text:
Recently, I checked out a concept design for a traffic light with only one light.
Do you know the exact reason for having three lamps in a row, instead of one like in this concept?
Recently, I checked out a concept design for a traffic light with only one light.
Do you know the exact reason for having three lamps in a row, instead of one like in this concept?
It is a simple fact that traffic signals were introduced in 1868. From The Origin of the Green, Yellow and Red Color Scheme for Traffic Lights:
As traffic signaling evolved the use of lights or flags continues. From the same article:
In 1920, there would be little option other then to provide 3 independent lights to show 3 different colors. While other options might have existed, there complexity may have limited their adoption.
Technology & Economics
To specifically call out the reason above: because of technology. Today's technology allows for amazing things, but to think that a single-light traffic signal would be both technologically and economically feasible in 1870, 1920, 1980 (or even 1990) is a very hard argument. You can argue the ability in the later years, but can you argue the economics?
Technologically it is very easy to put 3 lights in a row and tell them when to turn on or off. Economically it is very easy to put 3 lights in a row and tell them when to turn on or off... and fix them when they break.
The technology to do it "this way" vs "that way" is simply a lot cheaper.
Color Blindness
While "because of color blindness" is a popular belief of the historical, this is simply false. Looking back at the historical reasons, for the time when traffic signals were being developed, the idea of catering to a rarely known condition would be unheard of.
A two color light, based on the railways, was first introduced in 1912 (per Wikipedia):
Later came William L. Pott's three-way traffic signal (mentioned above). Many other different types of signals also existed as the traffic signal continued to develop. This would obviously create confusion for many, so standards were put in place in 1935 (again, from The Origin of the Green, Yellow and Red Color Scheme for Traffic Lights):
Note that these standards were put in place for the benefit of everyone! This was not an action taken on behalf of "color-vision deficient drivers". No mention of such a population is made in the 1935 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (p. 71).
The idea that the order (Top = Red, Middle = Yellow, Bottom = Green) is for color blind individuals is quickly debunked when you search for "sideways traffic lights".
... or go someplace like Syracuse, New York:
Order is common, and mostly followed, but standards are not always followed and the original development of the traffic signal pattern was not guided by the standards that exist today.
There were also no standards in traffic light shading of the red/yellow/green colors - meaning one traffic light may use shades that allow certain color blind individuals to distinguish red vs. green, but another may not. While standards exist today, these did guide the use of these colors or their shades during early development.
Color blindness does not mean you can not see color (except for the very rare "achromatopsia" condition) - it is possible to provide shades and luminosity that do work for the majority of color blind people.
But it does help! Certainly the positional nature helps colorblind people, as long as they know what order the lights are in. This is very likely a reason why a single-light concept would be very difficult to implement, given today's attitudes and awareness of safety (for all drivers). However, the point here is that color blindness is not a reason why they were made that way in the first place.
Historically they were made that way; improving over time until the technology to create and maintain them became less and less; creating a situation where the economics to change them are prohibitive.
But... User Experience!
Yeah, I know - it's a UX site. Sometimes things can't be explained in terms of UX. Sometimes things exist simply because they have existed that way for so long.
One reason for the three lights, in the UK at least, is that you have many states. Two of the lights can be on at one time, i.e. red and amber signalling that you should get ready to go, where as a single amber light would mean get ready to stop. The concept you link to doesn't cover this use case.
There are also historic reasons for the 3 light traffic signal, they used to be operated my humans and originally were gas burning lamps (briefly) - this was before LEDs even existed, so they needed 3 states. Traffic lights all started on the railway, the amber light was a signal to slow down and give the train driver advanced notice it's state was about to change.
With the specific implementation you mentioned, I can also see a few other use cases (on UK roads) that would be rather difficult to implement - traffic signals do more than tell people when to stop and go.
A few examples of other uses are:
@Steve Wortham also makes a great point that a moving light (much like something animating on a web page) is more likely to catch your attention than a single light changing colour, especially if you are not paying complete attention.
Another reason why we may not have changed the design so much could be that - if we were to change the traffic light system, it would cost a HUGE amount of money for a government to not only implement the lights themselves but to also teach and educate road users of this new system.
I think a big reason must be that it's easier to see that the light changed (even out of your peripheral vision) when one light goes off and another goes on in another position. The fact that the position AND color of the light is changing makes it easier to notice.
A few answers have made the point that it would be difficult for colour blind users to see the signal. But the truth is, we are all colour blind at least in our peripheral vision.
From your eye's fixation point, at 30 degrees you start to lose trichromatic vision. In other words, you start to lose the ability to differentiate colour. At 50 degrees, you are essentially colour blind. The colours that you see right now in your brain aren't actually 'seen' -- your brain has coloured in the gaps for you.
However, your eyes are good at detecting movement in these extremes. Our response is to saccade to movements in our visual field so we can see them in more detail.
With a single-bulb system, we might be unable to see a change from green to red because, in our peripheral vision, nothing has changed. So it is not only colour that is essential to the signal, but the movement of bulb position which prompts us to fixate on the signal.
The accepted answer contains some good information about the history of traffic lights, but it is dead wrong about the color blindness issue.
First, some facts:
Finally, from the FHWA: (emphasis added)
In other words, color blindness has long been a consideration in the design of traffic lights, and it's one of the reasons we keep three separate fixtures arranged in a particular order today.
This question has several parts (at least implicitly).
The answers to most of these questions arise from the historical development of the system.
Many standards are the result of revision and refinement of a largely arbitrary precursor. It is often expensive (in human lives as well as financially) to change safety-critical conventions that have been learned by large numbers of people, even if there is a theoretically better system.
Origins: Colours.
Road traffic signals are a development of railroad signals. (BBC)
Some early railroad signals do have several different coloured lights appear at the same single position. They had one lamp. A mechanical arrangement moved coloured lenses in front of the fixed lamp.
Railroad signals were initially semaphore signals where the position of a signalling arm indicated whether it was safe to proceed.
An important point is that, as a form of fail-safe, if the arm raising mechanism fails, gravity will drop the arm to the "stop" position.
OK so road usage followed railway usage, this begs the question - why were those colours chosen by railways? The answer may be that the railways followed established maritime conventions. Ships had red and green lamps on their sides so that other ships could tell which direction the observed ship was travelling. There had to be a convention about which of two converging ships should give way. The convention was (apparently) that if you see a red light, you are required to give way. Another explanation was simply that red, the colour of blood, has long been associated with danger and so became associated with the need to stop.
Why three?
Railroad tracks are divided into sections. Following trains are provided with an indication that a train is on the section ahead (stop/red), has left that section and is in the section ahead of that (caution/yellow) or is much further away (proceed/green).
For night time use, a lamp was added and the motion of the signal arm brought different coloured lenses in front of the lamp.
Order: Failsafe at Red
You can see that with this arrangement, the "stop" indication is at the top position when the line of lenses are vertical. This is a consequence of the fail-safe arm arrangement discussed earlier.
Why separate positions?
With road traffic signals, the semaphore arm was eventually entirely replaced by the lights. The mechanical elements were eliminated, perhaps because they required more maintenance, and three electric lamps were then the simplest signalling system. The colour, number and physical arrangement obviously followed the previous system to avoid confusion.
It is obviously an advantage, where red-green colour-blindness is common, to have a positional reinforcement for the signal meaning.
My best guess would be that if there was poor visibility or some sort of color blindness problem, one could identify what to do by seeing which light was on/or off.
With 1 light one might not be able to tell what the color is and that could cause problems.
Some of the information contained in this post requires additional references. Please edit to add citations to reliable sources that support the assertions made here. Unsourced material may be disputed or deleted.
There have been a couple of passing mentions of trains, where the constraints are interestingly different.
Train signals (in the UK at least, but I don't think they're massively different elsewhere) are also red-amber-green (or on higher-speed lines they're red-amber-doubleamber-green), and they're not consistently one way up; so sometimes the red is at the top, and sometimes at the bottom. This is partly, I understand, because a train driver may have to react to them from further away than a car driver would react to a traffic light, so that they wouldn't necessarily be able to distinguish them based on position, and there is therefore no utility in requiring them to be in a consistent position. It follows (I recall, but can't find a link to corroborate) that train drivers can't be colour-blind.
The order isn't random/whimsical, though. The lights are ordered so that the red light is nearest to the eye-line of the driver (see that Wikipedia link for lots more detail).
And just by the way, the reason the four-light sequence is red, amber, and then double-amber (whereas you might initially guess that double-amber is 'more cautious' than single amber), is so that it fails safe: if an amber light fails then the signal displays the 'more cautious' single amber.
Relevant to the original question, there are indeed now LED-based lights which have all the colours in a single housing, rather than one lamp per colour.
Thank you for your interest in this question.
Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).
Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?


text:
Say Yes To The Dress Dresses T-shirt - Pink
Say, "Hi" to this Say Yes To The Dress Dresses T-shirt-a humorous take on the challenges brides face when choosing a wedding dress. Any bride can tell you saying yes to the dress can be extraordinarily challenging! So many shapes and sizes, so many details and flourishes. Let the suffering women out there know you get it with a Say Yes to the Dress Dresses T-shirt.
Read MoreLess
More Details
- Color: Pink
- Fit: Slim Fit. We recommend ordering 1-2 sizes up.
- Gender: Women's
- Made In: Imported
- Made Of: 100% Cotton
4.04.0(1 review)See all 1 reviewWrite a Review
You Might Also Like
Reviewed by 1 customer
- Figure Flattering
- Great Colors
- Stylish
- Sizes run small
Best Uses
- Casual Wear
Comments about this product:
I would have gave this tshirt 5 stars but it does run about 2 sizes smaller than normal which it does say on the website but i compensated for that and it fits perfectly. i love it!
- Fit:
- Feels true to size
- Length:
- Feels true to length
- Was this a gift?:
- No

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Is there a target time/day for releasing new podcasts? It seems like they are getting released later and later as we go on.
What is meta?
- Any Stack Exchange user can ask a question
- The community provides support, votes on ideas, and reports bugs
- Your voice helps shape the way Stack Exchange operates
The delay is most likely because Jeff has been sick for the last few days:
They have to take some time to retighten the string between their tin cans after each podcast. Otherwise they won't get a clear enough signal and all we'll hear is static and someone munching on their sandwich.
The string itself slackens over the week and it takes a bit of time to get it taught again before unleashing another scintillating episode on the going ons of the Stack Overflow empire.
There's a lot of work involved in doing a regular podcast, especially when it's a secondary-focus to your day. I'm sure Joel and Jeff are both rather busy doing other things. As such, let's just be patient and wait on their terms.
The podcasts are generally released on Wed night/Thurs mornings, they've been a bit delayed last week, and this week. I believe that this is because of DevDays planning etc... As Jonathan points point, it does take a lot of work to put these together.


