text:
What's the "Chief Purpose" of Marriage?
Last week, I laid out some of my ideas about what is and is not radical about same-sex marriage, boiling down a few of the chief concepts I've argued in public over the past 15 or so years. Maggie Gallagher, chief nemesis of the marriage-equality movement, referred to one of those three posts at The Corner, National Review's group blog. In response, I noted that we agree, in small part, that allowing same-sex pairs to marry continues to nudge the meaning of the institution in the direction of separating sex and diapers. Maggie responded, paraphrasing me incorrectly (which, all right, isn't misquoting exactly, but which still puts words in my mouth that I would never say, imply, or think) this way:
E. J. says we agree that gay marriage in some nontrivial way disconnects marriage, sex, and diapers. It reduces the connection between marriage and its erstwhile chief public purpose: regulating responsible procreation.
No, Maggie, that's not what I said. I said that same-sex couples are following, not leading, the variety of changes in marriage's public meaning that were made by capitalism between 1850 and 1970—the time span between Anthony Comstock's anti-obscenity crusade and the paired Supreme Court decisions of Griswold and Eisenstadt. In addition, I would not agree that the most important of these changes in marriage law and public philosophy is snipping the link between sex and babies; that's just one of them. Some of the other changes include formal gender equality, which was won by the mid-1970s; and divorce with remarriage, which implies that marriage is for love rather than being a lifetime sex-and-labor contract, and therefore unbreakable. You believe that adding same-sex couples to marriage is what really snips the link between sex and babies. I don't.
A look at the history of anti-sodomy crusades—first religious, then legal—shows that the Catholic Church considered any sex that had no hope of leading to reproduction as a horrible "crime against nature." Whether that was drinking pennyroyal tea to prevent conception or induce miscarriage; sex con bouche or con mano; sheepskin barriers; coitus interruptus; or using the back door, all were banned for the same reason: Because only sex that led to babies was legitimate. Even intercourse outside marriage wasn't as bad as marital intercourse with barriers, especially if a pregnant couple later married. As late as the early 20th century, the Catholic Church was opposed even to the rhythm method, which had been promoted by one of its priests, as a horrible crime against nature. (My source is John T. Noonan, Jr.'s exhaustive history, Contraception: A History of Its Treatment by the Catholic Theologians and Canonists.)
Much of that distaste was imported into Protestant theology, and, later, Western law—and defeated during the first half of the 20th century by Margaret Sanger and her Planned Parenthood movement, which worked to save women's lives by allowing them to prevent pregnancy. As you know, in Griswold v. Connecticut, the Supreme Court struck down the country's last remaining Comstock law banning the use or sale of contraceptives. That decision codified in American law the separation within marriage of sex and babies. Soon after, the Supreme Court endorsed the then-prevailing view that sex outside marriage was none of the government's business, either, in Eisenstadt v. Baird: It declared that states could not intrude into unmarried people's intimate lives by banning distribution of contraception except to those with wedding rings. That's why, when you and others argue that same-sex couples don't belong in marriage because the institution is for procreation, everyone rolls their eyes and asks whether couples who don't have kids will be kicked out: Because our shared social agreement on marriage's public purposes has already changed. Society no longer enforces the view that sex should lead to babies, and that babies belong only within marriage. Because that shift already happened, same-sex couples now belong—and will, indeed, nudge that symbolism just a little bit further.
But Maggie, I would never, ever suggest that marriage's "chief public purpose" had ever been "regulating responsible procreation." That's your preoccupation, and we disagree profoundly about its centrality. I know you've read my book, What Is Marriage For?; you've referred to it in our exchanges in the past. When I researched marriage's history, I came up with six different axes along which marriage rules and regulations had been laid down: Money (always first!), sex, babies, kin, order, and heart. There have always been rules and regulations about these purposes, but they've shifted dramatically over the millennia, always after hard-fought battles. To oversimplify, the chief purpose of marriage used to be allocating your life's primary work or property partner. Sex, that unruly force, was confined within partly because it usually led to babies, who were best cared for as part of, and would contribute to, that household labor effort. I won't go into all the other items here—I could write a book!—but through the 18th and 20th centuries, some other battles over marriage's chief public purposes included whether teenagers and young adults (under, say, 35) could marry without parental or kin permission; whether married women could control their property or have custody of children, free of male control; and whether spouses could divorce for no better reason than lack of love and marry again despite having a first spouse still living, or whether that was polygamy.
My primary point is that same-sex couples seem to fit marriage today because all the changes that make it seem appropriate were already complete. Once upon a time, you needed kin and spouse and community all on your side if you were to make a living. That changed with Adam Smith's invisible hand. And once you can make your own living, you can also make your own bed. Marriage for love; sex for intimacy and not necessarily for babies; gender equality—all that (and more) adds up to me and my gal.
So yes, same-sex marriage confirms that shift in symbolism, further snipping the link between sex and diapers, among others. But I am married today as the consequence, not the cause, of changes that have already happened. Lesbians and gay men are just not important enough a fraction of the population to embed that shift into American consciousness much more than it already is. Only restricting contraception—as the Republicans have been discussing lately—and restigmatizing bastardy (if you'll pardon my language) would do that. Yes, of course, contraception fails. I know you want to link men to their offspring, even then. But the free and legal availability of contraception is what stands as the central symbol that sex and diapers needn't be linked. That's where most young people first and most powerfully encounter the state's opinion about the proper uses of sexuality—considering the use of condoms, available in every drugstore—not when they see Jenny and Mary down the street get married.
Maggie, I apologize if my offer to let you blog here was insulting. I didn't intend that. Of course you have your own corner. As to your question of whether the possibility of same-sex marriage affects 1.5 percent of the population: No, I don't think that's an overestimate. Even those young lesbians and gay men who will never marry are affected by knowing that they are part of the social contract and would be profoundly respected no matter whom they love. So I should've said 3 percent of the population, since that option also affects everyone who is bisexual.
So here's another offer: Want to join me on Bloggingheads.tv? I'm hosting an episode of Sarah Posner's show for her the week of July 16. Are you free that Monday for an online chat? I e-mailed you this invitation, but I haven't heard back. What say ye? Can we talk this through out loud?
Fri, 2012-07-06 16:47
John Howard
Sat, 2012-07-07 12:50
EJ, in your research, did you ever encounter a marriage where the couple was prohibited from conceiving children together, as in, creating biological offspring by combining their genes?
The Chief Purpose has always been to officially approve and allow the couple to make babies together. There has been a change recently where people don't need marriage to do that, and of course not every marriage does that, but every marriage is always approved to conceive offspring, even elderly people, and even those first cousins that only are allowed to marry if they are infertile (they are not arrested if they do or told they may not have sex or conceive offspring, once married they are allowed just like any marriage).
First, do you agree that every marriage has been allowed and approved to conceive offspring of the marriage?
Next, do you think that it should continue to protect and affirm that right?
And the question as it relates to same-sex couples: should people be approved and allowed to conceive offspring with someone of their same sex?
Mon, 2012-07-09 10:54
John, I believe I laid out my answers, but again:
"First, do you agree that every marriage has been allowed and approved to conceive offspring of the marriage?" I am not sure what you mean. Yes, marriage has always been a way to make the point that this couple's children would be "legitimate." But I do not believe that that is the only primary public purpose of marriage, although it often coincided with the others.
"Next, do you think that it should continue to protect and affirm that right?" Of course people who want to have children within a marriage should continue to be free to do so. Have I suggested otherwise, anywhere?
"And the question as it relates to same-sex couples: should people be approved and allowed to conceive offspring with someone of their same sex?" There is no technology anywhere that suggests that that is now or soon will be possible. I absolutely think that IVF and other assistive reproductive technologies are wonderful for those who can and do use them. I do believe that people of the same sex who rear children together, however conceived, would be greatly helped by being able to rely on marriage's protections--and that it does and will help those children when their parents can marry.
John Howard
Mon, 2012-07-09 12:48
1) I meant, in all your research, you never came across a marriage that was prohibited from having sex or children together, right? Every marriage has meant social approval of sex and conceiving offspring with each other's genes, right?
2) I'm not sure what you have suggested, I just started reading your stuff. I have seen calls for issuing separate licenses for the conception of children, and saying that marriage should not automatically be a green light to conceive offspring with each others genes. Here is a recent one from a Transhumanist website: http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/tittle20120617 So I wanted to know if you agreed with them or with me that marriage should continue to approve and allow the birth of offspring, and I'm glad you agree that it should.
3) It could be possible in a few years. Did you know that labs have made gametes from stem cells and people are speculating about the prospect of same-sex conception? I'm not asking about the science, you are a lawyer, aren't you? The science doesn't matter, we are discussing abstract rights: Is there an abstract right to procreate with someone of the same sex? Apparently you think that same-sex couples should be allowed and approved to use stem cell derived gametes to procreate offspring together, but I think that is a radically unethical and unwise endeavor and it should instead be prohibited, like incest is prohibited. It would become a huge expensive entitlement program, and harm human dignity and equality.
The security you seek for same-sex families can be achieved with Civil Unions defined as "marriage minus conception rights" which could be given federal recognition as marriages and enacted in most every state immediately. If you just gave up the insane demand for equal procreation rights - something that can't even be done and will probably never be possible even with billions of dollars and years of research - and agreed that people should only be allowed and approved to procreate offspring with someone of the other sex, then we could resolve the debate in a way that helps actual families. Please reconsider your priorities and help those families instead of clinging to an abstract right that is unnecessary and divisive and crazy.
John Howard
Sat, 2012-07-07 13:59
"Even those young lesbians and gay men who will never marry are affected by knowing that they are part of the social contract and would be profoundly respected no matter whom they love."
Does "profoundly respected" mean "approved in principle to conceive children, and allowed if it is ever practical or safe to make a baby by joining with that person's genes, no matter what sex they are?" What should we be telling young people right now about whether they will have to join with someone of the other sex to reproduce offspring in the future? I think a lot of people believe it will be possible to be "postgendered" and reproduce as or with either sex, which I think is cruel to speculate about, because it should not be approved in principle. There is no abstract right to reproduce as or with either sex, only with the other sex, and so we don't need to speculate about how it might be done and if it is possible, we know right now that it will be unethical and unnecessary and not be worth it to 99.999 percent of the population. I'd say 100% but there are some people heavily invested in it.
(Oops. I guess I couldn't wait for your response to my first questions, I had more to say while i waited. Have you encountered people like me who say that it is unethical and bad public policy to create people by any other method than we do right now, combining a man and a woman's natural egg and sperm?)
Sun, 2012-07-08 21:11
John Howard
Mon, 2012-07-09 01:08
True, nobody's marriage should be judged inferior to any other, all marriages are equal and have an equal right to procreate offspring, however, certain relationship types are not suitable to marry and procreate, such as brother and sister, mother and son, etc. Those relationships should be judged unethical and immoral and be prohibited.
Obviously, I mean those marriages should be judged unethical and immoral and prohibited. There is nothing immoral about being siblings, but we don't let them marry and procreate with each other. Likewise, there is nothing immoral about being the same sex as someone else, but we should not let them marry and procreate with each other.
Obviously, I mean those marriages should be judged unethical and immoral and prohibited. There is nothing immoral about being siblings, but we don't let them marry and procreate with each other. Likewise, there is nothing immoral about being the same sex as someone else, but we should not let them marry and procreate with each other.
