text:
USCCB Opposes Violence Against Women Act.
On March 6, the USCCB issued a statement expressing "concerns" about the Violence Against Women Act, saying the in the end, the USCCB could not support it.Why their concern, you might ask? Surely the USCCB opposes violence against women?You guessed it: it's about same-sex marriage. This is from the USCCB press release:
All persons must be protected from violence, but codifying the classifications sexual orientation and gender identity as contained in in S. 47 is problematic, they wrote. These two classifications are unnecessary to establish the just protections due to all persons. They undermine the meaning and importance of sexual difference. They are unjustly exploited for purposes of marriage redefinition, and marriage is the only institution that unites a man and a woman with each other and with any children born from their union, said Bishop Stephen E. Blaire of Stockton, California; Archbishop Salvatore J. Cordileone of San Francisco; Bishop Kevin C. Rhoades of Fort Wayne-South Bend, Indiana; Archbishop William E. Lori of Baltimore; and Archbishop Jos H. Gomez of Los Angeles.
Here's what gets to me: the rates of domestic violence in the US are horrific. About 1.3 million women are assaulted by a domestic partner every year. One third of female homicide victims are killed by an intimate partner. One in four women will be victimized in her lifetime. Children are often witnesses to domestic violence: boys who witness domestic violence are twice as likely to become abusers themselves.What does the VAWA do? According to the WaPo,
the bill provides $660 million over the next five years for programs that provide legal assistance, transitional housing, counseling and support hotlines to victims of rape and domestic abuse.
Advocates for abuse victims credit the Act with a sharp decline in the rates of abuse since it was first signed into law in 1994. According to The National Domestic Abuse Hotline,
Victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking have been able to access services, and a new generation of families and justice system professionals has come to understand that domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking are crimes that our society will not tolerate.
But the mere fact of explicit inclusion of lesbians is enough for the USCCB to say, in effect, "OK, let's cut all those programs. Let's fire the lawyers, let's discontinue the counseling, let's get rid of the transitional housing that gives women and kids a safe place to go. Not if lesbians would be recognized as people who might be in need of those services too."
You know what? It seems to me that it really doesn't matter that the abuse victim might be gay. Abuse is wrong, regardless of gender. It is a crime that cries to heaven for help. But the USCCB continues on down that road to Jericho and walks right on past that woman left beaten up in a ditch. She's only a woman, after all, and what if she's--gay? Helping her might redefine marriage, somehow.Here's the kicker. The USCCB issued "When I Call For Help: A Pastoral Response To Domestic Violence Against Women" in 2002. One of their practical suggestions was that women could call the National Domestic Violence Hotline. It's funding? Yup--it was first established by the VAWA. Thanks guys.Ordinarily, one should not blog in anger. I'm angry. This is outrageous.
About the Author
Lisa Fullam is professor of moral theology at the Jesuit School of Theology at Berkeley. She is the author of The Virtue of Humility: A Thomistic Apologetic (Edwin Mellen Press).
70 comments
- All
- Editor Featured
Quelle surprise! Hierarchs can't bring themselves to support measures that would combat violence against women.This fear and detestation of all things feminine is so primitive with these guys.How can any of us think that the conclave will produce any change???
Lisa, Your allusion to the wo/man on the road to Jericho is on point. That was the greatest prejudice of the times of Jesus just as anti-gay is today. Just ask Pat Robertson. I hope no one would consider an American Pope after this.
Lisa, I don't believe you provided a link to the full USCCB statement. It is here:http://www.usccb.org/news/2013/13-046.cfmTo complete the picture: the statement indicates that the US bishops have supported previous iterations of the Act, and state unequivocally their opposition to violence against women. Apparently, it is new provisions in this new iteration of the Act (including another provision not highlighted in Lisa's post) that the USCCB finds objectionable.It's reasonable to ask, "Why were these new provisions inserted? What circumstances mandated the addition of these provisions that serve as poison pills in the eyes of the USCCB?" The statement concludes by noting that both houses of Congress have already passed the 2013 Act. Certainly, it will become law. This is not a case of a statement in service to a lobbying effort to prevent passage; it is already passed. Nor does the statement urge President Obama not to sign the Act into law. The USCCB's call to action is (to quote from the statement), "Now that Congress has acted to change the law, we urge future action to revisit these concerns in the months ahead."I don't read the statement as being equivalent to the USCCB saying (to quote from Lisa's post), OK, lets cut all those programs. Lets fire the lawyers, lets discontinue the counseling, lets get rid of the transitional housing that gives women and kids a safe place to go. Not if lesbians would be recognized as people who might be in need of those services too. Rather, it reads to me as a statement urging Congress to tweak some unjust provisions in a fundamentally just and necessary law.Finally: I don't know precisely what it means for the USCCB to "not support" something. It may not be the same as actively opposing it.
Catholic couples church marriages have dropped by 50% and if just Anglo Catholic marriages were counted the drop would be increased significantly. Bishops... Guess where the Anglo Catholic couples are getting married now? On Beaches, parks, lawns and the city hall basements, lined up right behind the SS couples. Where are the bishops 'concerns' about that?
@ Jim, Surely they could have said that then. "We support the law with reservations, in light of the body count," or something. But no. And finally, doesn't this STILL seem to violate the Catechism's own language of no unjust discrimination against LGB folk? And opposing violence against them?
Last year they went after the Girl Scouts. ( Link to the 2013 Girl Scouts Silver Dollar: http://www.girlscouts.org/something_big.asp ) WAGGGS (World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts) Stop the Violence campaign:http://www.wagggsworld.org/en/take_action/violenceStop the Violence: Speak Out for Girls' Rights Girls in every country across the world are being subjected to many forms of violence this is wrong and must stop.Girls have the right to live free from violence and the fear of violence. They need to be aware of their rights and find the voice to create a global movement and actions to end violence.Building from a whisper to a shout, we need to talk, join together and inspire action around the world.
Bill M., I don't think the American cardinals are alone in their notions about women.In an article in Mother Jones today, a reporter describes the leading contenders and quotes Commonweal's assessment of Scola, the frontrunner:". . . feminism is responsible for homosexuality, because the more women act like men, the more men are likely to want to have sex with other men." http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2013/03/who-would-be-greenest-new...
The American bishops could have adopted the hopeful language in the current America editorial "We pray for a pope who begins a conversation with the words, In listening to the experience of our brothers and sisters who are homosexual....
Its an empirical fact that women who are divorced or unmarried are more than twice as likely to be victims of violence. Given that fact, a law which funds some programs to ameliorate violence and at the same time undermines marriage is far from an unmitigated good.
But the good news is that, while the bishops are doing their thing, Catholic women religious are working hard to protect domestic violence survivors, end human trafficking, and promote the dignity of women, children and men.Catholic religious sisters, through NETWORK, are celebrating the passage of VAWA. The NETWORK website has a link where you can, if the Spirit moves you, thank the elected officials who voted "Yes".http://www.networklobby.org/
"@ Jim, Surely they could have said that then. We support the law with reservations, in light of the body count, or something. But no. And finally, doesnt this STILL seem to violate the Catechisms own language of no unjust discrimination against LGB folk? "Lisa, here is what I take to be the key passage in the USCCB statement:"Among our concerns are those provisions in S. 47 that refer to sexual orientation and gender identity. All persons must be protected from violence, but codifying the classifications sexual orientation and gender identity as contained in S. 47 is problematic. These two classifications are unnecessary to establish the just protections due to all persons."So what the USCCB objects to is the codification of the terms "sexual orientation" and "gender identity". Why the USCCB doesn't want those specific terms included, is not really clear from the statement. I assume that there is some legal strategy at work here; possibly those terms as defined in the Act would set a precedent that could be exploited by future laws and regulations in a way that the USCCB would deem unjust. Not being an attorney or a legislative wonk, I'm not really sure what the implications are; I'm just speculating. But I do read this as a technical/legal objection (in service to a moral viewpoint, to be sure). I don't think we have enough information to know whether this objection is misaligned with the Catechisms's injunction regarding unjust treatment of homosexuals.
@Jim,I think we disagree. I think that to "not support" a measure that funds critical needs is to oppose funding for critical needs. The link to sexual orientation is clear from the text of the bishops--they fear that including lesbian and trans people will "undermine the meaning and importance of sexual difference. They are unjustly exploited for purposes of marriage redefinition." That seems clear to me. It's about same-sex marriage, along with legal recognition of trans people.By the way, it is estimated that 50% of trans people are the victims of rape or assault by an intimate partner. 50%. Isn't that enough for the USCCB to say: "we have qualms about the language, and want to say so, but we will stand with our LGBT brothers and sisters against rape and murder"? If rape and murder aren't enough, what would be?And just imagine how this press release and USCCB statement must feel to LGBT people in our Church. Imagine being told that the bishops won't support the VAWA because it might include you.
And who is the president of the USCCB that just showed such diplomatic (non)sense?Cdl Dolan, supposedly a papabile....
Although I do not think that it is necessary of even helpful, I can understand why a statement such as this is signed by Most Rev. Kevin C. Rhoades Chairman, Committee on Laity, Marriage, Family Life and Youthand Archbishop Salvatore J. Cordileone of San Francisco Chairman Subcommittee for the Promotion and Defense of MarriageBut, what stake do these chairmen of these respective committees have in the issue? Bishop Stephen E. Blaire of Stockton - Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development ??Archbishop William E. Lori of Baltimore - Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty ??Archbishop Jos H. Gomez Chairman, Committee on Migration ??How is the issue related to domestic justice and human development, religious liberty, or migration?