text:
Solid State Logic's new C200 digital production console continues to gain popularity in Japan by attracting sales from some of the country's top broadcast and post-production facilities.
The most recent C200 installation took place in August at the Imagica Akasaka Video Centre in Tokyo. A 32-channel console offering 64 processing channels at 48 kHz was installed in a new studio dedicated to television magazine and documentary programs, and HD projects.
Imagica is the largest post-production company in Asia, with five facilities in Tokyo and a facility in Osaka. The company is internationally renowned for pre- and post-production work on both film and television projects, and also owns two satellite broadcasting channels. Alongside its facilities work, Imagica develops specialist equipment and computer graphics software for the film and video industries.
Imagica already has an established relationship with SSL and has a range of SSL consoles including an SL 4000 G Series, an Avant Plus and an MT Plus. This latest installation brings the total number of SSL desks installed by the company to 22.
The C200 was chosen for its stability and ease of operation. With a number of projects already booked into the new studio, Imagica also specified that the desk should be installed very quickly. SSL was able to meet this tight deadline and the console is now fully operational.
Since it launched the console at AES Europe earlier this year, SSL has sold C200 consoles to a number of facilities on both sides of the Pacific. These include Nippon TV (Office Terra) in Japan, Western Carolina University in the US and Underdog Entertainment and Bicoastal Music, also in the US.
For more information visit www.solid-state-logic.com.
Back to the top
AT&T Files For Title II Re-Hearing
Sinclair Pays $9 Million-Plus to Settle FCC Retrans Investigation
NAB: FCC Maintaining Crossownership Ban Is Inexplicable
Comcast's First HDR Box in Employee Trials
TVBAwards 2016 nominations open
Massive Interactive launch Halo
Twitter pens Premier League highlights deal with Sky
Filmmaker Steven Caple Jr. Shows the Many Sides of Cleveland with Debut Film 'The Land'
Watch Ed Morris's Unsettling Music Video for Massive Attack
Girls Sing About What They "Really, Really Want" In Empowering UN Video


text:
Is it possible to determine the coefficients of two polynomials, if we are given 2n different points at which they cross each other ?
In other words, If $f(p) = \sum_{i}\alpha_{i}p^{i}$ and $g(p) = \sum_{i}\beta_{i}p^{i}$ are two $n-$degree polynomials and we have $\{p_{1}, p_{2}, \dots, p_{2n}\}$ such that:
$v_{1}f(p_{1}) = g(p_{1})$
$v_{2}f(p_{2}) = g(p_{2})$
$v_{2n}f(p_{2n}) = g(p_{2n})$
where $v_{1}, \dots, v_{2n}$ are all known constants, $v_{i}\neq v_{j}$.
Is that enough to determine $\{\alpha_{0}, \dots, \alpha_{n}, \beta_{0}, \dots, \beta_{n}\}$ ?
I understand each crossing would provide us a linear constraint on the coefficients. Hence my intuition would be that 2n different crossings give 2n linearly independent constraints. But then, when I try examples or even try to express all the constraints as a matrix form, I get a homogeneous system of linear equations, whose only solution turns out to be $\alpha_{i} = 0 = \beta_{i}$.
Can anyone please help.


text:
Since sound sounds so much different compared to through the air, through a solid, I think that this affects the way we perceive the world. Sound waves are traveling through our bones, body, and our ears on their to our recognition, not to mention, the sound waves that are partially reflected and partially absorbed by a solid. It might make a more emotionally hitting sound if you were to add in a contact mic recording on some things.
Interesting idea. If you play back a sound recorded from a solid, thereby rendering an inaudible sound audible, and it re-enters our bodies through our ears, I doubt that it'd be perceived in the same way as if we'd truly felt it through our guts, bones, hair, what have you. That's not to say that your idea isn't valid for sound design and as an effective layer, but we'd be exposing the listener's ear to something they'd normally not get through the good ol' pinnae. This sensory transposition might be effective, or not...I'd think it would be really dependent on the sound source itself, the context of its use, and the emotional message one was going for.
the main effect is of course that our own voices sound much more bass-y then they to anyone outside of our heads.
Most modern sound design today are based in the way we perceive sound, not the way it actually behaves in the natural world. Bone conduction, though, almost only applies to very personal sounds like hits and such physical interaction. Other things even more influential on how we perceive sound is due to the fact of our brains subconscious ability to sort different sounds out as to not risk overloading from stimulation. Even for us lacking most of that sensorical filtering, we still choose what we wanna focus on and reacts harder on details considered more important than others.
I am very fond of contact mics in general, though my own one went belly up a while ago, but for emulating bone-structure I rather use extreme proximity from a cardioid for several reasons. For one thing, materials used as conductors rarely, if ever, follows the same characteristics as human skull-bone anyway. Second of all the entire cranium, inner ear, flesh and all, gets affected by that kinds of sounds. But most of all, a contact mic is based on piezo technology, meaning a crystalline material that makes a great addition to sound effects, but not being very fat in itself.
As with most sound design issues, this is something better mimicked than tried to be reproduced in my opinion.
I'd have to agree with NoiseJockey on this one. I don't think simply adding in a sound recorded through a contact microphone would achieve the results you're thinking of. To approach that ideal, you'd probably need to create a custom sound installation. Things like this have been attempted in cinema in the past...devices like vibrating seats, gas emitters and small speakers here and there for localized sound.
Hmm, this is definitely a cool idea. But whilst the effect of mixing in contact-mic recordings with standard recordings would no doubt create some very interesting effects, the only practical use of this I can think of would be to add an interesting spin to POV pieces.
When recording, you'd contact-mic your own head up (or the head of the subject of the POV / main character in a piece when recording their dialogue etc)! This would mainly be used with dialogue though, I guess, as our speech always sounds different to ourselves due to the conduction our voice through our own skulls. This could then help create a difference for when in "POV mode" and when not, in a piece.
However, as already discussed by others here, I think this effect would be best created manually with effects, altering EQ, enhancing bass etc (also discussed in this thread I think..!).
I think, unless you have one of your bones in contact with a surface, the effect won't be one of "realism". Wouldn't our fleshy foot-soles do the same thing as the shock mount? Doesn't mean it won't be a cool effect though; just last night i was recording some stuff w/ a hypercardioid+contact mic. Mainly for a surreal effect, though.
Sound recordings don't sound like what we really hear because our hearing mechanism is insanely sophisticated. I'm no psychoacoustics expert, but i think a lot of that comes from our brain/ear's ability to localise and focus on specific sounds.
I also think that, while these discussions are fun, we can say "could/would/should" all day, but there's no substitute for empirical experimentation. So give it a shot and post results!
It's an interesting notion from a sound producer's perspective. Of course it makes total sense from the perspective of immersion to attempt to record or produce things as they would be really perceived, were they real. E.g. a stomping of a dinosaur ought to sound and feel like it rumbles the ground and the stomping would be felt through our feet. A sort of thinking that doesn't focus only on what's audible or what's audible and felt through existing speaker systems, but what's/should be "really" physically felt as well.
I would expect really good immersion to require some sort of acoustical design/engineering as well though. Because one ought to control the playback space too in order the make things "conduct" properly in the movie theater?
Now if you really start to think about it. Is it possible that the lack of another stimulus, e.g. the body-conducted stimulus, or a method of capturing this second stimulus directly affects the sound that's also recorded? I.e. take an example of a signal A that's heard through both of our ears and a signal B that's felt and conducted through our physical body. How do these two signals interact inside the ear and is their sum considerably different than what a typical microphone can pick? I think it's an old notion that all electronic mediums are fundamentally limited in how they represent real-world information. Although, if we want to think about electromagnetism and (mechanical) body conduction being the same, then quantum physics has rather deep answers to this.


text:
Accutone Pavo
" I've worked with Accutone IEMs before. However, I've never been so thoroughly satisfied a product of theirs. Almost every build-quality complaint I've had before lies dead at the feet of the Pavo, and the sound quality is a head above even their flagship IEM, the Gemini HD. I must ask myself: was is smart for Accutone to release such a good earphone for just $51? As of..." --Cinder
Accutone Taurus
Taurus | The In-Ear Headset with Bass Tuning Technology & Spin Cable The first thing you notice about the Taurus is perhaps its attractive High-Gloss Mirror-Black finishing, or the Aluminum Spin Cable nob for Dual-Wear, or even perhaps the High-Quality Tangle-Free Cables. It is truly a thing of Beauty. But once you wear them in your ears, you will realize the Taurus is a rare breed, with...
Bass Effect Audio III earbud (Black)
Bass Effect Audio III earbuds (black)
Bass Effect Audio IV headphone super bass (red)
Bass Effect Audio IV headphones with super bass (red)


