text:
Use of Waterstones by Philip Pasteur
Ok lets start from scratch here. The concept was to try to answer the question "Why Waterstones" I described the knife and the steel above as well as my methodology. To recap, I had sharpened this knife before going through all of the Diamonds to 1000 (I did not use the 50 and 80 grit, started with the 100 grit plates). Then I had run through the four ceramic stones and stropped with i micron on WEPS leather. I liked the edge just fine, but as I will be displaying this knife I wanted a very reflective edge. I went back to the 600 grit diamonds with 50 stroke and up through the 1000 grit diamonds. Then I started with the ceramics. I did about 75 strokes trailing edge, 50 or so leading edge, and finished with about 25 0r so trailing edge strokes at each grade.
(Edit: I did run the Ceramics wet per Clay's suggestion. They "feel" better that way. Rather than his sponge idea, I just lightly spritzed them every 25 strokes or so)
I stopped and took 3 or four photos after the ceramics trying to cover the entire blade. I did this after each grit. After the ceramics, I went back to the 1000 grit Chosera stones, then 2K, 3K, 5K, 10K and finally the 12K Naniwa Superstones. I tried to do the same number of strokes at each grit. I then went to strops at 1 micron and 0.5 microns on leather, 0.125 CBN and 0.1 diamond on kangaroo and finally 0.050 and 0.025 on nanocloth. I actually must have some contamination on my strops. There were more scratches after the 1 and 0.5 micron on leather than after the 12K stone. Somewhere along the line I got some bigger scratches while using the 'Roo and nanocloth. I am not even going to post those photos because they have nothing to do with waterstones...
Now, I know that these are not perfect. I definitely need to work on the camera work. Any and all comments to help me get better are welcome.
I think it is pretty clear, even with the rough camera work and magnification levels that there is a definite difference in the visible scratches after running through the waterstone progression. What is not apparent from these photos is the huge difference in the reflectivity of the bevel. I tried to take pics, but the camera has a hard time teasing out the differences, at least at my skill level. I could take a photo after the ceramics that showed phone book text pretty clearly reflected from the edge. After 12K the difference is pretty amazing to the eye, now you start to see the irregularities in the text. I could not make the camera show this. Also, with the knife in the vice, I would turn the light on overhead, and the eyes were immediately drawn to the edge due to the glinting and multiple reflections.
You need to see it to believe it. If you do, you will start to question it when some talk about using their Lansky with a rough 2K grit to make a real mirror edge.. or at least try to get some kind of definition of what that means to them... or how to measure it.
Anyway, enjoy and comment away.
There has been some claims that tthe Waterstones are messy in use. I suppose that this is relative. Compared to the diamonds or Ceramics, perhaps that is true. But maybe it is just a different kind of mess. I get quite a bit of metal dust/shavings when using the Diamonds this has to be cleaned up and the arm joints protected from its abrasiveness. The ceramics take regular cleaning if you want them to look and work as new. This involves significant time, scrub brushes and abrasive cleaners.
With the Choseras, SuperStones or Shaptons, I do use water. The Choseras get a 10 minute soak at least. The SS I usually do the same, even though they are listed as splash and go. I just like the way the feel better after a soak. I spritz the shaptons ever 15 strokes or so and wipe them off to keep them as cleans as possible. This maintains their precision. g I spritz the Choseras and SS abot every 25 strokes and spread the mud produced evenly over the stone. I find this maximizes their polishing properties. On the coarser Choseras, say up to 1K, when I pull them out of their soak, I rub them against each other until I develop some decent amount of slurry.
Anyway, the picture below is right after I used the 2K Choseras for around 150 strokes per side. You can see the "mess" produced. I don't find it much worse than the steel dust and deal with it in the same way, a quick wipe with a damp sponge, and everything is as good as new...
So, using the water stones involves a bit more work. I don't use them for every knife. Probably only 20% of the knives that I sharpen. At this level I am sharpening for fun and to tease that final bit of reflectivity out of each edge. I don't have anything else that will do what my water stones will, so to me, in these situations, it is more than worth the small amount of extra effort to get there.
This is all done in the pursuit of the perfect edge, after all.
(This page is locked and cannot be modified. For comments to this page, please use the Discussion page.)


text:
Saturday, May 8, 2010
Coins zipped securely in my tiny green and white plastic change purse, off I raced to school, excited shivers tingling up and down my spine as I headed into class. Third grade, fourth or fifth, I sat impatiently in my seat, squirming through the Pledge of Allegiance as I waited for my teacher to pull out her order book and call us up to her desk, one by one. I carefully placed my coins, quarters, dimes and nickels, each one so carefully saved and counted again and again, on her desk and handed her the paper on which was listed my order. Books. Lovely, wonderful, magical, delicious books. And then the terrible, excruciating wait would begin, how many hours, days, weeks before I would walk again into that classroom and spy the brown carton sitting on one corner of her desk, before she would hand me my treasures, before I could rush back home, pedaling as fast as my legs would go, and climb into my special reading spot up in the front yard tree or flat on my stomach on a towel in the grass next to the dog or curled up tight in a corner of the sofa and crack open a brand new book and plunge into a new, mysterious, far away world?
Every Sunday night for so many years, we would line up in front of dad as he sat at his wooden desk and count out the coins, placing them in our hands, money for school cafeteria lunches, rewards for good grades on report cards, trusting us to spend our money wisely. We knew that we could keep the money, save it for buying little pleasures, chosen treats, if we woke up extra early every morning and packed our own school lunch, tucking sandwich, fruit, snack cake into a brown paper bag and carrying it off with us to school. The quarters, nickels and dimes often found their way to the candy store, buying jawbreakers and lovely necklaces of tangy sweet pearls in pastel colors, bright red plump wax lips and Pixy Stix or Boston Baked Beans. But most of my money would go for books. In grade school we received a tiny catalogue once a month or so with the choice of books and I spent hours agonizing over my selection, adding up the prices and counting out my coins over and over again, scratching out one choice and replacing it with another. I wanted so many! Or the Bookmobile! Once a year we would arrive in the morning and see that big converted school bus, the Bookmobile, parked on the blacktop, a fascinating place, better than the public library because here whatever we walked out that door with was ours for the keeping, ours forever!
And when I couldn't purchase a book, own it, call it my own, read it, savor it over and over again, I would borrow one or two. The public library was a fascinating, exciting place full of fabulous riches. Once a week after school or on a Saturday morning I would race to the public library on my bike past the honking gaggle of geese who lived in the tiny canal that fronted the building, I would push open the glass doors and step into this sanctum sanctorum, my Holy of Holies, cool silence only broken by the hum of the air conditioner or the muffled stacking of books, and a peaceful calm would wash over me, the calm of coming home. I would flip through the index cards or run my fingers across a row of spines, looking for colors or titles or anything that would jump out at me, beckon me, urge "Read Me! Read Me!" and I would. I checked out the maximum that they would allow, watch with pride as the Librarian stamped the card that lived in that slot glued to the inside cover of the book and then I would carry them home, my ticket to adventure.
I loved reading. Always have, still do. Books are Aladdin dens of treasures, secret, hidden worlds to delve into, a place where you can become anyone you choose. I always longed to be someone else and looked for like-minded souls in all the little girls I read about: Beezus' pesky little sister Ramona in her overalls with her red wagon, tagging along behind Henry just when he didn't need a shadow, getting him into trouble once again; or running away from home with dissatisfied, self-sufficient Claudia and her kid brother Jamie (!), armed only with a pocketful of coins, hiding out in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, having that whole fascinating place to themselves at night!; or Fern, Fern, that little girl on that farm saving a tiny piglet from an untimely and unfair demise, raising him and learning all about life and death and friendship. But I really felt a sisterly connection to the Odd Girl Out, those awkward, ungainly girls, the girls who don't fit in anywhere, the girls who desperately longed for a best friend and a place in the world. Ah, yes, did I know how they felt! And I loved those books the best and read them over and over again: Jane of The Moffats, clever little girl, the third of four children, as was I, raised by a widowed mother during the Depression years, a girl who had to be resourceful, honest and independent all in the ominous shadow of that "For Sale" sign planted in front of their dear, old house. Or Ellen Tebbits, easily embarrassed, constantly teased, getting herself into trouble time after time simply because of her own bungling and clumsiness and simply longing for that one best friend. And Elizabeth, self-proclaimed "loneliest child in the whole U. S. of A." And, again, searching for the answer to all her troubles by finding a best friend. And she does. A witch.
Clumsiness, awkwardness, loneliness, trouble and outlandish, accidental shenanigans all seem the common thread through these favorite books of mine. Yes, sadly I identified with these girls. Yes, I dreamed of being The Little Princess, living in poverty up in her garret only to be discovered by an Old Indian Gentleman who kindly recovers my riches for me. Or Ramona, powerful in her peskiness, Jane or Ellen all dressed in beautiful pink dancing gowns and whirling gracefully around the stage. Or Elizabeth, finding the most intriguing best friend, solitary, odd and uncommon yet powerful in her knowledge. I escaped into this other world as often as I could, my nose always resolutely buried between the pages of a book and living out my rather strange and simple fantasies. Fantasies neither glamorous nor otherworldly, simply the dreams of a girl who felt herself awkward and out of place and who just wanted a best friend.
I still love these non-heroines, women who swim against the social and cultural tide, women who, despite every effort just simply cannot be other than themselves: clumsy, foot-in-mouth, far from perfect Bridget Jones, too clever for her own good, practical Elizabeth Bennet, quiet, self-effacing, Little Dorrit, tomboy Scout Finch asking too many questions and proper ("steady"), honest Fanny Logan watching the high-spirited, flamboyant cousins swirl around her in a dance of wild abandon and eccentric escapades. Or the elusive, mysterious, sensuous Rosa Saks and her aubergine toenail polish, inspiring men by her beauty and intelligence as easily as she drives them mad. I adore reading of women who go their own way, thumb their noses at the world, women who, we come quickly to understand, are powerful in their intelligence and singularity, women who never let go of their values or morality no matter their debauched, eccentric, wild sisters or friends, no matter they often feel shunned or lost or left behind.