Mon, 2012-07-09 13:01
The chief purpose of marriage is SECURITY--financial and social, in a world where otherwise we're continually hustling to please, and where unpleasing people are throw-aways. To point of marriage is to LOCK IN a relationship, in order to guarantee financial security, companionship (or at least the presence of another warm body) and, if and when necessary, care.
So it doesn't matter whether it's opposite sex or single sex, whether children are involved or not, or for that matter whether sex is involved or not. The point is that it's a lock in contract. From this point of view same sex marriage of course isn't an issue--divorce is. We want to rig marriage, whether between same sex partners or opposite sex partners or--I'd go for this--more than two people, in such a way that it's unbreakable. No divorce. Your locked in. That's the whole point of the institution.
Mon, 2012-07-09 19:33
It's pretty bold of you to state the "chief purpose of marriage" and the "point of marriage" as if those aren't just your opinions, but some universal truth.
Everyone thinks they know what marriage is, but try and define it - not necessarily as you think it should be or what your religion says, but as it actually is recognized in our society. When you do so, I think you'll find that marriage, as it actually is across all of society, is an extremely vague conceptual mishmash. Marriage means different things to different people. The only thing that I can see about marriage that is common across all of them is this: They are a public declaration of a union between individuals.
That's it: It's public, because we take out a licence and have the fact recorded by the government, but it can also be public in the sense of the ceremony taking place before members of the community. Why? So that all know that the participants in the marriage have chosen to be married, and now are. Why did they choose that? You have to ask them.
What can't we say is a part of the general definition of marriage?
Love - there are arranged marriages, and certainly lots of loveless marriages, so that's not a defining feature.
Religion - Atheists and Religious believers alike have the ability to become married, so that's not it.
Procreation - A man is not prevented from marrying an infertile woman, nor is it against the law to have children outside of marriage.
Financial Security - Really? Is there a credit check required before marriage? No, we don't say to two spendthrifts that they can't marry.
What the purpose of marriage is, is up to the people in the marriage.
What was my purpose in getting married? First, it was a statement to my wife that I loved her and wanted to be with her for the rest of my life. Second, it was a statement to our families and friends of that same sentiment. Third, it was because it was what I believed I was supposed to do. If you ask my wife what her purpose was, she might say something different, but our purposes would likely mostly overlap.
I didn't get married to lock in a companion for when I'm old. I didn't marry to ensure my financial security. I didn't get married to make sure I would have someone to care for me when I'm older. If there are marriages that are based on that purpose, that's fine.
Really for me, it was just me communicating that I had a love for this person that I didn't think was fleeting. It was an old-timey romantic statement of promising to love someone forever. That's it.
I don't agree that marriages should be irrevocable - people make mistakes. If they do make mistakes, let them fix them.
But maybe when you speak of the purpose of marriage, you don't mean the purpose of the participants, you mean from the point of view of society, like society is making sure I've got a support system of one.
Maybe historically that's true, but I doubt it. I think that marriage now, legally, is simply a reflection of what people's expectations are. Undoubtedly, much of those expectations come from tradition, but public expectations do change over time, and that has been reflected in the legal treatment of marriage.
For me, the only ingredient that I think a marriage requires is some type of reciprocated romantic love. That's it. That's just my own definition of marriage though. Certainly, legally that's not required.
What I'm getting at here is that marriage is already a huge, extremely vaguely defined tent. When we have no idea what this tent is made of or even why we have it, how can we say so definitively that there is not room in it for people who love each other because they happen to be the same gender? How is that not completely arbitrary? That's like trying to outlaw one particular religion (or atheism), just because it doesn't agree with your own personal world view.
John Howard
Mon, 2012-07-09 21:00
You make it seem like people marry one person, but have babies with someone else, and that's just not the expectation. Sure now we seem to allow sperm and egg donation and hiring a surrogates, so apparently it's now OK to have babies with someone other than your spouse, but I think that won't last to long, because it isn't ethical to make babies with purposefully broken families. And even if its allowed to have children outside of marriage, the key thing is that marriage should always approve and allow and protect the couple having babies together, natural genetic offspring together.
The key thing that a marriage requires is to consent to have sex and babies with each other, to want to make genetic offspring with each other and not with anyone else, to not have sex or offspring with anyone else.
Mon, 2012-07-09 22:35
I don't understand the point of marriage if you're not interested in security, in getting into a relationship you don't have to "work on," where you don't have to to please, to keep looking good etc. If you aren't interested in lock in, what's the point? You fuck anyone you want. Who cares. As for "love"--give me a break.
Of course guys see it differently, because they can take care of themselves financially--and because any man who had money can get a woman. Women after a certain age can't give it away. We need to lock into those relationships while we're still fresh. That's why we need that lock in.
Mon, 2012-07-09 22:17
I don't understand the point of marriage if you're not interested in security, in getting into a relationship you don't have to "work on," where you don't have to to please, to keep looking good etc. If you aren't interested in lock in, what's the point? You fuck anyone you want. Who cares. As for "love"--give me a break.
Of course guys see it differently, because they can take care of themselves financially--and because any man who had money can get a woman. Women after a certain age can't give it away. We need to lock into those relationships while we're still fresh. That's why we need that lock in.
Tue, 2012-07-10 11:54
And that's your view - that's fine. It suits your individual situation. But why do you want to impose your view onto everyone else?
As for the ability to "fuck anyone you want", that's true. It's not illegal to have sex outside of marriage. But if you in your own marriage want to be faithful to the exclusion of all others - go for it. If two people want to have an 'open marriage' because they don't feel they need that fidelity, it's up to them to make it work. It's A-OK. Legal marriage doesn't prohibit it, so that's also not a defining feature of the legal institution of marriage.
It sounds like you're mourning the loss of these features of "marriage". Well, they're long gone for quite some time now. Allowing same-sex marriage just requires us to acknowledge that the legal institution of marriage is already a wide-open concept. You might not like how wide open it is, but that doesn't change the fact that it is. How is it not discrimination to prevent one group from joining?
Here's another analogy: Look at marriage like it was a golf club. Fifty years ago, women weren't allowed, minorities weren't allowed, etc. Then it fell on hard times and the government took it over and turned it into a public golf course. They started to allow women to play, they started to allow minorities. In fact, they put up a sign that said, "open to all". Then some people showed up at the course with their clubs and their forty dollars and the manager met them in the parking lot and said, sorry, that "open to all" sign was written before we knew that gays would actually try to play golf. You can't play. That's what's going on here - marriage has already been opened up to anything and everything, yet government feels justified in imposing/maintaining an arbitrary rule left over from days gone by that is completely inconsistent with their stance on marriage in every other respect. It just doesn't make sense.
I'm saddened by your view on "locking in" for women. You're right, I'm not a woman, but I do hope that not all women "lock into" relationships solely for security. I hope that they also try to find someone that they respect, love, etc. I also disagree with your view on women having an expiry date. And why have you given up on love?
I never said that marriage isn't work or that I didn't think I should please my partner. I didn't mention those things at all, so for the record, I think my marriage should have those things - and it does. I also do want "lock in" and I have that. That's all part of my personal view on marriage. That said, my personal view on marriage is just that - *my* personal view - there are infinitely many other views out there, and who am I to say they're not valid? Really, they're irrelevant to me and my marriage, because the people with these other views aren't married to me. It's the same with same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage doesn't affect my marriage at all, so why not let people do what makes them happy?
Same-sex marriage has been around in Canada now for what? At least 7 years, I think. There was initially controversy and people opposing it, but they've now mostly faded away. It's turned into a complete non-issue. No one cares, because they've experienced it and found that it doesn't affect anyone who doesn't want to be in a same-sex marriage. I think 10 years from now, it'll be the same thing in the good old USA. We'll look back and say, why were we so worried about same-sex marriage?
John Howard
Tue, 2012-07-10 13:57
Actually in Massachusetts there is still an active on-the-books fornication law, and it is still a crime to have sex with someone you are not married to. But even if that law were declared to be unconstitutional (which is hasn't yet been) the chief purpose of marriage would still be to protect the right of the couple to have sex and procreate offspring together. Of course marriage has all sorts of obligations that follow when being officially approved to have sex and procreate offspring together, including not being allowed to have sex and procreate with anyone else and being on the hook for finances and support, but all those things are added on to marriage and can be taken away, as with no fault divorce laws and reforming of alimony. They can't take away the approval to have sex and conceive offspring without completely gutting marriage so that it is not marriage anymore.
And I hope EJ Graff takes a little bit longer to respond to my point about stem cell derived gametes and her prioritizing the right to procreate using non-existing technology with someone of the same sex over the lives of thousands of same-sex couples who have no interest in that. Come on E.J let's resolve this thing and help those families.
Tue, 2012-07-10 14:50
I can't respond to you because you just make assertions without arguing them. You say the chief purpose of marriage is "to protect the right of the couple to have sex and procreate offspring together", but you don't say why you believe this, so discussion is impossible.
As for your Massachusetts law, that's interesting but it doesn't matter. Obviously, that law is not enforced because if anyone tried to enforce it, it would be struck down immediately. Unenforced laws are only interesting curiosities.
John Howard
Tue, 2012-07-10 15:20
It's of the utmost importance to protect the right of married couples to have sex and conceive offspring together using their own genes, because if we don't protect that right people will be pressured or even forced to use "better" gametes and government would grow in power and scope as natural sex gets replaced by commercial eugenic manufacture of people. I'm a little wary of the "chief purpose" line of discussion, but I know that the one thing that marriage does and only marriage can do is make sex legal and approve of the conception of children together.
I don't think the Massachusetts fornication law would be struck down, there is a compelling societal interest in preventing unethical creation of people, including being born to unprepared and/or uncommitted couples, and extra-marital sex can ruin people's lives, it is unnecessary, it spreads diseases that can cause death and infertility, and why should the people who don't do it pay for the costs of those who do?
Tue, 2012-07-17 23:47
M Conners
Thu, 2012-10-18 12:15
As usual, the lion's share of emphasis is placed on adult aspirations whatever they may be and not on the rights of the child and what is absolutely best for them. When we look through the eyes of the child, marriage, love, rights, and every other aspect of this discussion becomes ever so clear. Millions of people who comprise future generations and who have the biggest stake in this issue, aren't here to defend their rightful place in the conversation. I've asked many a child what is the most important thing in the world to them. 100% of the time, their response has something to do with "my mom and my dad." Children do best in every way when loved and raised by their own natural and married mother and father. Redefining the institution of marriage by law, also redefines by law all familial terms such as mother, father, wife, husband, grandfather, grandmother and so one. Natural connections that are the right of the child would be redefined by law. This is in direct opposition to the right every child has to be connected, so far as a possible, to the two people whose sexual act brought them into the world. As a society, we should head in the direction of that ideal and not away from it. It is impossible to radically redefine a social institution of this grandeur without radically affecting the social goods and benefits to society that institution provides. I realize that there are imperfect people navigating through this well tested institution. But imperfection on the part of the participants is no reason to radically alter the perfect system itself. We are heading in the wrong direction by legalizing same sex marriage. And I haven't even mentioned the threat to religious freedom.
You need to be logged in to comment.
(If there's one thing we know about comment trolls, it's that they're lazy)