Bruce, I heard the opposite: that single women were safer than married women, because the first victimizer (except for suiscide) is the spouse. But maybe that's only for murder cases. Not sure. Second-hand unverified information....
Lisa, I believe that your anger might be displaced. Doesn't the fault lie with the supporters of the bill who insisted on these controversial additions to the law, compared to the earlier 1994 version? The main objections have been three: this point about sexual identity; the new version gives visas to illegal immigrant women who are domestically abused; and, with the noble goal of combating the high rate of violence against Native American women, it gives tribal courts jurisdiction over such cases, but with the consequence of leaving defendants in such cases without due process rights. At first it appeared that the law would fail in the House because of objections over these issues, despite the fact that its opponents were willing to support it if they were removed or modified. Yet its supporters refused. In other words, the bill's supporters were willing to let the whole thing fail just for the political optics of having their opponents appear to be opposed to a law fighting violence against women (thus feeding the "war against women" narrative), even though they could have had a nearly universal consensus behind a more moderate law. In other words, they are the one who were playing politics with women's lives, while the opposition was motivated by legitimate concerns raised by issues in the bill.
It's a sad day when the obsession against gay marriage leads the US Bishops to oppose the Violence Against Women Act. Something similar happened in a recent statement directed to the armed forces provisions for gay couples.I think the Bishops need to rethink their strategy here. There needs to be a focus on the dignity and rights of homosexuals. The current strategy is likely to loose the bishops the support of even those of us who oppose gay marriage.God Bless
It seems that according to the tortured logic of the USCCB, the way to support harmony in marriage is to do nothing about violence against lesbians. This is so clearly outrageous that I actually wonder about the mental capacities of our bishops. Was this decision prompted by madness, stupidity or both?
Ann asks "this decision prompted by madness, stupidity or both?"Forget whatever comes from the USCCB...The USCCB is advised by the same lawyers who opposed ACA accommodation because it left out Taco Bell franchisees from claiming a 'religious liberty' health insurance exemption on the birth control coverage .A 'religious liberty' exemption for the non- covered workers in policies Taco Bell would never give to the minimum wage counter people. The USCCB lawyer opinions would get them expelled from the Tea Party as radicals for pushing the wingnut agenda too far. .
Where were these Excellencies until March 6? The Senate passed the bill 7822 on February 11, and the House passed it 286138 on February 28 after earlier rejecting, 257166, a version that would have been more to the liking of these worthies. Notice large majorities for the passed bill in both houses. And now, well after the fact, those stalwart defenders of whatever put forth the wan statement that "we urge future action to revisit these concerns in the months ahead." Fat chance!It's a reverse trifecta: troglodytic, ineffectual, and late.
Naturally Catholic Bishops will comment against a bill that bolsters the notion of gay marriage. The secular government includes references to gay marriage in a law called "Violence Against Women Act", the Catholics object, and some on Commonweal cry "foul" - against the Bishops of course.To those bemoaning all this; what would you have the Catholic Church say about gay marriage?
"To those bemoaning all this; what would you have the Catholic Church say about gay marriage?"We do not believe in same sex marriage but we applaud this law and any other action which reduces violence against women.
" ... what would you have the Catholic Church say about gay marriage?"What they say in all of those countries where it is legal: we may not like it but those countries have it. They aren't forcing us to perform it and we won't prevent them from imparting secular benefits, rights and responsibilities ... all paid for by all citizens ... to the people who take advantage of it.In other words, act like adults rather than whining kids whose ball lot wants aren't accepted by the rest of the players.
"The link to sexual orientation is clear from the text of the bishopsthey fear that including lesbian and trans people will undermine the meaning and importance of sexual difference. They are unjustly exploited for purposes of marriage redefinition. That seems clear to me. Its about same-sex marriage, along with legal recognition of trans people. By the way, it is estimated that 50% of trans people are the victims of rape or assault by an intimate partner. 50%. Isnt that enough for the USCCB to say: we have qualms about the language, and want to say so, but we will stand with our LGBT brothers and sisters against rape and murder? "My reading of the USCCB statement is that its view is that the objectionable language isn't necessary to provide protection. Their statement says, "All persons must be protected from violence, but codifying the classifications sexual orientation and gender identity as contained in S. 47 is problematic. These two classifications are unnecessary to establish the just protections due to all persons."Is it your understanding that, prior to inserting this new language into the Act, lesbians and trans's weren't accorded any protection under the Act (or perhaps under other laws)?If the USCCB is correct that the problematic classifications were inserted for reasons that are extraneous to according them protection - then why were they inserted?
In other words, the USCCB continues to deny reality for the sake of biologically-disabused theology.Lesbians and trans people exist. They are discriminated against. By men. By ecclesiastics. By other women. By society. By this church. Here and now.Denying that doesn't mean that it isn't true.
Jim P.,Our society had to expand via the 15th & 19th amendments the lofty sentiment of the Declaration that "all men are created equal" in order to make explicit that rights belonged to racial and ethnic minorities, to former slaves, and to women. Even with those amendments in place, it has taken a long and still unfinished struggle to achieve the promised equality. Why is that? I think it is because, for reasons I need not characterize here, powerful interests are determined to prevent it and are willing to use any excuse or omission to do so.If my own protection against violence was at issue, I would want the law to be redundantly clear that it was meant to cover me as well as others. Classifications are only "problematic" and "extraneous" when they apply to people one still hopes to marginalize.
Isn't this just part of the new intellectual argument certain natural law obsessive people in the church are promoting, namely that there are no homosexual persons, just homosexual acts?To grant homosexuals a distinct status (that is not explicitly grounded in behavior) indeed supports the new emerging viewpoint of most people (i.e. "born that way") that has been defeating the church's preferred model, which is foundational to natural law.This is what drives me nuts about the natural law obsessives: the pristine beauty of their *model* is more important to them than the actual people who are the exception to this idol they worship. It is better that souls are warped, families torn apart than it is for them to acknowledge that however beautiful their idol is, it doesn't match up with God's actual creation.
And I use the word "idol" deliberately. Robby George et al are so vested in their *ideas* I really think they have lost sight of actual Christianity.
Re Ann Olivier's post: You've nailed it, Ann. Bravo! Jim P., In the real world people don't talk "ecclesiatic," or other convoluted tongues.
What I don't understand is why a fetus has human dignity and a gay man or lesbian does not. Aren't human being human beings? Why would the church consider some people as lesser beings?
"Jim P., In the real world people dont talk ecclesiatic, or other convoluted tongues."I don't think there is anything particularly "churchy" about the language used in the USCCB statement. But in the real world, people certainly do talk "ecclesiastic", when it is appropriate to do so. I'm given to understand that in various other parts of the real world, people talk "philosophic", "techie", "legalese", "business-speak", "street", and all sorts of other ways of talking that are appropriate to those mileius.
I hope the next pope can choose better language than the USCCB has for addressing the world. Then he will not need Jim Pauwels to run around after him explaining that he did not intend to imply that he cares more about doctrinal purity in legal documents than about living and dead human victims of abuse. The USCCB could have fooled me.
Jim Pauwels, here are the four places in the act where "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" appear. It seems to me that the USCCB hasn"t done an effective job of explaining why Congress should change any of these. "(39) UNDERSERVED POPULATIONS The term "underserved populations" means populations who face barriers in accessing and using victim services, and includes populations underserved because of geographic location, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, underserved racial and ethnic populations, populations underserved because of special needs (such as language barriers, disabilities, alienage status, or age), and any other population determined to be underserved by the Attorney General or by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, as appropriate.""(13) CIVIL RIGHTS."(A) NONDISCRIMINATION.No person in the United States shall, on the basis of actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, sex, gender identity (as defined in paragraph 249(c)(4) of title 18, United States Code), sexual orientation, or disability, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity funded in whole or in part with funds made available under the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 [etc]... "(19) developing, enlarging, or strengthening programs and projects to provide services and responses targeting male and female victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking, whose ability to access traditional services and responses is affected by their sexual orientation or gender identity, as defined in section 249(c) of title 18, United States Code;...""SEC. 304. CAMPUS SEXUAL VIOLENCE, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, DATING VIOLENCE, AND STALKING EDUCATION AND PREVENTION.(a) IN GENERAL.Section 485(f) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1092(f)) is amended(1) in paragraph (1)(A) in subparagraph (C)(iii), by striking the periodat the end and inserting , when the victim of such crime elects or is unable to make such a report.; and(B) in subparagraph (F)(i) in clause (i)(VIII), by striking and after thesemicolon;(ii) in clause (ii)(I) by striking sexual orientation and inserting national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity,...To avoid a lengthy quote, I'll explain that "undeserved populations" defines categories of people for whom grants will be made to programs which propose to provide victim outreach and support. It doesn't seem to me that Catholic Charities would have any objection to providing outreach and support to victims of violence regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity.If he USCCB does see a problem in these changes. i think they need to spell it out.
