title: The X-Files (season 4)

text: The fourth season of "The X-Files" received largely positive reviews from television critics, although several critics noted that the season was not as good as its predecessors. The "Contra Costa Times" noted that "The X-Files" during its fourth year was creatively good and "always fascinating even when it's frustrating." Rick Kushman Bee of the "Sacramento Bee" wrote that Fox' Sunday block of "The Simpsons", "King of the Hill" and "The X-Files" was televisions "real 'Must See TV'". Matt Roush of "USA Today" wrote that the fourth season was not the series' best year, but "when good, ["The X-Files" is] still shockingly great". Zack Handlen of "The A.V. Club" gave an overall positive review of the season and wrote that many of the episodes dabbled in existentialism. However, he also contended that many of the mythology episodes—especially the season finale—began to have "a ring of familiarity to" them and that "the repetition is getting old".


title: The X-Files (season 4)

text: Episodic reviews were diverse. Some episodes were praised. Robert Shearman and Lars Pearson, in their book "Wanting to Believe: A Critical Guide to The X-Files, Millennium & The Lone Gunmen", rated the episodes "Home", "Unruhe", "Musings of a Cigarette Smoking Man", "Paper Hearts", and "Small Potatoes" five stars out of five. Paula Vitaris of "Cinefantastique" also awarded "Musings of a Cigarette Smoking Man", "Paper Hearts", and "Small Potatoes" perfect scores of four out of four. Tom Kessenich named "Memento Mori" the fourth best episode of the series, writing that it was the definitive example of Mulder and Scully's devotion for each other.". He also wrote highly of "Home", "Paper Hearts", Small Potatoes", and "Never Again", ranking them as the fifth, eleventh, sixteenth, and twenty-fourth best episodes of "The X-Files", respectively. Other episodes were derided. Shearman and Pearson called "El Mundo Gira" an "aching unambitious take on Latin American culture" and "rubbish". Vitaris summaried "Unrequited" as a "slight story that collapses under the weight of its message".


title: The X-Files (season 4)

text: "Gethsemane" created intense media speculation about whether or not Mulder was actually dead. An article in the "Wall Street Journal" discussed fan theories behind Mulder's madness while a cartoon ran in "The New Yorker" a few weeks later surrounding Mulder's "death". Series creator Chris Carter noted that "the whole plot line of 'Gethsemane' revolved around a hoax, but there are actually huge revelations in this show. And it's an amazing thing that we could get people to believe that Mulder could actually kill himself because his belief system was stolen from him". UGO Networks listed the episode at number 21 in a countdown of "TV's Best Season Finales", noting that it "rocked the core of the series' entire mythology".


title: The X-Files (season 4)

text: In 2018 and 2019, in a ranking of all eleven seasons, the fourth season received critical acclaim and was named the second-best season by both "Consequence of Sound" and "Screen Rant". The episode, "Memento Mori", was singled out as one of the best episodes of the series by "Screen Rant".


title: The X-Files (season 4)

text: The fourth season earned the series twelve Primetime Emmy Award nominations, with three wins. Anderson won for Outstanding Lead Actress in a Drama Series, after being nominated the previous year. The episodes "Memento Mori" and "Tempus Fugit" won for Outstanding Art Direction for a Series and Outstanding Sound Editing for a Series, respectively. Notable nominations included its third consecutive nomination for Outstanding Drama Series, Duchovny's first nomination for Outstanding Lead Actor in a Drama Series, James Wong nominated for Outstanding Directing for a Drama Series for "Musings of a Cigarette Smoking Man", and Carter, Gilligan, Shiban, and Spotnitz being nominated for Outstanding Writing for a Drama Series for "Memento Mori". Other nominations were Jim Gross and Heather MacDougall each being nominated for Outstanding Editing for a Series – Single Camera Production for the episodes "Tempus Fugit" and "Terma", respectively; Outstanding Makeup for a Series for "Leonard Betts"; Outstanding Sound Mixing for a Drama Series for "Tempus Fugit"; and Mark Snow being nominated for Outstanding Music Composition for a Series (Dramatic Underscore) for "Paper Hearts". The series also won its second Golden Globe Award for Best Television Series – Drama, while Gillian Anderson and David Duchovny won in the television series drama acting categories.


title: Personal branding

text: Personal branding is the conscious and intentional effort to create and influence public perception of an individual by positioning them as an authority in their industry, elevating their credibility, and differentiating themselves from the competition, to ultimately advance their career, widen their circle of influence, and have a larger impact.


title: Personal branding

text: The process of personal branding involves finding your uniqueness, building a reputation on the things you want to be known for, and then allowing yourself to be known for them. Ultimately, the goal is to create something that conveys a message and that can be monetized.


title: Personal branding

text: Whereas some self-help practices focus on self-"improvement", personal branding defines success as a form of self-"packaging". The term is thought to have originated from an article written by Tom Peters in 1997. In "Be Your Own Brand", first published in 1999, marketers David McNally and Karl Speak wrote: "Your brand is a perception or emotion, maintained by somebody other than you, that describes the total experience of having a relationship with you."


title: Personal branding

text: Individuals sometimes associate personal names or pseudonyms with their businesses. Notably, 45th President of the United States and real estate mogul Donald Trump uses his last name on properties and other enterprises (e.g. Trump Tower). Celebrities may also leverage their social status to support organizations for financial or social gain. For example, Kim Kardashian endorses brands and products through her media influence.


title: Personal branding

text: The relationship between brands and consumers is dynamic and must be constantly refined. This continuous process demonstrates the ambivalence of consumerism.


title: Personal branding

text: A personal brand is a widely recognized and largely-uniform perception or impression of an individual based on their experience, expertise, competencies, actions and/or achievements within a community, industry, or the marketplace at large.


title: Personal branding

text: Personal brands may be deliberately modified to reinvent a public persona. This may be to recover from a public embarrassment, or to re-emerge from obscurity. The public perception of authenticity often determines the success of a rebranding.


title: Personal branding

text: The idea of positioning your personal or professional identity appeared in the 1981 book "Positioning: The Battle for Your Mind", by Al Ries and Jack Trout. More specifically in "Chapter 23. Positioning Yourself and Your Career - You can benefit by using positioning strategy to advance your own career.


title: Personal branding

text: The concept of personal branding is often attributed to Tom Peters and his concept of "Brand You" from his 2001 book "The Brand You 50 (Reinventing Work): Fifty Ways to Transform Yourself from an "Employee" into a Brand That Shouts Distinction, Commitment, and Passion," building on his earlier 1997 Fast Company article titled "The Brand Called You.


title: Personal branding

text: Personal branding has gained significance due to the use of the Internet, as social media and online identities affect the physical world.


title: Personal branding

text: Employers are increasingly using social media tools to vet applicants before offering them interviews. Practices include searching an applicant's history on sites such as Facebook and Twitter, and conducting background checks using search engines and other tools. This is leading to the decline of resume-only job applications, in favor of presenting other forms of personal branding. These may include links to a professional profile (such as LinkedIn), a personal blog, a portfolio of industry-related articles, and evidence of an online following. These efforts may improve a person's chances of obtaining a job.


title: Personal branding

text: According to Alberto Chinchilla Abadías "it is advisable for the company to train its workers and managers in communication and digital skills in order to effectively use these technologies".


title: Personal branding

text: Social media extends beyond just Facebook and Twitter and into the professional world as well. There are general professional profiles like LinkedIn and company or industry-specific networks, such as Slack. Because of these professional networks, self-branding is useful in finding a job or improving one's professional standing. As an online open source, social media has become a place that is fulfilled with highly reliable and resourceful information to target user identities.


title: Personal branding

text: Building a brand and an online presence through internal corporate networks allows for individuals to network with their colleagues, not only socially but professionally as well. This kind of interaction allows for employees to build up their personal brand relative to other employees, as well as spur innovation within the company because more people can learn from more people.


title: Personal branding

text: Some social media sites, like Twitter, can have a flattened, all-encompassing audience that can be composed of professional and personal contacts, which then can be seen as a more "'professional' environment with potential professional costs". Because of its explicitly public nature, Twitter becomes a double-sided platform that can be utilized in different ways depending on the amount of censorship a user decides on.


title: Personal branding

text: Personal branding focuses on "self-packaging," where "success is not determined by individuals' internal sets of skills, motivations, and interests but, rather, by how effectively they are…branded"; it is more about self-promotion rather than true self-expression. The difference between the two is that self-promotion is deliberately intentional in all aspects because the individual is purposely shaping their image or persona, while self-expression can even be a byproduct of promotion.


title: Personal branding

text: Aside from professional aspirations, personal branding can also be used on personal-level social networks to flare popularity. The online self is used as a marketing and promotional tool to brand an individual as a type of person; success on the virtual platforms then becomes "online social value [that could transform] to real rewards in the offline world." When one is branding themselves on social media they need to consider these three things: "crafting their physical footprint, creating their digital footprint, and communicating their message." A prominent example of a self-made self-branded social media icon is Tila Tequila, who rose to prominence in 2006 on the Myspace network, gaining more than 1.5 million friends, through expertly marketing her personal brand.


title: Personal branding

text: As social media has become a vehicle for self-branding, these moguls have begun to situate the maintenance of their online brand as a job, which brings about new ways to think about work and labor The logic of online sites and the presence of feedback means that one's online presence is viewed by others using the same rubric to judge brands: evaluation, ranking, and judgment. Thus, social media network sites serve as complex, technologically mediated venues for the branding of the self.