text:
West Indies seal T20 series
West Indies beat England by five wickets to take an unassailable 2-0 lead in the T20 series between the two sides in Barbados.
Tue March 11 2014
More Cricket Videos
Wed July 8 2015
Cook describes lifting the urn
England Test captain Alastair Cook tells Sky Sports his feelings when lifting the urn as Captain for the first time. Watch the Ashes LIVE on NOW TV from £6.99.
Tue July 7 2015
Clarke confident of victory
Australia Captain Michael Clarke is confident that his side can win the Ashes on English soil.
Tue July 7 2015
Get the Ashes Events Centre
This is the ultimate way to follow the action on your iPad – just ask Alastair Cook and James Anderson!
Mon July 6 2015
Team-mates - Lloyd
David Lloyd reveals the truth about his fellow Sky Sports Cricket pundits, including who's last to buy a round of drinks. Watch the Ashes LIVE on NOW TV from £6.99.
Mon July 6 2015
Dexter hits six sixes!
A rare feat for any cricketer, Middlesex's Neil Dexter manages to hit six sixes in an over, check it out!
Mon July 6 2015
We are England
Investec asked some of England's cricket stars what it really means to wear an England cap and play for your country.
Mon July 6 2015
Team-mates - Holding
Michael Holding reveals the truth about his fellow Sky Sports Cricket pundits, including who he thinks would go to sleep with his bat. Watch the Ashes LIVE on NOW TV from £6.99.
Mon July 6 2015
Classic Ashes Moments: Cook's 235
Re-live the moment when Alastair Cook amassed a score of 235 not out to help England draw the first Test of the 2010/11 Ashes. Watch the Ashes LIVE on NOW TV from £6.99.
Sun July 5 2015
Selvey hails 'immense' Harris
The Guardian's Mike Selvey says it is desperately sad that Ryan Harris has announced his retirement from cricket and thinks he has been the outstanding bowler of his time for Australia.
Sat July 4 2015
The Cric-Golf challenge
Take a sneak peak at the Cric-Golf challenge, as some of England's top women golfers took on the England women's cricket team.
Sat July 4 2015
Harris a huge loss
Jonathan Trott said that Ryan Harris will be a huge loss for the Australians after he announced his retirement because of injury.
Mon July 6 2015
Team-mates - Atherton
Michael Atherton reveals the truth about his fellow Sky Sports Cricket pundits, including who he thinks played with the most flair. Watch the Ashes LIVE on NOW TV from £6.99.
Fri July 3 2015
Clarke: Tough call for all-rounder
Australia captain Michael Clarke says the selectors have a tough decision to make between Mitch Marsh and Shane Watson ahead of the Ashes.
Fri July 3 2015
How to Watch the Ashes
Don't miss a ball as England take on Australia on Sky Sports Ashes HD and across our digital platforms.
Thu July 2 2015
Strauss – Bayliss settling in 'brilliantly'
Andrew Strauss is confident that Trevor Bayliss will be a real asset for English cricket and that England have a good chance of winning the Ashes.
Thu July 2 2015
Kids interview Cook
Budding journalists Chris and Alex pose some rather different questions to England captain Alastair Cook ahead of the Ashes. Courtesy of ECB.
Thu July 2 2015
Broad ready for battle
Stuart Broad said England are ready for a battle with Australia during the Ashes series.
Thu July 2 2015
Rashid named in Ashes squad
Adil Rashid gives his thoughts on being included in the England squad ahead of the first Ashes Test on July 8.
Tue June 30 2015
Anderson: Let's nail Ashes
James Anderson says England's Test team is on the up ahead of this summer's Investec Ashes against Australia.
Tue June 30 2015
Starc hails Bayliss methods
Mitchell Starc says Trevor Bayliss is a great coach but admits he isn't sure how England will respond to his coaching methods with just eight days to go until the Ashes begins.
Mon June 29 2015
County Cricket round-up - 29th June
Jonny Bairstow and Tim Bresnan rewrote the record books with an unbeaten 366-run stand to put Yorkshire in total control against County Championship title rivals Durham.
Mon June 29 2015
Vaughan: Australia are clear favourites
Former Ashes winning England captain Michael Vaughan believes Australia are clear favourites to win the Ashes and adds that England's bowlers will have to get the ball to swing if they are to stand any chance of winning.
Mon June 29 2015
Botham: First day of first Test is crucial
Sir Ian Botham gives his views on England's chances and feels the first day of the first Test is crucial ahead of the Ashes against Australia.
Mon June 29 2015
Is sledging in the spirit of the game?
James Anderson and Jonathan Trott give their views on sledging ahead of start of the Ashes.
Sun June 28 2015
Has Anderson played enough?
The Cricket Writers panel discuss whether Jimmy Anderson has bowled enough recently to be well prepared for the Ashes.
Sun June 28 2015
Aussies are better sledgers
Ahead of The Ashes the Cricket Writers panel discuss Australia's superior sledging.
Sat June 27 2015
Smith relishing first Ashes Test
Steve Smith says he is looking forward to the challenge of the Ashes and is hoping he can contribute to Australia's success.
Fri June 26 2015
Late Bayliss intro not ideal admits Cook
England captain Alastair Cook admits it's not a ideal to meet new Head Coach, Trevor Bayliss so close to the start of an Ashes series.
Fri June 26 2015
The Ashes on Sky Sports
The Ashes live only on Sky Sports, starts July 8th. #MyAshesSummer
Fri June 26 2015
Clarke pleased with Ashes options
Australia captain Michael Clarke says there's still a chance for players to put themselves in contention for an Ashes place.
Thu June 25 2015
The Ashes summer is almost here!
The excitement is building ahead of the start of the Ashes on July 8th.
Wed June 24 2015
'Bayliss could provide Ashes edge'
England's James Anderson believes Head Coach Trevor Bayliss could give England the edge in the Ashes.
Wed June 24 2015
Root hopeful of Ashes success
Joe Root is confident England can succeed against Australia in the Ashes following the side's positive start to the summer.
Tue June 23 2015
England talent excites Morgan
Captain Eoin Morgan says he's excited by the talent within the squad after England's impressive T20 international win over New Zealand.
Tue June 23 2015
Edwards ready for Ashes
England Women's Cricket Captain Charlotte Edwards says they are fully prepared in their bid to retain the Ashes this summer.
Tue June 23 2015
Clarke determined for Ashes victory
Australia captain Michael Clarke spoke of the fierce determination in the squad to win their first Ashes series in England for 14 years.
Sun June 21 2015
Bears brush aside Vikings
Birmingham Bears moved second in the t20 Blast North Group with a six wicket victory over Yorkshire Vikings at Edgbaston.
Sun June 21 2015
Carefree England are refreshing
Phil Walker of All Out Cricket, told Cricket Writers On TV, that the new carefree and exciting England team will make mistakes, but that's okay while they're learning.
Sat June 20 2015
Morgan: Support has helped us
After clinching a 3-2 victory in their ODI series against New Zealand, England captain Eoin Morgan thanked the fans for their support, which he hopes will play a role in the Ashes.
Sat June 20 2015
Williamson named Man of the Series
Kane Williamson gives his reaction after being named Man of the Series in New Zealand's ODI loss to England.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
The France Metals Report has been researched at source, and features latest-available data for steel, aluminium and other major globally-traded commodities. Our analysis covers all primary indicators, including production, exports and price, with our forecasts underpinned by our macroeconomists global economic outlook. The report analyses trends and prospects and critically evaluates latest industry news, trends and regulatory developments in France.
Our France Metals Report provides industry professionals and strategists, sector analysts, business investors, trade associations and regulatory bodies with independent forecasts and competitive intelligence on the metals industry in France.
Key Benefits
- Benchmark our independent metals industry forecasts for France to test other views - a key input for successful budgeting and strategic business planning in the France metals market.
- Target
Author:Mike Kinge-mailWeb: www.companiesandmarkets.comPhone: London: +44 (0) 203 086 8600