"Jim Pauwels, here are the four places in the act where sexual orientation and gender identity appear. It seems to me that the USCCB hasnt done an effective job of explaining why Congress should change any of these."I agree that more explanation could be given. I said as much in my comment above (3/11/13, 2:52 pm).
Jim Hohman wrote "This is what drives me nuts about the natural law obsessives: the pristine beauty of their *model* is more important to them than the actual people who are the exception to this idol they worship"In "First Things", of all places, David Bentley Hart argues that the view that natural law is evident and binding on all people is not correct. He sees it as a useful argument only with people who believe that a Supreme exists and, beyond that, believe that natural law ( and, particularly, natural law as interpreted by the Catholic Church) provides a correct understanding of what their Supreme being requires of them."Denounce him, if you wish, for the perversity of his convictions. Still, after all hypothetical imperatives have been adduced, and all appeals to the general good have been made, nothing would logically oblige him to alter his ideas. Only the total spiritual conversion of his vision of reality could truly change his thinking.To put the matter very simply, belief in natural law is inseparable from the idea of nature as a realm shaped by final causes, oriented in their totality toward a single transcendent moral Good: one whose dictates cannot simply be deduced from our experience of the natural order, but must be received as an apocalyptic interruption of our ordinary explanations that nevertheless, miraculously, makes the natural order intelligible to us as a reality that opens up to what is more than natural. There is no logically coherent way to translate that form of cosmic moral vision into the language of modern practical reason or of public policy debate in a secular society. Our concept of nature, in any age, is entirely dependent upon supernatural (or at least metaphysical) convictions. And, in an age that has been shaped by a mechanistic understanding of the physical world, a neo-Darwinian view of life, and a voluntarist understanding of the self, natures laws must appear to be anything but moral."So "natural law forbids this" is not a slam-dunk argument with non-Catholics. http://www.firstthings.com/article/2013/02/is-ought-and-natures-laws-1
Here are links to articles responding to Hart:http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2013/03/01/natural-law-de...
"I hope the next pope can choose better language than the USCCB has for addressing the world. Then he will not need Jim Pauwels to run around after him explaining that he did not intend to imply that he cares more about doctrinal purity in legal documents than about living and dead human victims of abuse. "I don't run, and in this case, I've barely explained. Essentially, what I've done here is (a) locate the bishops' statement; (b) read it; (c) understand it; and (d) quote it. And, I suppose, (e), not stand on my head to put the worst possible interpretation upon it. If that is what apologetics consists of, then then it's a good deal simpler than I had been led to believe.
"What I dont understand is why a fetus has human dignity and a gay man or lesbian does not. Arent human being human beings? Why would the church consider some people as lesser beings?"I take it that the church's point in its statement is that human beings are human beings - and all are entitled to protection.
David Gibson - in the Catholic Twilight Zone, gays are *intrinsically disordered*. Thus, a fetus has human dignity; so does a gay person but with limits (the old must live as brother and brother or brother and sister, etc. routine).And this is based upon a concept of *natural law* that we know with 100% certainity (just like we did in terms of racism, slavery, democratic rights, role of women, etc.).Noah Millman in the link above probably does the best job of focusing on the weakness of *natural law*.....it begins with a view of reality that is a certain way and not open to reason, science, debate, questioning, etc. nad posits that this view is from God, of course. It really puts the lie to Aquinas and his *faith seeking understanding*.
"If my own protection against violence was at issue, I would want the law to be redundantly clear that it was meant to cover me as well as others. Classifications are only problematic and extraneous when they apply to people one still hopes to marginalize."If your own protection against violence is at issue, and existing laws don't provide adequate protection, why would piling this law atop existing laws make a difference?If legal language is problematic for legal reasons, it should be fixed. That can be noted without imputing bad faith to the people who want to fix it.
From this point forward if anyone wishes to discuss this topic with me, they must first take up, in a substantive manner, Matthew Shadle's comment of 3/11/13 3:15 pm.
Matthew Shadie's argument is based wholly on a conjectural reconstruction about motivations: he thinks that proponents of the bill introduced language about gender and sexual orientation as part of a plot to make their opponents look unfeeling (whereas, he claims, said opponents are motivated by "legitimate concerns.") At best, he thinks the situation went down according to the plot of a sitcom; at worst, he thinks there was some sort of grand conspiracy. He basically says that we shouldn't fault the bishops for not wanting to guarantee protections for lgbtq people, but should instead fault those seeking such protections for putting the bishops into a position where they look bad. The point of the bill is to protect people from abuse, but guys like Shadie shift the victimhood around so as that it instead pertains to people whose protection is already enshrined.
Claire,Your info for single women may be correct, but its probably better thought of as single and without child and not cohabiting. Here's the info for what is called 'intimate partner violence'. You will notice that marital status is conspicuously absent.http://www.ncadv.org/files/DomesticViolenceFactSheet(National).pdfIts an obfuscation to hide this empirical fact: The results showed that cohabiting couples had a higher rate of assault than did married couples. These findings persisted after controls for age and socioeconomic status were introduced. Violence was also more severe in cohabiting than in married or dating couples. Here are some resources for you to check.Jan E. Stets, "Cohabiting and Marital Aggression: The Role of Social Isolation" Journal of Marriage and the Family 53 (1991):669-680; Richard J. Gelles, Intimate Violence in Families, 3rd ed. (Thousand Oaks, CA: 1997); Linda J. Waite and Maggie Gallagher, The Case for Marriage (New York: Doubleday, 2000): Ch. 11 pp 150-160
Jim Pauwels, Lisa's post is about the USCCB statement. Matthew Shadle's comment is not about he USCCB statement but his own objections to the new law.The USCCB statement raises only two issues:1. The addition of sexual orientation and gender identity in the four paces I identified in my comment.2. The lack of a provision that would have prevented last year's loss of the trafficking grant by USCCB.Mr Shadle doesn't mention (2) at all but introduces two other issues that aren't in the USCCB statement. He spends most of his comment in an ad hominem argument about the motives of the people who passed the law. Now that I have met your requirement that I "must first take up, in a substantive manner, Matthew Shadles comment of 3/11/13 3:15 pm" will you reply to my comment of 3/11/13 9:17 pm?
John Hayes --That natural law theory cannot be separated from religious belief is belied by the fact that the most influential of all natural law philosophers was Aristotle. Check out Alasdair MacIntyre's "After Virtue". Then check out, for instance, Hobbes (atheist) against Locke (deist), Philippa Foot (?) against John Finnis (Catholic), or Edward Feser (Catholic) against Grisez (Catholic).One should not talk about "natural law theory" as if there has been only one, consistent set of theories. Far back into history there have been many, starting with the Aristotle and the Stoics, and going forward into the middle ages and the modern and contemporary times. Right now there is a lively argument going on even among self-identified Thomists as to whether or not the "new natural law" theorists (who include Finnis and Grisez) should be called Thomists at all.Talking about "natural law theory" as if it were one body of work with cosistent conclusions is like talking about "American music" as if there were only one kind, as if jazz were the same thing as bluegrass or Charles Ives or Leonard Bernstein or rock. It would be really silly to reject them all.
David Bentley Hart recently wrote something about natural law and present politics - http://www.firstthings.com/article/2013/02/is-ought-and-natures-laws-1
What theists or non-theists believe about natural law has no bearing on the obligation of a natural law argument to be rational and based on evidence. If it is not an actual argument that is based on reason and evidence, it is not a natural law argument, no matter who says it is.
Thank you, thank you, Lisa.Regarding the loss of the trafficking grant, John Hayes
Oops, posted out of time.Regarding the loss of the trafficking grant, John Hayes quoted some time back a court decision prohibiting the church from using public monies to impose its beliefs on citizens. I thought that a powerful argument.
Ann Olivier wrote: "Then check out, for instance, Hobbes (atheist) against Locke (deist), Philippa Foot (?) against John Finnis (Catholic), or Edward Feser (Catholic) against Grisez (Catholic)."I think that your examples confirm that here are many "natural laws" - just as there are many systems of philosophy. That is different from the idea that there is a natural law that is binding on all persons. I think that Hart's point is that anyone is free to reject your "natural law" unless they are already commited to your premises. In "Humanae Vitae", Paul VI said:"No member of the faithful could possibly deny that the Church is competent in her magisterium to interpret the natural moral law. It is in fact indisputable, as Our predecessors have many times declared, (l) that Jesus Christ, when He communicated His divine power to Peter and the other Apostles and sent them to teach all nations His commandments, constituted them as the authentic guardians and interpreters of the whole moral law, not only, that is, of the law of the Gospel but also of the natural law. For the natural law, too, declares the will of God, and its faithful observance is necessary for men's eternal salvation."That is natural law as interpreted by the Magisterium. Paul qualifies his statement with "No member of the faithful could possibly deny..." and Hart points out that non-Catholics who do not share the same premises as Catholics will not necessarily arrive at the Magisterium's interpretation of natural law - or even the belief that any binding natural law exists.
"In other words, the bills supporters were willing to let the whole thing fail just for the political optics of having their opponents appear to be opposed to a law fighting violence against women (thus feeding the war against women narrative), even though they could have had a nearly universal consensus behind a more moderate law."Or how about: in other words, the bill's supporters were willing to let the opponents hang themselves out to public pressure until said opponents came around. Ordinary politics. Nothing sinister about it. OK?Now having taken care of that: Jim, I count eight places where you had to clarify, so to speak, the USCCB statement because of what you see as misreadings of it. I think that much clarification would not be necessary if ecclesial leaders would put aside their orotundity and obfuscation and talk like..., oh, like people.