title: Personal branding

text: Personal branding involves the practice of self-disclosure, and this transparency is part of what Foucault would call "the proper care of the self". In this sense, disclosure refers to the details of one's everyday life for other's consumption, while transparency is the effect of this kind of disclosure. Transparency essentially works to give viewers a complete view of one's authentic self.


title: Personal branding

text: Digitally aided disclosure, which involves building a self-brand on a social network site, relies on traditional discourses of the authentic self as one that is transparent, without artifice, and open to others. Authenticity is viewed as both residing inside the self and is also demonstrated by allowing the outside world access to one's inner self. It is interesting to think about the idea of authenticity with disclosure, and the freedom social networks allow in disclosing an inauthentic self. All the while, these posting are forming a digital archive of the self, through which a brand could be crafted by others.


title: Personal branding

text: Personal branding offers promises of increased success in the business world. Thousands of self-help books, programs, personal coaches, and articles exist to help individuals learn to self-brand. These strategies emphasize authenticity and are often framed as becoming 'more of who you are' as well as who 'you were meant to be.'


title: Personal branding

text: The other side of these 'strategies for success' is that this is very subtle self-commodification. Because personal branding is basically pointing out, and in some cases, glorifying, certain positive characteristics of an individual, it is not unlike traditional branding of products and companies. This puts individuals in the place of products, in which their efforts to appear more human are subverted.


title: Personal branding

text: This possibility is exploited by celebrities and politicians, as "marketing individual personalities as products" is an effective way to gain millions of fans not just online but in real life as well. For celebrities of all types, online personas are their brands. Public relations for Justin Bieber and Barack Obama alike can easily control the "brand" and maximize exposure and profitability.


title: Personal branding

text: On the other hand, personal branding may afford potential employers the opportunity to more accurately judge a candidate's abilities and cultural suitability, since blogs, profiles, websites, etc., are pieces of work that can be evaluated.


title: Personal branding

text: Erving Goffman's self-presentation theory explores the way people want to be seen and how people are perceived by their peers. Goffman uses the term "Dramaturgy" to describe looking at one's own persona as a drama, treating your actions as an actor in a play. One can control how they are viewed by their peers, and in the case of celebrities or athletes, can build a personal brand through utilizing what they present to their publics using various social media outlets. Self-presentation theory and personal branding go hand in hand, we see celebrities and athletes building a particular brand, or persona over with the use of Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and Snapchat. Building a personal brand is a big part of a celebrity's life, and it can help them spread awareness and also provide an outlet to connect with their fans/supporters. This is made possible through the use of social media and the ability of the person looking to build a personal brand to make their messages heard. The theory of self-presentation looks at how people look to create an identity for themselves that they would like to be seen as by their peers or in the public eye. This is what Goffman calls the "front stage".


title: Personal branding

text: The front stage is a key component of this theory and it is a way a person acts when in public or around other people to build a certain persona for how they would like others to view them. The front stage is where celebrities and athletes tend to build their own brand and show many positive, deliberate messages that will try to portray them in a certain light in which the person would like to be seen. As opposed to what Goffman refers to as the "back stage", which is a particular way a person acts when they are not in public or not posting on social media, trying to build a particular persona or brand they would like others to see.


title: Personal branding

text: There are many examples of celebrities building a brand for themselves over some sort of social media platform. In fact, it is rare to see an athlete or celebrity without a social media page whether it is Twitter or Instagram. Celebrities use these outlets as ways of branding themselves, by showing people their lives and having fans feel close to them, almost like they are friends, and have a connection through social media outlets such as Twitter and Instagram. Also, to keep more of their fans interested, and to reach as many as possible many celebrities will update daily on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and Snapchat so their message can be seen by a wider audience. They can keep fans informed on everything from what they want to wear, to their political views. Social Media has provided a simple way for celebrities to get their personal brand to reach a wider audience, and they utilize the 'front stage' to influence people in a particular way and to make themselves look good in the public eye.


title: Personal branding

text: The 'back stage' is part of Goffman's theory of self-presentation theory, and it is happenings or beliefs people would not want their peers or public to necessarily see or hear. These are happenings that go on behind the scenes that can oftentimes hurt someone's reputation and are avoided when a celebrity is trying to build a personal brand. These are often personal happenings, or beliefs that will negatively effect how an audience will look at the brand you are building. There are numerous examples of celebrities saying something that they did not want their public to hear but got out and this hurts the brand they are building. One example of this is when Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling made racist comments to his then girlfriend and she had recorded them and put them on her social media. Donald Sterling was quickly removed from the team and is no longer associated with the NBA. This is an example of how something in the back stage will negatively affect what you want the public to see you as.


title: Personal branding

text: Self-presentation theory is very apparent in the world of celebrities and professional athletes and is a big part of building a brand for themselves. Goffman's theory seems to identify itself well with the personal branding of these celebrities and you can see why they would want to utilize social media to positively show a message they want to be heard by their public (front stage) and avoid more personal beliefs that may negatively effect their brand (back stage).


title: The Conspirator

text: The Conspirator is a 2010 American mystery historical drama film directed by Robert Redford and based on an original screenplay by James D. Solomon. It is the debut film of the American Film Company. The film tells the story of Mary Surratt, the only female conspirator charged in the Abraham Lincoln assassination and the first woman to be executed by the US federal government. It stars James McAvoy, Robin Wright, Justin Long, Evan Rachel Wood, Jonathan Groff, Tom Wilkinson, Alexis Bledel, Kevin Kline, John Cullum, Toby Kebbell, and James Badge Dale.


title: The Conspirator

text: "The Conspirator" premiered at the Toronto International Film Festival on September 11, 2010 followed by a special premiere screening on March 29, 2011 at the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum in Springfield, Illinois. Another premiere screening was held on April 10, 2011 at Ford's Theatre in Washington, DC, the site of the assassination. The US theatrical release took place on April 15, 2011, the 146th anniversary of the death of Lincoln. The film was released in Canada on April 29, 2011 and was in the UK on July 1, 2011. Lionsgate Home Entertainment released the DVD and Blu-ray on August 16, 2011.


title: The Conspirator

text: On April 14, 1865, five days after the Civil War ends with the South's surrender to the North at Appomattox Court House, Virginia, lawyer and Union veteran Frederick Aiken, with his friends, William Thomas Hamilton and Nicholas Baker, and his girlfriend, Sarah Weston, celebrate. Later that night, after John Wilkes Booth enters Ford’s Theater, Southerner Lewis Powell (referred to as Lewis Payne in the film) seriously wounds Secretary of State William Seward in an unsuccessful assassination attempt. German immigrant and carriage repair business owner George Atzerodt is assigned to kill Vice President Andrew Johnson, but becomes afraid, gets drunk, and runs away. Meanwhile, Booth sneaks into the President’s box and shoots his target, President Abraham Lincoln in the back of the head as he watches the play, "Our American Cousin". Booth stabs diplomat and military officer Henry Rathbone, who was a guest in Lincoln's box, and leaps onto the stage, shouting, "Sic Semper Tyrannis! The South is avenged!" before escaping into Maryland. A crowd, including Aiken, Hamilton, and Baker, watches in horror as the unconscious President is taken to a nearby boarding house, where he dies early the next morning. Andrew Johnson becomes the next President.


title: The Conspirator

text: Secretary of War Edwin Stanton orders the arrest of all suspects, including Mary Surratt. Booth and David Herold manage to evade capture for some days, but Union soldiers find a barn where they suspect the conspirators are hiding and set it on fire. Herold surrenders while Booth is shot and killed by sergeant Boston Corbett when he sees Booth raising a rifle at the other soldiers.


title: The Conspirator

text: Maryland Senator Reverdy Johnson, Aiken's boss, is Mary Surratt's defense attorney. Her son, John Surratt, has escaped and now hundreds of agents are looking for him. Also charged are Herold, Powell, Atzerodt, Michael O'Laughlen, Edman Spangler, Samuel Mudd, and Samuel Arnold. Reverdy feels unable to defend Surratt because he is a Southerner and asks a reluctant Aiken who is a Northerner to take over the defense.


title: The Conspirator

text: Aiken visits Mary in her cell to question her. Mary asks Aiken to look in on her daughter, Anna. Aiken does so and searches the boarding house for clues. He finds a ticket with the initials "LJW" (Louis J. Weichmann). At the court, Weichmann, a seminary friend of Mary's son John, is the first witness and describes John's meetings with Booth, as well as points out Herold, Powell, and Atzerodt as frequent guests in Mary's boarding house. Aiken incriminates Weichmann by making him appear as guilty as the rest of the conspirators.


title: The Conspirator

text: Aiken again tries to stop defending Mary because he believes that she is guilty. He meets with her intending to get evidence of her guilt when she explains that John and the others conspired to kidnap Lincoln, not to kill him. They were about to attack a carriage but were stopped by Booth, who reported that Lincoln was elsewhere. She says that John left town and went into hiding two weeks before the assassination and that she has no idea where he is. Aiken asks Anna for information to help with his trial preparations, but she refuses.


title: The Conspirator

text: At the court, Chief Prosecutor Joseph Holt brings the innkeeper John Lloyd to the stand. Lloyd claims that Mary gave him binoculars to give to Booth and told him to prepare shooting irons and whiskey for Booth and Herold on the night of the assassination. Aiken angers Lloyd by implying that he, an admitted alcoholic, was bribed with whiskey for his testimony. Lloyd is dragged out of the courtroom after he threatens Aiken.