text:
The creed of an American Catholic politician
David Gibson's thread below recalls to mind the challenge posed to Al Smith, who would become the first Catholic candidate for the presidency of the U.S. Here is how Smith replied:
I summarize my creed as an American Catholic. I believe in the worship of God according to the faith and practice of the Roman Catholic Church. I recognize no power in the institutions of my Church to interfere with the operations of the Constitution of the United States or the enforcement of the laws of the land. I believe in absolute freedom of conscience for all men and in equality for all churches, all sects, and all beliefs before the law as a matter of right and not as a matter of favor. I believe in the absolute separation of Church and State and in the enforcement of the provisions of the Constitution that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. I believe that no tribunal of any church has any power to make any decree of any force in the law of the land, other than to establish the status of its own communicants within its own church. I believe in the support of the public school as one of the corner stones of American liberty. I believe in the right of every parent to choose whether his child shall be educated in the public school or in a religious school supported by those of his own faith. I believe in the principle of noninterference by this country in the internal affairs of other nations and that we should stand steadfastly against any such interference by whomsoever it may be urged. And I believe in the common brotherhood of man under the common fatherhood of God. In this spirit I join with fellow Americans of all creeds in a fervent prayer that never again in this land will any public servant be challenged because of the faith in which he has tried to walk humbly with his God.
Is this the sort of statement that we want politicians of any religious background to have to make? Is it only religiously serious people who should be required to formulate such a "creed"? Would this be considered a sufficient statement for a Catholic candidate today? Or do developments and circumstances require something more, or something different?For the broad background I have posted an essay here; for the particulars of the Marshall-Smith debate, keep reading.
The most famous public controversy over the Church-State issue in the first half of the twentieth century was the exchange of letters between an Episcopalian layman, Charles C. Marshall, and Alfred E. Smith, the Catholic Governor of New York State and later Democratic candidate for President of the United States.
[For background, see James H. Smylie, "The Roman Catholic Church, the State and Al Smith," Church History 29 (1960) 321-43; Thomas J. Shelley, What the Hell is an Encyclical?: Governor Alfred E. Smith, Charles C. Marshall, Esq., and Father Francis P. Duffy,"U.S. Catholic Historian 15 (1997) 87-107; see also Francis L. Broderick, "When Last a Catholic Ran for President," Social Order (May 1960) 198-210.]
Marshall initiated the exchange in April, 1927, with an open letter in The Atlantic Monthly.
[Charles C. Marshall, "An Open Letter to the Honorable Alfred E. Smith," The Atlantic Monthly 139 (April, 1927) 540-49, reprinted in his book, Governor Smith's American Catholicism (New York: Dodd, Mead and Co., 1928) 44-70.]
He began with "a note of doubt, a sinister accent of interrogation" caused by the irreconcilability of conceptions Smith shared with other Catholics with the Constitution of the U.S. Not superficial features of Catholic thought, these concepts were "derived from the basic political doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church" that has committed her "to that intolerance that has disfigured so much of her history." She defines dogmatic intolerance as her sacred duty and at best will allow a State to tolerate, "by favor, but not by right," other religions. The "irrepressible conflict" arises in mixed matters, where though both Church and State are involved, the Church claims final jurisdiction. This conflicts with the Supreme Court's decision that assigns the final decision to the State which may intervene when religious practices are "inconsistent with the peace and safety of the State." Marshall spelled out these conflicts in a series of contrasts between what the American Constitution permits or requires and what modern Popes have claimed. He then illustrated the conflict with several particular examples: the education of youth, marriage jurisprudence, the call by an American Catholic for U.S. action to preserve the Church's rights in Mexico, and Leo XIII's inflaming of ancient tensions by beatifying a Catholic objector under Queen Elizabeth. Marshall concluded:
Nothing will be of greater satisfaction to those of your fellow citizens who hesitate in their endorsement of your candidacy because of the religious issues involved than such a disclaimer by you of the convictions here imputed, or such an exposition by others of the questions here presented, as may justly turn public opinion in your favor.
Smith replied to Marshall in the next issue of the magazine.
[Alfred E. Smith, "Catholic and Patriot: Governor Smith Replies," The Atlantic Monthly, 139 (May, 1927), 721-28, reprinted in Progressive Democracy: Addresses and State Papers of Alfred E. Smith (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co., 1928) 254-69.]
Disclaiming any canonical or theological expertise, he said that he had received assistance in writing his reply from Father Francis P. Duffy, the famous chaplain of the 165th Regiment in World War I and a former professor at the New York Seminary. Smith vigorously denied that in his twenty-five years of public service there had ever been any conflict between his official duties and his faith. After affirming his belief that public education is "one of the foremost functions of government," he expressed his inability to understand "how anything that I was taught to believe as a Catholic could possibly be in conflict with what is good citizenship;" and he urged an end to quarreling "over dogmatic principles" and "the bickering among our sects" lest young people lose all interest in religion whatever. After these and other general illustrations of the compatibility of Catholicism with public service, Smith turned to Marshall's specific questions. He corrected his misinterpretation of the meaning of dogmatic intolerance, which affects only the Church's attitude towards Catholics themselves. He questioned Marshall's right to "ask me to assume responsibility for every statement that may be made in any encyclical letter," pointing out that such documents are not "articles of faith":
The Syllabus of Pope Pius IX, which you quote on the possible conflict between Church and State, is declared by Cardinal Newman to have "no dogmatic force." You seem to think that Catholics must be all alike in mind and in heart, as though they had been poured into and taken out of the same mould. You have no more right to ask me to defend as part of my faith every statement coming from a prelate than I should have to ask you to accept as an article of your religious faith every statement of an Episcopal bishop, or of your political faith every statement of a President of the United States. So little are these matters of the essence of my faith, that I, a devout Catholic since childhood, never heard of them until I read your letter.
Smith went on to quote Msgr. Ryan and Father Pohle on the obligation of Catholics to accept religious tolerance in a religiously pluralistic society. To their names he then added those of Cardinals O'Connell and Gibbons and of Archbishops Ireland and Dowling, concluding from their words his right to "stand squarely in support of the provisions of the Constitution which guarantee religious freedom and equality." Reminding Marshall that his faith also acknowledged the distinct spheres of Church and State, he asked him:
What is this conflict about which you talk? It may exist in some lands which do not guarantee religious freedom. But in the wildest dreams of your imagination you cannot conjure up a possible conflict between religious principle and political duty in the United States, except on the unthinkable hypothesis that some law were to be passed which violated the common morality of all God-fearing men. And if you can conjure up such a conflict, how would a Protestant resolve it? Obviously by the dictates of his conscience. That is exactly what a Catholic would do. There is no ecclesiastical tribunal which would have the slightest claim upon the obedience of Catholic communicants in the resolution of such a conflict.
And in support of these claims, he again quoted Gibbons, Ireland, and England on a Catholic's right in conscience to resist even the Pope were he to act beyond his competence. After brief replies to Marshall's cases of conflict in education and marriage jurisprudence, Smith pointed out that the U.S. Bishops had explicitly rejected the imputation that their defense of the rights of the Church in Mexico were a call for armed intervention. He ended with a sort of confession of faith:
I summarize my creed as an American Catholic. I believe in the worship of God according to the faith and practice of the Roman Catholic Church. I recognize no power in the institutions of my Church to interfere with the operations of the Constitution of the United States or the enforcement of the laws of the land. I believe in absolute freedom of conscience for all men and in equality for all churches, all sects, and all beliefs before the law as a matter of right and not as a matter of favor. I believe in the absolute separation of Church and State and in the enforcement of the provisions of the Constitution that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. I believe that no tribunal of any church has any power to make any decree of any force in the law of the land, other than to establish the status of its own communicants within its own church. I believe in the support of the public school as one of the corner stones of American liberty. I believe in the right of every parent to choose whether his child shall be educated in the public school or in a religious school supported by those of his own faith. I believe in the principle of noninterference by this country in the internal affairs of other nations and that we should stand steadfastly against any such interference by whomsoever it may be urged. And I believe in the common brotherhood of man under the common fatherhood of God. In this spirit I join with fellow Americans of all creeds in a fervent prayer that never again in this land will any public servant be challenged because of the faith in which he has tried to walk humbly with his God.
Marshall published a rejoinder immediately after Smith's reply was released.
[See Marshall, Governor Smith's American Catholicism, 72-84.]
He could not accept Smith's statement that Catholics did not hold the views Marshall had attributed to them. He cited in evidence a Manual of Christian Doctrine, published in 1926 by John Joseph McVey with an imprimatur of the Archbishop of Philadelphia. In it the Pope was taught to have "the right to annul those laws or acts of government that would injure the salvation of souls or attack the natural rights of citizens, while the State was said to have the right and duty to proscribe schism or heresy, but that "dissenting worships" could be tolerated when they have "acquired a sort of legal existence consecrated by time and accorded by treaties or covenants." Marshall argued that, therefore, Catholics were still being taught principles incompatible with the American Constitution. Later Marshall also cited Hilaire Belloc's statement that "the Roman Catholic Church is, in its root-principle, at issue with the civic definitions of freedom and authority." In his final paragraph he expressed his hope for the future:
In closing, let me say with the greatest emphasis that no view I have expressed has been intended to suggest the placing of a ban against candidacy for office because of religion. The way out lies by no such unhappy path; and your disclaimer is my voucher for this assertion. It is often said your venerable Church never changes, but history proves this is not true. There is transforming religion within her as well as confining polity. In spite of the latter, imposing indeed is her store of the riches of grace, piety and devotion. She may be encumbered at present with the undiscarded traditions of mediaevalism, but she is alert to the call of her divine Master. May your disclaimer mark the beginning of the era when that Church may so redress her historic claim that the whole Christian world may be one with her and her polity be brought into harmony with the modern State.
The idea that this new era might be opening dominated the long essay Marshall then wrote for the book in which he published his open letter and rejoinder.
[Marshall, Governor Smith's American Catholicism, 1-43.]
In the U.S., he noted, Smith's reply had reassured his fellow citizens that "in his discharge of the highest civic trust from the American people he would never allow his loyalty to his Church to conflict with his loyalty to the State, as the State (not the Church) defined such loyalty." But the exchange had also attracted interest elsewhere; in Europe Smith's reply was seen as evidence "that in the New World a Roman Catholic statesman of intrepid spirit had set forth convictions in respect to the relation of his Church to the State that, to the European mind, were in flat conflict with the decrees of 1870, and what the Popes had asserted and the Church had practiced as integral in religious faith since that date,--and there was neither denial, rebuke nor admonition from ecclesiastical authority." In the U.S., Marshall went on, Smith's reply was seen as evidence of "the existence of something that was curiously designated as 'American Catholicism,'" which, as Walter Lippmann had noted, revealed no differences from Protestantism on the relation between religion and secular matters. While welcoming the effect of public validation of Smith's candidacy, Marshall repeated his fear that the principles of 1870, the Vatican Council's statements about papal primacy and infallibility, remained in force and continued to imply papal jurisdiction over the State in mixed matters. It remained that "a civic community or State motivated in moral matters through a Roman Catholic solidarity by an ecclesiastical government at Rome differs radically from one motivated by the Civic Primacy of its people within the State." He pointed out the contradictions between Smith's concluding statement of beliefs and the official teachings of the modern Popes. Marshall then went on to speak of the international echoes of Smith's reply which, he said, had attracted press-interest in France, England, Spain, Italy, Egypt, Australia, China and Ceylon! He took specific note of French interest, in the context of the papal condemnation of Action franaise, in Smith's letter as "the contribution of American Catholic thought as to what the doctrine and dogma of the Church ought to be, if not what it is." The French journal, <i>L'Europe Nouvelle</i>, had published Smith's letter in full, reading it as in flat contradiction to the Syllabus of Pius IX and as related to Montalembert's liberal Catholicism and to the traditional liberties claimed by the Gallican Church. The French newspaper saw Smith's position as a denial of the indirect power of the Church in secular matters; it wondered if the American Church enjoyed a derogation of the law that European Catholics felt obliged to obey. Marshall himself noted how anomalous it would be for the Church "if its membership in the United States could develop for itself an American Catholicism that involved a departure from the universal doctrine of the Church." What was needed to clarify the issue, he concluded, was for the Church's highest authority to issue "an authoritative declaration as to the relation of the Church to the political order of the modern world."
About the Author
Rev. Joseph A. Komonchak, professor emeritus of the School of Theology and Religious Studies at the Catholic University of America, is a retired priest of the Archdiocese of New York.
40 comments
- All
- Editor Featured
I am not interested in any "statement" or "creed" that any politician's staffers might "formulate". I think candidates should be questioned relentlessly by reporters who have done their homework, who can cite chapter and verse from the religion's beliefs and practices, including those reserved for members only.E.g., if a candidate cited Hilaire Belloc, a reporter should ask if s/he shares Belloc's anti-Semitism.http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F10812F93E5E1A738DDDA1... should a craftily crafted statement be preferred to extemporaneous answers to unexpected questions? Keep asking until they answer. Pin them down. Name names. E.g., the NYT's lead editorial on Rick Perry the other day was quite specific. Let that be a model. As to televised debates? The set-ups for questioning candidates are absurd, imho. Having McCain and Obama answer to Rick Warren was a perfect example. How should it be done? Each candidate in a separate room, alone. Show the candidate the question on a screen. Give her one, two, or three minutes, randomly selected by the computer. Then on to the next isolated candidate with the same question. When all have answered, on to the next question. No preening moderators. How should the questions be selected? Let viewers submit them, and then have a random selection by the computer just before the question is flashed to the candidate.
This strikes me as a very apt summary of the controversy around Smith's Catholicism. My memory tells me that John McGreevy goes into this exchange at some length in his Catholicism and American Freedom: A History (Norton, 2003). But I don't have the book at hand.At best, though, isn't it a bit of a standoff? Smith was clearly out of his depth, and Marshall pretty good at marshaling his facts, including the claims made by Rome on the consciences of the faithful. I'm interested in Smith's statement that "the Syllabus of Pope Pius IX, which you quote on the possible conflict between Church and State, is declared by Cardinal Newman to have 'no dogmatic force.' Did Newman in fact say that? It wouldn't entirely surprise me if he did. And yet the New Catholic Encyclopedia (published in 1967) pretty clearly states (again if memory serves) that the Syllabus is binding in the faithful, and makes no attempt to reconcile the differences between the teachings of Pius IX and, say, John XXIII. How, in fact, has Rome sought to deal with its earlier efforts to bind the faithful and its apparent backing off in more modern times? Again it seems to me it banks on historical ignorance. No one will ever stand up and ask the question, because we've all forgotten Pius IX, Gregory XVI, and people like that. On the other hand, if you want to discover why Vatican II and the heretical antipopes who followed it depart from the magisterium as clearly set forth by Gregory XVI, go tohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cR9rVV4ySP0PS I'm no expert on US political history, but I think there's a good deal of disagreement among the historians as to how important a factor Smith's Catholicism was in his defeat, and whether his being a wet and identified with big city machine politics was not more telling to a country that still liked to think of itself as rural and agricultural in nature (no matter how unreal that claim in 1928).
Yes, Nicholas Clifford, in his "Letter Addressed to His Grace the Duke of Norfolk on the Occasion of Mr. Gladstone's Recent Expostulation" Newman said: " The Syllabus then has no dogmatic force; it addressed us, not in its separate postions, but as a whole, and is to be received from the Pope by an act of obedience, not of faith, that obedience being shown by having recourse to the original and authoritative documents, (allocutions and the like,) to which the Syllabus pointedly refers." (Qtd. in Francis A. Sullivan, Creative Fidelity: Weighing and Interpreting Documents of the Magisterium Wipf and Stock: Eugene, Oregon 2003, p. 142). Sullivan's book will be very helpful to anyone interested in the problem of authority in the Church. I ran across this passage a day or two ago, there, but I think Fr. K referred to the Letter in an much earlier thread. It rang a bell when I came across it.
Nicholas, about your PS:Good summary by Jay Dolan in NDMag. http://magazine.nd.edu/news/1155-the-right-of-a-catholic-to-be-president... that:---The most comprehensive study, conducted by the historian Allan Lichtman, concluded that the religious issue was by far the most important influence on voting. Smiths contemporary, Republican Senator George W. Norris, acknowledged, as did many others in 1928, that the greatest element involved in the landslide was religion. Moreover, he added, the religious issue has sowed the seeds of hatred, prejudice, and jealousy, and they will grow and bear fruit long after the present generation has passed away.---And, about Kennedy:---In a speech in Morgantown, he struck a theme that he would repeat throughout West Virginia. Nobody asked me if I was a Catholic when I joined the United States Navy, he said to a stunned crowd. His aide, Ken ODonnell, recalled that Kennedy went on with a fire and dash that I had seldom seen in him, asking if 40 million Americans lost their right to run for the presidency on the day when they were baptized as Catholics. That wasnt the country my brother died for in Europe, he said, and nobody asked my brother if he was a Catholic or Protestant before he climbed into an American bomber plane to fly his last mission.
Hillary Clinton was channelling Eleanor Roosevelt and Gandhi during the Monica Lewinsky episode. She had a New Age coterie telling her that she might be a latter-day Joan of Arc (Carl Bernstein's book). Are voices still helping her?Probing the beliefs of Governor Moonbeam, Kucinich and other flakes on the left would also be enlightening. Clearly we need a modern Inquisition and trials by ordeal, impartially administered of course.
I would actually have one very specific question to ask a Catholic candidate: "If your local bishop told you, privately or publicly, that if you did not vote a particular way on a piece of pending legislation that you could not receive communion, what would you do in that situation?Am I mistaken in thinking that this actually happens now? My understanding was that Congressman Kennedy in Rhode Island was told he couldn't receive because of his legislative activity regarding abortion. If that's true, I could see a similar situation around same sex marriage, federal funding of contraceptives, etc. I think it is fair to ask a candidate how he would act in that instance.I had always thought it just awful that politicans like Al Smith's loyalty was once questioned
"What was needed to clarify the issue, he concluded, was for the Churchs highest authority to issue an authoritative declaration as to the relation of the Church to the political order of the modern world.Vatican II with Murray's religious liberty help goes only half way. It's amazing that a grammar school drop out like Al Smith could be the catalyst to start a discussion in 1928 that has yet to be resolved, at least IMHO.
Thank you for the helpful and very apt summary of your 2000 article in Revue d'Histoire Ecclesiastique. The footnotes to the article are as rewarding as the text. Was Father Francis Duffy one of the professors removed from the Dunwoodie faculty during the anti-Modernist purge forced [I think] on Archbishop Farley?(In the footnotes I noted Gerald Fogarty's The Vatican And The American Catholic Hierarchy From 1870 to 1965 (1982 and 1985). I consider Fogarty's study one of the most important books written in the field of US Church history.)And thanks to Susan Gannon for the citation from A Letter To The Duke Of Norfolk.
I have always been thankful that Al Smith did not win the presidency in 1928, since a year later the Stock Market crashed. Just think what anti-Catholic bigots would have done with that!I understand that John Courtney Murray did not attend the first session of Vatican II (having been "disinvited, according to Xavier Rynne) but that he was present at subsequent sessions through the efforts of Cardinal Spellman. The link to Fr. Komonchaks essay, Religious Freedom and the Confessional State, was very helpful in giving me background about the opposition to Murrays analysis of the American experience.(Thanks to the author.)
I recently showed my students a series of American movies and TV shows roughly 50 years apart, beginning with D.W. Griffith's "Broken Blossoms" (1919) and ending with an updated version of the Twilight Zone's "The Monsters on Maple Street" made after 9/11.In each of these stories, beer, a gun, and an "outsider," someone whose beliefs were outside the norm, elicited fear, suspicion, and tragedy. What changed, of course, in each story was who the "outsider" was.It seems to me that questions--even open accusations--about someone's background may actually be salubrious at times. Marshall, in accusing Smith of being in conflict with the U.S. Constitution b/c of his Catholicism, allowed Smith to make his case and demonstrate the Catholics are not monolithic, nor are Catholic politicians always in lockstep with literature that receives the imprimatur from their bishops.Whenever politicians seem to be affiliated with groups outside the "norm," they're going to have to answer questions about it. In retrospective, those questions will seem stupid, bigoted. But perhaps they're necessary to the assimilation of the "outsiders."
My thanks to Susan Gannon for the reference of Newman's letter to the Duke of Norfolk -- now that I've had it pointed out to me, I remember, though the haze of the distant past, coming across it many years ago. I'm still at a loss to understand how Rome has handled the question of what explanations to give when the magisterium changes -- between, say, the teachings of Gregory XVI and Pius IX in the 19th century, and those of John XXIII and his successors. No doubt just my ignorance, but I'd be grateful for any pointers on that subject.
Rome has handled the changes either by saying it has always taught the new teaching (e.g., the infallibility of the pope) or by claiming that the old formulation didn't get it right for these times so new a new formulation is needed.
Which of the Church's teachings is a public office holder obligated to ignore on grounds of separation of church and state, and which of them is he or she obligated to comply with?If the subject is abortion, must he act like Mario Cuomo and ignore Church teaching while justifying his pro-abortion rights position?What if the subject is taxation of the rich? Must he also then ignore what many insist is the Church's teaching on social justice? Or is he required in that instance to comply?Or should he say that the Church's teaching on abortion is not based on matter of faith or doctrine, but is a matter of reason and biological truth, such that it is obligatory on the politician, not as a matter of religious dogma, but as a matter of reason and truth and justice?
Many thanks for this thoughtful, detailed and well-sourced post. Al Smith is, for me, a classic example of the power of institutions (in his case, the Catholic Church and the Democratic Party) to shape people's lives for the better. Without the Church, and without Tammany Hall, Smith would likely have been another of the millions of anonymous grade-school dropouts of his era. Instead he became a significant figure in the history of his church, his party and his country.His statement is an excellent summary of what I think of as the "classic" American Catholic position on issues of church and state, religion and public life:*freedom of religion;*separation of church and state;*freedom of conscience;*equality before the law as a basic right;*the obligation of the citizen to support the state (e.g., public schools);*the right of parents to educate their children in a religious or other non-public school.Given the rise over the past generation of an evangelical Protestant theory of the relationship between church and state/religion and public life, it is, for me, both welcome and refreshing to read Smith's words again.
From Ann Olivier: "Rome has handled the changes either by saying it has always taught the new teaching (e.g., the infallibility of the pope) or by claiming that the old formulation didnt get it right for these times so new a new formulation is needed."Thanks for the response, and I'm afraid that you're right The first claim, of course, risks being a prevarication, to use no stronger term; the second claim essentially historicizes church teachings (or at least the forms those teachings take), seeing them as reflections of their times, and thus undercutting their supposedly eternal validity. The Youtube clip I cited above gives a clearly different answer. Vatican II flat out contradicts certain of Gregory XVI's points in Mirari Vos (1832); ergo, the Council fathers, John XXIII and his successors are all heretics. Q.E.D. A simple-minded answer, to be sure, but still more of an answer than Rome (as far as I know, which isn't very far) apparently has ever given.
"Rome has handled the changes either by saying it has always taught the new teaching (e.g., the infallibility of the pope) or by claiming that the old formulation didnt get it right for these times so new a new formulation is needed."Raber attended a diosesan catechetical conference some years back. One of the breakout sessions for RCIA leaders included a handout that said (direct quote): "NEVER tell candidates and catechumens, 'We don't believe that anymore.'"While Raber is a devout and faithful Catholic, he said that the breakout session, which required catechists to role play answering questions about Limbo, was a short course in weasel wording, and it bothered him.Clearly not too much b/c he's taking a pie up to the outdoor mass and picnic at the local parish, bless him. I went last night to avoid the "fellowship."
@Nicholas Clifford (8/28, 9:03 am) Here's a bit of background about the source for the YouTube clip you linked to above: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_Holy_Family_MonasteryI guess, as with most things, everyone can draw their own conclusions about the credibility of the source.I would just note one of the weaknesses of the type of argument exhibited in that YouTube clip is that it is not historical *enough*. If, as in this example, you're only going back 170 years to make your argument about the failings of the Catholic Church today, you've missed 90% of the Church's history. (Not to mention a number of popes who were far more heretical and/or scandalous than the 5 most recent popes!)
Nicholas C. --I actually have a great sympathy for the SSPXers when they call the popes heretics because the popes now deny what they used to affirm. If, by its own earlier standards, the Vatican has contradicted itself then it is being heretical. What the SSPXers don't see is that the problem is in the 16-19th century Vatican standards.
One of Al Smiths older contemporaries deserves to be remembered for his contribution to the Catholic Church-State stance. William Bourke Cockran was a New York Congressman and well known defender of the faith in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Eliot of Harvard called him the most eloquent orator of the most eloquent Church, comparing him to Chrysostom and Bossuet.In November of 1908 Theodore Roosevelt argued that it is subversive of the basic principles of separation of church and state to permit the religious belief of any candidate for public office to determine the casting of ones vote for or against such a candidate.Roosevelt was immediately reproached by members of the Baptist and the Evangelical Lutheran Churches. They affirmed the soundness of the Rooseveltian principle when dealing with most religions but claimed that, because of Rome's anti-democratic past, the principle failed when Catholicism was involved. Bourke Cockran was drawn into the battle. At the time he apparently was the go-to guy on these matters, having long ago gained the favor of the hierarchy. He had earlier argued that if every man, woman, and child in the United States were Catholic -- if full power to change our political system was in the hands of Catholic representatives -- not one word of the Constitution could be changed with advantage to the Catholic Church. Against the ministers he delivered an hour and a half speech, later distributed as a pamphlet in a million copies. His exposition featured extended analyses of the Unam Sanctam, Boniface VIII vs. Philippe le Bel episode. Rabbis and ministers were impressed. The Chicago Tribune: Cockrans address was perhaps the most eloquent tribute ever paid by a layman to the Catholic Church . . . the speech was not a defense, not an apology, not an excuse, but a thundering, aggressive, exultant challenge.Later in his career, after rejoining Tammany (as a reformer he was in and out of their favor), he nominated Al Smith for President at the 1920 Democratic convention, at the time still a hopeless effort.Bourke Cockran was a quite interesting character. He reportedly had a fling with Jenny Churchill, from the details of which we will here piously avert our eyes. Jennies son, Winston, acknowledged Cockrans oratorical power, which he tried to imitate. The secret: speak like an organ, in wave-like rhythm. http://homepage.eircom.net/~jas/bourke_cockran.html
Joseph, thanks forhttp://jakomonchak.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/religious-freedom-confess... big chunk of good reading to look forward to.
David Smith:Had to read it a few times - well worth it.
Jean Raber 08/28/2011 - 10:37 am:
Raber attended a diosesan catechetical conference some years back. One of the breakout sessions for RCIA leaders included a handout that said (direct quote): NEVER tell candidates and catechumens, We dont believe that anymore.While Raber is a devout and faithful Catholic, he said that the breakout session, which required catechists to role play answering questions about Limbo, was a short course in weasel wording, and it bothered him.
To say "We don't believe that anymore." isn't the same thing as saying "The Church's teachings change as the conditions to which they apply change. For many centuries, the Church was a co-ruler with monarchies over so-called Christian states. The founding of the United States marked a time after which these political entities began to be replaced by the modern democratic and pluralistic states, in which the Church no longer ruled officially. Today, a Catholic's social conscience is informed by his personal conscience, which is in turn guided by the teachings of the Church." It's probably awfully tempting to say the former - thus the admonishing to avoid it, because it's misleading in important ways.Even in the age of sound-bite oversimplification it's important to be careful and precise.
Helen 08/28/2011 - 11:30 pmDavid Smith:Had to read it a few times well worth it.
Yes, thanks, I agree. Just finished it. It's fascinating.In an interview on C-SPAN not long ago, George Will said that if only one subject could be taught in schools, it should be history.
Fascinating story about Bourke Cockran and Teddy Roosevelt. Thanks!
Patrick Molloy: Thank you for the reference to Bourke Cockran. Is his speech available anywhere?At Vatican II one of the principal debates was about whether acknowledging a right to religious freedom would represent a repudiation of papal teaching since Gregory XVI. John Courtney Murray had devoted the previous fifteen years to demonstrating that the immunity from coercion he was urging as a constitutional right was not the same thing the modern popes had been repudiating and that acknowledging it could represent the kind of vital adaptation to changed circumstances that Pius XII had said the Church was always capable of. (An early draft of the Declaration on Religious Freedom had sketched an argument to this effect, but it was taken out, probably wisely, because it was the sort of thing you can't say in a few sentences.) Murray in particular argued that the modern idea of a confessional State owed far more to modern theories of state sovereignty and omnicompetence than it did to earlier traditions of thought. The chief opponents to the Declaration at the Council and since erected the confessional State into a dogmatically required ideal.Joseph Ratzinger on more than one occasion criticized the clinging to this ideal by nineteenth- and twentieth-century popes. In his famous speech to the Roman Curia in 2005 on the interpretation of Vatican II, Benedict XVI exemplified the need for new thinking and for revision of earlier views by reference to the Declaration on Religious Freedom, and in the course of his comments echoed Murray's view that the American political experiment represented a quite different approach to the matter than that visible in the bitter struggles that characterized the separation of Church and State on the European continent in the nineteenth century. Dignitatis humanae was the pope's illustration of reform as continuity and discontinuity on different levels. I think Murray would agree with this.
Fr. Komonchak,I havent seen the entire speech. There are extensive quotes from the speech and paraphrases in the chapter Defender of the Faith in the biography, William Bourke Cockran, A Free Lance in American Politics by James McGurrin, New York, Charles Scribners Sons, 1948. There are no footnotes in the book but the bibliography includes these two items:William Bourke Cockran Papers 1881 - 1924 in the New York Public LibraryCockran, William Bourke, In the Name of Liberty: Selected Addresses by William Bourke Cockran, edited by Robert McElroy, New York: G.P. Putnams Sons, 1925.The McGurrin biography states that Cardinal Gibbons urged Cockran to reply to the Lutheran ministers. The speech was delivered at the First American Catholic Missionary Congress, held in Chicago on November 16th. The Catholic Church Extension Society had a million copies printed and distributed. One distinguished prelate, Archbishop Ireland of St. Paul, wrote Cockran that he regarded the speech as an historic pronouncement and compared it to Cardinal Newmans Apologia. I see that Amazon has this 1909 book:The Logical and Historical Inaccuracies of the Hon. Bourke Cockran in His Review of the Lutheran Letter of Protest to President Roosevelt by William Herman Theodore Dau------------------For those interested in the Cockran - Churchill connection:http://www.5min.com/Video/How-Churchill-Became-Churchill-273170697and the book by McMenaminAlso of note, Churchill refers to Cockran in his Iron Curtain SpeechI have often used words which I learned fifty years ago from a great Irish-American orator, a friend of mine, Mr. Bourke Cockran, There is enough for all. The earth is a generous mother; she will provide in plentiful abundance food for all her children if they will but cultivate her soil in justice and peace."http://www.historyguide.org/europe/churchill.htmlAnother footnote: William Bourke Cockran is sometimes listed under the Bs and sometimes under the Cs in indexes, so if you look up only one of his names youll underestimate his influence. Ive always sympathized with Conor Cruise OBrien who suffers the same fate. Those with several names should be allowed to move up in all the important rankings.
Re: Patrick Molloy 08/27/2011 - 2:03 pmYou really should submit your stuff to The Onion. Or the California Catholic Daily.The former delights in satire and the latter's readers would eat up each and every thing you say and still probably think that you are a stinkin' commie liberal.
"I would actually have one very specific question to ask a Catholic candidate: If your local bishop told you, privately or publicly, that if you did not vote a particular way on a piece of pending legislation that you could not receive communion, what would you do in that situation? Am I mistaken in thinking that this actually happens now? My understanding was that Congressman Kennedy in Rhode Island was told he couldnt receive because of his legislative activity regarding abortion."Hi, Irene, I'd be extremely disappointed if any of the bishops wielded the sacraments like a political club to try to influence votes on pending legislation. I'm certainly open to correction, but I don't believe it happens. Yes, some politicians have been told that they may not receive communion in certain dioceses. That is simply to recognize the reality (in the judgment of those dioceses' bishops) that, by a long, sustained, consistent track record of voting against Catholic principles and in ways that contravene Catholic doctrine, the politician in question has separated himself from full communion. In other words, it's an acknowledgement of current status (separated from full communion) as a result of a long string - a professional lifetime - of *past actions*. That's very different than the bald threat, 'Vote no on HB 12345 or you'll never get communion again.'In my view, the questioning of Catholic politicians who consistently vote against the principles of Catholicism, specifically because such votes would be unpopular with their constituents and would endanger their political career (and let's be real - they're almost all Democrats) should run along the lines of, 'How can you claim to be Catholic when you've conducted your professional life in such a way that indicates that you take Catholicism less seriously than your rooting interest in the local major league baseball team?'
Jim P. ==Do read Charles Taylor's short but powerful article "Magisterial Authority" in The Crisis of Authority in Catholic Modernity. The article is about the scope and limitations of Church authority and some basic ways in which the hierarchy transgresses those limits. His approach is both theological and historical. I'm surprised he hasn't heard from the bishops yet, though maybe he has. Quite a courageous article. Almost as if he's challenging the bishops to defend some of their behavior.
1)Second Ann's motion2) Jim, keep an eye on the upcoming fodham Conference son Fauthful Citizenship.Should be really informative!
I just learned so much. Thank you, Fr. K.
"and let's be real - they're almost all Democrats"This preachy aside is unnecessary to your overall point, and ends up weakening it.
The only cardinal to resign in the twentieth century was the Jesuit curial cardinal, Louis Billot. He refused to accept Pius XI's condemnation in 1927 of Action Francaise. In a contentious audience with the pope, Billot offered to resign his cardinalate. Five days later the pope accepted the resignation. Father Billot spent the remaining four years of his life at a retreat house in Naples, dying at age eighty-five.
and lets be real theyre almost all Democrats"Hello Jim, I think only if you limit the scope of review to Catholic teaching on abortion and sexuality. If we also consider Catholic teaching on the rights of workers, on our obligation to the poor and on limitations on unjust war, I think we can safely say that Catholic politicians' deviance from Church teaching (vis-a-vis their voting record) is pretty bipartisan.
An Evangelical Christian who sincerely believes that humans didn't evolve from other species, most likely also believes that Jesus is the Son of God, was incarnated of the virgin Mary, became man, was crucified, died and was buried, descended into hell, rose again on the third day, ascended into heaven - in other words, is a Christian. On the most important articles of faith, she is in agreement with me. I have way more in common with such an Evangelical Christian on the truly important things in life than I do with Christopher Hitchens, who apparently would consider me a stooge and a menace for subscribing to these articles of faith, and longs for the day - which will never come - when Jesus' influence ceases to operate on the human race.From that framework, I'm more likely to align myself with Rick Perry than Christopher Hitchens, even though the former may - or may not - disagree with my views on evolution.There are many ardent foes of the pro-life cause who agree with me on evolution. They have inflicted incalculable suffering and carnage on many millions of my fellow human beings. I conclude that evolution is a poor litmus test for a Christian in the public sphere.
"I conclude that evolution is a poor litmus test for a Christian in the public sphere."Certainly, if our common creed leads our fundamentalist and evangelical friends toward humane and kindly policies that protect babies and allow for a diversity of thought, that's dandy, and unbelief in evolution would not prevent me from voting for them. Our state senator was one such fellow. He was a great guy, and I was happy to cross party lines and vote for him.My concern is when those who are vocally anti-evolution want to get laws passed against teaching it or at least forcing other people's children to consider it in light of one particular interpretation of the Genesis creation story,which is debated hotly among Christians and Jews of various stripes. If we're going to let the fundiegelicals set their version of Genesis alongside the teaching of evolution, why not let the Christian Scientists insert info about their beliefs when the kiddies study Pasteur? Why not let the Amish offer their Flat Earth views when the children study astronomy? Why not let those who find certain words offensive in Mark Twain expurgate them so no one is offended? (Oh, wait ....)
ISTM the question is: do we have a right to be irrational?The reason that honorable and reasonable people reach different conclusions is because they start out from different premises. Are we sometimes obliged to reconsider our own premises about matters that are important to the community? I think the answer is Yes. The fundies say No because they think that their premises are certified by God. But that itself is an assumption that needs reconsideration.
Hopefully my choice at the ballot box would not have to be between Christopher Hitchens or a Young Earth Creationist. I would vote for neither.
oops. think the above post was on the wrong thread.
Even though dated I agree with Al Smith. Just finished reading "The Crisis of Authority in Catholic Modernity". If we lived by cannon law we would have a theocracy and the Pope would rule by "divine right". I don't understand how anyone can support vochers for church schools, home schooling and charter schools which the church sure seems to want here in the USA. I sure don't want my tax dollars going to the New Apolstolic Reformation sect or any other religion. Universal primary education is to educate for citizenship. If the parents want their children to be educated in a religion then they and their community should pay for it. I'm still RC despite only 8 years of Catholic education; the pracitice of the Faith is handed on through family life and involvement in church activities and the sacraments in the power of the Holy Spirit ----not through civil government. And no bishop has the authority to deprive a politician from recieving the Euchrist. As we say in mass--in praying for the deceased---"whose faith is know only to You" We are a faith for all and not just the many!