These two classifications are unnecessary to establish the just protections due to all persons." Would that this were true. The USCCB statement actually makes it clear how important including these classifications is at this point in time.
"To avoid a lengthy quote, Ill explain that undeserved populations defines categories of people for whom grants will be made to programs which propose to provide victim outreach and support. It doesnt seem to me that Catholic Charities would have any objection to providing outreach and support to victims of violence regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity."Yes, I agree about Catholic Charities. Nor does the bishops' statement give me reason to suppose that the bishops would oppose outreach and support to victims of violence regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity. I base this claim on these three statements: "These two classifications ['sexual orientation' and 'gender identity'] are unnecessary to establish the just protections due to all persons. They undermine the meaning and importance of sexual difference. They are unjustly exploited for purposes of marriage redefinition".Note that all I am doing here is pointing out what the bishops have said in their statement. The bishops' claim that "these two classifications are unnecessary to establish just protections" may be a sound or an unsound claim. The heat of various commenters' comments suggests that a number of commenters believe it's an unsound claim. But inasmuch as they take that position, it's incumbent on them to provide a basis for it. It's not self-evident to me that existing laws, perhaps including previous iterations of the law in question, created gaps in legal protection such that lesbians weren't accorded protections or extended services under the old law.Why would the bishops not want the two classifications to become privileged classifications in law? The bishops' statement provides this reason:"[The two classifications] are unjustly exploited for purposes of marriage redefinition". Not being a legal expert myself, it's not clear to me how privileging these classifications in the new Act bolsters the push for marriage redefinition, but its not being clear to me doesn't mean there isn't a sound basis for holding that view.
Per Bruce "The results showed that cohabiting couples had a higher rate of assault than did married couples. These findings persisted after controls for age and socioeconomic status were introduced. Violence was also more severe in cohabiting than in married or dating couples. "Wow - Imagine that. The social model of a standard, boring, traditional married couple raising kids the - dreaded "nuclear family" that horrifies those on the left - works better than other social constructs after all, bearing out what Roman Catholic pontiffs have said for eons.To give credit where due, it seems the pagan Romans and even the ancient Pyramid builders - basically any civilization that lasted long enough to leave a record of its existence - figured out that the traditional marriage and family model worked well for their societies. Mothers will generally tend their children of course; the concept of traditional marriage and family helps society with the very important task of tying fathers to their children, both to ensure the men act responsibly, to estanblish inheritance, and not unimportanly, to help make genetic lines clear and theerby avoid inadvertent inbreeding and the various problems that brings. Thanks for the link Bruce.;-)
Ah, yes, the "pagan Romans" and their promotion of a family model strictly identifiable with today's "traditional marriage and family model." That's exactly the sense I get when I read Tacitus or Plutarch--Augustus was basically Ward Cleaver in purple.
I did not say the ancients were wonderful, that much should be obvious. The point was that even they were smart enough to see that marriage and family were worthwhile.
VAWA does not introduce tne categories of "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" to U.S. law. Among other places, they were used in the 2009 Hate Crimes Acts:"(2) Offenses involving actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.(A) In general. Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B) or paragraph (3), willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person(i) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and(ii) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if(I) death results from the offense; or(II) the offense includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.
"The point was that even they were smart enough to see that marriage and family were worthwhile."Oh. Good. Freaking. Night. They were smart enough to see marriage and family as worthwhile? That is crazy. I never heard of anything so crazy and weird. Next you'll be telling me that they turned left on red, and wore hats on their feet and shoes on their heads.You know who else thinks that marriage and family are worthwhile? Pretty much everybody. Not everybody, just pretty much everybody. That includes (do I hear a drum roll off in the distance?) gay people who want to get married and make families. But, of course, gay people wanting to get married undermines marriage for everybody else,* and so the bishops--so very well versed in what marriage is like--rightfully seek to put the kibosh on that. *the explanation for that involves a lot of Lobachevskian geometry, so I'll spare everyone
John Hayes - it may be that the Hate Crimes Acts are what the bishops had in mind in describing the same distinctions being made in VAWA were "unnecessary". As to why the bishops believe that putting those classifications in VAWA advances the redefinition of marriage - unless they tell us, I don't know how we would know.
Jim Pauwels, VAWA covers many more things than the Hate Crimes Act (e.g. victim shelters, restraining orders, prevention programs, etc). My guess is that rather than it being any great conspiracy to redefine marriage, it was just updating the 1994 VAWA to include the additional categories listed in the 2009 Hate Crimes Act. It refers to the Hate Crimes Act for the definition of "gender identity"
And of course the Vatican is a player worldwide in opposing legislation that would protect women from violence: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/12/opinion/concerns-at-un-conference-on-v..., you seem to think that marriage somehow protects women from domestic violence. Alas, not so. The VAWA protects women regardless of marital status. Isn't being safe the real issue here? And remember, the USCCB weighed in only after both houses of congress passed this bill. They spoke of no concerns other than marriage redefinition and gender identity. This bill saves lives. But the USCCB had to speak up to oppose it after its passage. Why are women's lives so easily dismissed?Also, note that the USCCB has taken quite progressive stances to protect immigrants, documented or not. It is estimated that something like 60% of women crossing the border experience sexual assault. Violence against the undocumented has a gendered character. Yet the USCCB's man for immigrant issues opposes the VAWA, which provides real help to those women. Why are women's lives so easily dismissed?Perhaps one of the women in the conclave will speak to this issue. Oh, right.
Lisa,Yes, everyone - both male and female - should be protected. But some behaviors - cohabiting for one - increase the risk. Shouldn't there be some personal responsibility as well. Looking for the government to provide protection from risky behaviors will never be as effective as abstaining from those behaviors. So if being safe is the real issue, then denouncing risky behaviors, as the Catholic Church does repeatedly, is the most effective action. The VAWA is at best a subsidiary solution.
Per Abe "But, of course, gay people wanting to get married undermines marriage for everybody else,* and so the bishopsso very well versed in what marriage is likerightfully seek to put the kibosh on that. "Now you are on track. And so to summarize/simplify: Traditional marriage is good. Broadening the definition of traditional marriage to include gay couples (or polygamy for that matter) is not good.It is nice to see we finally agree on something Abe - :-)
That anyone is dismayed, angry or even surprised by this is mystifying to me. The hierarchy of the church is the very last place one should seek any wisdom about human sexuality and gender. Remember: despite the goodwill and personal opinions of any individual cleric, the body insists on the second-class status of women, whose human being is so defective, faulty or somehow deficient that it is an obstacle to some measure or "part" of God's grace. So with this as the (largely unconscious and/or unexamined?) presupposition, is it any wonder that they would refuse support in a matter such as this? And what can we really expect if we then throw lesbians into the mix? Seriously, does any thoughtful Catholic expect them to act otherwise? Denying women full participation in the complete experience of vocation, grace and authority is simply a "benign" form of violence (all in the name of Jesus, of course). Who cares what they think or say in these matters? I certainly don't.
"Why would the church consider some people as lesser beings?"Someone needs to brush up on his catechism.
I read a good one the other day: While outrage is the enemy of thought, humor is the cousin of tolerance.
Well that would be a real swell zinger, Ken, but for the fact that you aren't the funny-man you seem to think you are.
President Obama in an interview with George Stephanopoulos yesterday this may have something to o with who should be mentioned in VAWA:"But would an American pope take orders from him?I dont know if youve checked lately, but the Conference of Catholic Bishops here in the United States dont seem to be takin orders from me, Obama said with a laugh....Obama added: My hope is based on what I know about the Catholic Church and the terrific work that theyve done around the world and certainly in this country, and, you know helping those who are less fortunate is that you have a pope who sustains and maintains what I consider the central message of the gospel. And that is that we treat everybody as children of God and that we love them the way Jesus Christ taught us to love em.Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/obama-weighs-in-on-pope-pick-88801...
... [Trackback]...[...] Read More here: commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=23950...


text:
Apr 01
Industrial equipment maker Caterpillar is taking advantage of the Export-Import Bank of the United States' (Ex-Im Bank's) new Supply Chain Finance Guarantee to provide receivables financing to its suppliers. The company's suppliers will have access to as much as $450 million – provided by Caterpillar's bank partner JPMorgan Chase – which is back by a 90 percent guarantee from Ex-Im Bank.
The program from Ex-Im Bank is intended to create greater access to financing for small and medium-sized businesses in the US by supporting SCF programs for export-related receivables. JPMorgan is the first bank to join the program, which will not only help suppliers manage liquidity, but as a consequence will also help strengthen Caterpillar's supply chain by ensuring that its suppliers have ready access to working capital.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
hi mark, bought fm09 on launch day and cant get it to work, its installed and loads just past sigames logo, then screen goes black with L in bottom right corner and nothing else happens, please help, cheers dougie
hi mark, bought fm09 on launch day and cant get it to work, its installed and loads just past sigames logo, then screen goes black with L in bottom right corner and nothing else happens, please help, cheers dougie
Finally I've got it to start....
I would suggest anyone having problems downloading the patch get Firefox first then download patch, just don't it at the Guru's suggestion and it bloody works
Sorry to repeat other requests but you still haven't got around to my question.