title: The Conspirator

text: Aiken arrives at the Century Club to attend a party and discovers that his membership has been revoked for defending Mary Surratt. This triggers an argument with Sarah, who disowns and leaves him. Aiken asks Anna to testify. Anna testifies that Mary had no part in the assassination of Lincoln and that it was her brother John who did. Anna visits Aiken at his house and tells him about Booth and John. Aiken then visits Father Jacob Walter, who has been attending to Mary, but he also insists he does not know where John is. Aiken asks Walter to deliver a message to John saying that his mother will hang for his crimes if he does not surrender. On July 6, Mary is found guilty on all charges and is at first sentenced to life in prison, but with Stanton's intervention, she is then sentenced to hang with Powell, Herold, and Atzerodt while Mudd, Arnold, O'Laughlen, and Spangler are given prison sentences. Aiken procures a writ of habeas corpus, signed by a reluctant Judge Andrew Wylie, for the release of Mary so that she can be tried in a civilian court, but President Johnson suspends the writ, and the four condemned prisoners are hanged.


title: The Conspirator

text: Sixteen months later, Aiken visits John Surratt, who was captured abroad and is in jail. John thanks him for his kindness to his mother. Aiken offers him Mary's rosary, but he declines. The epilogue goes on to state that a year later, the US Supreme Court ruled that citizens were entitled to trial by a civilian jury, not a military tribunal, even in times of war ("Ex parte Milligan"), and that a jury of Northerners and Southerners could not agree on a verdict for John Surratt, and he was freed. Aiken left the law and became "The Washington Post"s first City Editor.


title: The Conspirator

text: Principal photography began in October 2009, in Savannah, Georgia and wrapped in December 2009. Fort Pulaski National Monument, located east of Savannah, served as the military prison in the film. Civil war reenactors and living historians were used to portray soldiers in various scenes. To supplement the reenactors, extras from the local community were also employed as soldiers.


title: The Conspirator

text: The Mary E. Surratt Boarding House still stands, and is located at 604 H Street NW in Washington D.C.'s Chinatown. Mary Surratt's farmhouse in Clinton, Maryland, is now a museum. The town in which the farmhouse stands was originally called Surrattsville. The United States Post Office renamed the town Robeysville due to the notoriety of the Surratt name. In 1879, Robeysville was renamed Clinton.


title: The Conspirator

text: "The Conspirator" premiered at the Toronto International Film Festival on September 11, 2010. A few days after its screening, the film was acquired by Lionsgate and Roadside Attractions for distribution. The film was released theatrically on April 15, 2011.


title: The Conspirator

text: The film performed poorly at the box office grossing only $3,506,602 during its opening weekend. After its initial run, the film grossed $11,538,204 domestically with a worldwide total of $15,478,800. Because the film had a budget of $25 million, the film is considered a box office flop despite the fact that its widest release was in 849 theaters.


title: The Conspirator

text: Upon its release, the film received a mixed reception from critics. Metacritic gave the film a weighted average score of 55/100 based on 37 reviews, indicating "mixed or average reviews". Rotten Tomatoes reports that 55% of critics have given the film a positive review based on 169 reviews, with an average score of 6.1/10. The website's critical consensus states that ""The Conspirator" is well cast and tells a worthy story, but many viewers will lack the patience for Redford's deliberate, stagebound approach."


title: The Conspirator

text: Critics have cited it as an analogy to the post-9/11 atmosphere. Writing for "Jacobin" in 2015, Eileen Jones criticized the film for promoting the Lost Cause of the Confederacy.


title: Standard penetration test

text: The standard penetration test (SPT) is an in-situ dynamic penetration test designed to provide information on the geotechnical engineering properties of soil. This test is the most frequently used subsurface exploration drilling test performed worldwide. The test procedure is described in ISO 22476-3, ASTM D1586 and Australian Standards AS 1289.6.3.1.


title: Standard penetration test

text: The test provides samples for identification purposes and provides a measure of penetration resistance which can be used for geotechnical design purposes. Many local and widely published international correlations which relate blow count, or N-value, to the engineering properties of soils are available for geotechnical engineering purposes.


title: Standard penetration test

text: The test uses a thick-walled sampling tube, with an outside diameter of 5.08 cm and an inside diameter of 3.5 cm, and a length of around 65 cm. The sampling tube is driven into the ground at the bottom of a borehole by blows from a slide hammer with a mass of 63.5 kg (140 lb) falling a distance of 76 cm (30 in). The sample tube is driven a total of 45 cm into the ground and the number of blows needed for the tube to penetrate each 15 cm (6 in) interval up to a depth of 45 cm (18 in) is recorded. The sum of the number of blows required for the second and third 15 cm (6 in) intervals of penetration is termed the "standard penetration resistance" or the "N-value". The test may be aborted if a total of 50 blows have been applied in any one of the 15 cm (6 in) intervals, a total of 100 blows have been applied over the total 45 cm (18 in) depth or there is no observed advance of the sampling tube during 10 successive blows. The blow count provides an indication of the density of the ground, and it is used in many empirical geotechnical engineering formulae.


title: Standard penetration test

text: The main purpose of the test is to provide an indication of the relative density of granular deposits, such as sands and gravels from which it is virtually impossible to obtain undisturbed samples. The great merit of the test, and the main reason for its widespread use, is that it is simple and inexpensive. The soil strength parameters which can be inferred are approximate, but may give a useful guide in ground conditions where it may not be possible to obtain borehole samples of adequate quality like gravels, sands, silts, clay containing sand or gravel and weak rock. In conditions where the quality of the undisturbed sample is suspect, e.g., very silty or very sandy clay, or hard clay, it is often advantageous to alternate the sampling with standard penetration tests to check the strength. If the samples are found to be unacceptably disturbed, it may be necessary to use a different method for measuring strength like the plate test. When the test is carried out in granular soils below groundwater level, the soil may become loosened. In certain circumstances, it can be useful to continue driving the sampler beyond the distance specified, adding further drilling rods as necessary. Although this is not a standard penetration test, and should not be regarded as such, it may at least give an indication as to whether the deposit is really as loose as the standard test may indicate.


title: Standard penetration test

text: The usefulness of SPT results depends on the soil type, with fine-grained sands giving the most useful results, with coarser sands and silty sands giving reasonably useful results, and clay and gravelly soils yielding results which may be very poorly representative of the true soil conditions. Soils in arid areas, such as the Western United States, may exhibit natural cementation. This condition will often increase the standard penetration value.


title: Standard penetration test

text: The SPT is used to provide results for empirical determination of a sand layer's susceptibility to soil liquefaction, based on research performed by Harry Seed, T. Leslie Youd, and others.


title: Standard penetration test

text: Despite its many flaws, it is usual practice to correlate SPT results with soil properties relevant for geotechnical engineering design. SPT results are in-situ field measurements, and not as subject to sample disturbance, and are often the only test results available, therefore the use of correlations has become common practice in many countries.


title: Standard penetration test

text: An approximate relationship cited in the US Army Corps of Engineers engineering manual publication on sheet pile design developed after Terzaghi and Peck (1948) and Teng (1962), shows in the table below the relationship specifically for SPT N values and bulk density of soil correlated to relative density and referred to in the engineering manual as moist unit weight in pcf units, converted to metric values in the table


title: Standard penetration test

text: The standard penetration test recovers a highly disturbed sample, which is generally not suitable for tests which measure properties of the in-situ soil structure, such as density, strength, and consolidation characteristics. To overcome this limitation, the test is often run with a larger sampler with a slightly different tip shape, so the disturbance of the sample is minimized, and testing of structural properties is meaningful for all but soft soils. However, this results in blow counts which are not easily converted to SPT N-values – many conversions have been proposed, some of which depend on the type of soil sampled, making reliance on blow counts with non-standard samplers problematic.


title: Standard penetration test

text: Standard penetration test blow counts do not represent a simple physical property of the soil, and thus must be correlated to soil properties of interest, such as strength or density. There exist multiple correlations, none of which are of very high quality. Use of SPT data for direct prediction of liquefaction potential suffers from roughness of correlations and from the need to "normalize" SPT data to account for overburden pressure, sampling technique, and other factors. Additionally, the method cannot collect accurate data for weak soil layers for several reasons:


title: Standard penetration test

text: A variety of techniques have been proposed to compensate for the deficiencies of the standard penetration test, including the Cone penetration test, in-situ vane shear tests, and shear wave velocity measurements.


title: Political polarization in the United States

text: Political polarization is a prominent component of politics in the United States. Scholars distinguish between ideological polarization (differences between the policy positions) and affective polarization (a dislike and distrust of political out-groups), both of which are apparent in the United States. In the last few decades, the U.S. has experienced a greater surge in ideological polarization and affective polarization than comparable democracies.


text: Differences in political ideals and policy goals are indicative of a healthy democracy. Scholarly questions consider changes in the magnitude of political polarization over time, the extent to which polarization is a feature of American politics and society, and whether there has been a shift away from focusing on triumphs to dominating the perceived abhorrent supporters of the opposing party.


text: Polarization among U.S. legislators is asymmetric, and Congress has become more conservative since the 1970s, when the U.S. also became more polarized, with rapid increases in polarization during the 2000s onwards. According to the Pew Research Center, members of both parties who have unfavorable opinions of the opposing party have doubled since 1994, while those who have very unfavorable opinions of the opposing party are at record highs as of 2022.


text: According to psychology professors Gordon Heltzel and Kristin Laurin, political polarization occurs when "subsets of a population adopt increasingly dissimilar attitudes toward parties and party members (i.e., affective polarization), as well as ideologies and policies (ideological polarization)". The Pew Research Center defines political polarization as "the vast and growing gap between liberals and conservatives, Republicans and Democrats".