text:
Print this page
Artbeads Ratings and Reviews
See All Reviews
Shop Now At Artbeads
Choose a Category
Shop Alphabet Beads
Shop Artbeads.com Store
Shop Bags & Boxes
Shop Bali Beads
Shop Base Metal Components
Shop Beading Books
Shop Bracelets & Neckwear
Shop Charms
Shop Clearance Items
Shop Copper Clasps
Shop Copper Components
Shop Copper Pendants
Shop Crafts & Accessories
Shop Cubic Zirconia Beads
Shop Earrings
Shop Freshwater Pearls
Shop Gemstone Beads
Shop Gift Certificates/Cards
Shop Glass Beads
Shop Gold Beads
Shop Gold Components
Shop Hill Tribe Silver Beads
Shop Horn Beads
Shop Jewelry Kits
Shop Limited Edition
Shop Limited Edition Gemstones
Shop Limited Edition Glass Beads
Shop Natural Beads
Shop Natural Components
Shop Pendants
Shop Pewter Beads
Shop Pewter Components
Shop Porcelain Beads
Shop Resin Beads
Shop Seed Beads
Shop Shell Beads
Shop Shell Pendants
Shop Silk Beads
Shop Silver Components
Shop Sterling Silver Beads
Shop Stringing Materials
Shop Swarovski Components
Shop Swarovski Crystal Beads
Shop Swarovski Pendants
Shop Swarovski Rhinestones
Shop Tools & Supplies
Shop Vintage Beads
Shop Watch Faces
Shop Weekly Specials
Shop Wire & Chain
Shop Wood Beads
Shop Wooden Components
Reviews Home
(Unknown) Reviews
Product Reviews
Swarovski 5811 12mm Round Pearl Large Hole Lavender
This 12mm round pearl in lavender has a large hole, making it easier to thread. It features a new shimmering shade of lavender that will add an elegant yet contemporary feel to your designs. Try using this large pearl bead to create a gorgeous pair of earrings. This faux pearl has a leaded crystal core that makes it heavier. Its pearl coating is similar to a natural pearl luster and is consistent in color. It is also resistant to perspiration, UV rays, perfumes, scratches and washing and warms to the skin like real pearls do. Feel free to browse for more
Swarovski crystal beads
Customer Reviews for
Swarovski 5811 12mm Round Pearl Large Hole Lavender
This product has not yet been reviewed.
Click here
to continue to the product details page.