I have created these gorgeous pink macarons in honor of each of these smart women, women with a wicked sense of humor, unusual, unique women. Whether young or less than young, no matter the age they live in, each one of these girls and women still fascinates me to this day, fascinates and inspires, for no matter how clumsy, no matter how unfashionably clever or out of sync somehow with the world in which they live, each of them opens her heart to love and friendship, the understanding of life and death, each one of them, in the end, is loved for who she really is, just as she is. My kind of women, indeed!
And hopefully we all end up with our own Mr. Darcy!
This month's Mactweets challenge asks us to create a macaron inspired by our favorite childhood book or character. I have created the Girl Power! Macaron inspired by and in honor of the girls and women in these fabulous books, some of my favorites for both young and old (ahem!) alike. A delicate pink (though I must admit I was trying for a bit more pink) shell painted with egg white and dipped in flavored colored sugar filled with bubble gum and candy, melted Malabar or Carambar candies folded into a white chocolate ganache. Sweet and tangy with just something tart about it, a subtle bite, a dash of humor and so much Girl Power!
The Moffats by Eleanor Estes
Ellen Tebbits as well as the entire Henry & Beezus series by Beverly Cleary
jennifer, hecate, macbeth, william mckinley, and me, elizabeth and From the Mixed Up Files of Mrs. Basil E. Frankweiler by E. L. Konigsburg
Charlotte's Web by E. B. White
The Little Princess by Frances Hodgson Burnett
Pride & Prejudice by Jane Austen
To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee
Little Dorrit by Charles Dickens
Bridget Jones Diary by Helen Fielding
The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier & Clay by Michael Chabon
The Pursuit of Love and Love in a Cold Climate by Nancy Mitford
The shells are made with the same basic recipe I used to make my Chocolate Macarons with Pink Praline Filling, my Blueberry Hibiscus Macarons, my Chocolate Espresso Sea Salt French Kiss Macarons, my Coffee Macarons and my Violet Macarons:
200 g powdered sugar
110 g finely ground blanched almonds
3 large egg whites, about 112 g
30 g granulated sugar
1 tsp powdered food coloring
Click on any one of the links about for full recipe and step-by-step how-to pictures.
Brush the tops and sides of the shells with egg white and immediately dip into colored sugar or candy sugar (like Pixy Stix) until coated. Turn upright and allow to dry.
100 ml (3/8 cup) heavy cream
125 g (4 3/8 oz) white chocolate
55 g (2 oz) Carambar candy or Malabar bubble gum*
* Although Mathilde preferred the flavor of the Malabar filling, the bubble gum was extremely difficult to work with, bits staying solid to no avail. It also appeared that in the cooling process some of the melted gum resolidified. It also left bowls and silverware with spots of gum and a greasy film that is impossible to eliminate, at least without a dishwasher. The Carambar, on the other hand, melted beautifully and produced a smooth, creamy filling although it really had to be chilled and even popped into the freezer for some time until it was firm enough to hold.
Simply place the heavy cream and the candy in a small saucepan over a low flame and heat, stirring, until the candy is melted and the liquid is hot. It shouldn't be allowed to boil.
Chop the chocolate and place in a pyrex, metal or other heatproof bowl. Pour the hot pink cream over chocolate and stir until the chocolate is melted and everything is smooth and well blended. Allow to cool a bit and then place in the refrigerator until chilled and firm. This may be best done the day before filling your macarons.
Pipe a dot of filling on the bottom shell of each pair of shells and sandwich together. If the filling isn't quite firm enough just pop the filled macs in the fridge.
These were a bit too sweet for me (but Clem and Mathilde loved them) although eating all of that candy, the tart, flavored sugar, the Carambars, the marshmallows and other candy we had bought for the pictures, reading the bad jokes found inside each Carambar candy and putting on tattoos found inside the bubble gum (though JP took all the best!) brought me back to a joyous place long ago, brought me back to those afternoons in Florida eating candy, admiring my temporary Girl Power tattoos and curling up with a wonderful book!
46 comments:
- The Cooking Ninja said...
Gorgeous Gorgeous! Poppet would happily pop it all down in seconds. :) Luckily she loves food and don't hid them under her pillows as treasures. :)
- May 8, 2010 at 5:53 AM
- Sarah, Maison Cupcake said...
I used to love the Ramona stories! Beverly Cleary wasn't it? And Charlotte's Web was definitely a favourite. My son loves the film that came out a few years ago with Julia Roberts doing the voice of Charlotte.
I love your pink macarons, that pink chocolate stuff looks brilliant and reminds me of the sadly disappeared Pink Panther chocolate that Aoife at Daily Spud recently reminded me about.
Not sure I'll manage my macs this month... I am flat out at moment!
- May 8, 2010 at 6:04 AM
- Mardi @eatlivetravelwrite said...
Awesome Jamie - love them! Making mine *as we speak*
- May 8, 2010 at 6:15 AM
- LoveFeast Table said...
We love it!! Pink-a-licious!! We think they would go lovely with our upcoming pink drink designed by our friend, Greg!! And, we definitely believe in a little girl power! :)
Cheers! Chris Ann & Kristin
- May 8, 2010 at 6:20 AM
- LoveFeast Table said...
We love it!! Pink-a-licious!! We think they would go lovely with our upcoming pink drink designed by our friend, Greg!! And, we definitely believe in a little girl power! :)
Cheers! Chris Ann & Kristin
- May 8, 2010 at 6:20 AM
- shaz said...
Oh how beautiful Jamie. Both the pretty pink macarons and the story of you and your bike and books. I had a bike too although we used to take the bus to the library every week. I still remember those pockets on the front of books, and the bit that was stamped by the librarian. Such wonderful memories.
You go girl!
- May 8, 2010 at 6:21 AM
- Barbara Bakes said...
So pretty in pink! I think my boys would love this flavor. They're big fans of bubblegum ice cream. Thanks for the reminder of the Bookmobile. We had one that would stop on our street in the summer.
- May 8, 2010 at 6:43 AM
- tspegar said...
i loved the bookmobile! i looked forward to that and, literally, had completely forgotten about it until i read your post. things never stay the same... do they? love this month's mac idea and can't wait to read the others... i will be posting soon!
- May 8, 2010 at 7:15 AM
- s. stockwell said...
A rich and rewarding post if I ever saw one! You are such a fine writer and the macarons are spectacular.
- May 8, 2010 at 7:33 AM
- Asha @ FSK said...
Ooh! what a lovely tale indeed and one that ends in gorgeous macs! Perfect Jamie!! Yet again, i bow to you :))
- May 8, 2010 at 7:50 AM
- Rosa's Yummy Yums said...
Awww, so so pretty and girly! You are a macaron queen!
- May 8, 2010 at 8:14 AM
- Bonnie said...
As I read your post I was transported back to my own childhood. Those books you mentioned were some of my favorites as well. We used to ride our bikes to the Carnegie Free library once a week to get new books. On the way home we stopped at a little bakery and bought a treat to eat on the shady lawn as we started reading our new books. We also bought books from the scholastic book company at school. What a wonderful post to go along with your beautiful macarons.
- May 8, 2010 at 8:21 AM
- Half Baked said...
Wonderful post! I was the same way as a child. I remember not being able to sleep because I wanted to find out what happened in Arabian Nights or to Ramona. I don't think Charlotte's Web left my hand until it was completely devoured! Thanks for bring back those memories and posting such scrumptious looking macarons!
- May 8, 2010 at 8:35 AM
- RJ Flamingo said...
Charming, Jamie! You have such a way with words - and macs! Must make mine this afternoon when hubs goes off to play!
- May 8, 2010 at 8:58 AM
- shellyfish said...
Great memories! Scolastic book orders were the most monumental event at school!
Charlotte's Web is currently Guppy's favourite flim (the old cartoon from the 70s, which was my favourite when I was her age). Can't wait until she's old enough to read it!
- May 8, 2010 at 9:00 AM
- Jamie said...
Ah thank you, ladies, for jogging the old memory! Yes! Scholastic book orders! Ah, those were the good old days!
- May 8, 2010 at 9:10 AM
- Lora said...
First of all the macarons - GORGEOUS! And wonderful, fun flavors. Your beautiful story absolutely transported me. Ramona and Charlotte and I were total besties and I must have read A Little Princess at least 100 times. I also checked out the maximum allowed library books each weekend and couldn't wait to get home to dig into them. Love this post. Girl power all the way!
- May 8, 2010 at 9:15 AM
- Elisabeth said...
Ce n'est pas le même parfum, mais la couleur est imbattable, et c'est plus maniable que le Malabar : la fraise Tagada. Pour citer un article récent dans Libé, "La fraise Tagada, c'était le mercurochrome de l'âme posé sur la langue et le bout des doigts."
J'ai également mangé des crèmes brûlées parfumées au Carambar : un délice.
- May 8, 2010 at 10:26 AM
- Jamie said...
@Elisabeth: Merci! J'ai hesité devant les Fraises Tagada mais je n'étais pas sure. Merci pour la prochaine fois!
- May 8, 2010 at 10:42 AM
- Ana Powell said...
Well done, awesome post.
Beautiful photos x
- May 8, 2010 at 11:43 AM
- MeetaK said...
we do have the same heroines. swimming with the flow is easy - it makes us stronger when we swim against it once in a while! simply delicious looking macarons jamie!
- May 8, 2010 at 1:26 PM
- MeetaK said...
oh and we do have the same taste in men - Mr. Darcy - swoon!
- May 8, 2010 at 1:28 PM
- 5 Star Foodie said...
The pink macaroons are so pretty, the white chocolate ganache filling is awesome!
- May 8, 2010 at 5:25 PM
- Heavenly Housewife said...
Beautifully done! The little princess is one of my favourite all time stories. I must admit, i've never read the book, but i love the shirley temple movie. She says this line, "every girl is a little princess" and those are words which have stuck with me forever. I really believe that.