text: Polarization has been defined as both a process and a state of being. A defining aspect of polarization, though not its only facet, is a bimodal distribution around conflicting points of view or philosophies. In general, defining a threshold at which an issue is "polarized" is imprecise; detecting the trend of polarization, however, (increasing, decreasing, or stable) is more straightforward.


text: A related concept is that of party homogeneity, which describes the similarities of the constituencies of two officials of the same party. There is also party polarization, which refers to the gap between the typical constituency of one party as compared to the other in a two-party system.


text: The Gilded Age of the late 19th century (c. 1870 – 1900) is considered to be one of the most politically polarized periods in American history, with open political violence and highly polarized political discourse. A key event during this era was the election of 1896, which some scholars say led to an era of one-party rule, created "safe seats" for elected officials to build careers as politicians, increased party homogeneity, and increased party polarization. Political polarization was overall heightened, with Republicans strengthening their hold on industrial areas, and Democrats losing ground in the North and upper Midwest.


text: The 1950s and 1960s were marked by high levels of political bipartisanship, the results of a post-World War II "consensus" in American politics, as well as ideological diversity within each of the two major parties.


text: Media and political figures began espousing the narrative of polarization in the early 1990s, with a notable example being Pat Buchanan's speech at the 1992 Republican National Convention. In the speech, he declared a culture war for the future of the country. In 1994, the Democratic Party lost control of the House of Representatives for the first time in forty years. The narrative of political polarization became a recurring theme in the elections of 2000 and 2004. After George W. Bush was reelected in 2004, English historian Simon Schama noted that the US had not been so polarized since the American Civil War, and that a more apt name might be the Divided States of America.


text: From 1994 to 2014, the share of Americans who expressed either "consistently liberal" or "consistently conservative" opinions doubled from 10% to 21%. In 1994, the average Republican was more conservative than 70% of Democrats, compared to more conservative than 94% of Democrats in 2014. The average Democrat went from more liberal than 64% of Republicans to more liberal than 92% of Republicans during the same era. In contrast, families are becoming more politically homogenous. As of 2018, 80% of marriages had spousal alignment on party affiliation. Parent-child agreement was 75%. Both of these represent significant increases from family homogeneity in the 1960s. A 2022 study found that there had been a substantial increase since 1980 in political polarization among adolescents, driven by parental influence.


text: A Brown University study released in 2020 found that the U.S. was polarizing faster compared to other democratic countries such as Canada, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Australia. According to Stony Brook University political scientists Yanna Krupnikov and John Barry Ryan, polarization in American politics is primarily a phenomenon among Americans who are deeply involved in politics and very expressive about their political views. Americans who are not as involved in politics are not as polarized.


text: As of February 2020, a study conducted by the Pew Research Center highlights the current political issues that have the most partisanship. By far, addressing climate change was the most partisan issue with only 21% of Republicans considering it a top policy priority as opposed to 78% of Democrats. Issues that are also extremely partisan include protecting the environment, reforming gun policy, and bolstering the country's military strength. These differences in policy priorities emerge as both Democrats and Republicans shift their focus away from improving the economy. Since 2011, both parties have gradually placed economic stimulation and job growth lower on their priority list, with Democrats experiencing a sharper decline of importance when compared to Republicans. This is in stark contrast to the 1990s, when both Democrats and Republicans shared similar views on climate change and showed significantly much more agreement. A 2017 poll conducted by Gallup identifies issues where the partisan gap has significantly increased over a period of about fifteen years. For Republicans, the most significant shift was the idea that the "federal government has too much power", with 39% of Republicans agreeing with that notion in 2002 as opposed to 82% agreeing in 2016. On the Democratic side, the largest shift was increasing favorability towards Cuba, changing from 32% in 2002 to 66% in 2017. Ultimately, as partisanship continues to permeate and dominate policy, citizens who adhere and align themselves with political parties become increasingly polarized.


text: On some issues with a wide public consensus, partisan politics still divides citizens. For instance, even though 60% of Americans believe that the government should provide healthcare for its citizens, opinions are split among party lines with 85% of Democrats, including left-leaning independents, believing that healthcare is the government's responsibility and 68% of Republicans believe that it is not the government's responsibility. Likewise, on some prominent issues where the parties are broadly split, there is bipartisan support for specific policies. For example, in health care, 79% of Americans think pre-existing conditions should be covered by health insurance; 60% think abortion should be broadly legal in the first trimester but only 28% in the second trimester and 13% in the third trimester. 77% of Americans think immigration is good for the country. On gun rights, 89% support more mental health funding, 83% support closing the gun show loophole, 72% support red flag laws, and 72% support requiring gun permits when purchasing. In the federal budget, there is 80% or more support to retain funding for veterans, infrastructure, Social Security, Medicare, and education.


text: Political polarization also shaped the public's reaction to COVID-19. A study that observed the online conversations surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic found that left-leaning individuals were more likely to criticize politicians compared to right-leaning users. Additionally, left-leaning social media accounts often shared health prevention measures through hashtags, while right-leaning posts were more likely to spread conspiracies and retweet posts from the White House's Twitter account. The study continues to explain that, when considering geographic location, because individuals in conservative and right leaning areas are more likely to see COVID-19 as a non-threat, they are less likely to stay home and follow health guidelines.


text: Some scholars argue that diverging parties has been one of the major driving forces of polarization as policy platforms have become more distant. This theory is based on recent trends in the United States Congress, where the majority party prioritizes the positions that are most aligned with its party platform and political ideology. The adoption of more ideologically distinct positions by political parties can cause polarization among both elites and the electorate. For example, after the passage of the Voting Rights Act, the number of conservative Democrats in Congress decreased, while the number of conservative Republicans increased. Within the electorate during the 1970s, Southern Democrats shifted toward the Republican Party, showing polarization among both the elites and the electorate of both main parties.


text: Political scientists have shown politicians have an incentive to advance and support polarized positions. These argue that during the early 1990s, the Republican Party used polarizing tactics to become the majority party in the United States House of Representatives—which political scientists Thomas E. Mann and Norman Ornstein refer to as Newt Gingrich's "guerrilla war". What political scientists have found is that moderates are less likely to run than are candidates who are in line with party doctrine, otherwise known as "party fit". Other theories state politicians who cater to more extreme groups within their party tend to be more successful, helping them stay in office while simultaneously pulling their constituency toward a polar extreme. A study by Nicholson (2012) found voters are more polarized by contentious statements from leaders of the opposing party than from the leaders of their own party. As a result, political leaders may be more likely to take polarized stances.


text: Political fund-raisers and donors can also exert significant influence and control over legislators. Party leaders are expected to be productive fund-raisers, in order to support the party's campaigns. After "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission", special interests in the U.S. were able to greatly impact elections through increased undisclosed spending, notably through Super political action committees. Some, such as "Washington Post" opinion writer Robert Kaiser, argued this allowed wealthy people, corporations, unions, and other groups to push the parties' policy platforms toward ideological extremes, resulting in a state of greater polarization. Other scholars, such as Raymond J. La Raja and David L. Wiltse, note that this does not necessarily hold true for mass donors to political campaigns. These scholars argue a single donor who is polarized and contributes large sums to a campaign does not seem to usually drive a politician toward political extremes.


text: Polarization among U.S. legislators is asymmetric, as it has primarily been driven by a substantial rightward shift among congressional Republicans since the 1970s, alongside a much smaller leftward shift among congressional Democrats, which mainly occurred in the early 2010s and mostly on social, cultural, and religious issues.


text: In democracies and other representative governments, citizens vote for the political actors who will represent them. Some scholars argue that political polarization reflects the public's ideology and voting preferences. Dixit and Weibull (2007) claim that political polarization is a natural and regular phenomenon. They argue that there is a link between public differences in ideology and the polarization of representatives, but that an increase in preference differences is usually temporary and ultimately results in compromise. Fernbach, Rogers, Fox and Sloman (2013) argue that it is a result of people having an exaggerated faith in their understanding of complex issues. Asking people to explain their policy preferences in detail typically resulted in more moderate views. Simply asking them to list the reasons for their preferences did not result in any such moderation.


text: Morris P. Fiorina (2006, 2008) posits the hypothesis that polarization is a phenomenon which does not hold for the public, and instead is formulated by commentators to draw further division in government. Others, such as social psychologist Jonathan Haidt and journalists Bill Bishop and Harry Enten, instead note the growing percentage of the U.S. electorate living in "landslide counties", counties where the popular vote margin between the Democratic and Republican candidate is 20 percentage points or greater. In 1976, only 27 percent of U.S. voters lived in landslide counties, which increased to 39 percent by 1992. Nearly half of U.S. voters resided in counties that voted for George W. Bush or John Kerry by 20 percentage points or more in 2004. In 2008, 48 percent of U.S. voters lived in such counties, which increased to 50 percent in 2012 and increased further to 61 percent in 2016. In 2020, 58 percent of U.S. voters lived in landslide counties. At the same time, the 2020 U.S. presidential election marked the ninth consecutive presidential election where the victorious major party nominee did not win a popular vote majority by a double-digit margin over the losing major party nominee(s), continuing the longest sequence of such presidential elections in U.S. history that began in 1988 and in 2016 eclipsed the previous longest sequences from 1836 through 1860 and from 1876 through 1900. Other studies indicate that cultural differences focusing on ideological movements and geographical polarization within the United States constituency is correlated with rises in overall political polarization between 1972 and 2004.