text:
Tomb Pillar
The two Tomb Pillars shown here probably stood on either side of doorways in Han Dynasty tombs. Rollers and stamps were pressed into the soft clay to create the designs on the shafts of the Pillars. Similar images of an official wearing a robe with wide steeves appear between the knees of one figure and on the base of the other Pillar, and similar designs of dragons appear on both Pillars. While stamped earthenware architectural elements from Han tombs are well known, those with grotesque human figures on top are rare, and only a few examples are known. All seem to have come from China early in this century, and the meaning of the half-human figures with large heads and bulging eyes remains a mystery.
This text refers to these objects: ' 37.124; 37.123
- Medium: Earthenware
- Dates: 206 B.C.E.-220 C.E.
- Dynasty: Han Dynasty
- Dimensions: Height: 49 5/8 in. (126 cm) (show scale)
- Collections:Asian Art
- Museum Location: This item is not on view
- Accession Number: 37.124
- Credit Line: By exchange
- Rights Statement: Creative Commons-BY
- Caption: Tomb Pillar, 206 B.C.E.-220 C.E. Earthenware, Height: 49 5/8 in. (126 cm). Brooklyn Museum, By exchange, 37.124. Creative Commons-BY
- Image:
- Record Completeness: Best (85%)


text:
New WILDFLOWER candle, exclusively for Rachel Ashwell
We are thrilled to announce our newest collaboration with one of our favorites, Rachel Ashwell of Shabby Chic Couture. Isn't it pretty?
To celebrate the opening of Rachel's newest venture, The Prairie Bed & Breakfast in Texas, we joined forces on this spectacular co-branded candle and we just know you'll love the final product! Our new candle, WILDFLOWER, is inspired by the Texas wildflowers that grow on the prairie and which we've blended especially for the occasion. Can't get to Texas, but want a candle of your very own? Give The Prairie store a call at 979-936-6907!
Rachel Ashwell is a self-made business woman who founded the iconic brand known as Shabby Chic in 1989 when, as a single mother of two young children, she looked to open a small shop where she could sell 'pretty things' without spending much time or distance away from her children and opened her first store on trendy Montana Avenue in Santa Monica, California.
Her vision and love of vintage style and flea-market has always struck a cord and inspired our like-minded aesthetic here at Linnea's Lights. Rachel will release her seventh book titled Rachel Ashwell Shabby Chic Inspiration and Beautiful Spaces published by Cico books in October 2011, and we can't wait to get our hands on a copy!
For reservations: The Prairie by Rachel Aswhell, www.theprairiebyrachelashwell.com 5808 Wagner Road Round Top, TX 78954, 1-979-836-4975


text:
Ready to Camo your new baby's ride?
At long last it's here!
Introducing our NEW
Our Mossy Oak New Break-Up car seat cover is a universal size that fits most baby seats.
Still need more Camo Baby?
Dress him up in our Camo Baby Boy Creeper.
This adorable outfit comes in the Realtree pattern and in sizes Newborn, 3-6 mo., 6-12 mo., 18-24 mo., and it has snaps for easy diaper change!
Check out the rest of our Camo Baby products.


text:
Added to My List as a guest*.
*Your guest list will be temporarily saved until you end this browser session.
Jim's Organic Coffee Whole Bean Sweet Love Blend -- 12 oz
Oops! Something went wrong and we were unable to process your request. Please try again.
Ambrosian Aroma with Full Bodied, Smokey Taste
• Complex Blend
• Roast: Dark
• In a Word: Uplifting
Jim's Organic Coffee:
Is a 100% organic coffee roaster. Is shade grown. Is fairly traded. Is Kosher. Use only the finest 100% Arabica beans. Roasts in a 100% renewable energy plant. Guarantees your satisfaction.
We immediately vacuum package our coffee into this one-way valve bag to ensure roaster freshness. The bag makes a great container, expel air and reseal with tape.
Great coffee starts with great beans. Jim selects only the finest organic coffee. He should know, he started the organic movement and continues to support farmers obtaining their very best year after year.
We source from the beautiful places; where rainforest conditions, clean water, and biodiversity lead to clean, full taste. We then roast to coax consistently amazing character out of each batch.
We are proud of our business, and where our coffee comes from. Most of all, we are proud to provide you with the distant daily enjoyment of a cup of Jim's Organic Coffee.
Thank you for your support.
-Jim and the gang.
Brew Great Coffee!
Use 2 tablespoons ground coffee per 6 oz cup. Adjust to taste. Use good water – spring or cold tap.
Vitacost price: $8.39
Vitacost price: $8.39
Vitacost price: $8.39


text:
Midwest Living Review
Fine craftsmanship fills the showroom in downtown Madison. Whether you're there to admire the tables and chairs or the locally produced art that hangs on the walls, you'll be impressed at the quality. We visited in mid-April, when the store was running a semiannual sale, and we were amazed at the reasonable prices. Many were marked down 30-50 percent, meaning you could get a handmade kitchen set for as little as $600. Though they are beautiful, the three-plank hardwood cherry and walnut tables also are made for everyday use, with tung oil and urethane finishes to ensure it won't take on water rings from glasses. Tables from the artistic collection are designed to showcase each piece of wood, and a "curly cherrywood wow table" uses a hardwood unique to southeast Indiana. Choose from pieces in the showroom, or design your own. The shop also will deliver.