Your macs are totally fit for a little princess... like me :)
Have a wonderful weekend.
*kisses* HH
- May 8, 2010 at 11:13 PM
- Happy Cook said...
They looks beautiful and i just love that gnache.
Happy Mother's day.
- May 9, 2010 at 3:03 AM
- faithy, the baker said...
your macs are so lovely! pink is my fave color and i love how you presented it! Sooo pretty!
- May 9, 2010 at 3:43 AM
- Cathy said...
What a fantastic macaron post, Jamie. Your macarons are an inspiration to those of us just starting that journey. Just getting ready to post this month's offering.
- May 9, 2010 at 6:25 AM
Malgré les petites difficultés rencontrées avec la ganache, les macarons étaient délicieux! tout le monde les a adoré chez moi! Merci encore Jamie pour cette journée instructive et très riche en calorie!
A bientôt!
- May 10, 2010 at 2:54 AM
- astheroshe said...
I love your sugar topping..soo cute! Gives that macaron a different spin.
- May 10, 2010 at 4:13 AM
- Aparna said...
Gorgeous and pink macarons. Here's to girl power, Jamie!!!
I love reading and only wish I could write like you do. :)You've got lots of my favourites on that list.
Still remember when our daughter, then 4, accused my husband and me of being bookworms. That was only till she discovered the world of books!! LOL
Today the one thing that can make her really happy is one more book to read.
One of our favourite past times, as a family, is to spend time browsing books in a bookstore! ;D
- May 10, 2010 at 8:30 AM
- Françoise @ chocoparis said...
These sparkly macarons are simply spectacular! Your post was such a pleasure to read. Thank you for sharing.
- May 10, 2010 at 9:19 AM
- ABowlOfMush said...
Aww these are sooo pretty and so much fun!!!
They're really gorgeous! :)
- May 10, 2010 at 9:36 AM
- Nicisme said...
Love the macarons, great post Jamie!
- May 10, 2010 at 2:08 PM
- Deeba PAB said...
You go sistah, you are just too good you know. The power of pink here is astounding! I can hear the pennies clink in the back of my head. Now I remember so man more books that I read, and yeah, girl power ruled!! Love this flood of pink!! Your macs are beautiful and perfect ... Gorgeous stuff!
- May 11, 2010 at 7:52 AM
- Mowie @ Mowielicious said...
Oh so pretty in pink! Did you think of me when you were making these? Lovely post as always Jamie x
- May 11, 2010 at 1:54 PM
- Lorraine @ Not Quite Nigella said...
Oh Jamie, no wonder we get along so well! I feel an affinity with that girl too! :D Wonderfully put I must say!
- May 11, 2010 at 3:48 PM
- Jamie said...
@Mowie: Yes I did indeed, honey! True!
@Lorraine: Yes we do for all these reasons and more.
- May 11, 2010 at 11:21 PM
- Mary said...
The macarons are lovely, Jamie, but I want you to sit down. You can't be The Little Princess. I am The Little Princess:-) How I loved that tale as a child. Your post today was quite special. I hope you are having a great day. Blessings...Mary
- May 12, 2010 at 7:09 AM
- lisaiscooking said...
I used to love our school book fair. I'd place a big order and then couldn't wait for the books to arrive! If only I'd had a platter of these lovely, pink cookies to nibble on while reading those books.
- May 12, 2010 at 3:03 PM
- dining room table said...
Lovely. That is one word that would best describe your macarons! They are so adorable!
- May 12, 2010 at 7:39 PM
- The Duo Dishes said...
This is talent right here! You never cease to amaze.
- May 13, 2010 at 1:27 PM
- Cristie said...
I love the decor on the tops of your macarons- thank you so much for the tip on how to accomplish that!
I had a bike with a basket that I would ride to and from the library with a dear friend. Your post brought back some sweet memories. This entire theme, reading everyones posts has been so enjoyable. Thank you!
- May 14, 2010 at 11:47 PM
- Mamatkamal said...
You're such a great writer Jamie! You make me feel like I'm right there with you, watching you makig those perfect pink macarons, admiring your work!
Lovely post, you're La Reine des Macarons!
- May 15, 2010 at 5:15 AM
- Lisa Michelle said...
OMG OMG OMG, I feel like a kid in a candy store. In fact, you could be the inventor of macaron candy with those gorgeous babies! SO SO creative and beautiful!m I rememeber the bookmobile and how excited I would get when we could choose what we wanted. I can almost smell the library thinking about it, and hear the librarian telling me to 'shhhh' as I excitedly waxed on over the books I wanted to read..lol
- May 15, 2010 at 11:33 PM
- Kitchen Butterfly said...
Gorgeous pinky, ladylike macs....and my son recognised what they were from the rows of piped batter. I fear I have to give Macs up soon.......hmmmm
- May 16, 2010 at 11:28 AM
- asiangrrl said...
Jamie, I loved Ramona and Fern and "The Little Princess". I can also relate to your longing to fit in and your love of books. however, I must ask, can you frost my macarons with black frosting instead? That would make them absolutely perfect.
- May 30, 2010 at 10:59 PM

subset: commoncrawl


text:
- English (2) (remove)
- Cyprus (1)
- Frankfurt <Main, 2003> (1)
- Globalisierung (1)
- Grenzüberschreitung (1)
- Kongress (1)
- Kulturelle Entwicklung (1)
- Osteuropäische Einwanderin (1)
- Prostituierte (1)
- Soziale Situation (1)
- Zypern (1)
- Freedom of choice or force of circumstance? : Eastern European sex-workers in the Republic of Cyprus ; paper for the conference 'Alltag der Globalisierung. Perspektiven einer transnationalen Anthropologie', January 16-18, 2003, Institute of Cultural Anthropology and European Ethnology, Johann Wolfgang Goethe University, Frankfurt am Main (2003)
- This paper focuses on Eastern European migrants who, since the beginning of the 1990s, are entering the Republic Cyprus as "artistes". This is a visa permit status as well as an euphemism for short-term work permits in the local sex industry. In addition to exploring the migrational experiences of these women and their living and working conditions in the Republic of Cyprus, the paper reconstructs, empirically and analyt ically, the connection between immigration and the local sex industry. Here, several categories of social actors and institutions in Cyprus are actively involved. The rhetoric of government representatives, entrepreneurs and clients in the sex business on the one hand is contrasted with the discourse of local NGO representatives concerned with immigrants' rights on the other hand. The paper comes to the conclusion that all of these discursive positions ultimately do not do justice to the complex process of decisionmaking that women undergo who migrate into the sex industry. Either, freedom of choice is emphasized – such as by entrepreneurs and the government – or the domination of women – as in the public statements of the NGO. In order to analyze the ambivalent tension between freedom of choice and submission to force by which the women's decision is characterized, the author employs Michel Foucault's concept of governmentality, which describes forms of political regulation that use the individual's freedom of action as an instrument to exercise power.
- Challenging and confirming touristic representations of the Mediterranean : migrant workers in Crete (2006)
- From the perspective of Western Europe the Mediterranean is shaped by the imagery of tourism and migration. During the time of the "guest worker"-migration in the 1960s and 70s the notion of the hopelessly underdeveloped South of Europe which pushes "guest workers" towards the rich North became prevalent here. It offered a contrast which let the beginning prosperity in the North appear even clearer. (see von Osten 2006) Besides the attractions "sea, sun and sand" it was exactly this conception of backwardness which – reinterpreted in authentic and traditional Mediterranean lifestyle – made the area attractive for tourist consumption. Today it is again pictures of the Mediterranean, which represent migration dynamics in Europe. In the meantime, however, the countries of origin of the "guest workers" have become countries of immigration and European Union member states or candidates for accession. The representation of the Mediterranean as an area of migration is dominated now by pictures of desperate refugees and illegal immigrants, who risk their life by crossing the sea, in order to enter the "fortress Europe". In these current representations the "colonial narrative of migrants as members of a territory of underdeveloped" is continued (ibid.). A translation of the migrant area into the tourist area seems, however, more difficult than at the times of the "guest worker"-migration. What constitutes the Mediterranean as a tourist destination seems to have no longer anything in common with the Mediterranean as an area of migration.....


text:
- 10" Cowhide leather roper
- Composition rubber outsole
- Roper heel and toe
- Single stitched welt
- Cushioned insole
Justin Boots keeps it simple and comfortable with the Justin Basics Roper boots. These boots feature a 10" shaft, a round roper toe and a low roper heel. The cushioned insole will help your feet stay comfortable all day. The rubber outsole wears well and works as a slight shock absorber when you walk.
Style(s): JBL3000, JBL3001
Product Reviews for Justin Women's 10" Roper Boots
Reviewed by 4 customers
Sort by
Displaying reviews 1-4
Comments about Justin Boots Justin Women's Roper Boots:
They are really great work boots, I love mine.. Bought them in Kentucky and true to size!! :)
Comments about Justin Boots Justin Women's Roper Boots:
Purchased boots in North Carolina. Love them, my size but cannot get the boots on, help what do I do? Sales clerk was told they were hard to get on, she assured me I would break them in.
Comments about Justin Boots Justin Women's Roper Boots:
These are great little boots. I was looking for a basic pair of black ropers and I didn't mind getting a pair with the rubber sole, especially at this price
Comments about Justin Boots Justin Women's Roper Boots:
Review: Comfortable, awesome fit - purchcased 7 years ago in Houston, Tx. Size 4 l/2 B is not made in Justin Roper. How do I get Justin to make my new pair?
Displaying reviews 1-4
Justin Boots has set the standard for boots of the west making some of the most durable and comfortable men's, women's and kids' boots around. You can count on Justin for great western, casual and original work boots. With the finest leathers and the latest styles in western boots, Justin will always supply the best. Every pair of Justin Boots ever made is built with care and represents the hard work and dependability that won the west. In 130 years of existence men, women and children have been wearing the Justin Boots as a salute to independence and reliability. These boots are for the cowboy and cowgirl in all of us.