text: Religious, ethnic, and other cultural divides within the public have often influenced the emergence of polarization. According to Layman et al. (2005), the ideological split between U.S. Republicans and Democrats also crosses into the religious cultural divide. They claim that Democrats have generally become more moderate in religious views whereas Republicans have become more traditionalist. For example, political scientists have shown that in the United States, voters who identify as Republican are more likely to vote for a strongly evangelical candidate than Democratic voters. This correlates with the rise in polarization in the United States. Another theory contends that religion does not contribute to full-group polarization, but rather, coalition and party activist polarization causes party shifts toward a political extreme.


text: A 2020 paper studying polarization across countries found a correlation between increasing polarization and increasing ethnic diversity, both of which are happening in the United States.


text: The impact of redistricting—potentially through gerrymandering or the manipulation of electoral borders to favor a political party—on political polarization in the United States has been found to be minimal in research by leading political scientists. The logic for this minimal effect is twofold: first, gerrymandering is typically accomplished by packing opposition voters into a minority of congressional districts in a region, while distributing the preferred party's voters over a majority of districts by a slimmer majority than otherwise would have existed. The result of this is that the number of competitive congressional districts would be expected to increase, and in competitive districts representatives have to compete with the other party for the median voter, who tends to be more ideologically moderate. Second, political polarization has also occurred in the Senate, which does not experience redistricting because Senators represent fixed geographical units, i.e. states. The argument that redistricting, through gerrymandering, would contribute to political polarization is based on the idea that new non-competitive districts created would lead to the election of extremist candidates representing the supermajority party, with no accountability to the voice of the minority. One difficulty in testing this hypothesis is to disentangle gerrymandering effects from natural geographical sorting through individuals moving to congressional districts with a similar ideological makeup to their own. Carson et al. (2007), has found that redistricting has contributed to the greater level of polarization in the House of Representatives than in the Senate, however that this effect has been "relatively modest". Politically motivated redistricting has been associated with the rise in partisanship in the U.S. House of Representatives between 1992 and 1994.


text: Majoritarian electoral institutions have been linked to polarization. However, ending gerrymandering practices in redistricting cannot correct for increased polarization due to the growing percentage of the U.S. electorate living in "landslide counties", counties where the popular vote margin between the Democratic and Republican candidate is 20 percentage points or greater. Of the 92 U.S. House seats ranked by "The Cook Political Report" as swing seats in 1996 that transitioned to being non-competitive by 2016, only 17 percent came as a result of changes to district boundaries while 83 percent came from natural geographic sorting of the electorate election to election.


text: A 2013 review concluded that there is no firm evidence that media institutions contributed to the polarization of average Americans in the last three decades of the 20th century. No evidence supports the idea that longstanding news outlets become increasingly partisan. Analyses confirm that the tone of evening news broadcasts remained unchanged from 1968 to 1996: largely centrist, with a small but constant bias towards Democratic Party positions. However, more partisan media pockets have emerged in blogs, talk radio, websites, and cable news channels, which are much more likely to use insulting language, mockery, and extremely dramatic reactions, collectively referred to as "outrage". People who have strongly partisan viewpoints are more likely to watch partisan news. A 2017 study found no correlation between increased media and Internet consumption and increased political polarization, although the data did confirm a larger increase in polarization among individuals over 65 compared to those aged 18–39. A 2020 paper comparing polarization across several wealthy countries found no consistent trend, prompting Ezra Klein to reject the theory that the Internet and social media were the underlying cause of the increase in the United States.


text: Along with political scientist Sam Abrams, social psychologist Jonathan Haidt argues that political elites in the United States became more polarized beginning in the 1990s as the Greatest Generation and the Silent Generation (fundamentally shaped by their living memories of World War I, World War II, and the Korean War) were gradually replaced with Baby boomers and Generation Jones (fundamentally shaped by their living memories of the U.S. culture war of the 1960s). Haidt argues that because of the difference in their life experience relevant to moral foundations, Baby boomers and Generation Jones may be more prone to what he calls "Manichean thinking," and along with Abrams and FIRE President Greg Lukianoff, Haidt argues that changes made by Newt Gingrich to the parliamentary procedure of the U.S. House of Representatives beginning in 1995 made the chamber more partisan.


text: Unlike the first half of the 20th century, protests of the 1960s civil rights movement (such as the Selma to Montgomery marches in 1965) were televised, along with police brutality and urban race rioting during the latter half of the decade. In 1992, 60 percent of U.S. households held cable television subscriptions in the United States, and Haidt, Abrams, and Lukianoff argue that the expansion of cable television, and Fox News in particular since 2015 in their coverage of student activism over political correctness at colleges and universities in the United States, is one of the principal factors amplifying political polarization since the 1990s. Haidt and Lukianoff argue that the filter bubbles created by the News Feed algorithm of Facebook and other social media platforms are also one of the principal factors amplifying political polarization since 2000 (when a majority of U.S. households first had at least one personal computer and then internet access the following year). In 2002, a majority of U.S. survey respondents reported having a mobile phone.


text: Big data algorithms are used in personalized content creation and automatization; however, this method can be used to manipulate users in various ways. The problem of misinformation is exacerbated by the educational bubble, users' critical thinking ability and news culture. Based on a 2015 study, 62.5% of the Facebook users are oblivious to any curation of their News Feed. Furthermore, scientists have started to investigate algorithms with unexpected outcomes that may lead to antisocial political, economic, geographic, racial, or other discrimination. Facebook has remained scarce in transparency of the inner workings of the algorithms used for News Feed correlation. Algorithms use the past activities as a reference point for predicting users' taste to keep them engaged. However, this leads to the formation of a filter bubble that starts to refrain users from diverse information. Users are left with a skewed worldview derived from their own preferences and biases.


text: In 2015, researchers from Facebook published a study indicating that the Facebook algorithm perpetuates an echo chamber amongst users by occasionally hiding content from individual feeds that users potentially would disagree with: for example the algorithm removed one in every 13 diverse content from news sources for self-identified liberals. In general, the results from the study indicated that the Facebook algorithm ranking system caused approximately 15% less diverse material in users' content feeds, and a 70% reduction in the click-through-rate of the diverse material. At least in the political field, Facebook has a counter-effect on being informed: in two studies from the US with a total of more than 2,000 participants, the influence of social media on the general knowledge on political issues was examined in the context of two US presidential elections. The results showed that the frequency of Facebook use was moderately negatively related to general political knowledge. This was also the case when considering demographic, political-ideological variables and previous political knowledge. According to the latter, a causal relationship is indicated: the higher the Facebook use, the more the general political knowledge declines. In 2019, Jonathan Haidt argued that there is a "very good chance American democracy will fail, that in the next 30 years we will have a catastrophic failure of our democracy."


text: According to a report by Oxford researchers including sociologist Philip N. Howard, social media played a major role in political polarization in the United States, due to computational propaganda -- "the use of automation, algorithms, and big-data analytics to manipulate public life"—such as the spread of fake news and conspiracy theories. The researchers highlighted the role of the Russian Internet Research Agency in attempts to undermine democracy in the US and exacerbate existing political divisions. The most prominent methods of misinformation were ostensibly organic posts rather than ads, and influence operation activity increased after, and was not limited to, the 2016 election. During the Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, examples of efforts included "campaigning for African American voters to boycott elections or follow the wrong voting procedures in 2016", "encouraging extreme right-wing voters to be more confrontational", and "spreading sensationalist, conspiratorial, and other forms of junk political news and misinformation to voters across the political spectrum." Sarah Kreps of Brookings Institution argue that in the wake of foreign influence operations which are nothing new but boosted by digital tools, the U.S. has had to spend exorbitantly on defensive measures "just to break even on democratic legitimacy."


text: According to the United States House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, by 2018 organic content created by Russia's Internet Research Agency reached at least 126 million US Facebook users, while its politically divisive ads reached 11.4 million US Facebook users. Tweets by the IRA reached approximately 288 million American users. According to committee chair Adam Schiff, "[The Russian] social media campaign was designed to further a broader Kremlin objective: sowing discord in the U.S. by inflaming passions on a range of divisive issues. The Russians did so by weaving together fake accounts, pages, and communities to push politicized content and videos, and to mobilize real Americans to sign online petitions and join rallies and protests." Michael McFaul, former U.S. Ambassador to Russia from 2012 to 2014, believes the U.S. has faced a democratic decline, stemming from elite polarization and damage done by former President Donald Trump to trust in elections and bonds with democratic allies. McFaul states that the decline in democracy weakens national security and heavily restrains foreign policy. Portrayals of violence in the media can lead to fear of crime or terrorism or fear of "other" groups. These can appear out of proportion to their actual frequency, and due to the availability heuristic, these fears can be out of proportion to the actual threat from other groups.


text: A change in campaigning in 2022 that has been called "both a symptom of and a contributor to the ills" of American politics is a move away from participation in debates between candidates, in "retail politicking" that has been a political "cliché ... for generations" in American politics: pressing the flesh at "diners and state fairs ... town-hall-style meetings ... where citizens get to question their elected leaders and those running to replace them". Replacing these are "safer spaces" for candidates, "partisan news outlets, fund-raisers with supporters, friendly local crowds," where reporters and their challenging questions are "muscled away".


text: Candidates in ten of the most competitive contests in 2022 for Senate (Arizona, North Carolina, Ohio, Georgia and Wisconsin) and governor (Texas and Wisconsin) have "agreed to just one debate, where voters not long ago could have expected to watch two or three".