text:
BEST ENTRANCE: Main Entrance
LOCATION IN MALL: In the New Wing, next to Tesla Motors and Tommy Bahama
(305) 913-5430 | Driving Directions | Microsoft Website |
View Deals | Mall Map
More stores to consider
Rapid Wax
Beauty Salons of America Hair Spa
On the #50PeaksChallenge, the long hours and complex logistics can be as demanding as the climbs.
RT @haileyknoxmusic: THE "AWKWARD" VIDEO IS HERE!SWIPING SOME LYRICS ON MY MICROSOFT SURFACE PRO ????THANKS TO @Microsoft & @TeenVogue https:…/p>
RT @cloverletter: We're giving away a @Microsoft Surface tablet in today's letter! Enter here: https://t.co/Ez6TPWQht9/p>
This gear will help @MelissaArnot conquer #50Peaks in 50 days. Follow her journey: https://t.co/ALi8bdU1gi https://t.co/loBGuqY3AZ/p>
She's climbing #50Peaks in 50 states in 50 days. Meet @MelissaArnot: https://t.co/ZtHyS4tRyi
RT @satyanadella: Great to have @JeffImmelt at #WPC16 https://t.co/wKSa8SzZIa https://t.co/Ho5a0bXdBZ/p>
Our employee #LGBT group is about being who you are. #HelloPride https://t.co/toBxOKaGVY/p>
RT @Office: We teamed up with @MaxieMcCoy & @MOO to bring you tips to land your #dreamjob. Learn more: https://t.co/xeX2ShQOSk https://t.co…/p>
RECAP: #WPC16, Day 2: https://t.co/LWuIgjTK1A https://t.co/KJpj9V6K0j/p>
RT @reckless: Big @CaseyNewton features are the best features. Exclusive: Why Microsoft is betting its future on AI https://t.co/DIJ23YlZOq/p>
RT @MSFTnews: Intelligent business process start here. Introducing Dynamics 365 and AppSource. Learn more: https://t.co/pvxPjQwaQ5/p>
From a programmable prosthetic to an anti-bullying VR app, #ImagineCup finalists are changing the future with tech. https://t.co/3R0JwG2bsW/p>
A team of doctors and a new, tech-powered treatment from @ChildrensMercy are helping infants heal at home.
Intergalactic star John Boyega and 2014 champion Dr. Jennifer Tang team up to judge this year's #ImagineCup.
#WPC16 kicks off in 5 minutes with a keynote by Microsoft CEO @satyanadella. Watch it live: https://t.co/OUAncfzrf1 https://t.co/j9PmQs7A0x/p>
Imagine the internet's data in 1 shoebox. Microsoft & @UW researchers are working on that: https://t.co/jPR5dQCMnV https://t.co/SodYgRSVK8/p>
We're joining the @WhiteHouse to aid refugees by empowering nonprofits with tech, volunteers, & funding. Join us: https://t.co/wNlNpfNXwG/p>
Remember our old friends @SamAndMattie? They're on @TeamCoco this Thursday. Congrats, guys! https://t.co/O4MkeopCZK https://t.co/6IwJJRbspl/p>
Researchers at Microsoft & @UW are working to store the world's data inside DNA. Here's how: https://t.co/jPR5dQCMnV https://t.co/jwgywCm97R/p>
From tasting notes to inventory tracking, Microsoft helps @AndreMack make wine his way. https://t.co/Tgl5UcklvW #ad https://t.co/cj29WkxHUa/p>
Learn how technology allows @TeamGleason to talk to his wife and play with his son in #GleasonMovie.
Introducing #MicrosoftPix, a smart camera app that takes better photos without extra effort. https://t.co/gc0cBMAVVE
Prep, tech & expertise can't prevent the unexpected. See Melissa & Maddie on their first climb of #50PeaksChallenge.
Introducing @swiftmoji, the keyboard app that predicts the perfect emojis: https://t.co/NqVumAsKnA/p>
Introducing Microsoft Stream, a new video service for business.
Being inclusive isn't something we do, it's something we stand for.
RT @satyanadella: Reinventing business processes with @MSFTDynamics https://t.co/QmL5SaEKgZ on @LinkedIn/p>
We join the millions mourning in Baton Rouge, Falcon Heights, and Dallas and we stand with those committed to change around the world./p>
RT @verge: Exclusive: Why Microsoft is betting its future on AI https://t.co/dTMwxK7bfJ https://t.co/rUgZtz7JF3/p>
Then Get Our Can't Miss Style Reports, Retailer Offers
and Event News Before Everyone Else.
Plus you'll be entered to win a $1,000 Shopping Spree.
View our privacy policy / No spam. We promise.