With unique styles like the Stampede, George Strait, Ropers and Westerns, Justin Boots continues to lead the way in boot making. The Justin Boots heritage continues to innovate with modern technology like their patented Grip-on-Demand, J-Flex Comfort System and JST while keeping the Justin Boots mystique. So whether you are a Bent Rail fan or a Tekno Crepe fan, you are guaranteed to find the right western boot for you. Check out our selection of Justin Boots and fall in love today.


text:
What began as a sidewalks infrastructure project along routes to schools in Coeur d'Alene blossomed into something bigger when the city used a small non-infrastructure grant for education and encouragement efforts.
Lakes Middle School and Sorenson Elementary School each have approximately 500 students, and most live within two miles of the school. The schools have recently become magnet schools, and some students live too far to walk or bicycle. Neighborhoods around the schools lacked sidewalks along a route that connects to the schools along a busy street and under a narrow freeway overpass.
In 2007, the Idaho Transportation Department awarded Coeur d'Alene a $100,000 Federal SRTS infrastructure grant to construct 1,000 feet of new sidewalks in neighborhoods north of Lakes Middle School and Sorenson Elementary School. The improvements have led to an increase in the number of students walking to school.
The city also received a $1,600 non-infrastructure grant for education and encouragement programs, and several activities further boosted the numbers of students walking and bicycling to school. A series of public service announcements encouraged people to walk or ride bicycles to work and school all week prior to the Walk to School Days in May and October. Safe Routes to School coordinator Kristin Pomerantz, a substitute teacher who is a volunteer and a member of the city's Pedestrian/Bicycle Committee, set up education booths at several local events to highlight health benefits of walking and bicycling, organized bicycle rodeos with helmet giveaways to promote safe bicycling, formed walking school buses and promoted a "Share the Road" campaign using magnetic bumper stickers to change attitudes toward pedestrians.
The after-school coordinator at Lake Middle School helped Pomerantz promote the events with workshops about bicycle and skateboard safety, and middle school students developed video announcements about why students should walk and bicycle to school. The videos were broadcast on the school television channel. In art class, students made posters about walking and bicycling.
Throughout the week, teachers asked students how they arrived at school, and in each class, those who walked and bicycled the most won a free pita from local Pita Pit restaurant. Other students who walked or bicycled received bandanas and reflectors with the SRTS logo. The events were broadcast on the city's web site, through public service announcements and local television.
"The biggest strength has been the efforts of volunteers who stepped forward and spent a lot of their time on Safe Routes to School," said Monte McCully, Coeur d'Alene Trails Coordinator.
In May and October, more than 100 children participated in Walk to School days at Lakes Middle and Sorenson Elementary schools, and their participation resulted in a noticeable decrease in traffic congestion in front of Lakes Middle on those two days.
A benefit both to and from the SRTS program are partnerships that have been formed and strengthened among several organizations, including the city, police department, School District 271, Idaho Department of Transportation, the Coeur d'Alene Pedestrian/Bicycle committee, Panhandle Health District 1 and Terra Sports, as well as volunteers from each school, the Chamber of Commerce and the North Idaho Centennial Trail Foundation.
Coeur d'Alene volunteers intend to continue organizing walking school buses and bicycling activities at schools, making physical improvements near schools and expanding the existing school curriculum to include more pedestrian and bicycle education safety programs for students and parents, according to Josephine O'Connor, SRTS Coordinator for the Office of Highway Operations and Safety with the Idaho Transportation Department.
Monte McCully
Coeur d'Alene Trails coordinator
Kristin Pomerantz
SRTS Volunteer Coordinator


text:
Only hotels in Sunman are listed below. Explore our guide for inexpensive and discount hotel/motel rates in or near Sunman, IN for your corporate or personal leisure travel. We provide the best Sunman, Indiana motel and hotel rooms. Browse the Sunman area hotels to find the perfect lodging! Please use the provided map of the Sunman hotels.The Sunman center is around 15 miles from Mercy Franciscan Medicenter and 18 miles from Creation Museum.
Sunman Hotels & Accommodations
Next 20 Sunman Hotels > [1 - 20 of 50]
Next: See My Sunman Hotels with Pricing >


text:
Marriage Equality: A Gen-Y Perspective
KeriLee Horan March 27, 2013 - 3:40pm
Yesterday morning, I logged on to Facebook just like every other day. The first update in my newsfeed was from a friend who had changed her profile picture to a pink equal sign with a bright red background. I read the description: "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution." Universal Declaration of Human Rights- Article 16:1 (1948). Well, I agree with that. I thought, so I liked her photo, closed my browser and went on with my day. At lunch, I checked Facebook again and about one out of four of my friends had changed their profile pictures to some variation of the same image. By the end of the day, it was nearly half.
Of course, my Facebook friends may not be the most representative cross-section of my generation. Many of my closest friends are openly gay. I live in New York City. I went to a fairly liberal (Catholic) university for my undergraduate degree, and for graduate school I attended NYU-recognized for its advancement of gay rights. Still, my peers support for marriage equality comes as no surprise. While 51 percent of all Americans support same-sex marriage, the number of those aged eighteen to twenty-nine who support it is 81 percent. My generation, regardless of religious or political affiliation, does not see gay marriage as a big deal. I am a practicing Catholic, I was raised in a conservative Catholic family, and I went to Catholic school until I graduated from college. Like many of my peers, I appreciate the church's teaching on marriage, but respectfully hold a different viewpoint. Over the course of my high school and college career, I, like many others my age, watched friend after friend-many of them also practicing Catholics-struggle with their homosexuality, their decision to come out, and the response from friends and family after they made that decision. More often than not, nothing changed, except their comfort level and happiness. For the most part, their peers accepted their admission without hesitation. It usually took their parents longest to come around to the idea, but they ultimately accepted it too.
Because it has become so much more socially acceptable for men and women of my generation to publically declare their sexual orientation and openly date members of the same sex, because we have become so accustomed to seeing and supporting it, members of my generation find it difficult to draw the line at dating. If my friend can date who she wants, why shouldn't she marry who she wants? And moreover, if I can marry who I want, why shouldn't my best friend be able to do the same thing? It may be a long road to true marriage equality, but, as the Supreme Court hears cases for and against Proposition 8 and DOMA, I have no doubt it will happen eventually. The time will come when all those people who changed their profile pictures to equal signs are in a position of much more authority and influence. Of course there are many people of all ages who disagree with me, but it seems clear that the shift in thinking is well underway.
Commenting Guidelines
As for equality, well, those persons with a same-sex attraction have always had, and still have, the fundamental right and ability to marry. But, as noted above, what is desired is not marriage, that is, marriage marriage - marriage with a person of the opposite sex - but something different, something new -- something unequal to what exists today. The argument is basically that equality demands inequality.But then again, it really is not about equality for same-sex persons or couples. They can call themselves whatever they want. They can hold themselves out to the public whichever way they want. They can even find some churches to "marry" them.No, this is not about the freedom of same-sex persons. This is about compelling everyone else to say "yes, you are married." This is about denying other people the fundamental right to speak freely, it is about requiring them to speak and give public fealty to what they know to be false. In historical parallel terms, it is about making everyone give an oath that the true wife of King Henry is not Queen Catherine, but Lady Anne Boleyn.
Per Jim If mixed-race couples wanted marriage, why didnt they mobilize the legislatures at the state level to change state law?That situation was of course quite different than gay marriage Jim. In those days, the state laws were a perversion of the traditional view of marriage. Worldwide up until American racism took hold, societies did not have rules regarding inter-racial marriage. Most hardly even commented on it.And so in Loving v. Virginia, the supreme court set the state laws right with the federal constitution and with the traditional, non-racist view of marriage
The theology of marriage is not impoverished and neither is the philosophy of marriage for that matter (for our non-religious friends). What is impoverished is the imagination of generations of people who do not bother to give serious thought to fundamental questions.But the question of the nature of marriage is as plain as the nose on one's face. Of course, that does not prevent people from ignoring those noses.No need to get into Genesis here -- the nature of marriage is as plain as the human body, made male and female. It is as plain as -- and sorry to have to get graphic here -- as what actually is involved in (a) the sexual union of male and female, that is, the joinder of their respective pro-creative organs, with an exchange of pro-creative genetic material, with the possibility, by their nature as male and female, of perpetuating their union with children, and (b) the physical union of a man and another man, that is, the joinder of a pro-creative organ with a non-pro-creative organ, with the result of absolutely no possibility whatsoever of perpetuating their union when one's pro-creative genetic material is injected into the other's digestive tract. Again, sorry to get graphic here, but the fact is that there cannot be an authentic and true joinder of a man and a man in their physical coupling. By their very nature, they cannot be "married" to each other.It is only by ignoring the nature of the human person, male and female, and by asserting the power to decree reality for one's self that the fiction of "same-sex marriage" could ever exist.Now, if they want to have legal rights, etc. attached to their union, that is another question, but whatever that union might be called, it cannot ontologically and existentially be called "marriage."