text: Avoiding those tougher interactions cuts down on the opportunities for candidates’ characters and limitations to be revealed, and for elected officials to be held accountable to those who elected them. For the politicians, it creates an artificial environment where their positions appear uniformly popular and opposing views are angrily denounced, making compromise seem risky.


text: “They run these campaigns in bubbles to these voters who are in bubbles,” said former Representative Tom Davis, a moderate Republican who won seven terms in Congress in a Northern Virginia district and headed his party’s congressional campaign committee.


text: Causes suggested for the disinterest include the fewer competitive House of Representative districts, and fewer "swing voters", making attempts to appeal to those voters not cost effective. According to journalists Lisa Lerer and Jazmine Ulloa, "the trend of avoiding the public was initially driven by Republicans" but has "seeped across party lines."


text: According to a 2020 study, "polarization is more intense when unemployment and inequality are high" and "when political elites clash over cultural issues such as immigration and national identity."


text: One common hypothesis for polarization in the United States is the end of the Cold War and a greater absence of severe security threats. A 2021 study disputed this, finding little evidence that external threats reduce polarization.


text: Potentially both a cause and effect of polarization is "demonization" of political opponents, such as accusing them not just of being wrong about certain legislation or policies but of hating their country, or the use of "what are called ‘devil terms’ — things that are so unquestionably bad that you can’t have a debate about them” (according to Jennifer Mercieca). Some examples include the accusations that President Biden has a plan, to “flood our country with terrorists, fentanyl, child traffickers, and MS-13 gang members", and that "Under President Biden's leadership ... We face an unprecedented assault on the American way of life by the radical left" (Mary E. Miller-IL), that “Democrats are so enamored of power that they want to legalize cheating in elections,” (Andy Biggs-AZ), "America-hating Socialists seek to upend the American way of life based on freedom and liberty and replace it with dictatorial government that controls every aspect of our lives" (Mo Brooks-AL).


text: While "demonizing communication style" has been in use "for years" among "media personalities and the occasional firebrand lawmaker", its use became popular among high level politicians with the election of Donald Trump and with the 2022 election has become widespread among "the 139 House Republicans who challenged the Electoral College vote" in January 2021, according to a 2022 study of "divisive rhetoric" in 3.7 million "tweets, Facebook ads, newsletters and congressional speeches" by the New York Times. Checking the Congressional Record, the Times found Republicans have "more than quadrupled their use of divisive rhetoric" since the early 2010s.


text: An example of the escalation in aggressive attack is Republican House leader Kevin McCarthy, who after the January 6 insurrection "implored members of his party to tone down their speech", saying, 'We all must acknowledge how our words have contributed to the discord in America ... No more name calling, us versus them.'” However in "dozens of tweets since then" McCarthy has referred to "Democrats as 'radical' leftists" who "prefer China to the United States" and are "ruining America". (A "few Democrats", such as Representative Bill Pascrell of New Jersey, also have "frequently" used "demonizing speech on Twitter".) Some political scientists have warned that "factionalism is alarming because it makes compromise harder and normalizes" divisive rhetoric throughout the country.


text: Some authors have found a correlation between polarization of political discourse and the prevalence of political violence. For instance, Rachel Kleinfeld, an expert on the rule of law and post-conflict governance, writes that political violence is extremely calculated and, while it may appear "spontaneous," it is the culmination of years of "discrimination and social segregation." Part of the problem lies in partisan politics, as partisanship in the political arena fosters partisan violence. In return, this increases polarization within the public, resulting in a public that ends up justifying political violence. Politicians may use political polarization as a weapon to further push existing institutions, which may also foster political violence. When applied to the United States, the current polarized climate may create conditions that can lead political violence within the country, unless there is meaningful reform. In fact, data shows that within three years, both Democrats and Republicans increasingly agree that political violence is at least "a little" justified as long as their party's political agenda is advanced. In 2017, only 8% of both Democrats and Republicans justified the use of political violence, but as of September 2020, that number jumped to 33% and 36%, respectively.


text: The General Social Survey periodically asks Americans whether they trust scientists. The proportion of American conservatives who say they place "a great deal of trust" in scientists fell from 48% in 1974 to 35% in 2010 and rose again to 39% in 2018. Instead, liberals and independents report different levels of trust in science. The COVID-19 pandemic brought these differences front and center, with partisanship often being an indicator of how a citizen saw the gravity of the crisis. In the early stages of the pandemic, Republican governors often went against the advice of infectious disease experts while most of their Democratic counterparts translated the advice into policy through policies such as stay at home orders.


text: Similar to other polarizing topics in the United States, a person's attitude towards COVID-19 became a matter of political identity. While the crisis had very little precedent in U.S. history, reactions from both liberals and conservatives stemmed from long-held messaging cues among their parties. Conservatives responded to the anti-elite, states' rights, and small government messaging cues surrounding the virus. This then translated into avid hostility towards any measure that limited a person's autonomy (mask requirements, schools closing, lockdowns, vaccine mandates, etc.). Meanwhile, liberals' attitude towards science made them more likely to follow the guidance from institutions like the CDC and well-known medical experts, such as Dr. Anthony Fauci.


text: Political polarization among elites is negatively correlated with legislative efficiency, which is defined by the total number of laws passed, as well as the number of "major enactments" and "key votes". Evidence suggests that political polarization of elites may more strongly affect efficiency than polarization of Congress itself, with authors hypothesizing that the personal relationships among members of Congress may enable them to reach compromises on contentiously advocated legislation, though not if elites allow no leeway for such.


text: Negative effects of polarization on the United States Congress include increased gridlock and partisanship at the cost of quality and quantity of passed legislation. It also incentivizes stall tactics and closed rules, such as filibusters and excluding minority party members from committee deliberations. These strategies hamper transparency, oversight, and the government's ability to handle long-term domestic issues, especially those regarding the distribution of benefits. Further, they foster animosity, as majority parties lose bipartisan and legislative coordination trying to expedite legislation to overcome them.


text: Some scholars claim that political polarization is not so pervasive or destructive in influence, contending that partisan agreement is the historical trend in Congress and still frequent in the modern era, including on bills of political importance. Some studies have found approximately 80% of House bills passed in the modern era to have had support from both parties.


text: Opinions on polarization's effects on the public are mixed. Some argue that the growing polarization in government has directly contributed to political polarization in the electorate, but this is not unanimous.


text: Some scholars argue that polarization lowers public interest in politics, party identification and voter turnout. It encourages confrontational dynamics between parties that can lower overall public trust and approval in government., and causes the public to perceive the general political debate as less civil, which can alienate voters. More polarized candidates, especially when voters aren't aware of the increase, also tend to be less representative of the public's wishes.


text: On the other hand, others assert that elite polarization has galvanized the public's political participation in the United States, citing greater voting and nonvoting participation, engagement and investment in campaigns, and increased positive attitude toward government responsiveness. Polarized parties become more ideologically unified, furthering voter knowledge about their positions and increasing their standard to similarly aligned voters.


text: Affective polarization has risen in the US, with members of the public likely to say that supporters of the other major political party are hypocritical, closed-minded, and selfish. Based on survey results by the American National Election Study, affective polarization has increased significantly since 1980. This was determined by the differences of views an individual had of their political party and the views they had of the other party. Americans have also gotten increasingly uncomfortable with the idea of their child marrying someone of another political party. In 1960, 4–5% of Americans said they were uncomfortable with the idea. By 2010, a third of Democrats would be upset at this outcome, and half of all Republicans. However, a recent study shows that affective polarization in Europe may not be primarily driven by outgroup derogation.


text: As Mann and Ornstein argue, political polarization and the proliferation of media sources have "reinforce[d] tribal divisions, while enhancing a climate where facts are no longer driving the debate and deliberation, nor are they shared by the larger public." As other scholars have argued, the media often support and provoke the stall and closed rules tactics that disrupt regular policy procedure.


text: Media can give the illusion that the electorate is more polarized than it truly is, pushing each end farther from the middle. The digital environment allows for the customization of information, with individuals never seemingly being exposed to opposing viewpoints. There is a long-standing belief that exposure to both sides of an argument will moderate political attitudes, and there is empirical evidence that voters often do self-moderate, saying that internet users do also search for news in the opposing viewpoint.


text: The increased use of social media since 2008 has encouraged those who normally did not consume news coverage to now encounter headlines on their newsfeeds on a regular basis. The media has become more skilled about framing news stories to create the greatest outrage, regardless of their spot on the political spectrum. With the introduction of "fake news", voters are more apt to cherry-pick between news sources as mistrust in the mainstream media rises. This mistrust stems from a number of factors. Some of which include, political micro-targeting, bots, trolls, and digital algorithms- research has only just begun to name all of the factors at play. Allowing these perpetrators of political polarization to stand in the way of democracy is the biggest hindrance to healthy party disagreement.


text: A concern with the increasing trend of political polarization is the social stigma stemming from either side towards their perceived opposition. It contributes to the chronic lack of compromise and uncivilized discourse leading to both extremism and policy stalemates. The media takes advantage of such discord and shares anecdotal headlines meant to stoke the flames of polarization, rather than sharing generalized and subsequently tamer broad statistics.


text: While the media are not immune to general public opinion and reduced polarization allows them to appeal to a larger audience, polarized environments make it easier for the media and interest groups to hold elected officials more accountable for their policy promises and positions, which is generally healthy for democracy.