text:
Main Content
This item ships within two business days.
$4.99 flat rate shipping. See other shipping options.
You're a free spirit. Grab your tote bag full of paper, paints and charcoal, and hit the park to stretch your creative muscles in the Sketch Up Rebel top from Volcom. With splatter graphics, a loose fit and a high-low hem, this gorgeous tee combines romantic splashes of color with eye-popping black streaks for a fresh, gritty take on a classic tee. Settle into the grass, observe the world around you and create something — anything! The world is your canvas.
- 100% Cotton fabric
- High-low hem
- Imported
- Model is 5'7" and measures 34-26-35
- Model shown is wearing size XS
- Patch pocket at left chest
- Tagless collar
- Volcom cotton slub T-shirt
- Volcom screen print graphics
Other Customers also liked:
Special event items are produced by manufacturers only after the outcome of a game or event. These are advanced sale items and will ship immediately after they are received in our warehouse.
Manufacturer direct items are shipped directly from the manufacturer. These items are not available for international or expedited shipping.
Customized items can be personalized with options such as your name, your favorite number, and/or designs. Some options may be limited by league rules.


text:
Guest Bloggers
Experience a Wisconsin vacation or memory through the personal stories and photographs of local celebrities and hometown favorites. Guest Bloggers
TagsAccomodations Amy's at Woodhaven Antique Shops Appleton Art Galleries Arts Attractions Augusta Victorian Rose Bed and Breakfast B&B Bakeries Barlow Planetarium Bayfield Bed & Breakfast Biking Boating Cabins & Cottages Camping Casinos Cedarburg Chili Circus World Concerts Contests cooking classes Cream City Brick Cross-Country Skiing culinary school Date Ideas Destinations Discover Wisconsin Discovery Door County Eau Claire Entertainment Events Exploring Facebook App Fairs / Festivals Fall Fall Colors Fall Playlist Family Fun Fan Favorites Festivals / Music Fish Fries Fishing Food / Drink Frank Lloyd Wright Friday Fish Fry fun Getaway Giveaways Golfing Grand Geneva Resort and Spa Granite Peak Guest Blogs Hiking / Running / Walking Historical Destinations History / Heritage Horseback Riding Hunting Ice Fishing Tournament Ice Skating Indoor Activities Kayaking Kohler Lake Geneva Lake Winnebago Laura Ingalls Wilder Mad Rollin' Dolls Madison Mark Tauscher Milwaukee music National Mustard Museum Native Culture Nature Outdoor Fun Packers Packers Hall of Fame Pie Places to Stay Potpie Ringling Bros. Circus romance Ropes Course Shopping Skiing Sledding Sleigh Rides Snow Conditions Snowshoe Trails snowshoeing Soup Sports Spring State Forest State Parks Sturgeon Fishing Sturgeon Spearing Summer Summer Fun Report Summer Playlist Summerfest Supper Clubs Surfing Sweaterize Yourself Swimming Symphony The American Club Theater Tours & Trails Tours and Itineraries Travel Green Travel Wisconsin Uptown Art Vacation Vegetarian Water Ski Water Sports Waterparks / Swimming Waterslide Weekend Getaway Winter Winter Fest Winter Festival Winter Sports Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Wisconsin DNR Wisconsin Fishing Wisconsin History
The Wisconsin State Polka Festival
Last Updated: 5/5/2011
We love our polka in Wisconsin, it's a fact! How much do we love it? We have the Wisconsin State Polka Festival in Sullivan, May 13-15, 2011.
Read More
The Morel Mushroom Festival
Last Updated: 5/2/2011
The Morel Mushroom Festival includes mushroom contests, a parade, arts and crafts, flea market, ball tournaments, carnival, wine tasting, food vendors and much more.
Read More
The Waterfalls of Wisconsin
Last Updated: 4/28/2011
Bubbling, roaring, and uninterrupted. With the recently melted snow, Wisconsin waterfalls make for picture perfect spring scenery. Take a hike through the rolling terrain, or find places to relax and enjoy nature. Here are the must-see stops for these natural beauties.
Read More
Caving Destinations for the Wisconsin Spelunker
Last Updated: 4/25/2011
Explore a world of beauty that lies just beneath your feet! Wisconsin is home to a number of sandstone and limestone caves ready to explore.
Read More
Celebrate Earth Day with Wisconsin Green Travel
Last Updated: 4/20/2011
Start your exploration with our Travel Green Directory featuring restaurants, hotels and venues that support environmentally friendly practices
Read More
Wisconsin Bird Watching
Last Updated: 4/18/2011
With so many spectacular birding locations around the state, welcome back our feathered friends at one of these prime locations.
Read More
Between the Bluffs, Beer, Wine, and Cheese Festival
Last Updated: 4/14/2011
Gear up your taste buds for over 200 quality brews, 45 varieties of wine from local and worldwide vintners, and samplings of gourmet cheese at the 9th annual Between the Bluffs Beer, Wine and Cheese Festival is almost here.
Read More
Stop and Smell the Spring Flowers
Last Updated: 4/11/2011
Spring is in the air and Wisconsin's public gardens will soon be bursting with color! Enjoy the sights and scents of the season while strolling alongside flower covered beds and past tranquil expanses.
Read More
A Wisconsin Guide to Geocaching
Last Updated: 4/7/2011
Imagine a real-life treasure hunt. Just you, your GPS and the great outdoors. It's hot, it's exciting and it's a big hit here in Wisconsin. We're talking about geocaching!
Read More
The 2011 Eau Claire Jazz Festival
Last Updated: 4/4/2011
Wisconsin is gearing up for warm weather and that can only mean one thing… festival season is almost upon us! Get ready for the 2011 Eau Claire Jazz Festival.
Read More


text:
Only hotels in Lehighton are listed below. Search for the cheapest discounted hotel and motel rates in or near Lehighton, PA for your upcoming personal or group travel. We list the best Lehighton, Pennsylvania hotel and motel rooms. Browse the Lehighton area hotels to find the perfect lodging! Please use the provided map of the Lehighton hotels. Group booking? Search Lehighton Group Hotel DiscountsThe Lehighton center point is about 2 miles from Mauch Chunk Museum and 3 miles from Jake Arner Memorial Airport.
Lehighton Hotels, Motels & Accommodations
Next 20 Lehighton Hotels > [1 - 20 of 50]
Next: See My Lehighton Hotels with Pricing >


text: I have an netgear WNDR3300 router, and was wondering if anyone knows what the different color lights indicate? I am referring to the one on the front panel for the ports. Most of the time they are green, but lately the one for the Magic jack is amber, I looked though the manual and found nothing about the lights.


text:
Look and feel your best with these healthy eating tips & workout strategies.
There are actually some brides out there who aren't obsessed with wedding diets—and we found 'em!
Get in wedding shape fast with this 20-minute full-body conditioning workout.
We're here to save you some time with the best workouts for every wedding dress style.
Stick out from thousands of She said yes! Instagram posts.
Overwhelmed by the infinite pins on social media's wedding inspiration mecca? Focus on these standout boards.
You could wait for your guy to ask—or you could try one of these 10 wacky tactics (at your own risk)!
Waxing? Packing? Highlights? We've got you covered.
From whether or not you can wear white to how long you can really wait to give a gift, we breakdown the new do's and don'ts of "I Do" season.
When it seems like everyone is asking when he'll pop the question, here's how to handle the situation with poise.


text:
Jump to content
|Last action by
|I want an old Mac... Donald! in Apple (Mac) Discussion & Support
|Windows 10 Insider Preview in Microsoft Beta (Windows 10)
|Official Dogs vs Cats in Poll Station
|Win 10 Preview to RTM question. in Microsoft Beta (Windows 10)
|Mobile Device Desktops in Tablet, Media Devices & Smartphones
Posted 03 January 2013 - 22:28
Posted 04 January 2013 - 01:16
OK no need to be an ass cause we don't agree.
^ Or at the very least, someone with a functioning brain...
Posted 04 January 2013 - 03:02
Posted 04 January 2013 - 03:12
OK no need to be an ass cause we don't agree.
Many birthers, such as Pennsylvania attorney Phil Berg, allege that Obama was born in Kenya and that his Kenyan grandmother is on tape saying that she was present at his birth there.
Yet the tape circulated on the Internet doesn't actually say that — and the full tape actually contradicts it.
On the tape, the woman thought to be Sarah Obama is prodded by a Berg ally who's a self-described bishop from the U.S. to affirm that Obama was born in Kenya.
"Was she present when he was born in Kenya?" Bishop Ron McRae asks in the taped phone call.
"She says yes she was. She was present when Obama was born," says the voice of translator.
The tape ends abruptly.
Despite Berg's assertions, the response didn't actually confirm a birth in Kenya. Moreover, a longer version of the tape shows the elder Obama decidedly denying a Kenyan birth immediately after the first tape was cut off.
"I would like to go by the place, the hospital where he was born. Can you tell me where he was born? Was he born in Mombasa?" McRae is heard asking.
"Obama was not born in Mombasa. He was born in America," the translator says after talking to the woman.
"I thought he was born in Kenya," McRae asks again.
"He was born in America, not in Mombasa," says the response. Another response later says, "Obama in Hawaii. Hawaii. She says he was born in Hawaii."
Still, the charge has spread despite no evidence that Obama was born in Kenya and compelling evidence that he was born in Hawaii.
Read more here: http://www.mcclatchy...l#storylink=cpy
Posted 04 January 2013 - 03:20
We don't have the Money for Sandy relief but have $711 billion for the military.
Whether you believe Obama is U.S., Kenyan or an Alien.... so far as President, he has done more good for America than Bush or any other GOP contender has to date. Sorry, while Romney was busy flipfloppin, Obama was working. While he is now worrying about the "fiscal cliff" and economy, the GOP is busy trying to deny funding for Sandy Relief.
Posted 04 January 2013 - 03:23
We don't have the Money for Sandy relief but have $711 billion for the military.
That's what being "fiscally responsible" means
deflection much?