It's clearly an issue with FM as all other applications work fine including more demanding games. To recap- My mouse does not function correctly whilst playing fm, it skips most of the time. I've installed the additional pack that SI suggested and obviously using the patch. In addition to that I have no driver issues all are up to date.
I know it's not a major problem but it is far from ideal. Hopefully someone can give me some advice.
can anyone tell me the best way to uninstall through Steam, and re-install again...??
I'd just like to say that this is a F*CKING SHAMBLES and SI should be totally ashamed. Here's my situation, which I'm sure is far from unique. At length, I got the code to activate it (steam finally decided to let me see my activation code). Of course, when I tried to activate, it said the code was invalid. I proceeded to use SI's proposed"know fix" (laughable), which involved uninstalling the game and deleting the registry, rebooting, reinstalling and trying again, and guess what...SAME F*CKING SH*T. I got the "invalid code" message again.
Let my just say, when I finally do get this game to work, it better be F*CKING AWESOME or I'm never paying for another game in this series again.
Mac Patch?
Can Neil, or any other Administrator AT THE VERY LEAST, update us with the Patch that is currently crippling most Mac users.
At 1pm today, I was told it would be hopefully done today. How far along did you get? Is it ready for tomorrow?
Anyone else starting to feel like they have been conned out of their money?
please can anyone help ? I installed footy manager 09 activated it then when i try and load it up the sig sign comes up then it changes to black screen with L bottom right corner then it stays like that for hours . do u think it might be a dodgy copy ?????? anyone else get this trouble ????
how do you play a network game
i have made sure that the ports 10093-10096 are open on router
i have made sure that no firewall is blocking it
i have done this on my friends aswell
new grapics drivers
update java
update .net framework
got patch from 3 diff places
used steam
used the normal install
still cant get past the ****ing "fm 09 has encountered a problem and needs to close we are sorry for any inconvenience.
my game isnt even loading up when i put the disc in, is there anything that i can do to rectify this? if so please let me know as soon as possible.
can you email me back to email@example.com
Was there ever any solutions for the 'fm.exe has encountered a problem and had to close. sorry for the inconvenience' problem? Im still getting it and i have all the latest graphics card drivers, patch and directX sdk
that didnt help at all lol
Quick question
Bought FM from a shop and installed via the disk with any problems, added the game to steam along with clicking 'activate a product on steam' (well I thought this would a register the game but it didn't), now Steam wants to download FM now even though its been installed from the disk, so anyway to remove the game from Steam so i doesn't end up downloading FM and using 1 of the 4 'activation counts' left.
Sorry to hear of your frustration. The graphics card you have is one of the few that are causing problems for the game and is below the minimum specifications. We've been trying to get some of these in-house, but they're tricky to find, but once we do we'll be taking a closer look at them to see if we can work out what's going on and whether we can solve these issues.
ahh my god... still i can't play a game. i know you guys are working on all this but could you tell me if there is anything i can do to fix this at the time? or i will have to wait for an update or patch?
Does anyone no how to acces windowed mode, its currently greyed out
I get to start match and then the game freezes i have noticed others have had this problem but not seen any advice to solve this issue
I've just posted a thread on this, and I stupidly forgot to check for a sticky on the subject, so I am sorry...
I, like many others, was stuck on Launch Day waiting for SoftAnchor to authorise. It eventually did, Hooray!
But, I live in an area with terrible connection, so one day I will be connected, the next day and following month I will recieve no internet connection, and no phone signal. Yes, I live in the A!!!!ole of nowhere. (No comments, I know how awful it is).
But I can't play offline, Steam is fine and I can enter it Via the Offline Mode. The problem comes from another SoftAnchor message, the one that plagued everyone on November the 17th. I have tried downloading the Activator patch, loading FM straight from its File, I have sacrificed three virgins to the Moon God - Miles, now I'm currently experiencing a rare online period and I need help desperately.
When I'm online, it works perfectly, I open Steam and I Launch Football Manager and I try and make Fulham successful (a thankless task).
But, as soon as I'm offline, Open Steam, Launch Football Manager, SoftAnchor attacks and destroys my hopes of escaping this mundane exsistence!!!
Please Obi Wan Konebi (or
) You're my only hope...
Also, if I dont recieve the answer, there's a high probabality I will create a giant deathstar and destroy whole planets, as I'm a little peed....
I hav a boxed version, Activiated via Steam (obviously) have the 9.0.1 patch...and i think thats it...
Thank You Muchly
Edit...Just got online, still asking me for Product Key, says I need a new one...so now my problem is...I need a new key...Hooray, more problems!
Last edited by SmithersDod; 19-11-2008 at 01:32. Reason: erm
I downloaded FM09 of steam, it was all working perfectly until My laptop shutdown uexpectedly while playing a match,
As i tried to play FM09 again, everytime i try to start a match he game crashes and the following messages apear
Not well-formed (invalid token) at line 1 of highlights.xml
Not well-formed (invalid token) at line 1 of speed.xml
I re-installed it and dowloaded the latest graphic, but the same messages appear.
I would appreciate any assitance
I'm so fed up with this game already, steam doesnt work at all, ive de-installed and reinstalled the game but i cannot create a shortcut on the fm2009 so cant access it. Probably take it back to the shop tomorrow, cant be arsed any more.. Used, i repeat used to be my favourite game
ok tried everything for the xml parsing error, it still doesn't work after the reset preferences, i need help, 3 days now
Neil Dejyothin: Have you had a chance to look at my issue again?
Right, Can you please please please stop answering the same questions over and over again.
and have a go with mine, which ive asked several times, and have never seen it answered.
if people cant be bothered to read the thread for answers, then they dont deserve to play.
Right, i have downloaded the game from steam, i have patched it, i have downloaded the Framework, and i have also got The service pack for it, i have also downloaded the 500mb direct x SDK, My Graphics card has the latest drivers - The Demo worked on this computer also.
Right and now my problem.
When I launch the Program, With or without steam., it says my trail period has expired and asks me for my Product Key. so i put it in, Next it acticated successfully, and thanks me. The Installation of Football Manager 2009 certificate has been activated under product key: xxx.
so i press ok, Then - Nothing! nothing at all, it doesnt launch.
So when i go back to starting the program, it does it all again, Product key, Thank you, nothing. Product key, Thank you, nothing, Product key, Thank you, nothing, Product key, Thank you, nothing.
Thank you
can't load patch v9.1
after download the patch v9.1 it does't appear when start a new game and it still the version 9.0 and in the editor when load the database the only choice is default v9.0 what's the problem or what i haven't done?
Ive also uninstalled, and redownloaded the game
i need help! i have a problem....error: -1
what is this? can u help?
I have been posting on here since friday and i have just basically had no help whatsoever!!!!!!!!!!!
i have also emailed their support from the sega website and been emailing one of their guys but they reply about once every three or 4 days and they are just no help at all.....
in the end i ended up figuring out how to fix the problem myself.
If anyone is having problems with the 3D match including the screen going black and/or the computer reseting when you try get into match mode then try this if you have Nvidia graphics.
Go into START
Then into CONTROL PANEL
Then into ADDITIONAL OPTIONS
Then NVIDIA CONTROL PANEL
Then there should be a display bar showing the proportion that you graphics is set to with regards to PERFORMANCE and QUALITY.
Choose to manually configure that, and move the bar down right down to PERFORMANCE,
go into the game and you should be able to watch the 3D match.
I don't know if this works with graphics other than NVIDIA but if your computers a graphics control panel then see if its the same
Hey can any of you guys help me out, this is my problem but no one from SI seems bothered!!!!!!!!!!
Installation: Successfulwith errors.
10 Successes
1 Warnings
1 NonFatalErrors
0 FatalErrors
Action Notes:
Install Log Detail:
Execute Script/Batch file: Steam InternetCheck.exe
Status: SUCCESSFUL
Get Registry Entry: Key: HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Valve\Steam
Value Name: InternetConnectivity
Status: SUCCESSFUL
Check Disk Space: C:\Program Files\Sports Interactive\Football Manager 2009
Status: SUCCESSFUL
Additional Notes: NOTE - Required Disk Space: 223,090,694; Free Disk Space: 23,604,281,344
Install Action: Jump To: Next Steam Label -- Prev: NO JUMP
Status: SUCCESSFUL
Install Directory: C:\Program Files\Sports Interactive\Football Manager 2009\
Status: SUCCESSFUL
Get Registry Entry: Key: HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Valve\Steam\
Value Name: InstallPath
Status: WARNING
Additional Notes: WARNING - Win32Exception
Execute Script/Batch file: Install Steam
Status: SUCCESSFUL
Execute Command: "$IA_STEAM_INSTALLPATH$\steam.exe" -install $INSTALLER_LAUNCH_DIR$\..\..\..\..\thirdparty\stea m\fm2009\
Status: SUCCESSFUL
Install File: C:\Program Files\Sports Interactive\Football Manager 2009\saAuditMD.dll
Status: SUCCESSFUL
Execute Uninstaller: $USER_INSTALL_DIR$$/$Uninstall $PRODUCT_NAME
Status: ERROR
Additional Notes: ERROR - No uninstaller existed in the directory
I'm encountering the "fm.exe has encountered a problem and needs to close" error.