text: The issue of political polarization in the US has also had noticeable effects on how citizens view the democratic process. In both of the two last presidential elections, a large segment of voters among the losing party raised concerns about the fairness of the election. When Donald Trump won the 2016 election, the share of Democratic voters who were "not confident" in the election results more than doubled compared to pre-election day data (14% on October 15, 2016, versus 28% on January 28, 2017). In 2020, three-in-four Republicans doubted the fairness of the presidential election. This narrative of a stolen election narrative was in large part driven by Trump himself, who refused to concede the election up until less than two weeks before Joe Biden's inauguration. This took place after the events of January 6, 2021, when thousands of Trump's supporters stormed the United States Capitol in an attempt to overturn the results of the election.


text: Judicial systems can also be affected by the implications of political polarization. For the United States, in particular, polarization lowers confirmation rates of judges; In 2012, the confirmation rate of presidential circuit court appointments was approximately 50% as opposed to the above 90% rate in the late 1970s and early 1980s. More polarized parties have more aggressively blocked nominees and used tactics to hinder executive agendas. Political scientist Sarah Binder (2000) argues that "senatorial intolerance for the opposing party's nominees is itself a function of polarization." Negative consequences of this include higher vacancy rates on appellate courts, longer case-processing times and increased caseloads for judges. Voting margins have also become much closer for filling vacancies on the Supreme Court. Justice Antonin Scalia was confirmed 98–0 in 1986; Ruth Bader Ginsburg was confirmed 96–3 in 1993. Samuel Alito was confirmed 58–42 in 2005, and Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed 50–48 in 2018.


text: Political scientists argue that in highly polarized periods, nominees become less reflective of the moderate voter as "polarization impacts the appointment and ideological tenor of new federal judges." It also influences the politics of senatorial advice and consent, giving partisan presidents the power to appoint judges far to the left or right of center on the federal bench, obstructing the legitimacy of the judicial branch.


text: Ultimately, the increasing presence of ideology in a judicial system impacts the judiciary's credibility. Polarization can generate strong partisan critiques of federal judges, which can damage the public perception of the justice system and the legitimacy of the courts as nonpartisan legal arbiters.


text: Political polarization can undercut unified agreement on foreign policy and harm a nation's international standing; divisiveness on foreign affairs strengthens enemies, discourages allies, and destabilizes a nation's determination.


text: Political scientists point to two primary implications of polarization with regards to the foreign policy of the United States. First, when the United States conducts relations abroad and appears divided, allies are less likely to trust its promises, enemies are more likely to predict its weaknesses, and uncertainty as to the country's position in world affairs rises. Second, elite opinion has a significant impact on the public's perception and understanding of foreign policy, a field where Americans have less prior knowledge to rely on.


text: A 2021 study in "Public Opinion Quarterly" found evidence that polarization contributed to reductions in support for democratic norms.


text: In a 2021 report Freedom House said that political polarization was a cause of democratic backsliding in the U.S. since political polarization undermines the "idea of a common national identity" and impedes solutions to governance problems. Gerrymandering was singled out as a cause for this since it creates safe seats for one party that can lead it to become more radical so its candidates can win their primary elections.


text: As polarization creates a less than ideal political climate, scholars have proposed multiple solutions to fix or mitigate the effects of the political polarization in the United States. The country is more politically divided now than it has been in the past twenty years. Not only is there less collaboration and mutual understanding between Democrats and Republicans, but members of both political parties increasingly view each other in an extremely negative way. As a result, partisan politics has begun to shape the relationships individuals have with others, with 50% of Republicans and 35% of Democrats likely to surround themselves with friends who share similar political views. Towards the respective ends of the political spectrum, nearly two-thirds (63%) of consistent conservatives and about half (49%) of consistent liberals say most of their close friends share their political views. Additionally, increased animosity and distrust among American politicians and citizens can be attributed to the increased skepticism of American institutions, which is a problem that is extremely catalyzed by political polarization and may lead to democratic backsliding.


text: Various changes to voting procedures have been proposed to reduce political polarization. Two proposed reforms would potentially move the U.S. from a two-party system to a multi-party system. Proportional representation would divide Congressional seats based on the percentage of people who voted for a specific political party. For instance, if Democrats won 20% of the vote, they would receive 20% of the Congressional seats. Advocates of instant-runoff voting say it encourages more moderation in political campaigns by allowing candidates to argue they should be the second choice for supporters of an opponent. It could potentially be used to replace the Electoral College with a less partisan popular vote. IRV also makes third parties more viable because it removes the spoiler effect.


text: Elaine Kamarck of the Brookings Institution suggest ways to work within the two-party system, such as taking measures to increase voter turnout to elect more moderate representatives in Congress. She reasons that abolishing closed primaries may invite independents or individuals from the opposing political party to vote for a representative other than their registered party's candidate. In doing so, the strict ideological divides may subside, allowing for more moderate representatives to be elected. Thus, as a result there would be an increasing ideological overlap in Congress and less polarization. Kamarck also proposes instituting a nationwide voting process like "California's top-two method," where there is only one general election for all political parties, and the top two candidates advance into the general election. Once again, this process is meant to elect more moderates into government, but there is no evidence that this has happened.


text: Advocates for setting fixed terms for selection of the justices of the Supreme Court of the United States argue it will reduce the partisanship of confirmation battles if both major parties are satisfied they will have the chance to make a certain number of appointments.


text: Shifting to a more societal-based solution, social psychologists state that more social contact with those holding opposing political views may help mitigate political polarization. Focusing specifically on the creation of citizens' assemblies, the idea is to create a space where representatives and citizens are encouraged to discuss political topics and issues in a constructive fashion, hopefully resulting in compromise or mutual understanding. Yet, intergroup contact, as psychologists warn, must be created within specific parameters in order to create meaningful change. These boundaries, which make actual social implementation difficult, include a constant, meaningful dialogue between multiple members of each group. Constructive conversations should focus on principles, legislation, and policies and avoid inflammatory trigger words such as left and right, blue and red, and liberal and conservative. These words can make people become emotional and defensive when supporting their own side and stop listening with an open mind to what those on the other side are saying. In short, conversations can be more productive and meaningful by avoiding contrasting tribal and political identities. In "Talking Sense about Politics: How to Overcome Political Polarization in Your Next Conversation", Jack Meacham encourages having conversations based on four neutral, impartial perspectives—detached, loyal, caring, and tactful—that underlie how people think about and respond to political issues. A number of groups in the U.S. actively host interpartisan discussions in an attempt to promote understanding and social cohesion.


text: A third solution recognizes that American society, history, and political thought are more complex than what can be conveyed by only two partisan positions. Joel Garreau's "The Nine Nations of North America", first published in 1981, was an early attempt to analyse such multiple positions. Colin Woodard revisited Garreau's theories in his 2011 book "American Nations". Frank Bruni wrote that America was emerging from the 2016 election with four political parties: Paul Ryan Republicans, a Freedom Caucus, establishment Democrats, and an Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders party. Similarly, David Brooks in 2016 identified four political parties: Trump's populist nationalism, a libertarian Freedom Caucus, a Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren progressive party, and a Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi Democratic establishment party.


text: In "Talking Sense about Politics: How to Overcome Political Polarization in Your Next Conversation", Jack Meacham argues that four fundamental, impartial perspectives have powered our economic and social progress and enabled Americans to better understand themselves and others. People holding the first of these four perspectives, the loyal perspective, aim to compete, be in charge, and win. The aim of people holding the second perspective, tactful, is to negotiate and get along with others. The third perspective, detached, is represented by people who want to disengage from others and work things out for themselves. People who reflect the fourth perspective, caring, aim to cooperate with and look out for others.


text: George Packer, in "Last Best Hope: America in Crisis and Renewal", also argues that America can best be understood not as two polarities but instead as four American narratives:


text: The Pew Research Center's political typology, based on a survey of 10,221 adults in July 2021, includes nine groups. There are substantial divisions within both the Democratic and Republican parties.


text: Outsider left, ambivalent right, and stressed sideliners have low interest in politics and low rates of voting.


text: Some commentators propose accommodating partisan differences by taking advantage of federalism and moving more authority away from the federal government and into state and local governments. Ezra Klein proposes that having clear differences between the two main parties gives voters a better choice than having two political parties that have mostly the same views. But he suggests reducing the negative consequences of partisanship by eliminating "ticking time bombs" like fights over raising the federal debt ceiling.


title: The Growlers

text: The Growlers is an American band from Southern California. They began their career in the Orange County city of Dana Point, California in 2006. They are currently based in Costa Mesa. The band is currently composed of singer Brooks Nielsen and keyboard player/guitarist Kyle Straka. They have released seven albums, several EPs and a number of singles. The band's sound has been described as "a trademark style of music that somehow combines surf, pop, rock and beat" which has been labeled "Beach Goth".


title: The Growlers

text: Singer Brooks Nielsen and music director/guitarist Matt Taylor met in middle school in the beach town of Dana Point, California, bonding over surfing, skating, and partying. When offered the chance to perform at a house party, the duo quickly wrote their first six songs in a single day, leading to the first incarnation of the band that would eventually become The Growlers.


title: The Growlers

text: After releasing a handful of self-recorded cassettes and CDs, The Growlers issued their first studio album, "Are You in or Out?" in 2009 on Everloving Records. Aquarium Drunkard described it as “consistent in sound and tone that is as enjoyable straight through or on shuffle… Taken as a whole, the record is a beautiful mix of late 60’s freak-out, folk calmness and surf rock.” Their second album, "Hot Tropics", was released in 2010, also on Everloving Records. The band's third album, "Hung at Heart", the first to feature Anthony Braun Perry on bass and Jason Kaiser on percussion, was released in 2013. The band originally worked with Dan Auerbach to record the album, but the finished version never saw official release. Instead the band recorded a new version of the album in Costa Mesa, CA with Mike McHugh at his Distillery Recording Studio, to get a more lo-fi sound.