text:
Where's the bridge? The 7 Biggest Things Ever Stolen
We think of thieves on a spectrum from the kid who steals a candy bar from 7-Eleven, to the group of guys in a tuxedos knocking over a casino in an elaborate heist involving grappling hooks.
But there is a level of thief even above them, guys who think a little bit bigger than everybody else. Too big, it turns out. That's why they tried to steal things like...
#7. A 3,000 Pound Bell
How often do you go to church (or in this case, a Buddhist temple) and, upon hearing the bell think, "I want one!" Well, some other guys apparently did, and they decided to make their dream come true.
You can imagine the surprise of the Buddhist monks at a temple in Tacoma, Washington when they noticed their enormous bell was missing. Especially considering the thing weighted 3,000 fucking pounds.
Experts (see local police) theorized that, unless the thieves had some kind of super powers, they would have had to have brought a forklift and a truck to load the thing onto. With all the quiet time at those temples, you'd assume someone would have heard something (it is a freaking bell, after all), but nobody heard or saw a thing.
"Well I got this forklift...might as well use it to steal a big ass bell..."
The monks said the bell, cast in Vietnam, was so valuable that they couldn't calculate its worth, which must have pissed them off even more realizing that the assholes who stole it were probably going to sell it for scrap. That, of course, raises the question of just what the thieves thought they would do with the thing after they had it, as even the shadiest pawn shops and scrap metal yards would probably give you more than a raised eyebrow as you dragged this bastard through the door.
It turns out they didn't have a plan. The monks got their bell back a year later, when some dumbass tried to sell it and some other junk for $500. The buyer went right to the cops, ruining his own chances to have a huge kickass bell on his porch.
#6. A Beach
In July of 2007, officials in Jamaica were presumably walking along the beach when, all of a sudden, there was no more beach. After hiding their weed, they notified local police that an entire fucking beach had been stolen.
"Is it just me or was this place more beach-like yesterday?"
Approximately a half mile of beach was taken, and no one knows where it went or who took it. Natural causes were ruled out, and island officials believe approximately 500 dump trucks were loaded up with the sand and taken elsewhere on the island. Again, they don't know where it went, who took it or why, though you'd think that the dude suddenly selling timeshares for houses with the slogan "NOW WITH BEACH!" would be the key suspect.
#5. A Tank
1995 was a simpler time. Terrorists weren't supposedly hiding under every rock and bringing too much shampoo on a plane wouldn't get you a body cavity search. Back then if you wanted to, say, borrow a tank from a military base, you could pretty much just walk in. It was all done on the honor system really.
Don't believe us? Ask Shawn Nelson. Shawn was a typical man whose life got a little tough, what with trying to sue San Diego, and a hospital, and trying to build a mining quarry in his back yard. Being the kind of guy who likes to think outside the box, Shawn decided to steal a 57-ton M60 Patton Tank from his local National Guard armory.
"Well, if this sign doesn't work, gosh, I don't know what to do.
As it turns out, no, tanks don't require keys to start, and yes the hatches were locked, though police theorized he used a crowbar to break into three different tanks before finding one that would start. Yes, the only thing stopping Al Qaeda from taking over an armored division was that they didn't know about the crowbar thing.
The secret to American safety.
Only after it was too late did a guard notice someone, you know, was stealing a freaking tank. Being the brave soul he was, the guard did the only thing his training and pay grade allowed him to do: call someone else.
In the mean time, Nelson took his newly-found wheels out for a spin through suburban California; crushing cars, trailers, knocking over utility poles and prompting countless SUV drivers to lean out of their windows and ask him where they could buy one.
How do you stop a tank in that situation? You don't. The ensuing 23 minute chase ended only when Nelson managed to get the tank stuck on a jersey barrier in the middle of the highway. At that point, probably after shitting themselves at the sight of said tank, the cops jumped on the war machine, opened the hatch and shot Shawn to death. Yes, the man was presumably undone by the same technique he had invented: the ingenious "crowbar to the hatch" tank hack.
#4. A Bridge
Ever had somebody say, "Well if you believe that, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you!" Well be careful if you happen to be in Russia at the time, because there's a certain chance that the dude just might have a bridge out back he's trying to move.
It may, in fact, be this bridge that was stolen in Khabarovsk, Russia. And the thieves stole it overnight! That's right, a 38-foot long steel bridge designed for automotive traffic was stolen overnight, without anybody noticing.
Something's missing...
In what has got to be the most incredible "guess what I did while I was drunk last night" story ever, the local police theorize that a group of thieves dismantled the bridge to sell the metal for scrap. You know, because it's Russia.
The worst part, is that these are probably serial bridge thieves. According to the article, two other bridges were completely stolen earlier in that same year, and police suspect the crimes are connected (though obviously not by a bridge). But of course the saddest part of this is what it suggests about Russia. One, that (unlike the bell thieves) the perpetrators were apparently able to find a taker for the scrap metal who'd turn a blind eye to the clearly bridge-shaped nature of many of the pieces ("I, uh, found it. In the river.").
"Look, it doesn't matter how I got it, do you want it or not? I'll throw in the train."
Secondly, there's the motorists who stopped when their headlights revealed a half-gone bridge, along with a group of dudes with cutting torches running away with chunks and giggling, and who didn't bother to report anything. We can just picture them doing a U-turn, shaking their heads and muttering, "Yakov Smirnoff was right."