text:
A VERY small Beatrix Potter drawing has sold for nearly £50,000 at an auction in America.
The three-and-three-quarter inches by six inches ink and watercolour had been expected to sell for up to 37,500 at the Sotheby's auction, in New York, but reached £47,438
The miniature, called 'Guinea pigs going to their garden...' was among 193 original illustrations sold by wealthy American couple, Kendra and Allan Daniel. The painting depicts four guinea pigs following a fifth along a path carrying garden tools.
A spokesman for Sotheby's said: "Early in 1893, when she was in her twenties, Beatrix Potter borrowed a number of guinea pigs from her friend, Miss Paget. One, named Mr Chopps, proved to be no problem but another, named Queen Elizabeth, apparently 'took to eating blotting paper, pasteboard, string and other curious substances and expired during the night. A pair of gardening illustrations date from this time: four guinea pigs following a blue-coated guinea pig and four guinea pigs working under the guidance of the blue-coated guinea pig.
"These were later redrawn in 1922 and used in Potter's book Cecil Parsley's Nursery Rhymes."
TWO thirds of the red kites released in Grizedale Forest last summer have survived the harsh winter.
Wildlife rangers believe that around 20 of the 30 birds released in the Forestry Commission's three-year re-introduction programme made it through the winter and are still in Cumbria, or nearby counties. Between five and eight of the birds are believed to be living around Grizedale and the Rusland Valley, with another three to five inhabiting the Kirkby Moor area near Ulverston.
Four more Grizedale red kites have been spotted by RSPB experts at feeding stations in Dumfries and Galloway – the furthest known movement is by the bird tagged as number four, which has flown 120km north west into Scotland.
"The birds are doing pretty much exactly as we expected, which is very encouraging," said Iain Yoxall, Forestry Commission wildlife ranger. "We are more confident that these birds will make it to adults now they have made it through a harsh winter. Sadly we lost a few birds but that is natural and why we have to release the numbers that we did."
The 30 red kites released from a secret location in Grizedale Forest in August last year had coloured tags on each wing. An orange tag on their left wing shows they are from Grizedale, and blue tags on their right wings indicate that they were released in 2010. Some birds were also fitted with radio transmitters to help with monitoring.
Mr Yoxall, who has been following the birds' movements around Cumbria, said the help he has received from the public had been invaluable. "I have been radio tracking the birds but sightings from members of the public have been a fantastic help and greatly appreciated. This has been very important because it helps us find the birds and backs up our radio tracking results to give us a more robust picture of their movements. We hope that the public will continue letting us know when and where they make sightings of the red kites."
This year's birds will hatch in May and are likely to be released into Grizedale Forest in August. The red kites being introduced into Grizedale are the product of a reintroduction programme that took place in Northamptonshire in the 1980s.
Red kites were almost eradicated from the UK following changes in farming practices and human persecution between the 16th and 19th centuries. But they managed to cling on in Wales, and their numbers recovered slowly thanks to the actions of local conservationists


text:
Top Searches:
Horoscopes |
Salaries |
Washam |
July 22, 2013
Links: Australian Glass and the Pacific Northwest at Museum of Glass
Wsu Master Gardeners of Pierce County at Master Gardener of Pierce County
The Shape of Things by Neil Labute at Dukesbay Theater
All events for today »
Submit an event | All events
Drama, Suspense/Thriller
Thomas Craven is a veteran homicide detective for the Boston Police Department and a single father. When his only child, 24-year-old Emma, is murdered on the steps of his home, everyone assumes that he was the target. But, he soon suspects otherwise, and embarks on a mission to find out about his daughter's secret life and her murder. His investigation leads him into a dangerous looking-glass world of corporate cover-ups, government collusion and murder -- and to CIA operative Darius Jedburgh, who has been sent in to clean up the evidence. Craven's solitary search for answers about his daughter's death transforms into an odyssey of emotional discovery and redemption.
Rated R for strong bloody violence and language.
Visit the official site
Cast: Ray Winstone, Danny Huston, Mel Gibson, Peter Hermann, Shawn Roberts
Produced by:
Directed by: Martin Campbell
Written by: William Monahan, Andrew Bovell
Running time: 1hr 48min
Opens: Jan 29, 2010 Nationwide


text:
We know Ron Shusett best as the writer and producer of Alien, as well as the producer of Total Recall. But if things had turned out differently, we might remember him as the creator of Pentizel, a movie about a feline woman stalking a dystopian future cityscape. Artist Ron Miller worked on Pentizel, and here he shares some never-before-seen concept art and production photos from the project, exclusively at io9.
Warning: Sketches of naked cat-lady may be NSFW.
Top image: Pentizel in the Northeast Corridor.
After completing Total Recall and Freejack, Alien writer/producer Ron Shusett spent several years trying to raise interest in a project called Pentizel. Hundreds of drawings and paintings were produced by artists such as Steve Hickman, Michael Wm Kaluta, Mark Rogers, Karl Kofoed, Bill Weiger and myself.
The film, based loosely on a short story by Charles de Vet, would have taken place in a near future where security and surveillance cameras were ubiquitous. Meanwhile the entire east coast of the United States from Boston to Washington has merged into an unbroken urban jungle called the Northeast Corridor.
An unscrupulous and globally powerful news network called Omninet is able to tap directly into these sources, enabling it to broadcast events even before the authorities are aware something is taking place. In the course of their 24/7 monitoring, a strange creature is discovered stalking the back alleys of the inner city. After broadcasting several attacks made by it, they are approached by a scientist who claims to have created it... and deliberately turned it loose.
The creature he has named Pentizel is not a woman who looks like a cat... but is literally a cat. He has manipulated the genes of a female black panther so that it has the intelligence and outward physical appearance of a human. In short, Pentizel is everything Catwoman can only pretend to be. The top anchor man at Omninet thinks it would be a fine idea to keep all of this from the police and to continue covering the catwoman's attacks. Better yet, he thinks it would drive ratings through the roof to orchestrate a hunt for her... and broadcast it live. He recruits one of his top reporters to do this. The reporter does eventually catch up with Pentizel...only to discover she's a great deal more than he or anyone else has bargained for. And not the least of his discoveries is that Pentizel has been manipulating Omninet and her creators as much as they have her...
Here are some concept sketches of some of the environments and devices in Pentizel, plus some other creatures. And some prosthesis tests. Keep scrolling down for more concept art of Pentizel herself.
I was always impressed with Pentizel, because it would have been one of the vanishingly rare "monster" films with a creature that was not only wholly sympathetic but largely in control of the situation. Nor was the moral situation presented as being wholly black and white. While the real "monster" is clearly the Omninet anchor, the other major characters are not nearly as unambiguous, especially in their relationship with Pentizel. Also, as the artwork shows, Pentizel would have been filled with some striking images. Sprawling cities that make the LA of Blade Runner look like Levittown, secret genetics labs filled with insane mutant monsters, organ farms and hyper-intelligent, seductive cat-women.
And I always really liked the tag line that was going to be used for the film: "Beauty IS the Beast!"
Sadly, after nearly a decade of effort, the project was never picked up...
Hunting Pentizel in the Biohab.
Pentizel's Creator
Pentizel and the Reporter/Hunter
Pentizel at the window of her hideout
Pentizel by Bill Weiger
Pentizel by Herb McGihon
Pentizel by John Trotta
Pentizel by John Trotta
Pentizel by Mark Rogers
Pentizel by Herb McGihon
Pentizel by Steve Hickman
Pentizel in the Ruins of GenTech
A scene from the movie
Comparative anatomy
Pentizel Sculpture by Weiger
Pentizel Sketch
Pentizel Stage One, sketch by Bill Weiger
Pentizel with body hair removed, sketch by Bill Weiger
Pentizel Stage 3, Post Surgery Sketch by Bill Weiger
Pentizel by Ron Miller
The Anatomy of Pentizel


text: I will just say this. Everyone has a right to their opinion. However if I do not like something than I don't watch it. It seems as if some people don't like anything about what the WWE is putting out. Life it to short to spend time on something that you do not enjoy.