Speaking of before the 5th centure, here is a funeral oration of St Basil the Great by his friend and doctor of the church, St Gregory of Nazianzus that was pointed out to me a few days ago. I am told that in places, one finds not only "philia" but also the words "eros" and "pothos".17. This was the prelude of our friendship. This was the kindling spark of our union: thus we felt the wound of mutual love.[]18. {]In this way I restored his cheerfulness, and by this mutual experience, he was the more closely united to me.19. And when, as time went on, we acknowledged our mutual affection, and that philosophy was our aim, we were all in all to one another, housemates, messmates, intimates, with one object in life, or an affection for each other ever growing warmer and stronger. Love for bodily attractions, since its objects are fleeting, is as fleeting as the flowers of spring. For the flame cannot survive, when the fuel is exhausted, and departs along with that which kindles it, nor does desire abide, when its incentive wastes away. But love which is godly and under restraint, since its object is stable, not only is more lasting, but, the fuller its vision of beauty grows, the more closely does it bind to itself and to one another the hearts of those whose love has one and the same object. This is the law of our superhuman love. I feel that I am being unduly borne away, and I know not how to enter upon this point, yet I cannot restrain myself from describing it. For if I have omitted anything, it seems, immediately afterwards, of pressing importance, and of more consequence than what I had preferred to mention. And if any one would carry me tyrannically forward, I become like the polyps, which when they are being dragged from their holes, cling with their suckers to the rocks, and cannot be detached, until the last of these has had exerted upon it its necessary share of force. If then you give me leave, I have my request, if not I must take it from myself.20. Such were our feelings for each other, when we had thus supported, as Pindar has it, our well-built chamber with pillars of gold, as we advanced under the united influences of God's grace and our own affection. Oh! How can I mention these things without tears. [] We seemed to have one soul, inhabiting two bodies. And if we must not believe those whose doctrine is All things are in all; yet in our case it was worthy of belief, so did we live in and with each other. [] 22. [] and so we became famous[]. For our instructors were known to all who knew Athens, and all who knew them, knew us, as the subject of conversation, being actually looked upon, or heard of by report, as an illustrious pair. Orestes and Pylades were in their eyes nothing to us []
First off, pace many of the posters here, as a member of Generation Y, I haven't seen the slovenly lack of thought/interest among my peers that you project. To quote Bruce many on here seem to act "as though they have all the knowledge [and] no one of any intelligence could possibly see the world differently." These arguments have been done, and to death. The have been going on (unanswered) in this very post! If the church doesn't recognize purely civil acts as either real marriages or their dissolutions as real divorces, what possible difference does it make if that civil definition is expanded? This also attached to Bender's claims on the ontological status of marriage: the church already recognizes two equivocal senses of the term in its own laws concerning marriage and annulment. Civil marriages are not sacramental, ergo, in the eyes of the church, they are not marriages at all! So why all this fuzz about changing something that isn't recognized as much of anything to begin with, at least ecclesially? On the questions of children, the obvious points about those who are infertile and over-age being able to marry has already been raised......and left unanswered. And even Bill O'Reilly (!) has acknowledged that no one has been able to raise a single, concrete harm that will come of this, other than fear-mongering and vague concerns that cannot possibly be disproven because they do not exist! It's like saying, "We shouldn't elect a pope until we are 100% certain that there is not chance he will somehow harm the church." That conclave would be a rather long one!Aside from this though, there is a more important element that touches on the many references to those who know gay people in relationships and marriages. Earlier, Bruce mentioned the issues of hating the sin but loving the sinner. This may actually get to something quite important. The reason that this approach is abandoned is not that suddenly we think sin is unimportant, but precisely because we recognize that this IS NOT SIN! Many Catholics have experienced (or are in, since gay people are not simply found outside the church) Christ through gay relationships. They have seen grace. In my own case, I have a cousin who, though he knew his intended had a life-threatening and debilitating brain condition that could "go off" at any moment, chose to marry him anyway. And when that condition finally did set off a series of potentially deadly strokes, the fidelity, care, and self-effacing love that was shown was an inspiration to anyone who knew them. Many people I know learned what marriage was from these two men, not from some abstract generalization about ontology. They recognized grace when they saw it, and very, very good fruit. According to the church, the very best that could be said of this relationship is that it was somehow the "lesser of evils" (and more likely that it is a threat to the entire created order). Those who can see it needn't argue against such ideas; they are self-evidently absurd. This is not intellectual laziness or "going with the flow." It is having the capacity to recognize the eruption of grace when it is before our eyes.This, of course, does not mean that all gay marriages would be this way, any more so than all straight marriages are holy unions that show forth and help sanctify those around them, as Todd very nicely put. But it does, I think, show that there is nothing IN PRINCIPLE, that indicates that gay marriage is an obstacle to grace. And if it is not, it is not sin.
I'd like to thank Jim Pauwels for thanking KeriLee. Those in pastoral activities need to understand the forces that have formed Our Young People's opinions and address their attitudes in a friendly way.Harrumphers, Baby-Boom blamers, and the "it's just not natural" party do not understand that, however misguided by Church standards the GenY view of homosexuality and marriage is, it is guided by a basic kind-heartedness. Matthew Sheppard is their Emmet Till, and until Church teaching against same sex attraction can be purged of the hatred and bigotry it sometimes hides, nobody's going to get anywhere with these kids.
"No need to get into Genesis here ..."Of course not. The patriarchs, with the exception of Isaac, were all about taking extra wives/concubines for all sorts of reasons, mainly to ensure their "pelagian" instincts in furthering their vision of God's plan for a great nation.All I'm suggesting is some clarity. If we're talking sacramental marriage, then our first reference point is Christ, not Genesis. Certainly as Scripture, Genesis informs believers. But it doesn't rule us. Abram was impatient with the covenant, hence the dysfunction of Hagar and Ishmael. Jacob was a wuss and a trickster."The theology of marriage is not impoverished ..."lol. It is when anti-gays stop at Genesis 2. Or treat Genesis as science.
Jean wrote - ...until Church teaching against same sex attraction can be purged of the hatred and bigotry it sometimes hides, nobodys going to get anywhere with these kids.Has it not occurred to anyone that maybe these "kids" have it right and that there is at least a possibility that the church's "traditional" teachings on marriage might not be "right' just as some teachings haven't been right at other times throughout church history? Doctrine evolves.It seems that some reduce the holiness of the sacrament of marriage to a purely utilitarian function- procreation. But, lots of people procreate without any holiness involved. And lots of people have very holy and sacramental marital relationships without begetting children - including those who know themselves well enough to understand that they would make lousy parents, but whose loving and holy sacramental marriage grounds them so that their generosity can still be extended to others in the world, because not confined to a narrow world consisting primarily of their own offspring.Jim Dunn has described a very holy and sacramental marriage - how blessed he was to have had such parents. The holiness and sacramental essence of his parents' marriage was in the committed love relationship of his parents. This type of marital relationship was absent through most of the history of marriage, which served as business contract during history when children were sought primarily for their economic utility to the family business, whether sheep-herding or black-smithing. If, as is possible, the Holy Spirit is whispering, is anyone besides the young open to hearing?
Agree, Anne. "Doctrine evolves." So do non-religious definitions of marriage and the reasons for marriage. Those who think/wish their definition should be THE definition should read some history to see how fluid the concept really is (and how often money is the determining factor).Just one example: Augustine and the mother of his son could have married. She was not his "concubine." (Why he refused to marry her is unknown.)"For a concubine was a woman debarred from lawful marriage by the laws that prohibited the union of persons of known high status with persons of low status. Augustine lacked the sort of high status that the late Roman laws against msalliance were designed to protect. He was sufficiently unimportant to be free to marry whomever he wished." Through the Eye of a Needle: Wealth, the Fall of Rome, and the Making of Christianity in the West, 350-550 AD, by Peter Brown, p. 150.http://www.amazon.com/Through-Eye-Needle-Christianity-350-550/dp/0691152...
Andy -- the kind of sacrificial love of which you speak is a great and good thing wherever it is found. That said, can you be more specific about (sorry to be so blunt) the role of orgasms here? Orgasms are pretty much all that distinguish the love of which you speak from the love of a true and committed friend. But why should a devout friendship that occasionally includes orgasms lead to more societal recognition than a devout friendship without the orgasms?
"Has it not occurred to anyone that maybe these 'kids' have it right and that there is at least a possibility that the churchs 'traditional' teachings on marriage might not be 'right just as some teachings havent been right at other times throughout church history?"Of course, Ann. But the reality is that those who support traditional Church teachings on homosexuality and marriage are ascendant, and traditional Catholics need to understand that, to the larger world, they are not offering a compelling case for their views to many young people.
While I have no read every entry, I am surprised that there has been no mention of John Boswell's master works on tolerance and homosexulaity and especially the latter work of "Same Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe." While controversial, these effectively countered those who believe that there was one monolithic view of homosexulaity and committed union.
No problem with the bluntness at all, but I do think this is a rather reductive view of marriages (one that is perfectly understandable when marriage is seen primarily through the lens of procreation). To be honest, in this particular relationship, I have no idea what the specific role of orgasms are, any more than I do about any other married couple I know. I can only presume, however, that the erotic life of these two men is part and parcel of the covenanted, public commitment and love that they have for one another. Their erotic life (which I would be loath to reduce to orgasm), like that of most good marriages, cannot be separated from their larger commitments. The sacrificial, committed, covenanted love IS erotic love in this case, as it is for all modern marriages. They are the same thing; to quote St. Gregory of Nyssa, "eros is simply agape brought to the point of intensity."
Do you have an answer to my final question? Imagine the same committed love between people, but in the form of dear friendship that doesn't include occasional orgasms. Why doesn't that friendship deserve just as much state recognition?
Also, while somewhat tangential, the complex and long evolving canonical position of the Church regarding anullments would deserve reflection. There is hardly a part of church discipline today that is more relativistic (depending upon place nd culture and availability of canon lawyers!) and trulty undermining of its own proclaimed theology of marriage. Most couples who have sought his realize that they were truly married -with imperfect knowledge or consent or ability to effectuate the bond - but hat they were REALLY married, often giving it their best shot, and it didn't work out. They called it. ow they go back and parse elements for "annulment." Of some value for some, but painfully unnecessary for most...
Remember the national referendum we had on slavery? It was called the Civil War. Historians I've read have said that it would have been unlilkely that "anti-slavery/ freedom from bondage" amendment would have passed even in the North without that blood-letting. and the Confederate states, while eventually adopting the 13th and subsequent amendments, reflected more the coercion than the will of the majority.For those who want referendums to establish the "majority rules" laws regarding gay marriage, our history is not clear that this has been the only vehicle for social change.
Wasting Time--Personally, I have no problem with state recognition of such a union. But since marriage, as currently understood, is assumed to be an erotic relationship--but in a non-reductive sense--it's not really what the conversation is about. Also, the difference between this (as in any marriage) is that it is not simply a devout friendship but, as Jim Pauwels points out above, a PUBLICLY covenanted one. There used to be such a rite for covenanted friendship (see David Pasinski about Boswell, though I think Boswell does stretch the evidence to breaking point in arguing that these were seen as marriages), and I would have absolutely no issue if either the church or state instituted it now, but as it stands currently, eros and the public covenanting of marriage go together.