text:
When a non-jew converts to Jusaism, must he still do teshuva from past sins, or does the "reborn" concept stretch far enough to consider him "sinless"?
Sign up
- Anybody can ask a question
- Anybody can answer
- The best answers are voted up and rise to the top
From Rambam, Laws of Kings and their Wars, Chapter 10:
Interesting. So apparently, as you've indicated, it's not entirely "clean-slate."
The Talmud has stories of people who'd done horrible things against the Jews rethinking their lives, running off, and converting. Apparently we accepted them for conversion; how they work out their previous lives and regrets is between them and G-d.
Based on the Gemara that says he is like a child KiKatan Shenolad Dami it would seem he has a completely clean slate like a child.But my original conclusion is wrong as pointed out by Yahu.
In fact even the question of familial relationships is a Machlokes in a Gemara in Yevamos between Reish Lakish, who says if he had a child prior to his conversion he is still obligated, because he resembles a katan shenolad so the original Children have nothing to do with him.Then there is Reb Yochanan who says it makes no difference as the reality is he has children.
They have the same argument about the status of a child born after a geirus in regards to a firstborn getting the double portion of inheritance. Reb Lakish says the child born after birth is a Bechor Reb Yochnan says no.
Another gemara that disproves my original point is in Sanhedrin it says if someone did an Aveirah and was converted he is still responsible for his sin. The Chavas Yair brings an example of a ger who had stole from a Jew prior to conversion The question asked was must he return the item? the Chavas Yair said yes again proving "no clean slate", Another interesting Machlokes on this topic is a women who ran away with a gentile and then returned to Judaism and the gentile converted can she now marry him (If her original husband died,or divorced her) normally we say she can not marry the person she cheated with or continue living with her husband The Rabbenu Taam as explained by the Mordechai says she is allowed to marry the man she ran away with as the Geirus makes a New man Kikoton Shenolad Dami MOST DISAGREE this ruling and again it seems "No clean Slate"
In fact to knock the Final nail in the coffin of my original thought process the gemara in Yevamous says one of the reasons Converts suffer after converting is because they failed to keep the Seven Noachide laws earlier again disproving The Clean slate. Source


text:
Christen Press, left, is congratulated by Carli Lloyd after scoring in USA's 4-0 win. Crystal Dunn, Mallory Pugh, Carli Lloyd and Christen Press got the goals as the Americans improved to 14-0-0 all-time against the Ticas with a 75-2 cumulative goal difference. In Rio de Janeiro, the defending Women
Meridian luxury apartments in MD, VA & DC. Close to Metro, shopping, dining and more!
Nothing says Team USA quite like Kyrie Irving's bracelet. In the month since winning the NBA title, Cleveland Cavaliers point guard Kyrie Irving has been enjoying himself as a grown man should. Kyrie Irving been turning up every day since he won.