text:
Gardener's Best® Pepper Grow Bag Kit
Customers Also Bought
New & Exclusive | Grow-Anywhere Kit for Peppers Has a Customized Support
- Grow delicious peppers in a compact space
- Grow Bag is sized for optimal growth
- Sturdy integrated Power Tower support is 3' high
- Choice of 5 colors
Grow delicious peppers in just one square foot of space! Our new Gardener's Best® Pepper Grow Bag uses less planting mix, and top-to-bottom nylon handles make it easy to move. It's made from patented fabric that air-prunes roots for stronger, healthier plants. The fabric also aerates soil, prevents heat build-up and allows excess water to drain away. The Integrated Power Tower cage is a generous 3' high, with three height-adjustable rings to provide sturdy support. Double-sewn channels in the Grow Bag anchor the cage securely in place. Grow Bag folds for storage. Reusable year after year.
- Grow Bag: BPA-free polypropylene, nylon handles
- 12-1/2" in diameter x 11" H
- Holds 20 quarts of planting mix
- Power Tower: polyethylene, steel; 3' H
- Grow Bag is made in USA
- Gardener's Supply Exclusive
Reviewed by 2 customers
Sort by
Best Uses
I am growing sweet peppers on my deck in this planter bag. The support cage works REAL well
- Was this a gift?:
- No
Best Uses
The pepper grow bag easily allows the home gardner to expand his growing options and the support cages fit nicely into the slots sewn into the bag and are easy to assemble.
- Was this a gift?:
- No
Product InstructionsDownload instructions for Gardener's Best® Pepper Grow Bag Kit as a PDF
There are no special shipping restrictions or charges associated with this item. For detailed information about our delivery methods and charges, click here.
We're proud of the fact that this item is shipped to you directly from our warehouse in Vermont, by one of our 250 employee-owners. In-stock items are packed with care and shipped within the next business day to ensure prompt delivery to your home and garden!


