Chapter 5 examines the intent for a legislative hearing and how it affects a committee’s selection of witnesses. Committees, guided by the partisan goals of the committee chair, seek different types of information depending on whether they are considering specific bills in hearings. When the chair has not yet advanced a bill through the committee process, it gives the committee more political flexibility to hear from those who can provide expertise in policy development. Consistent with this argument, we show that committees turned to think tanks, universities, and bureaucrats – witnesses who can provide more analytical information – at higher rates for hearings without a bill (nonreferral hearings), when committees hearings to learn about an issue area. Committees tended to invite witnesses from mass-based groups, such as labor unions, trade associations, and membership associations, at higher rates for hearings on a specific bill (referral hearings). Different witness compositions between referral and nonreferral hearings suggest strategic choices of the identities of witnesses and thus the types of information that the committee hearing generates.

This chapter is an introduction to the geometric perspective of tempered representations of connected reductive Lie groups via Dirac induction and the Connes–Kasparov isomorphism. We start with discussing Dirac operators in spin geometry. We then recall some classical Dirac operators on homogeneous spaces arising in representation theory. Next, we introduce the theory of higher index to be used as a language to formulate the Connes–Kasparov conjecture. In Section 3.4, we introduce Dirac induction, the Connes–Kasparov conjecture, and survey a couple of ways for proving it. The final section is devoted to the harmonic-analytic approach to the Connes–Kasparov isomorphism illustrated by the example of connected semisimple groups.

Retirement is a life situation embracing 14 percent of the US population. Transitioning into and through it is a significant life challenge that does not always go well; sadly, for many, it can represent a “slough of despond,” a pathway that can spiral into depression. Retirement transition represents an inflection point where informed mental health practitioners can apply prevention competencies to help prospective retirees anticipate and prepare for success as well as those harness their resources in the early phases of retirement to avoid pitfalls and promote positive steps. Attention to financial and healthcare planning is important. But so is addressing a range of psychosocial considerations that typically lay fallow but are central to both a satisfying and meaningful retirement and the armamentarium of counseling psychologists and other helping professionals. This chapter details the application of evidence-based knowledge to concepts of transition and adjustment in retirement, phases of retirement (and where best to intervene), and how to holistically plan for prevention. Suggestions for social justice and future research in retirement transition conclude the chapter.

The process of identifying and interpreting norms of customary international law, while appearing to be primarily based on an inductive analysis of state practice and opinio juris, is sometimes a deductive exercise based on logic and reason. Logic permeates every decision in international law. Logic manifests itself inherently throughout the process and can be identified in all steps of reasoning in identifying, interpreting and applying customary international law. Logic, however, can constitute the application of either an inductive or deductive inference. This chapter focuses on situations in which the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) applied a deductive approach, identifying or interpreting norms of customary international law without seeming to consult state practice and opinio juris. Specifically, it considers whether norms that can be reasonably inferred or deduced from existing rules, or that are simply logical for the operation of the international legal system, can be identified as norms of customary international law under a complementary, supplementary or distinctive interpretive approach.

While the virginal conception of Jesus might be the most obvious Incarnational claim to investigate in light of biological science, there are many others. After all, the Incarnation is not simply a miraculous pregnancy and birth: it is the whole Christ event – the life, teachings, ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus – a whole that we call the Grand Miracle. Woven into the larger Christian understanding of the Incarnation is a variety of topics – such as its own objective truth, our ability to know its truth, and its display of self-sacrificial love. Interestingly, some thinkers have tried to apply evolutionary theory to these sorts of topics, which ensures that our exploration of the relationship between Christology and biology must press on.

Having established the theoretical and empirical foundations of organization control research, in Chapter 5, we examine key trends in the technological, demographic, socio-cultural, and organizational environments that have implications for organizational control. We outline how these trends influence the future of work within and beyond organizational boundaries, challenge taken-for-granted assumptions underlying traditional control approaches, and give rise to an increasingly challenging and contested space for organizational control in contemporary organizations.

This is a reprinting of Furry’s response to Schrödinger’s cat paper and entanglement papers, as well as Furry’s response to other responses to the EPR paper, especially Bohr’s.

This chapter addresses the chronological paradox of customary international law (CIL). The paradox is that for a new customary rule to be created states must believe that the law already obligates the behaviour specified in that rule (opinio juris). However, the behaviour in question can only be legally required once that rule has been created. As a result, creating a new customary rule would be impossible, or at the very least an incoherent process. This chapter challenges this conclusion. In addressing the chronological paradox, it provides a coherent interpretation of the creation of new customary rules. It argues that the sense of legal obligation (opinio juris) emerges from the general principle of good faith. Good faith leads to legal obligations, which compel a subgroup of states to engage in specific behaviour. Then, as a result of this subgroup’s repeated behaviour, a new customary rule emerges, obligating the entire community of states to act accordingly. To explain the shift from good faith to legal obligations and from legal obligations to customary rules, the chapter draws on interpretivism, social ontology and contemporary research on constitutive rules.