The send report says the following:
AppName: fm.exe AppVer: 220.127.116.11064 ModName: fm.exe
ModVer: 22.214.171.124064 Offset: 00fdc281
Any ideas? I notice alot of other customers are also experiencing the problem
After updating the Graphics problem (directx software) I had it working on 13th November,Perfectly. Restarted the computer and I now get the above message, It has been nothing but problems to be honest since i purchased, never had these problems on 2008 or other games.
I am so disappointed, I have spent many hours of my life working copiously through these messy forums looking for ANY kind of solution to this problem.
I really feel for anyone who is not technically clued in when it is comes to computers they must be properly stuck.
By the way SI I can do alot more with £30 than have a broken game on my Hard-drive
I'm having problems with the XML Parsing error. I have uninstalled it and reinstalled it - doesnt change anything. I authenticated it with steam - bought the physical copy of the game. Bought a whole new pc so i could play the game - managed to play 3/4 games and then this happened-
'not well-formed (invalid token) at line 1 of speed.xml'
have tried renaming the fm.exe file in the steam folder to the '--reset_preferences' but when i double click that - it doesnt work, and then when i try to work it via steam it says the game is unavailable. Please help - have spent so much money (£350 in total) to play this game
Had a problem with the activation.
I says:
"Activation failed with error -819. Please make sure you use the correct key and try again."
looked through Threads in here and didn't find anything about error -819.
have you tried checking if you have the right key at
check your key at http://keycheck.fm2009.softanchorinsight.com ?
I've downloaded the patch, and when trying to install it I get an error when it reaches file 149. Then when I try and start up FM, it comes up with an error and tells me FM has to be closed down. Doesn't even load up at all.
I did download the patch on my home computer and copied it to a disk so I could get it on my laptop. Not sure if that would of caused a problem.
Yeah I've checked that, and i have entered the correct key, and I've download the activator from the link from In here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonafide85 View Post
Had a problem with the activation.
I says:
"Activation failed with error -819. Please make sure you use the correct key and try again."
looked through Threads in here and didn't find anything about error -819.
have you tried checking if you have the right key at
check your key at http://keycheck.fm2009.softanchorinsight.com ?
I keep getting the same error.
i have been having many problems check out these posts
i have updated all drivers, patch etc but i tryed to get the patch thru this forum instead of steam and im getting this error unable to locate component- saAuditMD.dll was not found
i was playing a few days ago everything was great then it wouldnt let me see the shirts on the tactics screen and makea sub druing the game half-time is ok please help
i keep getting this mes say football manager has run out of memory and will now close. and that i need to free up some memory was that all about ?????? im in my sec season and im only getting this now
List of what I did before it started working again.
1. Updated the dotfix.net thingy as suggested by SI. Effect - no change; same error occuring. Then reinstalled fm2009 but still no joy.
2. Used latest patch (165mb) from link on the threads above (was it Mirror 4 UK?? - can't remember). Effect - change; but still didn't load - came up with error stating 'graphics card not sufficient'. Did not reinstall fm 2009.
3. Updated dxdsk drivers as suggested (massive 460mb file). First time installation did not complete as there was an 'Error SIS0010' or something similar. Tried FM2009 just in case. Effect - same as 2 above.
4. Tried again with dxdsk - Installed correctly. Effect - FM2009 WORKS. Loaded fine and runs okish. Small minor bugs still but works ok and only 2D effect available.
I had a Radeon 9700 graphics card so I did hear that wasn't good enough. Anyhow message to LIVEWIRE, STEDDERS and BIGAL81. Try above again and make sure all patches and installations work correctly.
Let me know how you get on.
I bought the game from GAME... and its using steam to launch it.Quote:
Originally Posted by superbladeash
Does anyone no how to acces windowed mode, its currently greyed out
What operating system are you using and how did you install the game (e.g. boxed copy or through Steam)?
Originally Posted by franco1703
Ok i firstly had Can't set up graphics downloaded your stuff, then update steam, then downloaded the patch, my drives are up to date (the last update avaliable is 2004). Now i have same problem a clock and a L and then it closes after a while sayng it can run and had to be closed.
I had no problems of any sort with FM2008 with maximum set up (like 20 playable leagues)
My card is a VIA/S3G Unichrome PRO IGP
Now my point is you mad life miserable to hundres of people and u never mantion before that new game requirements were so high.
Just tell me will i be able to run this game or not as I have limited time to bring the game back and get a refund.
THIS IS MY 4th POST and none of you as bothere even aknowledge it CAN I RUN THIS GAME OR NOT ? SO I CAN THEN BRING IT BACK TO THE SHOP , WHAT PART OF THE ENGLISH SENTENCE " THERE IS A LIMITED TIME TO BRING IT BACK" DON't YOU UNDERSTAND ? THIS IS A WONDERFULL WAY OF THANKING A LOYAL FAN WHO BOUGHT THE VERY FIRST " SCUDETTO" WHEN I WAS STILL IN ITALY MORE THEN 10 YEARS AGO AND THE ORIGAL FM ON THE COMMODORE 64 now just teanswer me please
how do you set up a network game
Hello i put the football manager cd in my cd drive but i get a message saying disk is not formatted, windows cannot read from the disk. The disk might be corrupted, or it could be using a format that is not compatible with windows.
What can i do to correct this ?
Only little me again........
Two problems now....
Loaded game on new lap top and graphics error comes up. Downloaded Direct X add on and nothing.
Loaded game on old lap top (3 years old) runs fine till it suddenly crashes with the message "Error - Array out of range".
What does this mean?
Also the patch is still not accessable, is there a problem with it.
Can someone PM me with how to sort the above, pretty please!!!!!!
Really don't understand what's going on, VERY ANNOYED but my game will play for a day then needs re-registering.
THEN, Tried all the required fixes and hints but when i try to play i get the XML parseling error! The short tip has no effect
I'm proper fed up with this.
Is this product fit for purpose?
Okey, so I have installed the game with unilock, and nothing happens as I launch the game. I have tried to shut it down in task manager and re-launching. And the exact same thing happens. What do I do? I have also tried installing with Steam experiencing the same result. And yes, have reported it to Steam without any clarification thus far.
Hey can any of you guys help me out, this is my problem but no one from SI seems bothered!!!!!!!!!!
Installation: Successfulwith errors.
10 Successes
1 Warnings
1 NonFatalErrors
0 FatalErrors
Action Notes:
Install Log Detail:
Execute Script/Batch file: Steam InternetCheck.exe
Status: SUCCESSFUL
Get Registry Entry: Key: HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Valve\Steam
Value Name: InternetConnectivity
Status: SUCCESSFUL
Check Disk Space: C:\Program Files\Sports Interactive\Football Manager 2009
Status: SUCCESSFUL
Additional Notes: NOTE - Required Disk Space: 223,090,694; Free Disk Space: 23,604,281,344
Install Action: Jump To: Next Steam Label -- Prev: NO JUMP
Status: SUCCESSFUL
Install Directory: C:\Program Files\Sports Interactive\Football Manager 2009\
Status: SUCCESSFUL
Get Registry Entry: Key: HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Valve\Steam\
Value Name: InstallPath
Status: WARNING
Additional Notes: WARNING - Win32Exception
Execute Script/Batch file: Install Steam
Status: SUCCESSFUL
Execute Command: "$IA_STEAM_INSTALLPATH$\steam.exe" -install $INSTALLER_LAUNCH_DIR$\..\..\..\..\thirdparty\stea m\fm2009\
Status: SUCCESSFUL
Install File: C:\Program Files\Sports Interactive\Football Manager 2009\saAuditMD.dll
Status: SUCCESSFUL
Execute Uninstaller: $USER_INSTALL_DIR$$/$Uninstall $PRODUCT_NAME
Status: ERROR
Additional Notes: ERROR - No uninstaller existed in the directory
I tried many combinations and guess what the printing was
and still cant get a possible key.
How can you print out some keys that so difficult to recognize?
Are you really so stupid?
What can i do?
I am very upset of this
May be i better find out a crack file to play the game?
Trying to install the update and it says 'error reading block 150'..Whats that all about??
I have been getting the error -703 message since 10.30 this morning.
Surely it is not fair to expect people to have to try for the best part of 4.5 hours to be able to play a game???
It seems unreasonable to me.
Your fix is to keep trying?
Well I have been trying on and off for the whole day and it still wont go through.
"We were unable to proccess you unlock request. To recieve a new key, please visit: www.sigames.com
Error : [-703]"
This is now my new most hated phrase.
Sorry, but like many others (I suspect). I have given up and just got a refund on the game. I am not technically minded enough to get through this rubbish. Sorry but this is utter rubbish, I will look for an alternative game, I am really dissapointed.
Think i'd rather play it with steam - but this parsing error is annoying. Other people who have this XML Parsing error - did you install with steam or uniloc?
So annoyed because I've been playing this game for nigh on 10 years when I was 11, having no problems at all. This year SI seems to have not even bothered testing it before release. Am desperate to play it. Bought a new computer especially so I could....!
Like you I am not techniacally minded and although (from the sounds of things) my problem should be 'easy' to fix ie just keep trying to ativate it I cant.
To be honest it sounds as if there are a host of problems to look forward to even if I do manage to activate the game.
I have been buying Championship Manager/Football manager for the last 8 years and have never had this kind of trouble with it.
