of freedom. Most states also allow firearms in places of worship.

Author and Christian activist Shane Claiborne challenges the idea that the United States has a sin problem, but not a gun problem; he says he has both. Claiborne recently traveled to Uvalde to support the victims and to Houston to pray and protest at the National Rifle Association convention held days after the massacre.

He distributed leaflets saying “We can’t be pro-life and ignore gun violence” and asking “Are we going to choose the gun or the cross?” Claiborne said he was among those asked to leave the NRA’s Sunday prayer breakfast after he interrupted the program to call for prayers for Uvalde’s victims.

A d

Claiborne wants to see laws change, including policies that would raise the age of gun ownership, limit magazine capacity, ban assault weapons and mandate training. He said laws can’t force people to love each other, but they can make it harder to take a life.

“We want to make it harder for people to kill other people, and we’re making it really easy right now,” Claiborne said.

Conservative pastors have said the mass shootings and other social harm are the result of an overall breakdown in moral values ​​and disregard for human life.

Pastor Tim Lee, an evangelist and former U.S. Marine who lost both his legs in the Vietnam War, was one of the guest speakers at the NRA prayer breakfast that Claiborne and others were asked to leave .

After the Uvalde shooting, Lee posted on his Facebook page, “It’s so heartbreaking. I’ve said it so many times – When children hear adults say it’s OK to kill babies (abortion), then all respect for human lives is gone.

A d

The gun debate is deeply personal for Reverend Chineta Goodjoin. Her best friend, Sharonda Coleman-Singleton, was one of nine people shot by Dylann Roof in June 2015 while sitting in prayer at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina.

Goodjoin, who leads the New Hope Presbyterian Church in Anaheim, California, said believers must rise up in “righteous anger” to demand sensible gun regulation. When massacres occur in community spaces like churches, schools and supermarkets, it tests the resilience of an entire community, she said.

“How can you teach in schools when people are traumatized by gun violence? ” she says. “When a church is no longer a safe space, do I work to increase safety or strengthen people’s faith? The impact is like an epidemic that touches every fiber of our being.

But others, like the Reverend Russ Tenhoff, say it is simply not possible to “legislate security”.

A d

“There are a lot of laws, but people who are lawless don’t obey them,” said Tenhoff, senior pastor of Mountainside Community Fellowship in Kingwood, West Virginia. “Murders will happen even without guns. We can never prevent gun violence.

As a gun safety officer who trains adults and children, Tenhoff says the solution is to “toughen up schools,” which have become easy targets.

“We need to put one-way locks in schools, have metal detectors and an armed officer in every school,” he said.

For a Catholic pastor in Newtown, Conn., who a decade ago experienced the grief that now shrouds Uvalde, the lack of political will to enact gun legislation is unfathomable.

Monsignor Robert Weiss, who heads St. Rose Parish in Lima, presided over the funeral of eight victims who were murdered at Sandy Hook Elementary School on December 14, 2012. He held an evening mass at his church the day after the shooting in Texas. .

A d

“I guess I was silly to think Sandy Hook was going to change the world,” he said in a video recording from the service.

Weiss also questioned the consequences of individualism in America.

“Did our ancestors want for us?” He asked. “Living in a country where unborn babies are aborted, where children are murdered in school where they should be safe, where you can’t even go to the grocery store or church or the library and feel like you’ll be OK?”

Pastor Mike McBride, who leads the Way Christian Center in Berkeley, California, said those on different sides of the gun issue need to find common concerns to unite and work together on solutions.

McBride says many of those who are pro-guns also worry about accidental gun deaths, intimate partner violence and suicides.

“These shared concerns can be resolved with targeted strategies that don’t bog us down in the fight against the Second Amendment,” he said.

A d

McBride suggests having listening campaigns in faith groups and neighborhoods – a “peace infrastructure” to combat violence.

Marsh, the pastor of Laguna Woods, says the shooting at his church and other recent massacres have inspired him to have “more serious conversations about this issue” in his community. He would like to see various religious communities organize marches in local government seats to push lawmakers to act.

“That’s enough,” he said. “We must stop using Christianity as a veneer to deny reality.”


Associated Press religious coverage receives support through the AP’s collaboration with The Conversation US, with funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The AP is solely responsible for this content.

Copyright 2022 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

Government Accounting and Auditing – The CPA Journal Thu, 02 Jun 2022 05:53:29 +0000

FASAB standards.

The accounting standards issued by FASAB embody all authoritative GAAP for the financial statements of the US federal government, including all of its agencies. These standards are freely available online in a comprehensive PDF, FASAB Handbook of Federal Accounting Standards and Other Pronouncements, as amended, which has over 2,500 pages in its most recent edition (version 19, 2020, to date. Because there is no doubt, uncertainty, or controversy as to when the FASAB standards are applicable, and because they are rarely encountered in general auditing practice, they are not discussed further in This article.