title: The Growlers

text: "Chinese Fountain", their new "more grown up, well polished" album was released September 23, 2014. This album was produced by JP Plunier at Seahorse Studios in Los Angeles, CA. While touring the album, the band expanded their live band with percussionist Nick Murray.


title: The Growlers

text: The band's fifth studio album, "City Club" was released by Cult Records on September 30, 2016, while they embarked on a supporting tour in the same month. It was the first Growlers album to be credited solely to Brooks Nielsen and Matt Taylor, as opposed to the whole band. Nielsen and Taylor wrote and recorded demos for the album over a span of two to three months with the help of Kyle Mullarky at his studio in Topanga Canyon, CA. It was preceded by the title track as a single produced by Julian Casablancas, who also owns the label. Neither drummer Scott Montoya nor bass player Anthony Perry feature on the album. On September 25, the band confirmed Montoya's departure from the band and stated that Perry was set to return in the near future. The band toured for this album with Brad Bowers on bass, Adam Wolcott Smith on keyboard, and Richard Gowen on drums. Whether their membership in the band is permanent is currently unclear.


title: The Growlers

text: The band released "Casual Acquaintances" on July 27, 2018, a collection of demos and unused material from the City Club sessions.


title: The Growlers

text: The Growlers have toured with artists such as The Black Keys, Devendra Banhart, Julian Casablancas, Night Beats, and Jonathan Richman. They have also appeared at numerous festivals including Coachella, Bonnaroo, Primavera Sound, Lollapalooza, Austin City Limits, Sasquatch!, Wakarusa, Treasure Island, Fun Fun Fun, Bestival, Way Out West, End of The Road, Burgerama III, Rock in Rio and Outside Lands.


title: The Growlers

text: The band has organized their annual Beach Goth festival since 2012. The event typically features performances by bands representing a variety of genres, including pop, rap, hip hop, heavy metal, and rock. Over the years, the event has included costume contests, amusement park rides, and live performances of Rocky Horror Picture Show. The Growlers have headlined both Saturday and Sunday night of the annual Beach Goth festival since its inception.


title: The Growlers

text: The likes of Die Antwoord, Grimes, Gucci Mane, Julian Casablancas, Mac DeMarco, The Drums, Foxygen, White Arrows and Ghost B.C. have appeared at the festival.


title: The Growlers

text: Beach Goth 4 (October 2015) was hosted by Pauly Shore and featured live performances of Rocky Horror Picture Show throughout the weekend as well as a performance of The Doors song "People Are Strange" by The Growlers and Julian Casablancas.


title: The Growlers

text: The 2016 edition of Beach Goth took place at The Observatory in Santa Ana, CA on October 23–24, 2016. It was originally scheduled to take place at the Oak Canyon Park but was moved last minute due to unexplained circumstances. The festival's lineup included Bon Iver, TLC, James Blake, 2 Live Crew, Violent Femmes, Future Islands, Reel Big Fish, The Faint, the Pharcyde, Leftöver Crack, and DJ Quik. While it was hailed a success, the outdoor festival suffered from rain and resultant street flooding. This caused the Growlers to delay their own set due to equipment damage. In the aftermath, the band issued an apology.


title: The Growlers

text: Due to an ongoing lawsuit with Noise Group (owners of The Observatory venue) over the Beach Goth trademark, 2017's festival took on the name "The Growlers Six", which took place on October 28 & 29 at the LA Waterfront. The festival included artists such as the Yeah Yeah Yeahs, Modest Mouse, and the Butthole Surfers.


title: The Growlers

text: The Growlers returned to their trademarked "Beach Goth" brand name for the 7th annual festival, taking place at the Los Angeles Historic State Park on August 5, 2018. Beach Goth 7 hosted performances by The Growlers, Jonathan Richman, The Voidz, The Drums, La Luz, and GWAR.


title: The Growlers

text: In July 2020, allegations of sexual misconduct surfaced against the band, along with other artists associated with Burger Records and the Southern California surf and garage rock music scene. Arrow De Wilde, the lead singer of the L.A. rock band Starcrawler, shared a personal encounter on her Instagram page. In her post, Arrow claims she was assaulted by a male stripper hired by The Growlers while they were on tour together in Australia. In a statement issued via Instagram on July 31, 2020, Growlers singer Brooks Nielsen took "full responsibility and accountability for the behavior of all Growlers' band members, past and present," and announced that Matt Taylor would temporarily leave the band. Additionally, former Growlers touring keyboardist Adam Wolcott Smith admitted to an incident of abuse on his Instagram, while on tour with his band Zen Mother.


title: Toy dog

text: Toy dog traditionally refers to a very small dog or a grouping of small and very small breeds of dog. A toy dog may be of any of various dog types. Types of dogs referred to as toy dogs may include spaniels, pinschers and terriers that have been bred down in size. Not all toy dogs are lap dogs.


title: Toy dog

text: Dogs found in the Toy Group of breed registries may be of the very ancient lapdog type, or they may be small versions of hunting dogs or working dogs, bred down in size for a particular kind of work or to create a pet of convenient size. In the past, very small dogs not used for hunting were kept as symbols of affluence, as watchdogs, and for the health function of attracting fleas away from their owners.


title: Toy dog

text: Most major dog clubs in the English-speaking world have a toy group, under one exact name or another, in which they place breeds of dog that the kennel club categorizes as "toy", based on size and tradition. The Kennel Club (UK), the Canadian Kennel Club, the American Kennel Club, the Australian National Kennel Council, and the New Zealand Kennel Club all have a group named "Toy", although they may not all categorise the same breeds in this category. The United States has a second major kennel club, the United Kennel Club (UKC, originally formed for hunting and working breeds, though general today), and it does not recognize such a group; instead, small dogs are placed with larger dogs of their type, or into a UKC's "Companion Dog" group. the American Kennel Club began debating whether or not to change the name of their "Toy" group to "Companion", in order to emphasise that dogs are not playthings, but the name change was resisted by traditionalists.


title: Toy dog

text: Not including the color and size varieties, breeds categorized by Fédération Cynologique Internationale members as "Companion and Toy" are listed here in alphabetical order. Those with flags are also recognized by the non-member countries indicated by the flag.


title: Toy dog

text: Registries within individual Fédération Cynologique Internationale members, such as the Australian National Kennel Council, may use slightly different nomenclature, depending on the country. Non-member countries use other terminology, but the term "toy" is only used to group dogs for show purposes.


title: Toy dog

text: The Kennel Club (UK) places breeds marked in the Toy Group. The Canadian Kennel Club recognizes breeds marked in Group 5, Toys. The American Kennel Club places breeds marked in the Toy Group. Additional national organizations also recognize the following breeds in their toy groups.


title: Toy dog

text: The major national kennel club for each country will have its own list of breeds that it recognizes as Toy. In addition, some new or newly documented rare breeds may be awaiting approval by a given kennel club. Some new breeds may currently be recognized only by their breed clubs. Some rare new breeds have been given breed names, but may only be available from the breeder or breeders who are developing the breed, and may not yet be recognized by any kennel club.


title: Toy dog

text: In addition to the major registries, there are a plethora of sporting clubs, breed clubs, and internet-based breed registries and businesses in which dogs may be registered in whatever way the owner or seller wishes.


Article Three of the United States Constitution establishes the judicial branch of the U.S. federal government. Under Article Three, the judicial branch consists of the Supreme Court of the United States, as well as lower courts created by Congress. Article Three empowers the courts to handle cases or controversies arising under federal law, as well as other enumerated areas. Article Three also defines treason.


title: Article Three of the United States Constitution

text: Section 1 of Article Three vests the judicial power of the United States in the Supreme Court, as well as inferior courts established by Congress. Along with the Vesting Clauses of Article One and Article Two, Article Three's Vesting Clause establishes the separation of powers between the three branches of government. Section 1 authorizes the creation of inferior courts, but does not require it; the first inferior federal courts were established shortly after the ratification of the Constitution with the Judiciary Act of 1789. Section 1 also establishes that federal judges do not face term limits, and that an individual judge's salary may not be decreased. Article Three does not set the size of the Supreme Court or establish specific positions on the court, but Article One establishes the position of chief justice.


text: Section 2 of Article Three delineates federal judicial power. The Case or Controversy Clause restricts the judiciary's power to actual cases and controversies, meaning that federal judicial power does not extend to cases which are hypothetical, or which are proscribed due to standing, mootness, or ripeness issues. Section 2 states that federal judiciary's power extends to cases arising under the Constitution, federal laws, federal treaties, controversies involving multiple states or foreign powers, and other enumerated areas. Section 2 gives the Supreme Court original jurisdiction when ambassadors, public officials, or the states are a party in the case, leaving the Supreme Court with appellate jurisdiction in all other areas to which the federal judiciary's jurisdiction extends. Section 2 also gives Congress the power to strip the Supreme Court of appellate jurisdiction, and establishes that all federal crimes must be tried before a jury. Section 2 does not expressly grant the federal judiciary the power of judicial review, but the courts have exercised this power since the 1803 case of "Marbury v. Madison".


text: Section 3 of Article Three defines treason and empowers Congress to punish treason. Section 3 requires that at least two witnesses testify to the treasonous act, or that the individual accused of treason confess in open court. It also limits the ways in which Congress can punish those convicted of treason.