text:
Wednesday, September 07, 2005
A Cool Mathematical Analogy For the Holy Trinity, Part II
I'm not sure I see how Elena's post helps. The alleged problem with the Trinity isn't that we can't really understand it or that it's nonsense. If this were the supposed problem, then analogies could help. But, the problem is different. The alleged problem is that we understand the doctrine quite well enough to see that it is logically contradictory. The foe of the Trinity says, in effect, you can use all the Lewisian "flatland" analogies or musical analogies or geometrical analogies you like: none of them will change the fact that there's a self-contradiction in the heart of the doctrine.
To elaborate. The doctrine, very roughly, tells us that the Son is God, the Father is God, and the Holy Spirit is God; but the Son is not the Father or the Holy Spirit, the Father is not the Son or the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is not the Father or the Son. In other words, it looks like the doctrine commits us to the following contradictory views. First, the Son is God: S=G. Second, the Father is God: F=G. Third, it's not the case that the Father is the Son: ~(F=S).
If S and F are both identical with G, then S must be identical with F. Think of it mathematically: 4+4=8, and 6+2=8. Therefore 4+4=6+2. But in the case of the Trinity, this necessary and obvious truth about identity is denied. So, the charge goes, the doctrine is contradictory.
One might try to reply to the charge by cashing out the "is" in "The Son is God" as indicating something other other than identity. But what? Obviously, it's heretical to think of it as a parenthood relation. (The Son is not part of God: God is not composed of the the three Divine Persons, for God is absolutely simple and incomposite.) So what other sense of "is" can you substitute if not identity?
One might try invoke the doctrine of "relative identity." This is a rather technical move, which some very competent philosophers have endorsed in recent years (most notably van Inwagen). But it's tricky, not least because it involves the rejection of a real identity relation and may wind up heretical after all. And the logically revisionary character of the move detracts from its attractiveness. I do believe, though, that Suarez endorsed relative identity in the case of the Trinity, so it surely has precedent in the philosophical tradition. Of course, St. Thomas had no sympathy for this sort of move: but again, it's awfully tough to make St. Thomas's view work out.
I myself believe with the certainty of Faith in the revealed truth of that God is Three Persons in one Substance, but I still recognize the seriousness of the logical problem here. And I don't think thought experiments like Lewis's or Elena's really help with that.
Interesting. Isn't the logical problem overcome, though, by the prior recognition of the possibility that one Being can subsist in three persons? For us, one Being is one person, but how can it be ruled out logically (or axiomatically) that Being and person may not always be in a one-to-one relationship? I think, then, that the flatland analogy is quite relevant, precisely because it hits upon this difference of perception and defined realities which is the prior axiomatic consideration before we even get to logic. The flatlander says that there are only two dimensions, so that talk of a third dimension is meaningless and incomprehensible to him.
So Lewis was maintaining that this is how we are with regard to the Holy Trinity. We can't imagine one Being (even God) existing with more than one Person. But who's to say that we understand all of reality and that there isn't something more?
We know that there is a third dimension and that a cube has a oneness in a "greater" sense than a square possesses oneness. It's more complex, yet it remains a single entity. We can't comprehend with our thinking abilities alone, how God could subsist in three Persons, but it is not logically impossible or intrinsically self-contradictory, in my opinion. I think it's just very difficult to grasp, and must be accepted primarily by faith.
Revelation claims that it is a communication from this greater world. We arrive at the Trinity from revelation, not natural reason. But it's not inherently contradictory if we allow the possibility of three persons in one God, and don't rule it out beforehand.
That's how we can say the Father is not the Son, etc., and not be contradictory, because it isn't polytheism we're talking about, but rather, distinction of Person only.
You ask: "Isn't the logical problem overcome, though, by the prior recognition of the possibility that one Being can subsist in three persons? For us, one Being is one person, but how can it be ruled out logically (or axiomatically) that Being and person may not always be in a one-to-one relationship?"
I don't see how the logical problem is overcome by saying (something that I, of course, believe wholeheartedly) that person and substance need not always stand in a one-to-one relationship. Indeed, there are philosophers today who would gladly grant that there can be more than one person in relation to only one substance. Imagine you believe that being a person is strictly a matter of having the capacity for (conceptual) thought. So if an object can think, it's a person. But now imagine a human being who has suffered some kind of serious brain surgery (a commisurotomy, which severs the brain hemispheres, say), and can, as a result, think in two disconnected "centers" of thought. In a case like this, many people would be inclined to say that there are two persons that somehow inhabit that one human body. So it's not inconceivable, by any means, that there be more than one person in relation to just one substance.
The real question is—what's the nature of those person/substance relations? In the imaginary case above, we wouldn't be at all tempted to say it's an identity relation. Neither of the two persons is identical with the human body. But in the case of the Trinity, the claim is exactly that: the persons are all identical with the Divine substance, but they are not identical with one another.
I think it is easy to gloss over the difficulty here. Even the great Dominican Thomist Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange treats the issue far too cavalierly. In his Reality, he wrote: "The objection runs thus: Things which are really identified with one and the same third thing are identified with one another. But the divine relations and the divine persons are really identified with the divine essence. Hence the divine relations and the divine persons are identified with one another. The solution runs thus: Things which are really identified with one and the same third thing are identified with one another; yes, unless their mutual opposition is greater than their sameness with this third thing. Otherwise I say no. To illustrate. Look at the three angles of a triangle. Are they really distinct one from the other? Most certainly. Yet, each of them is identified with one and the same surface."
Now I myself find this very perplexing. The angles surely are really distinct. But nobody would try to suggest that angle A=surface Y, where surface Y is the whole triangle! Angle A=surface Y if and only if surface Y just is that particular part of the triangle that the angle, so to speak, occupies. But then there's no problem of identifying angle A and angle B with some third thing (i.e. surface Y). For it would be silly to say angle A=surface Y, and angle B=surface Y. On the contrary, angle B=surface Z. Indeed, as I pointed out in my initial post, it's quite obviously heretical to cash out the "is" in "the Son is God" as implying a parthood relation between the Son and God. So there's no comparison between Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange's "illustration" and the actual case at hand.
I'm inclined to think the matter cannot simply be brushed off as a matter of our failure to grasp the mystery. Of course, we can't adequately grasp the mystery, and the full truth of the matter will not be revealed to me until (God willing) I behold the Beatific Vision. But we can deal with the logical issues. I think they have to be solved, and, as I say, I'm skeptical that flatland-type illustrations help.
Changing keys: I'm sure illustrations like that do help people who aren't deeply troubled by the (slightly technical) logical worry I'm posing. St. Patrick's lesson with the shamrock, Frank Sheed's brilliant discussion of the Trinity, Lewis's analogy or Elena's might very well be of great help in leading people to a better grasp of this central truth of the Christian Faith, and so I don't mean at all to deny their value. I only want to deny their value in defusing the real logical worry.
What I'm not grasping is your objection! You wrote:
"the persons are all identical with the Divine substance, but they are not identical with one another."
I still don't see how this is a logical contradiction, once you grant the possibility of the trinitarian premise: God can subsist in three persons. To make a VERY imperfect analogy, I am a father, a son and a husband. All those things are me (though not all of me; as I said, it's imperfect):
A. Dave is a son.
B. Dave is a father.
C. Dave is a husband.
Once you grant what you did ("Indeed, there are philosophers today who would gladly grant that there can be more than one person in relation to only one substance"), then why do you still maintain that a logical contradiction is entailed? I don't think it is. So in the above analogy, I can be all three things, but that doesn't mean they are identical with each other:
a son qua son is not a father qua father, (etc.)
The concept of "Dave" (the totality of my being, self, or whatever term you wanna use) includes all these things (and many more) as an overarching concept, without contradiction:
1A) Dave is a son of Graham and Lois Armstrong.
1B) This son of Graham and Lois Armstrong is Dave
Armstrong. So "son" = "Dave".
2A) Dave is a father of four children: three boys and a girl.
2B) This father of four children: three boys and a girl is Dave. So "father" = "Dave."
3A) Dave is the husband of Judy.
3B) This husband of Judy is Dave. So "husband" = "Dave."
But no contradiction is entailed. This father and this son and this husband are all me, but it doesn't follow that a father equals a son: that they are the same thing in relation to each other; no, they are different in that relational sense.
Therefore, if I can be all three things simultaneously and yet remain the same person, yet son and father and husband remain distinct categories, why is it contradictory for God to contain three persons (analogous to my three relational attributes) and remain one God, and also for the three persons to be distinct in relation to each other, yet each being God?
Perhaps I'm missing something here, and I am quite aware that you are trained in philosophy and I am much less so, but that's what was in my mind (for better or worse), so I thought I'd throw it out to keep the dialogue going. I really want to learn more about this. I think it's very stimulating. This is the kind of "bottom line" philosophy and mind-exercise that I love.
I think the trouble with your analogy about your being a husband, a father and a son is that at least the first two are what might be called "phase sortals," as opposed to what might be called "substance sortals." Your being a husband is an entirely contingent matter: you could have existed without being a husband. (I demonstrate this truth by pointing out that you did exist, for quite a few years, without being a husband, and it's always valid to infer possibility from actuality!) Similarly, your being a father is entirely contingent.
Your being a son is a trickier matter, since one might think that sonhood is an essential property—something you couldn't possibly fail to instantiate if you exist. This is hard to make a decisive ruling on: is it possible that God have created you—not someone otherwise exactly like you, but actually you—without your having been the son of your parents? I'm inclined to say "no," but I admit to being in over my head here. So sonhood is a tough one to figure, as far as its essentiality goes. But we'll say more on this in a moment.
Go back to fatherhood and husbandhood. Given what we've said about the contingency of your exemplifying these properties, it follows straightaway that you, Dave, are not identical with some object (or essence) we might name "Father Dave." If you, Dave, were identical with that thing, then you could not possibly exist without that thing existing. But you did exist without that thing existing. So fatherhood is just a property you exemplify contingently, and thus it is not going to help with the Trinity, where, again, the central logical worry is the identification of the persons with the Divine Essence.
You might think sonhood is different than fatherhood, if you agree with my tentative suggestion that your being a son is an essential property. Since (for the sake of argument) you could not fail to exist without being a son, then that property is, at any rate, relevant to the discussion. I still don't think so. To see why, consider the following. It might make sense to say that you, Dave, are (identical with) a son. It might make equal sense to say you are identical with an animal; to say that you're identical with a carbon-based life form; to say that you're identical with a thing with an immortal soul; to say that you're identical with etc. All of these identity statements might be accurate, but that's just because they're all different, partial ways of describing what it is to be a human being. None of the descriptions really purports to be identifying you, Dave, with that partial description. If they did, they'd be false. (I mean, it's true that you're identical with a son, but that's not all that's true of you: it's only a very partial, and pretty uninformative, description.) In the case of the Divine Persons, this isn't going to work, or at least, I don't see clearly how it will work.
It certainly will not work if it makes Sonship a mere essential property of Godhood, in the way that sonship is an essential property of yours. For then "sonhood" becomes simply a partial way of describing God, and that's no good. (I don't know if this reduces more clearly to Modalism, or to a rejection of the incompositeness of God, but I think it reduces to one or the other.) But if this isn't what it's doing, then I don't see what it is doing.
A further point is that all the properties that you identified as part of the concept of Davehood (so to speak) are quite compatible. There is no conflict—nothing at all worrisome—about your being both a husband and a father. It is, however, precisely the point of the Trinity that the persons have incompatible relations. The Holy Spirit, for example, proceeds from the Father and the Son. The Father, however, does not proceed from anyone. These properties are contradictory. So the issue is a lot more complicated than your having a number of quite compatible properties.
I'd sure be happy if I could wind up endorsing something like St. Thomas's solution to the problem. But as I say, it's trickier than it might seem. The central issue is identity. I think if you're going to solve the puzzle, you've got to clearly show how the real identification of two things with a third thing doesn't require you to identify the two things. I don't think the analogies help with this.
Incidentally, there are some recent papers on these problems available online. They are, in some instances, pretty technical. Michael Rea has written a couple of papers [one / two ].
A nice paper by Trenton Merricks is available. [link]
A key paper to see in terms of defending Relative Identity is van Inwagen's "And Yet They are Not Three Gods, But One God," but I don't believe that one is online. If you have access to an academic library, you can find it in his collection God, Knowledge, and Mystery.
I should also point out that I have never really thought philosophically about the Trinity. I believe the doctrine, and so I believe there is no contradiction to be found. But I've never even tried to work out my own solution. Perhaps, once I get to it, I'll find St. Thomas's compelling. Perhaps I'll lean more towards Suarez. I don't know. Anyway, I just wanted to point out that I'm groping here as much as (or, perhaps, significantly more than) anyone. My perplexity over the details is very real.
8 comments:
- Ryan Herr said...
I've got a google blog search alert set up for "frank sheed trinity", and this post just popped up, evidently four years after the fact.
Let me recommend the excellent and accessible paper In Defense of Mystery by James N. Anderson, which introduces a cool new acronym: MACRUE (merely apparent contradiction resulting from unarticulated equivocation).
One of the problems with Frank Sheed in Theology and Sanity is that he fudges between implying that nature means individual nature and implying that nature means universal nature. If nature means universal nature, then you get tritheism. If nature means individual nature, then you get a contradiction, because by definition there is a 1-to-1 correspondance between individual and individual nature. If nature means something else, then Sheed didn't share what he had in mind, and didn't point back to his sources. And speaking of sources, the terms Sheed uses and the ways he uses them seem both somewhat traditional but also somewhat idiosyncratic.
- Fri Sep 18, 11:11:00 AM EDT
- Dave Armstrong said...
So you're critiquing him from a specifically Thomist approach?
- Fri Sep 18, 11:27:00 AM EDT
- G|_3/\//\/ said...
- This comment has been removed by the author.
- Sat Apr 12, 12:14:00 PM EDT
- G|_3/\//\/ said...
- This comment has been removed by the author.
- Sat Apr 12, 01:17:00 PM EDT
- G|_3/\//\/ said...
- This comment has been removed by the author.
- Sat Apr 12, 01:25:00 PM EDT
- G|_3/\//\/ said...
Ok, here's a link to actual C programming code I came up with that acutally works (according to the compiler) and proofs that the Trinity isn't all that contradictory, it all depends on the context. As with all pointers declarations, it's easier to read each line from right to left to know how the pointers work. http://www.thegeekstuff.com/2012/06/c-constant-pointers/
Of course, this isn't suggesting exactly how the Trinity actually works...but i find this approach doesn't exactly fall to much into aspects of modalism, tritheism or hierachism (despite the use of nested pointers, access is still on the same level, and initialization is synchronous). Also, if you think about it, it matches the chronologicla order of the revealing of persons in Scripture, and how the Son points to the Father and the Holy Spirit points to the Son, etc. and yet different and unique from one another. Yet, all of them equate to God nevertheless.
Now, my only critique of the code is "Bleh, that's just a trick with the pointers...". BUt as always, it's just an illustration.
- Sun Apr 13, 12:47:00 PM EDT
- Dave Armstrong said...
Interesting stuff, but over my head!
- Sun Apr 13, 02:53:00 PM EDT
- James Rinkevich said...
Theology for Beginners is more on point with this.
- Fri May 29, 02:21:00 AM EDT


text:
Have you seen an article or an interview about Terry online?
Post a link to them here.
Terry was interviewed last night on BBC Radio 4's Front Row and it's available to 'listen again' HERE.
You need to click on the 'listen' link. The actual Terry bit starts at '05.30'.
Not sure how long it will be available for or if our members from outside the UK will be able to access it.


text:
Welcome to the Operations Division of the Roseville Fire Department.
The men and women of the operations division are committed to providing the highest quality emergency services available. It is important to our personnel that their customers are always happy with the service they receive and they are known for going above and beyond the normal call of duty to make sure this happens.
We always welcome our customers to drop by any fire station to say hi and get to know your neighborhood firefighters
Kathryn Finney, Division Chief of Operations