GASB standards.

The GASB standards are authoritative GAAP for “state and local governments” only, but do not clearly define this population. In 1996, the FASB and GASB agreed on a definition of “government”, which now only appears in some AICPA auditing and accounting guides, including State and local governments (para. 101) and Not-for-profit entities (paragraph 104), which, in turn, contain only non-authoritative guidance (Category B GAAP). It appears that this definition was never intended to be incorporated directly into authoritative GASB or FASB standards.

These AICPA guides effectively define “governments” (not “state and local governments”) as “public corporations and corporate and political bodies” created for the administration of public affairs. He cites a definition of “public corporation” taken from Black’s Law Dictionary, however, as “as an instrument of the state governed by those who derive their authority from the state”. Other entities are also considered governmental under the definition agreed by the GASB and FASB if they exhibit at least one of the following three characteristics:

  • Popular election of leaders or appointment (or approval) of a controlling majority of members of the organization’s governing body by officials of one or more state or local governments.
  • The potential for unilateral dissolution by a government with net assets accruing to the government.
  • The power to enact or enforce a tax levy.

Also, organizations are presumed to be governmental if they have the ability to directly issue (rather than through a state or municipal authority) debt that pays interest exempt from federal tax. However, organizations possessing only this ability (i.e. to issue tax-exempt debt) and none of the other governmental characteristics can rebut the presumption that they are governmental if their determination is supported by compelling evidence. and relevant ( /3CfgzzM).

The GASB standards are authoritative GAAP for “state and local governments” only, but do not clearly define this population.

Among the series of Technical Questions and Answers (TQAs) published in 2017 containing non-authoritative guidance (discussed in more detail below), the AICPA has effectively stated that the above definition of government should be considered a definition of “state and local government”. as that term is used by the GASB, i.e. “the entities are governmental or non-governmental for accounting, financial and auditing purposes based solely on the application of the definition of a State or local government” and “an entity that meets the definition should follow the accounting standards promulgated by the GASB in preparing its financial statements” (TQA section 9160.31).

Although not defined by either FASB or GASB in any authoritative accounting standard, “state and local government” is generally understood to include, among others:

  • State governments
  • Local governments, such as cities, counties, towns, and villages
  • Public authorities, such as housing finance, water and other utilities, economic development, and airport authorities
  • Government colleges and universities
  • School districts
  • Pension systems for public officials, and
  • Public hospitals and other healthcare providers.

Some non-profit organizations that are formed and controlled by a government entity are also considered governments, and tribal governments (see below) generally are also; therefore, their financial statements intended to comply with GAAP must be prepared in accordance with GASB standards.

Non-profit government organizations.

Generally, not-for-profit organizations are not covered by the GASB accounting standards for governments and instead follow the accounting standards prescribed by the FASB (ASC 958). In some cases, however, the distinction between a government and a non-profit organization is not so straightforward. For example, a local government may set up a corporation which may, in fact, be exempt from tax under section 501(c)(3) of the IRC and therefore exhibits many of the characteristics of a non-profit. These organizations are generally considered government not-for-profit organizations and must follow government GAAP established by GASB.

Tribal governments.

Tribal governments are technically not state or local government entities as defined above, so one could conclude that they are not under the authority of the GASB; therefore, there are no authoritative standards expressly applicable to them. The FASB (ASC 105-10-05-2) indicates that in the absence of explicit guidance in authoritative standards, entities should first draw analogies with other areas of authoritative GAAP before considering non-authoritative sources. A similar provision is found in GASB Statement 76, The hierarchy of generally accepted accounting principles for state and local governments.

According to the AICPA auditing and accounting guide, State and local governments, the federal government considers federally recognized tribes to “look like state governments,” and they generally report today using GASB standards (para. 12.91). It should also be noted that many tribes typically report their casino and other significant business operations as corporate funds from a general-purpose government (i.e. the tribe), as mentioned in the guide. (par. 12.09, 12.93). (GASB standards for enterprise funds differ from FASB standards only in limited respects, primarily with respect to the measurement of post-employment benefit liabilities and some minor presentation and disclosure issues .) However, other tribal governments prepare their financial statements on a non-GAAP, statutory or regulatory basis, which is considered a special purpose framework. A standard for presentation of financial statements prepared under a special purpose framework is provided in GAAS (AU-C 800).