Also, having relationships of very good friends that are not sexually involved has already been part of our very messy traditions of marriage. The clearest example is the traditional view of Joseph and Mary.
Back to Jim Pauwels and Jean Raber: Thanks are due to KeriLee Homan for a direct and succinct description of her experience as a Gen Xer. And thanks to JP and JR who more than some of us may have direct and frequent contact with Gen Xers, hence their thoughtful pastoral and pedagogic responses. Taken to heart.The whole discussion, which I find fascinating (anyone know how to diagram a discussion?) reminds us that we each speak from a specific context: generation, gender, occupation, marital status, children status, region, urban/rural, education, personal experience, etc. As one born before generation were given nicknames by pollsters and demographers, I would like to mention the following.1. The "Catholic Church" has lost out on this discussion and beating it over the head is, well, beating a dead head. The "Catholic Church" will go on holding views on marriage that are not accepted by non-Catholics, and many Catholics as well. Who is surprised to hear of a pastor who has blessed a same-sex marriage and baptized the children thereof? On the other hand, who is surprised to hear of a pastor who forbids a same-sex couple from receiving communion, singing in the choir, etc.2. Those whose views have been changed in observing the normalness, friendliness, and neighborliness of same-sex marriage and families will in time also have to deal with some such marriages and families that have become as unhappy and as dysfunctional as some "opposite sex" marriages. 3. As someone who grew up in the fifties I find in KeriLee Homan's narrative a strong strand of conformity to the spirit of the times. We are all subject to it. On the other hand, we sometimes have to recognize the limits of agreeing with what our friends and peers think and think for ourselves, hence the value of critical analysis and a certain level of philosophical mulling. That's how we came to have an end to Jim Crow and the civil rights act.4. A minor addendum. One way marriage in the U.S. has changed is that inter-faith and inter-religious marriages, which were once a scandal, are now widely accepted. But not everywhere and by everyone. Why? Because couples, unless one joins the others community [and ends the inter-faith quality of the marriage], often take the easiest path and give up religious practice altogether (see, James Davidson's studies).
But since marriage, as currently understood, is assumed to be an erotic relationshipYes, and therefore what? We're here to challenge the bedrock assumptions about the nature of marriage, no? Why should that assumption lie unquestioned?
Wasting Time--Well, I put the "as currently understood" precisely to show that that is changeable. In fact, it has already changed. It is one of the numerous inconsistencies in Catholic teaching on marriage that, though procreation is the obsessive focus, traditionally many non-sexual couples were married. As I mention above, the clearest example is Joseph and Mary, but there are many accounts of early martyrs (whether historically accurate or not is beside the point) who married people with whom they pledged celibacy. Thus, you are quite correct, "traditionally" there is no requirement for sex to make a marriage (though current annulment law seems to indicate otherwise...if only Mary and Joseph had known!). So please question the assumption, and we might finally start to see that this thing we call marriage is way more complicated than "one man/one woman" permits!
Keri Lee: I don't know if you're reading these comments, but if you are, I'd so like to know how you came to disagree with the Church's position on marriage. I'm assuming that includes its teaching on all aspects of sexuality, and not just who can and cannot marry. Did you ever believe these things? Was Church moral doctrine relating to sex ever presented in detail at school, or did you hear about it mainly from teachers who asked how you and your fellow students *felt* about this or that "issue"? My own children's experience in Catholic schools makes me wonder if that's what more or less passes for "religious education" today. Good teaching in the higher grades clearly requires motivating students to think on their own, but my children never came across a Catholic teacher who managed to impart the intellectual groundwork required to understand Church teaching, much less the tools necessary to seriously criticize it. Instead, students were asked to share personal experiences, the most dramatic of which almost always challenged and rarely undergirded anybody's faith. Little wonder the majority came to the conclusions they did.The point can always be made that parents are the utimate teachers of the young, but we're only one part of the village; the rest matter too....and even more once our children are out on their own.
Margaret, diagramming a discussion might be an interesting exercise. I might try it with my argumentative composition class this spring! I think Beverly gets to something important to the intergenerational discussion, and that is how the faith is presented, not just in Catholic schools, where only a minority of Catholic children are now catechized, but in CCD classes. As important as the intellectual underpinning--which, let's face it, not all children will be able to grasp (I'm not sure I always do)--is the tone with which it is presented. As a teacher now almost 60, I sometimes find it tiresome when students want to wallow around in their "feelings." But that is often a necessary prelude to pushing them them into deeper waters and getting them to examine those feelings and the assumptions they derive from them. My concern is whether any of that pushing is occurring. Or whether rites of passage such as First Communion and Confirmation are merely getting the kids, as our CCD teacher likes to call it, "processed."
"Why doesnt that friendship deserve just as much state recognition?"I'll bite.I think it should. Say my elderly mother and sister choose to live together. Shouldn't there be some benefit to keeping the elderly in families, neighborhoods, and such, and out of corporate housing? If my sister could derive some tax benefit from caring for our mother, I think she should. She's made the sacrifice neither I nor our society have made."Favored" status for people who live together could well be a part of modern society. It's sure a lot better than associating "personhood" to corporations.Also, since it is the sexual act that seems so objectionable, what if the anti-gay movement just went for the criminalization of sex outside of a first man-woman marriage? Then we could have all the unions people wanted.
I cannot, obviously, speak for KeriLee, but in my own Catholic education, I'd say that Beverley's general point stands. I learned very little doctrinally through grade school of any depth (but I did learn how to color pictures!). In the Catholic high school I attended, however, I was challenged enough to begin my own explorations. The one thing I certainly did learn, though, was that birth control was evil, gay marriage an offense against God and nature, and sex was only for within marriage. In other words, my Catholic education was rather weak on the things that matter (the Incarnation, the Trinity, the Resurrection) and very strong on the rules and teachings of the church on sex. This is only my experience, however, so I can't comment about how wide-spread it was.
"If my sister could derive some tax benefit from caring for our mother, I think she should."Just a point of information: she does. An elderly relative can be listed as a dependent, resulting in a lower tax burden for the greater income earner."Family" is privileged over "friendship" in the tax code. This reflects a long tradition of family bonds being part of the fabric of society and public life in a way that friendship is not; friendship being something which occurs in the realm of private life.
Beverly: I am reading the comments, and appreciate the spirited debate this comment thread has provided. In Catholic high school I received a good deal of formal education about the morality of marriage and sexuality (as well as other aspects of the faith). We learned abstinence until marriage, followed by natural family planning. These lessons were based in moral doctrine as well as experience provided by guest speakers. Still, my parents were the biggest influence in my outlook on church teachings and as I said in my post, they are conservative. We still disagree about what marriage equality means and discuss it almost every time were together. Personally, I think my views on sexuality are fairly conservative for my generation and are due, mostly, to the example set by my parents.The shift in thinking began when I started to realize many of the people I was friends with were gay. Most of them, in a rural Catholic high school, were not open about it until they went to college. It wasnt confirmed or denied, it just wasnt discussed. How could I not continue to love them, those to whom I had become so close over so many years, because they told me such a basic truth about themselves? They didnt change at all because thats always who they were. We still fantasized about our future weddings, as teenagers do, except now when I envisioned it, they were standing across from another man instead of a woman. As many of you have pointed out, I did not include a definition of marriage in my post. This is, of course, a distilled version of what I think but to me (and likely to many my age) it is very simple: two people who love each other committing to a lifetime together. I think its the same thing as what my parents have except between two members of the same sex. The discussion of whether or not it should be provided by the church is entirely separate.To the point that Bender raised: Ultimately, if marriage equality were achieved, the word gay would not be applied to it marriage. Homosexual couples dont gay date. They date. The word gay is applied in this discussion because saying something like: My generation, regardless of religious or political affiliation, does not see gay marriage as a big deal takes on an entirely different meaning if the word gay were omitted.Margaret: I believe my generation feels marriage is important. Were waiting until were older to commit to getting married (my mothernow celebrating her 30th year of marriagewas engaged at 22 and married at 23, which is younger than I am right now). My generation is not the generation of 50% divorce rate. Whether we continue the same trend remains to be seen, but in my experience, the divorces of those who have raised us has forced us to take marriage more seriously. Ive had many conversations with people who say I dont want to end up like my parents, instead wanting a long and happy marriage with the right person. I dont know many people who feel it is trivial. Many of us are looking forward to eventually making the commitment.
A small point, Margaret @ 12:30. Gen-X is the population cohort born after the end of the "baby boom" generation - from the 1960s to 1980s. They are now in their 30s with the leading edge members pushing middle age. Keri, a member of Gen-Y is reporting the reactions of younger adults - those born from the 1980s through the early 2000s and now in high school, college or making their way as young adults in society, perhaps beginning to make decisions about marriage. Your larger point - that we all are impacted by the cultural norms of our own generation is correct, but it is important to distinguish Gen-X from Gen-Y in looking at religious/belief trends at least in the Catholic church. Going by the responses to studies done by William D'Antonio, the late Dean Hoge, et al at Catholic University, as well as studies done by other groups, Gen-X Catholics are a bit more "conservative" than either their "boomer" elders or the Gen-Y cohort. Your larger point, that we are all impacted by the cultural norms of our own generation is not really under dispute. Nor is your comment about inter-faith marriages, which implies (probably correctly) a trend to less engagement with institutional religion. This is especially true in the Catholic church since the non-Catholic partner, even one who is a baptized Christian, is banned from the Eucharist. This often makes the Catholic partner angry enough to leave, because their loved spouse is being treated as a sort of "second-class" christian, rather than as a committed follower of Christ.You did not mention inter-racial marriages, which have soared in recent years, especially among Gen-Y and younger Gen-X members. Just as they are far more accepting of homosexuality than are most of their elders, they are more accepting of other races. Those of us who are older can well remember when inter-racial marriages were illegal and remember also that much of the opposition to legalizing inter-racial marriage came from "christians" using scripture to support their views that inter-racial marriages were "unnatural" and opposed to God's law.