Can someone please help with the problem im having with fm2009.
I have been all through the thread for solutions and this has not come up yet from what i see.
I have quite an oldish laptop but was able to run the demo fine (minus 3D match engine) and the same with the game when i downloaded it.
However, now that I have downloaded the patch I get the "Cannot setup graphics error" I have downloaded all the possible programmes (including the massive direct X file). This file will not even install on my laptop - I dont think I even have a graphics card as far as I am aware.
My question is, why, if my game runs fine without the patch is this suddenly giving me all these problems ? Surely the patch is supposed to make the game better not make it unplayable.
I have to say it sickens, given all the issues with FM2009, that the top thread is still win a can of FM deodrant. How about instead of cheap gimmicks more time is put into the game and its development to avoid this utter shambles. If my demo worked fine and I buy the game based on this then I feel totally misled by the fact that the actual game when patched requires different specs to play. Absolute joke - have played this game since the CM Italia series so to say I feel completely let down by sports interactive is an understatement.
Anyways, Im sure lots of people have problems of their own with this game but if anyone can shed any light on this it owuld be much appreciated !
Many thanks,
have you thought about uninstalling the whole game and then reinstalling without downloading the patch?
he means click on his name and send him a private message.
what does everyone think the best way to install this game? via steam or uniloc?
Had the XML Parsing error after installing through Steam (boxed copy), doesn't seem to matter what i do, it wont work. I've updated drivers, framework, tried the shortcut edit and still after WASTING 3 days of my life un-installing and re-installing IT WILL NOT WORK!
I don't know what to do!
How do you play a network game
i cant find out anywhere
haha - not sure where it is tbh. think im gonna keep on plugging away. i mean SI cant just ignore the fact that we dont play the game. they'll eventually (hopefully) come up with a few patches to fix all this crap!
Dear Jimmy please help...
Hi all, i'm in desperate need of assistance before i stick on a leonard cohen record and reach for the bottom of potassium cyanide...
I've had a quick look over this thread and google but i haven't found anyone with the same problem or indeed a solution!
Bought the game (hard copy) yesterday, installed it and activated on steam (which i already had) with no problems...however on trying to launch the game...nothing happened. Only a message stating that it was preparing launch (which never materializes) or sometimes not even that.
Well, i removed the game and re-installed it, interestingly i did not have to re-activate or re- enter the keycode on the second installation (i assume that is ok). Anyway i attempted to launch the game again...and the same thing happened - nothing.
I tried to launch the game via the .exe where i installed it - C:/programfiles/steam/steamapps/common/footballmanager, and i got this error message -
"This application has failed to start because d3dx9_37.dll was not found. Re-installing the application may fix this problem."
Any ideas how to solve this?
My laptop spec is comfortably good enough to run the game and for the record my graphics card is - ATI Mobility Radeon X1600 512MB.
P.S Immediately after the installation of the game, something was uploaded via steam to my computer - is this the patch or do i have to download it separately?
Thanks in advance for any help
Last edited by Cambridge Simon; 19-11-2008 at 16:11.
Hi,i'm facing the same problems as conraid kaine? Please help i've been trying for 24 hours already and yet to come any closer to a solution? whatever happened to the good ol' install and play?
OK for all people experiencing The "Fm.exe has encountered a problem"
when you installed the DirectX Download as provided by SI, to fix the graphic problem, another problem was invented as a result, that comes into play at next start up.
In the download, a file d3d9d.dll was created this can be seen if you type in (dxdiag in run - start panel) you will notice this and it is actually interfering with the running of the game (will be a hazard sign next to the file) you will also see it is a FINAL DEBUG FILE NOT A FINAL RETAIL, conflicting with the game graphics thus preventing any start-up of footy manager
Maybe SI can elaborate on my findings and possibly provide information for not just me but most people on where we can find a fix and final retail version of d3d9d.dll
i get the -10 issue after downloading and running the 'Activator', the phone number 08700108002 doesn't seem to work... they say they close at 1730 but its only 1655 and they are closed!!
Last edited by pdtrussell; 19-11-2008 at 16:55.
installed the graphics system link u gave me and i went to run it and it came up in a box
this setup executable has not been packed with files and settings. Please use the packer tool to build this executable
error code: S1001
When I click to launch the game I get a System - Error stating that the game is currently unavailable and that I should try again later - is this some kind of twisted joke? I've paid for the game and would like to play it whenever the hell I choose! Is there anyway that I can play the game without going through Steam?
I have successfully install Football Manager 2009 and created a game. But when i was going on to my first match, I waited for around 5 mins and the screen just freeze there. This also happen when i click on the information of my club with the game not responding. I check through all the requirement of the game before I bought it just to ensure my computer can support the game and play the game smoothly, and to encounter this kind of problem really made me felt disappointed and cheated by sigames. I hope sigames can quickly come up with solution to my problem. I hope you understand that we pay to play the game and not to fix the problem the game has caused.
Hi i got an problem that doesnt seem to have been mentioned anywhere:
When i am playing the game my screen flashes every so often, it doesnt minimize or exit it just continues to flash for as long as i am playing?
any ideas?
- Right-click on "Football Manager 2009".
- From the pop-up menu select "Properties".
- Select the "Local Files" tab.
- Choose "Verify integrity of game cache.."
Wait until this has completed and then try and run the game. It may take a little while, even once it appears to have finished.
The last good work is fm 2007.Fm 2008 is ended at 8.0.2 without solving some mistakes for example easy goals from corner. (Fazio 36 goals/season only head goals)
Now 2009 started with many many mistakes.I think this game must win the prize of The game with the biggest mistakes in the world.
Many pages of different and complicated problems and so few solves.Some solves are funny ( play with no sound) This is your responsibility to make the game work properly. Paly wtih no sound play with 2D don't do this don't put this ,don't use this option of game.What a solving.
I hope that you work hard to make a 9.0.2 patch in coming weeks asap.
And at fm2010 I hope that you will test every details before selling the game and let the customers play without any difficulties.
If you don't think your customers ,one day they won't think you and they go buying another games related with football managing.
I bought this year's game too as I'm one of fm fan but if next game of football manager release still with many mistakes I won't but anymore.
From within Steam:
- Right-click on "Football Manager 2009" and select "Create desktop shortcut".
- Right-click on the shortcut you made and select "Properties".
- In the "Target" field append --reset_preferences on the end.
- It should look something like this:
"C:/Program Files/Sports Interactive/Football Manager 2009/fm.exe" --reset_preferences
- Select 'Apply' and 'OK' and then launch the game from the shortcut.
Okey, so I have installed the game with unilock, and nothing happens as I launch the game. I have tried to shut it down in task manager and re-launching. And the exact same thing happens. What do I do? I have also tried installing with Steam experiencing the same result. And yes, have reported it to Steam without any clarification thus far.
seems to have done the trick - you beauty!
cheers mate
it seems that you are answering questions that posted after me am i screwed or what? or can you tell me you have no idea how to fix it?
Neil I have sent you an email about the remote assistance.
Have you recieved it?
Finally got my game working in windowed mode no thanks to any of the jokers here who class themselves as people who will help you....i asked numerous times for help and not one time did any of them give me any kind of answer or solution to my numerous problems.
You're still being reported to Trading Standards for all of the trouble I, and many other people have endured trying to get this game to work and after this I am never buying another SI game again, back to Championship Manager when it's released in April 2009 for me
The instructions on how to run in Windowed mode have been posted many times across the forums, but we appreciate it can be difficult sometimes to find them on such a busy message board. Nobody would have been ignoring you intentionally.
to answer your question. I bought FM from Game. Its using steam to load up... do you have any idea whats causing it to crash on the tactic screen? I could send you my DxDiag via PM if u need.. also windowed mode is grey out so can't try that.
Its all a bit disappointing with these errors!!!!!
Neil, isn't is about time my problem got resolved?


text:
Specifically from the point of view of a rogue, it's kinda disheartening to realise that around paragon your best trick will be neutralised. What are some useful, viable ways to defeat things like blindsight, tremorsense, and darkvision?
Sign up
- Anybody can ask a question
- Anybody can answer
- The best answers are voted up and rise to the top
It depends on how collaborative your DM is willing to be, but the Stealth skill and being Hidden aren't solely vision-related. Even in the basic skill description itself it points out that the extra sense of hearing might be enough to detect your presence. If you can come up with a plausible distraction or form of "concealment", your DM might let you make Stealth checks to hide from even advanced senses. A rain of marbles onto the stone floor might be just what you need to get the edge on the Galeb Duhr, for example. Alternatively, you could combine skills - perhaps it can detect your presence on the floor, but a combination of Athletics or Acrobatics and Stealth and it'd never see you coming in for an attack from the ceiling. Furthermore, you can take advantage of the simple fact that both tremorsense and blindsight are both typically fairly limited in range, and that blind creatures automatically fail perception checks against things beyond the range of their special senses. A crossbow can be a rogue's best friend.
Darkvision is perhaps simpler, as it removes only the ability to hide in shadows or dim light. You can still use hard cover and physical obstructions for Stealth. Similarly, effects and items that create clouds of smoke will still foil darkvision - the lowly Smokestick is incredibly overpriced but gives you something to remain hidden in when the battlefield is otherwise empty. Depending on the creature and the source of their darkvision, the DM might also let you use sudden bright lights as a source of distraction for your initial Stealth check. Don't overplay it, but suddenly tossing a lit Sunrod at the Drow and running away might at least net you an extra round of non-enslavement.