Notwithstanding the above, some entities have requested the option of preparing their financial statements in accordance with FASB rather than GASB for the following reasons:

  • Banks or other third parties have requested it.
  • Finance and accounting staff know them best.
  • Tribes and other government entities consider them preferable for certain business-type activities (e.g., casinos, utilities, hospitals) because their financial statements would be more comparable to those of other private companies operating in the industry.

Although not expressly acknowledged by the GASB in its standards or other documents, NAFOA has indeed expanded the scope of GASB’s authority and has recognized it on its website without qualification or exception as applicable to “tribalStates and local governments.

In a series of Technical Questions and Answers (TQAs) published in 2017, the AICPA provided non-authoritative guidance for issuing audit opinions on the financial statements of tribal governments that choose to prepare them in accordance with the FASB standards rather than GASB standards. In these guidelines, auditors were asked to evaluate whether the accounting principles and presentation used in the financial statements and related notes were materially different from those required by the GASB. Only when it has been determined that the presentation and disclosure differences are not material can an auditor consider providing an unmodified audit opinion regarding compliance with GAAP. If the differences are determined to be material, the auditor should modify their opinion because the financial statements, or an element thereof, contained material misstatements or misstatements from GASB GAAP.

This non-authoritative guidance also cautioned auditors against reporting tribal entity financial statements prepared using FASB standards as a special-purpose framework; instead, they provided the alternative of issuing a so-called “dual audit opinion”. Under the dual opinion option, when the financial statements are prepared in accordance with FASB principles (although an adverse opinion is always issued with respect to non-compliance with GASB GAAP in the audit report, the case applicable), additional wording may be added, including an unmodified opinion on whether the financial statements comply with FASB standards. An illustrative report with a double opinion is presented in the TQA (articles 9160.32, .34–35).

In this author’s view, the dual opinion approach is conceptually flawed and should be highly controversial. In this regard, the Native American Finance Officers Association (NAFOA), which sits on the GASB Advisory Council (GASAC), a body responsible for consulting the GASB on tribal government concerns and other technical matters, objected in 2018 to the double possibility of opinion. He claimed that “confused opinions run counter to the objectives of accounting standards and therefore impact the economic health of the Indian country” ( Specifically, NAFOA further asserted that “negative audits, in the form of double audit opinions, can impact federal funding, bank lending, the ability to raise capital, and the potential loss of ‘economic opportunities’ ( /3hLbbuB).

Although not expressly acknowledged by the GASB in its standards or other documents, NAFOA has indeed expanded the scope of GASB’s authority and has recognized it on its website without qualification or exception as applicable to “tribal, States and local governments [emphasis added](

To add to the confusion, the AICPA audit guide recognizes that some tribes do not meet the FASB/GASB agreed-upon definition of a government; it refers users to Section 9160 of the TQA (discussed above) for additional guidance (par. 1.03).

In view of the above analysis, notwithstanding the non-authoritative guidance contained in the AICPA TQAs and Guide, in the opinion of this author, the FASB standards are currently neither generally accepted nor widely used. for financial statements of tribal governments or their components (except for corporate funds, such as casino operations where FASB/GASB differences are not material). Therefore, an auditor should find it difficult to justify issuing an unqualified opinion as to GAAP compliance on financial statements that deviate materially from GASB standards.

WISeKey announces the launch of “The Code to The Metaverse” Tue, 31 May 2022 05:00:00 +0000

WISeKey announces the launch of “The metaverse code an interactive multimedia platform in Davos Event

TransHuman Code authors Carlos Moreira and David Fergusson present “The Code to The Metaverse” at Davos Event

Geneva and Zug Switzerland, May 312022 – WISeKey International Holding Ltd (“WISeKey”, SIX: WIHN), a leading cybersecurity, IoT and AI company, announced that its CEO and Founder, Carlos Moreira and David Fergusson, Director Executive General, M&A at Generational Equity, presented their latest project, The metaverse code at the Davos event.

In the 2019 bestseller, The Transhuman code, Carlos Moreira and David Fergusson offered a carefully curated view of the essential conversations that will determine whether technology will enhance or undermine our humanity. Born at the Davos event, through multiple conversations and workshops, rightly one could argue that the origin of the book was decentralized.

“With unprecedented speed, the expanding frontier of the metaverse now extends far beyond its ‘Second life’ roots of the game,” Mr. Fergusson said at the launch event. “In the most dramatic technological innovation of the past decade, we truly stand on the threshold of our future lives as we build bridges between our physical universe and the metaverse.”

“However, the founding premise of The Transhuman code holds true as we venture into the unknown of the metaverse,” said Moreira. “First, that the human is the greatest technology of all and, more importantly, that it is essential to keep the human at the center of gravity of this technological revolution.”