KeriLee -- You say that marriage is "two people who love each other committing to a lifetime together."Why a lifetime?Does this love have to be erotic in nature?Why two? In other words, why be so limiting as to what "marriage" can be? At the same time, when you've settled on a definition of "marriage," why should the state (the government) grant any official recognition to it?
What I've finally concluded is that bigotry can be put on display by otherwise decent people who do not see themselves harboring and mouthing bigotry. I've no doubt that genteel folks in the Ol' South saw nothing wrong with human slavery, perhaps even treated their property with a modicum of respect.
"But going back to language, notice the very term gay marriage. Not marriage simpliciter, but gay marriage. That is, it is not marriage marriage, but something different."Bruce --You need to learn the difference between a genus and a specific difference. If I say that a "quadrangle" is a "geometrical figure with four sides" then that is a definition of "quadrangle". But if I add "straight sided" (a specific difference), then I have specified a less general class of quadrangles. But the meaning of "geometrical figure with four sides" has not changed one whit. So when I define "marriage" in a particular way and add "gay" as a specification, I do not necessarily change the meaning of "marriage" in that phrase. YOU might change the meaning of "marriage" by adding "gay", but many of the rest of us do not. The question becomes: how do our meanings of "marriage" differ, and most important, Is it *possible* to add "gay" to "marriage" without a self=contradiction? In other words, is it possible for marriage to occur when both parties are of the same sex? If by definition you mean by marriage "a union of a man and woman", then, of ocurse, in THAT sense of the phrase, then same-sex marriage is a contradiction in terms. But the question is: is what the Church has meant by 'marriage" essentially/necessarily a union of one male and one female? That's the theological issue, and the civil law issue is quite similar. But before we settle the issue, we have to do one thing: define the word "marriage" very, very carefully. Only after we do that can we discuss the issues without talking past each other by giving the word different meanings.
Joseph Jaglowicz: "What Ive finally concluded is that bigotry can be put on display by otherwise decent people who do not see themselves harboring and mouthing bigotry." Sometime dotCommonweal should have a post on anti-bigotry bigotry, when you could more amply and rationally defend your views.
The phrase "the meaning of a word" is highly ambiguous. Let's consider the basic elements in the uses of words. There can be:1. a physical symbol OR a class of similar physical symbols (e.g., "triangle" and all the instances of t-r-i-a-n-g-l-e, including, e.g., "triangle", "triangle", "triangle" . In this sense of "triangle" we can say that "triangle" includes three syllables, but we cannot say that a three-sided, straight-sided geometrical figure includes three syllables.)2. the meaning (sense) of that physical symbol -- the concept it refers to, the definition is refers to (viz, "three-sided, straight-sided geometrical figure")3. the *referents* of the symbols (viz.,every real, extra-mental triangle).NOTE WELL: the *referent* of a physical symbol sometimes does not match the *thought/concept* associated with that physical symbol. For instance, if I say, "that's a pretty little girl", I might have mistaken a pretty little boy for a pretty little girl. In such a case my thought (which includes the thought "girl") does not match/represent what the referent, the boy, truly is, and my judgment is mistaken.Our uses of physical symbols can cause trouble in at least several basic ways. First, when one's own meaning (concept, definition) is different from the *referents* we apply the concept to For instance, when I mistakenly judge something to be a kind of thing which it really isn't (e.g., when I judged the boy to be a girl). Second, when *another person's* definition (concept) is different from my own. For instance, if I say "He's a Saint" (thinking of Drew Brees), you might reply, "Oh, no, he isn't" (you would be probably be thinking of Drew Brees as a nice, but ordinary man). Note: n the latter case we could *both* be right -- if we are using different definitions of "saint". Third, we run into trouble when we confuse referents of a term. For instance, if I say that "Thomas Jefferson was the second President of the U. S." I have confused him with John Adams -- I have misidentified the *referent* of the term "second President of the U. S.". In discussing "gay marriage" all these sorts of semantic problems have arisen.Yes, complexity, complexity, complexity. But that's the way it is. All the more reason to try to define our terms as best we can to start with. That way we can at least avoid some problems.
@Rita E. FerroneYou wanted to know the meaning of what I said "Gay lesbian couples can also bear a child in vitro, as infertile heterosexual couples can do. I offer you additional reflections.1. The ovum of a female lesbian couple or a female heterosexual spouse can be fertilized by the seed of a fertile male outside the woman's body and implanted into the lesbian or heterosexual woman's womb. Here we do not have genetic parenthood (e.g. there is no male spouse in a lesbian relationship and the male spouse is infertile in the heterosexual relationship), but we do have gestational parenthood and the responsibly for upbringing (social parenthood).2. The female lesbian or a female heterosexual can adopt a frozen embryo, one that is not killed as a result of another couple's in vitro fertilization. In this case, a frozen embryo is given a chance at life. Here we have no genetic parenthood, but we do have gestational parenthood and the responsibility for upbringing as well (social parenthood).3. Homosexual couples, lesbian and heterosexual couples can adopt a post natal child. In either case, we do not have genetic or gestational parenthood but only social parenthood.If the argument is that some of these cases are immoral because they lack genetic parenthood, but possess only gestational and/or social parenthood, one needs to explain the licitness of postnatal adoption by heterosexual, homosexual or lesbian couples where there is neither genetic or gestational but only social parenthood.
"Before one ever gets to the question of equality, one must (or should if he really cares about the matter) first ask the primary and fundamental question of what is marriage? What is the ontological, existential nature of marriage?"Bender --When you refer to "the" ontological existential nature of marriage it *shows* that you think that the symbol "marriage" has ONLY ONE REAL/IMPORTANT meaning AND ITS YOUR OWN MEANING.Not so. All the various meanings of "marriage" are real meanings. The question should be: which is the meaning of "marriage" that is most important for the common good? If there are indeed different species of marriage and all of them are important for the common good, then we have to explore that matter. Do not oversimplify!!!!
Bender -- You win the argument that you have set up by your defining "marriage" as being between a man and a woman. But the issue here is; is the procreative nature of the man-woman species of marriage essential to what "marriage" is? You can appeal to Genesis, but note that Genesis does NOT itself claim to say all that can be said about the most intimate friendship of human beings (i.e., marriage). So you can't really elimenate gay marriage on the basis of Genesis. Genesis is non-commital on the subject. There might be more to be said.
LukeThanks for the age grouping, I actually know a few!How could I not continue to love them...Am I the only one who finds the implications of this question troubling? Who, at any point in any conversation on this topic, ever suggested in any way, shape or form that we not continue to love them? Is that what is thought of those who support traditional marriagethat they dont love people with same sex desires? I see the Church teaching to be just the opposite--to love them until it hurts. To suffer every type of slander against you from the politically correct, but to stay focused on what ultimately helps lead them to Christ. After all, the teaching is not that we should celebrate an alcoholic taking another drink, though that may be his (seemingly) greatest desire, is it? Wheres the equality in that?
Sacramental/religious marriage is NOT the goal of most of the same-sex couples I know. Stop worrying about it! If a religious group chooses to bless a same-sex marriage, that is frosting but not the cake.The only reason religious marriages are vehicles for imparting SECULAR rights, obligations and benefits is because the state has chosen to deputize those in a ministerial capacity to sign the SECULAR marriage license. All of the religious documents, seals, trumpets and blessings in the world do not impart secular benefits.Secular marriages would be outside this intersection of "church" and state. That is what most of us are looking for. But they will be marriages in the eyes of the law. That's all that is important because they will impart the same rights, benefits and obligations granted by the religious deputies of the state, i.e., the taxpayers who fund all of what heterosexuals take for granted as their rights.You can take the locks and chains off your church, synagogue, mosque and coven doors and remove the guards with their AK-47s. We won't be storming them unless you open them to and for us. And I am not going to hold my breath that Holy Mother Church will do that anytime soon, with or without a human being the quality of Francis as pope.You all can debate this until Jesus comes, but things are changing so fast these days you won't know what has hit you when you wake up and find out how MUCH has changed. Continued opposition just reinforces the every-widening (and may I say valid?) view of so much of society that religions are repressive rather than supportive.
Bender --By asserting that human genitals may be used only for procreative purposes you are asserting that parts of human bodies can have one and only one main purpose which must never be subverted. However, the Church in effect has contradicted this. For instance, human hands, which are used for the necessary basic purpose of feeding ourselves (thus making continued life possible), also are allowed to be used for many other things at other times, even frivolous things like waving bye-bye to babes or tapping our fingers in rhythm to a snappy tune, or blessing bread. Further, reducing marriage to the use of genitals reduces people to merely brute animals, a most unChristian view.What reasons do you give to justify your positions -- that there is an animal purpose for human genitals that must always be intended? (Note: sexual intercourse results only in human bodies, not human souls. So the process is essentially animal.)
Ann, Nice explanation but since marriage does not currently include gay couples, nor has it ever, you need the adjective to expand the definition. Your geometry example is the exact opposite.
"But what does that have to do with not supporting marriage equality?"I am asking for the same advocacy for the poor as we have for same sex marriage, married priests, women priests, etc. I want the poor in the discussion fully. Not as lip service or occasional. We should not use "preferential option" unless we take it seriously. Francis gets this. He is going with the poor and downtrodden first. Hopefully that will lead to "all" the poor and downtrodden.