text:
How do I install the Google talk plugin so I can use gtalk and Google Plus?
Starting in Ubuntu 11.10 multi-arch is used for applications that formerly used
gtalk & Google plus are the same plugin. They are are comprised of a 64-bit plugin plus a 32-bit daemon - and use the deprecated ia32-libs, it will be up to Google to update their package at some point.
Under Ubuntu 11.10 amd64 users should continue to use the 64-bit .deb available from http://www.google.com/chat/video on amd64 systems, as the 32-bit .deb cannot be used without additional modifications to the system at this time.
Once downloaded the plugin can be installed by either:
Either method will open the Software Center to complete the installation. If you receive a dependency error, make sure you have selected Universe in your software sources.
Here is a hacky way to handle this:
For ubuntu 14 - there seems to be a bug in the software center, so you'll need to download the file from google servers:
and then use the command line to install the .deb file. Browse to downloads folder:
Install .deb file via command line:


text:
Is there a way to have
--update option print files that did not copy because the source directory contained a newer version of the file?
migrated from stackoverflow.com Apr 16 '12 at 14:49
This question came from our site for professional and enthusiast programmers.
The two "v"-s there are not a typo: they are there for increased verbosity, to show the files that were skipped.
The skipped files will look like
Or if you will be using it interactively the
I don't think there is a way to have
This little one-liner comes with some limitations:
1) It depends on there not being any files named "NOFILES". You can change that string in the
2) You must be in the directory where
3) It won't work if you for some reason have backticks or single quotes in your filenames.
As you can tell this isn't the most robust solution, but it should do for a one-off operation.
I woke up this morning and realized that the above solution was garbage. If you tried to copy multiple files it would search as many times as you have files, excluding one file each time. The following solution, however, should work:
It builds up a regex as it goes and passes that to
Sorry about the brain-fart earlier. Guess it was too late to be on StackOverflow.
Would rsync do the job for you? It has many options that fit your description, say "don't overwrite newer files" and such. And you can have it log findings. I use it often for remote AND local file copying.
You can get very granular with it too.
Good luck.


text:
Virgin Australia is proud to be a Codeshare partner with our sister airline Virgin Atlantic Airways – Britain's second largest long-haul airline serving the world's major cities.
As partners, we offer increased loyalty rewards through reciprocal frequent flyer programs and lounge access.
Virgin Atlantic's fleet of 38 aircraft transport over five million guests a year to worldwide destinations throughout Asia, the United Kingdom, North America, the Caribbean, the Middle East and Africa.


text:
We have up for auction a NN3 w/RD8 pano head. This is in like new condition and carries full 2 year warranty. NO RESERVE which means if it sells for $1.00 the buyer it getting great value.
To get in on the auction see eBay listing by clicking here
Good luck!


text:
Thursday, February 12, 2009
L'Oreal H.I.P. Metallic Eye Shadow Duos
Let me start by saying that I was only so-so on the original duos, but these Metallics are truly in a league of their own. Every single one of the colors is unique, and these shadows are definitely not lower quality than your average high-end shadow; in fact, they're better than most I've seen. The pictures aren't 100% true to color because the lighting in my room has a slightly yellowish tint, so it might be hard to see this yourself, but the two shades in Gunmetal, when blended together, look just like MAC's Greensmoke shadow. The difference is that Greensmoke goes on sheer and difficult to blend, whereas Gunmetal is much more buttery. And you get two shadows in one ;-) I really like to blend these together for a look and top it off by lining my lash line with the darker shade and/or my waterline with the lighter shade (using a sealant to increase visibility, of course).
Gilded and Platinum are easily the most dramatic of the two; the gold shade in Gilded and the silver shade in Platinum are extremely vivid, visible colors that feel and wear like a pressed MAC pigment with metallic tones (along the lines of Copper or Silver Fog). When I had them on my fingertips, they were harder to get off than the others; they almost melted into my skin and coated it like paint - it was fascinating.
In any case: I wouldn't hesitate to recommend any of the five to anyone. If you think the colors look appealing, it's not unlikely that they're "your colors" (we tend to gravitate toward what looks best on us, in my experience), so they're worth checking out.
Enjoy the pictures :)
Eye Shadow Duo: Sculpted, Magnetic, Gunmetal, Gilded, Platinum
9 comments:
I love all your swatches, it's hard to know the color and your site is very informative!!!! Keep them coming!!!!ReplyDelete
Sculpted looks SO radically different on you than it does on me!! Wow! But now I really want the rest. sigh. Your blog makes me buy stuff!ReplyDelete
Well thanks, now I *need* platinum and gunmetal :PReplyDelete
what kind of sealant do you use on your waterline?ReplyDelete
Thanks everyone! Arbeedee, I currently am using La Femme Cake Eyeliner Sealer because it's what I have lying around, but there are a ton of great sealant products. I actually really like to use Blink Tears for Moderate to Dry Eye eye drops because they have a more gel-like consistency, which makes them easier to work with; good old Visine also works, as do the many "sealant" products out there. Sephora alone carries several brands that make one - MUFE, TF, UD, BE, and so on...ReplyDelete
GORGEOUS I wanna get all 5!!ReplyDelete
when you say sealants like visine, etc... does that mean mix it w/ the shadow and you can use it on your waterline?ReplyDelete
beautiful colors! i'm a die hard MAC fan, but plan on buying these now.
Yes, add a drop of sealant on top of the eyeshadow and then dip an eyeliner brush into the damp spot. Whether or not a product works on your waterline in that sort of situation will depend on your own eyes (it'll work for some and not for others), but you can try.ReplyDelete
- AnonymousDecember 14, 2010 at 12:31 PM
Why didn't u include a picture of yourself wearing gilded?ReplyDelete
All comments are welcome, but if you are here to spam your link, your comment will be deleted. Please be respectful. Thanks!


text:
Moderators: Steely Hill, Moderators
Kimbotini wrote:I'm really pulling for Villa this season....I try to remain impartial since I cover the game, but I'm really hoping they can pull out a victory at Stamford Bridge on SUnday. Think they can do it?
Hams wrote:Did you know that Rafael Benitez has suffered just one defeat in 12 meetings with Aston Villa as a Premier League manager (W7 D4).
Any more comments or predictions?
Gazza-LFC wrote:Pathetic from Villa,it always annoys me when teams can't motivate themselves against smaller teams
Return to Barclays Premier League
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


text:
- 22 Resorts
- Consistent Snow
- Diverse destinations
- Resorts open before those of many other states
- Home to Vail, Beaver Creek, Copper Mountain
Related Regions: Obwalden, Vaud, Bernese Oberland, Lake Geneva Region, Zurich, Saas-Fee Saastal, Jungfrau, Appenzell Innerhoden, TdG - Valais, Central Switzerland, TdG - Fribourg, Schwyz, Engadin/St. Moritz, Appenzell Ausserhoden, TdG - Vaud, Eastern Switzerland, Aletsch, Adelboden-Lenk, Fribourg, St. Gallen, Graubunden, Valais, Visp and area, Solothurn, Ticino, Europe, TdG - Berne, 4 Valleys, Neuchatel, Glarus, Uri, Lucerne, Nidwalden,
You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. Here's a run-down of the top 10 most exclusive ski resorts in the world.More


text:
I am looking to create a web part that simply selects a random image from a picture library and displays it. What is the accepted method for accessing images in a picture library?
There is an example on codeplex: SharePoint Ad Rotator
Introduction: SPAdRotator is a SharePoint Web Part that can randomly display images from a SharePoint library. Images can be displayed either one at a time (a new random image is selected every time the page is loaded), or all images can be displayed while the user is viewing the page (with a configurable transition effect).
I've found the solution through the


text:
This question asks for an example of a manifold which is not a homogeneous space of any Lie Group, and many examples are given in the answers. However: is there a an example known with a metric of positive sectional curvature (this, apparently, is a question asked by Marcel Berger many years ago, so was open then, but I have no idea of its current status...)?
Yes, Eschenburg constructed an infinite family of simply connected 7-dimensional examples and proved that many of them are not homotopy equivalent to homogeneous spaces. His examples are biquotients however. In fact the only known examples of closed positively curved manifolds are biquotients or spaces of cohomogeneity one and above dimension 13 only homogeneous examples (and space forms) are known.
Yes, some quotients of the 3-sphere are examples. Namely, view $S^3$ as the group of quaternions of unit one. Consider two finite subgroups $F_1,F_2$ of $S^3$, with $F_1$ not abelian, and $F_2$ cyclic of odd prime order $p$ not dividing the order of $F_1$. So $F_1\times F_2$ acts freely on the sphere by $(g,h)\cdot z=gzh^{-1}$. I claim that the quotient $X=F_1\backslash S^3/F_2$ is not homeomorphic to a homogeneous space of any connected Lie group $G$.
Assume the contrary. First, by a result of Montgomery (Proc AMS 1950), any maximal compact subgroup of $G$ acts transitively (it's a general fact, using only that $X$ has finite fundamental group). So we can assume that $G$ is compact. Then a result of Montgomery-Samelson (Annals 1943) tells us that some simple $S$ subgroup acts transitively. (The result concerns actions on spheres, and is applied by considering the action of a finite covering of $G$ on $S^3$.) The isometry group of a 3-dimensional Riemannian manifold is at most 6-dimensional, and the only simple compact Lie group of dimension at most 6 is $SO(3)$ (and its universal covering). Thus $X=S^3/F$ for some finite subgroup $F$ of $S^3$, isomorphic to $F_1\times F_2$. But in $S^3$, the centralizer of any nontrivial element of odd order is abelian. This is a contradiction.
These examples are not simply connected, of course. It seems that the other answers deal with the much more delicate simply connected case.
At least for compact groups, I think your question was answered by Peterson and Wilhelm where they showed the Gromoll-Meyer sphere has a metric of positive sectional curvature.
That, when combined with Wu-Chung Hsiang's work from the 60's says that exotic spheres are not homogeneous spaces. I'm not sure which is the best reference but Wu-Chung has a few on similar topics, for example, his paper "On Compact Subgroups of Diffeomorphism Groups of Kervaire Spheres" Annals 1967 mentions that compact subgroups of Diff of an exotic sphere has dimension bounded above by $m^2/8 + 1$, where $m$ is the dimension of the sphere.