In a series of events at the 2022 Davos annual gathering of business, political and philanthropic leaders, Moreira and Fergusson announced the continuation of The Transhuman code with the creation of the revolutionary new multimedia platform – The metaverse code. Through the interactive series, participants, viewers and readers will be taken behind the scenes of the labs and the metaverse to experience their future in this 3D virtual realm.

To provide a glimpse of what’s to come, the authors have engaged 6 Metaverse Pioneers to discuss how the rapidly evolving gateways and tools for the Metaverse will transform our personal, professional, and social life experiences in a unimaginable way. Joining Carlos Moreira and David Fergusson were:

  • Hossein Rahnama, CEO, Flybits Inc.; Professor, Toronto Metropolitan University and MIT Media Lab
  • Roxy LiuDirector, Eureka Meta Capital
  • David Clearer, CEO and Co-Founder Esme Learning Solutions; Professor, Imperial College
  • Mrinal ManoharCEO CasperLabs
  • Gunter PauliFounder, Blue Economy, Director, Zero Emission Research Initiative
  • Monsignor Lucio Adrian RuizSecretary Dicastery of Communication, Holy See

Offering exclusive ideas and announcing dynamic initiatives, contributors all echoed a common theme: the metaverse will have a dramatic impact on how we socialize, work, and learn in the future. At the forefront of the collective agreement, Carlos Moreira and David Fergusson have aligned themselves with esteemed technology innovators on the principle that everyone can safely and confidently engage in the metaverse so that we, as individuals, let us be respected and treated fairly on all virtual platforms. .

About WISeKey
WISeKey (NASDAQ: WKEY; SIX Swiss Exchange: WIHN) is a leading global cybersecurity company currently deploying large-scale digital identity ecosystems for people and things using Blockchain, AI and the IoT by respecting the human being as the pivot of the Internet. WISeKey microprocessors secure the pervasive computing that shapes today’s Internet of Everything. WISeKey IoT has an installed base of over 1.6 billion microchips in virtually all IoT sectors (connected cars, smart cities, drones, agricultural sensors, anti-counterfeiting, smart lighting, servers, computers, phones laptops, cryptographic tokens, etc.). WISeKey is uniquely positioned to be at the forefront of IoT, as our semiconductors produce an enormous amount of big data which, when analyzed with artificial intelligence (AI), can help industrial applications predict failure of their equipment before it occurs.
Our technology is endorsed by the Swiss-based cryptographic root of trust (“RoT”) of OISTE/WISeKey which provides secure authentication and identification, in physical and virtual environments, for the Internet of Things, blockchain and artificial intelligence. The WISeKey RoT serves as a common trust anchor to ensure the integrity of online transactions between objects and between objects and people. For more information, visit

Press and investor contacts:
WISeKey International Holding Ltd
Company Contact: Carlos Moreira
Tel: +41 22 594 3000

WISeKey Investor Relations (USA)
Contact: Lena Cati
Equity Group Inc.
Tel: +1 212 836-9611

This communication expressly or implicitly contains certain forward-looking statements regarding WISeKey International Holding Ltd and its business. Such statements involve certain known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors, which could cause the actual results, financial condition, performance or achievements of WISeKey International Holding Ltd to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed. or implied by these forward-looking statements. WISeKey International Holding Ltd is providing this communication as of this date and does not undertake to update any forward-looking statements contained herein as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.

This press release does not constitute an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to buy securities and does not constitute an offer prospectus within the meaning of article 652a or article 1156 of the French Code of Obligations. nor a listing prospectus. within the meaning of the listing rules of the SIX Swiss Exchange. Investors should rely on their own assessment of WISeKey and its securities, including the merits and risks involved. Nothing contained herein is or should be taken as a promise or representation as to the future performance of WISeKey.

]]> Hall of Men in Kansas mixes books, beer and prayer Sat, 28 May 2022 12:49:05 +0000

WICHITA, Kan. – The Hall of Men lives up to its name, with get-togethers offering beer, cigars, an open bar, some sort of men’s food (think pizza), and lots of chit-chat around a giant wooden table.

But there are also evening prayers, icons, Bible readings and lectures on the authors whose portraits hang in this “Christian speakeasy”. Names include CS Lewis, Flannery O’Connor, WH Auden, Dorothy Sayers, Fyodor Dostoevsky, JRR Tolkien and many more. Johnny Cash and Bob Dylan are also in the game.

This group has met twice a month for a dozen years and most worshipers are Orthodox, Catholic and Lutheran, with many Evangelicals at special events. Honored authors are selected after an informal process that usually begins during the fellowship before and after conferences, with men talking about books that have touched their lives.