Claire --That is indeed a very beautiful testimony to human friendship, but it is not (from what I understand from the best-married people I have known) FULL, most intimate human friendship. John Donne, the greatest of English love-poets is perhaps most famous for his extraordinary poem about the fulness of human love, in which he grants the superiority of the spiritual dimension, but notes that to be fully human it must also be physical. Here is it:The EcstasyWhere, like a pillow on a bedA pregnant bank swell'd up to restThe violet's reclining head,Sat we two, one another's best.Our hands were firmly cementedWith a fast balm, which thence did spring;Our eye-beams twisted, and did threadOur eyes upon one double string;So to'intergraft our hands, as yetWas all the means to make us one,And pictures in our eyes to getWas all our propagation.As 'twixt two equal armies fateSuspends uncertain victory,Our souls (which to advance their stateWere gone out) hung 'twixt her and me.And whilst our souls negotiate there,We like sepulchral statues lay;All day, the same our postures were,And we said nothing, all the day.If any, so by love refin'dThat he soul's language understood,And by good love were grown all mind,Within convenient distance stood,He (though he knew not which soul spake,Because both meant, both spake the same)Might thence a new concoction takeAnd part far purer than he came.This ecstasy doth unperplex,We said, and tell us what we love;We see by this it was not sex,We see we saw not what did move;But as all several souls containMixture of things, they know not what,Love these mix'd souls doth mix againAnd makes both one, each this and that.A single violet transplant,The strength, the colour, and the size,(All which before was poor and scant)Redoubles still, and multiplies.When love with one another soInterinanimates two souls,That abler soul, which thence doth flow,Defects of loneliness controls.We then, who are this new soul, knowOf what we are compos'd and made,For th' atomies of which we growAre souls. whom no change can invade.But oh alas, so long, so far,Our bodies why do we forbear?They'are ours, though they'are not we; we areThe intelligences, they the spheres.We owe them thanks, because they thusDid us, to us, at first convey,Yielded their senses' force to us,Nor are dross to us, but allay.On man heaven's influence works not so,But that it first imprints the air;So soul into the soul may flow,Though it to body first repair.As our blood labors to begetSpirits, as like souls as it can,Because such fingers need to knitThat subtle knot which makes us man,So must pure lovers' souls descendT' affections, and to faculties,Which sense may reach and apprehend,Else a great prince in prison lies.To'our bodies turn we then, that soWeak men on love reveal'd may look;Love's mysteries in souls do grow,But yet the body is his book.And if some lover, such as we,Have heard this dialogue of one,Let him still mark us, he shall seeSmall change, when we'are to bodies gone. John DonneSubmitted: Monday, May 14, 2001Edited: Monday, May 14, 2001 http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/the-ecstasy/Donne was an Anglican priest, but so far as I can see, his poem is theologically sound by RC standards.
Good point Bruce. Since marriage has been thought of by every society of record, in the traditional sense (i.e., man and woman) since basically forever, the burden of making the case in favor of redefining marriage to include gay people should be on the gay-marriage advocates.Leftists are great at turning the tables and playing victim however, and so we have a situation where regular, decent Americans are put on the defensive (called hateful bigots and worse) simply because we do not think it wise to toss aside so many thousands of years of traditions and practice.
Andy B. --The Church distinguishes both natural and supernatural dimension in sacramental marriage. This isi why it teaches that the state has a right to make laws about certain aspects of the civil dimension, e.g., the educational rights of children. In strict parlance, the civil aspects are called "marriage" and the civil plus religious aspects are called "matrimony" or "holy matrimony". There is no question (or shouldn't be) any question of opposition between the two.
For those of you who like the "what harm will it do?" argument; let me simply ask how often have your heard someone say "what is everyone else doing?" or words to that effect? Every time that question comes up, the observed and discussed behavior is having an impact on others. It is working to change their behavior as well. So what has that meant for Gen Y? Well, they think marriage is very important because they saw how difficult divorce was on the couple and the kids. So they wait to commit and marry. But they also learned that being unmarried is no reason not to cohabit with your current lover. So what is the harm: They are having over 50% of their children out-of-wedlock. It is a fact that these children are demonstrably hurt by any family structure other than one composed of their married biological parents. So while marriage may be important to the couple, the kids are being treated like a sideshow. Thats a specific harm we indirectly taught our kids and its being visited on them and our grandkids.So why do we think 'gay marriage' wont visit similar harms? because some gay couple we know is so happy and loving? The same was true of those divorced or cohabiting couples. Look how that is turning out.
@Ken (3/28, 5:18 pm) Just for the record, and for purposes of clarification, many human societies have not thought of marriage in the "traditional sense (i.e., man and woman)". Nor have they legislated marriage as an institution between "a man and a woman". (See, for example, any number of stories and laws in the Hebrew Scriptures.)The institution of marriage as you and I experienced it growing up is one small sliver of "many thousands of years of traditions and practice". I hope one thing that KeriLee Horan and Andy Buechel have made clear by their example in this thread is that the overwhelming majority of "regular, decent Americans" of their generation (over 80%, if I recall correctly) have made a more-or-less prudential judgment (to use the language of Catholic social teaching) in favor of civil recognition of same-sex marriages, with all the legal rights and responsibilities that follow.For their generation (at least), this is not a leftist v. rightist issue. Most "regular, decent Americans" under the age of, say, 35 favor extending civil marriage to same-sex couples. That's a fact that those of us who are older have to reckon with.
"For those of you who like the what harm will it do? argument ..."Actually, Bruce, it's the anti-gay side who has argued, "This will do harm." Can they demonstrate this? Unless they tackle the act the Church calls "sinful," namely sexual intercourse outside of marriage, why should we believe it? In other words, if the sinful behavior is a problem, why aren't traditional marriage advocates hammering harder on sex outside the first man-woman marriage? Why do they single out gays and lesbians above divorced and remarried people, or people who have sex outside of marriage.This is another strain of bigotry: scapegoating homosexual persons for the problems of pornography, addiction, consumerism, etc.
@Bruce (3/28, 5:34 pm) Thanks for your comment. Could you provide a link to the source for your assertion that "it is a fact that these children are demonstrably hurt by any family structure other than the one composed of their married biological parents"?Note - Other family structures to consider include: single parent who left abusive partner, widowed parent, widowed and remarried parent, adoptive parent(s), guardians of orphans (e.g., grandparent, aunts, uncles, family friends of deceased parents)...among others.
I have never understood why a married couple with no children or old people who are thoroughly dependent on them should be legally favored over single people, especially single people who care for thoroughly dependent relatives. Not fair.
About the Author
KeriLee Horan is in charge of digital media and marketing at Commonweal.


text:
We are looking for software reviewers to write for us.
Click Here
Submitting to free directories is one of the easiest way to have one way free inbound links to our sites. This directory submission software contains a list of over 200 directories which you can submit your sites to and offers you the easiest and fastest way to instantly build a ton of valuable one-way backlinks to your sites and boost your search engine rankings tremendously!
Keywords: Glass Container, directory submitter, free directory submitter
Recent Changes: Not Established
Install Support: Install and Uninstall
Supported Languages: English
Additional Requirements: Internet Explorer
Home | Featured | Submit | Link To Us | Contact Us | FAQ | About Us | Advertise
Copyright © 2006-2015, by Software Reviews, All rights reserved. Privacy statement | Terms of use


text:
ATLANTA — The Atlanta Braves didn't wait long to show off their new power game.
Home runs by Freddie Freeman, Dan Uggla and newcomer Justin Upton led the Braves to a season-opening 7-5 win over the Philadelphia Phillies on Monday night. The teams, off on Tuesday, will resume the series tonight in Atlanta.
The impressive debut generated postgame enthusiasm in Atlanta's clubhouse as players talked about the depth of the team's new lineup. The Braves, who added brothers Justin and B.J. Upton in the offseason, showed great promise by leading all National League teams with 49 homers in spring training.
The Braves hit each of their three homers off Phillies ace Cole Hamels.
"Everything kind of fell into place" Monday night, said Justin Upton, who was acquired with third baseman Chris Johnson in a seven-player trade in January which sent Martin Prado, pitcher Randall Delgado and three prospects to Arizona.
Philadelphia's Roy Halladay will face Atlanta's Paul Maholm tonight.
Johnson, who reached base three times with two hits and a walk on Monday night, will platoon with Juan Francisco at third base. Johnson opened the game with a strong defensive play, charging to scoop a slow grounder hit by Ben Revere before throwing out the speedy leadoff hitter.
Johnson and Francisco face the unenviable task of replacing Hall of Fame-bound Braves legend Chipper Jones, who threw out the first pitch in the opener.
The Braves also must replace former leadoff hitter and center fielder Michael Bourn, who was not re-signed.
B.J. Upton has taken over in center field, with his brother in left field and Jason Heyward in right field.
Each of the three has the potential to hit 20 to 30 homers with 20 or more stolen bases.
Freeman led the team with seven homers in spring training, and his two-run shot in the first inning set the pace on Monday night. Uggla added a second-inning homer into the left-field seats.
A strong start for Uggla is especially important. He hit only .220 with 19 homers in 2012, ending a streak of five straight seasons with more than 30 homers.
Uggla, who hit only .200 in spring training, knows a slow start this season will raise more concerns. He walked and scored two runs while hitting sixth.
"You always want to get off to a good start," Uggla said. "I'm sure everybody wanted to see me hit .350 in spring training. This is only one game, though. I feel great."
Uggla and the two Uptons each had more than 150 strikeouts last season. The new third-base platoon also has the potential to add strikeouts as well as homers.
"I think these guys, including myself, we're still learning, we're still competing to get better and cut down on strikeouts, but we've got a lot of power," Uggla said.
Freeman hit fourth, the spot manager Fredi Gonzalez could eventually give to catcher Brian McCann, who is recovering from shoulder surgery. McCann could come off the disabled list by the end of April, but by then Gonzalez might have difficulty removing Freeman from the cleanup spot.
Gonzalez said Braves hitting coach Greg Walker believes Freeman, 23, "is the best young hitter he has ever worked with."
Freeman hit 23 homers with 94 RBIs last season.
"The sky is the limit for him," Gonzalez said.
Uggla believes the sky is the limit for the full lineup.
"We're not trying to hold back," he said. "If it costs some strikeouts in situations, then that's what it's going to take, because we have the power to go blow for blow with anybody."
Notice about comments:
Aiken Standard is pleased to offer readers the enhanced ability to comment on stories. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere in the site or in the newspaper. We ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point.
We do not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click the X that appears in the upper right corner when you hover over a comment. This will send the comment to Facebook for review. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website. Read our full terms and conditions.