There is some discussion here.
There are a number of mechanics. The simplest (but least useful) is the thief of Legend ED, which as its level 30 power grants:
On a more limited scope, however, the abilities have to be defeated individually.
Here, cover is essential. Therefore, phasing is the way to defeat blindsight, as it allows you to move through cover. There are quite a few ways to gain phasing, depending on level, but the paragon path: Avenging Haunt is one of the best.
Tremorsense requires a contiguous surface. Flight is required there. Avenging haunt, again, is an all-in-one solution.
Darkvision defeat requires cover, therefore phasing. This, in many ways, is the worst of them.
The other way to defeat all of these is through bluff, but that's not the question you asked and has its own difficulties.
The reflexive psychic shroud provides a daily:
Greyflower Perfume is a somewhat expensive way to defeat blindsight though not common sense:
From a flavourtext perspective, you may be able to suggest that the Battlemind's Feather Step (Utility 2, At-will) provides a chance for a stealth check from tremorsense due to its flavour:
But you're probably better off flying, as there are many easy ways to get that.
At epic, Vaporform armor provides a slightly painful way of inflitration:
Which, when it or the vampiric heritage Mist Form are combined with the epic assassin Walker Through Shadows:
Allow fairly easy circumvention of out-of-combat blindsight, though at epic, there are almost certainly wards against phasing, which evens the conflict.


text:
A simple lesson
April 7, 2013
To the editor: Rape: Sex against one's will. All of a sudden why a need for special classes for our 14-year-olds....
JamesT what are you talking about? What does anything you have to say is in relation to the letter to the editor? Enlighten me please.
0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Ohio does have the option for the county prosecutor to file for either juvenville or adult. Also, the charge can be amended to transfer frfrom one to the other. *******books.google****/books?id=rXcxgPnhHCwC&pg=PA181&lpg=PA181&dq=Can+Ohio+prosecutor%27s+recommend+a+juvenile+to+adult+charges+court+?&source=bl&ots=qHFCfmBqgY&sig=RS4zH3NeuHfUhUvxg-iaSwt97CQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=IDpsUdb6F-nj0QH8xYDYAw&ved=0CHUQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=Can%20Ohio%20prosecutor%27s%20recommend%20a%20juvenile%20to%20adult%20charges%20court%20%3F&f=true
0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
A prosecutor has power to recommend either a juvenile or adult court for the defendent(s). Concurrent Jurisdiction
Some states also have a legal provision which allows the prosecutor to file a juvenile case in both juvenile and adult court because the offense and the age of the accused meet certain criteria. Prosecutorial transfer does not have to meet the due process requirement stipulated by Kent v. U.S. Approximately 15 states currently have this provision, although this number is expected to increase in the next few years.
0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
You can read can't you? Again, both convicted of the same crime each got 1 year on the charge the Judge (not a higher up in the county )said he recommended this place because it is excellent for youth sex offenders. And everyone convicted of a youth crime has to go to the ONE DYS for evaluations then transferred to the recommended one. Understand?
0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Some of the most powerful people in the country must live in Steubenville. Imagine that! They can arrange for these two young criminals to go to the same penal institution and just because they played football.
0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Why in Gods name would that be another farce if they went to the same place? Only one juvie center for sex crimes issues in Ohio. Judge recommended BOTH go there.
Also it take a month or more for the evaluations. They are not the only ones there. This is no fly by night institution for DYS.
1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
It should be over soon. Does anyone know if the boys were evaluated and if they were sent to the same facility?
If they go to the same rehab place; that would be another farce.
0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
CORRECTION The 16 people refused to cooperate with the investigaton. I left out the word "refused" in my last post
2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Tom, look, if their is evidence of a cover up charges should and must be filed. But where did you get evidence that the coach unsuccessfully covered it up and laughed about it. I want to read your source. Also, when and how did the sherrif go after the victim. I can't find that anywhere. The 16 others that you talk about didn't refuse to testify and were not offered immunity. What they did was to cooperate with the investigation but I hope that they are put in front of the Grand Jury and forced to testify or face charges of obstruction of justice. But according to everything I have read in the transcripts none of the sexual abuse happened at the first two parties where alcohol was available. Just because I don't agree with your speculation doesn't mean that I am not for justice. I welcome any and all facts that help place the horrendous crime in perspective and puts all speculation to rest.
1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
I don't understand why people continue to say that the sheriff "went after the victim" or "the sheriff did nothing for two weeks." It has been shown time and time again that the victim's family did not go to the sheriff - they went to the Steubenville PD. The sheriff was not involved in the initial investigation, and the only involvement of the sheriff's dept in the case was to collect some cell phone's per the steubenville PD's request. This mistake got started with the whole localleaks page and people keep repeating it. I'm not sure how it could be any clearer that the sheriff did not "wait two weeks" and he did not go after "the victim and not the rapists" I guess people will believe what the want to believe regardless of the facts.
4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
We don't need classes, we need better parents; ones that work for a living, believe in God, and don't buy into the liberal ideas that are peddled to kids in our public schools. Parents should know better and they should teach their children to know better as well.
5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
maverick - you seem to forget someone supplied the alcohol and house for the party. Coach Sac unsuccessfully tried to cover it up and laughed about it. The Sheriff went after the victim instead of the rapists. There were 16 others who refused to testify even under immunity. There are a lot of unanswered questions waiting on the grand jury to answer. I say hang 'em all. Jane Doe deserves better justice then what happened in the Steubenville Big Red Rape so far!
6 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
We need classes for children we also need classes for adults. Our children have their own culture which will take some degree of intervention to modify. Most adults are clueless as to what actually goes on with young people outside the home because everyone has the attitude that my kid knows better or that only happens in Steubenville or only athletes do that stuff. We all need to be educated before anything changes. And Tom maybe you should do some research like reviewing the court transcripts. The only kids who witnessed the treatment of Jane were the 2 defendents and the witnesses who got forced immunity for their testimoney.So if you r waiting for the Grand Jury to arrest witnesses to the rape u will be dissappointed
1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Mr Kopa, I think we all know the answer to that question.Someone failed, and now it's up to "the village" to teach our children.
3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Character goes a long way.
Have some.
2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Yes, you need special classes because the leadership of Steubenville does not understand that Rape is Rape period. Instead they try to cover it up in the name of Big Red Football. The grand jury is only a week or so away, and I can't wait to watch all those who were involved plead the 5th as they each get indicted for watching at the alcohol rape party & doing nothing, or covering up what followed. The scum from Steubenville need to go to jail in the name of what happened to Jane Doe.
8 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Showing 16 of 16 comments
Post a Comment
You must first login before you can comment.


text:
Let $H$ be a set of $(d-1)$-dimensional hyperplanes in $\mathbb{R}^d$. For each hyperplane $h \in H$ let $D(h)$ and $\bar{D}(h)$ be the corresponding half spaces of $\mathbb{R}^d$. For a point $x \in \mathbb{R}^d$, define the function $$ b(h,x) = \begin{cases} 1 & x \in D(h) \\\ 0 & \text{otherwise}. \end{cases} $$ For points $x,y \in \mathbb{R}^d$, define the psuedometric, $$ \sigma(x,y) = \sum_{h \in H} |b(h,x) - b(h,y)|. $$ So $\sigma(x,y)$ counts the number of hyperplanes in $H$ that pass between the points $x$ and $y$. I believe that the following lemma is true, but have not yet found a proof.
Let $N$ be the number of hyperplanes in $H$. There exists a polynomial $p$ (depending perhaps on $d$, but not on $N$) such that, for every positive integer $k$, there is a discrete subset $T(k) \subset \mathbb{R}^d$ containing not more than $p(k)$ elements with the property that for every $x$ in $\mathbb{R}^d$ there is a point $y \in T(k)$ with $\sigma(x,y) < \frac{N}{k}.$
Another way to state the Lemma is: We require at most $p(k)$ `balls' of radius $\frac{N}{k}$ (with respect to the metric $\sigma$) to cover $\mathbb{R}^d$.
The Lemma is related to what is called Vapnik–Chervonenkis dimension, and it arises when trying to prove results about certain empirical processes. I suspect this result (or something equivalent) to be in the literature, but I have not yet been able to dig it out.
Has anybody seen this result (or something equivalent) before? Alternatively, does anybody know a nice proof?


text:
Making liberals feel good
January 12, 2014
To the editor: Happy 2014, America —three years to go. Hope we make it. On New Year's Day, I picked up my wife's prescription, and it cost almost three times what it did before....
GALLUP: More Americans Worse Off Financially Than Year Ago...
1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Oh, great: United States falls out of the top ten for economic freedom
Thank you, Mr. President.
2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
How did this constitutional lawyer graduate from college without an understanding of our Constitution?
Wake UP America!!!
2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Obama and Kerry cave to our enemies!
Today's news on Iran:
OBAMA: 'Give peace a chance'...
'Win' for Iran...
ROUHANI: 'World Powers Surrendered to Iranian Nation's Will'...
General: America Pursuing Diplomacy Because They Cannot Defeat Us Militarily...
Foreign minister lays wreath at grave of Beirut Marine barracks bomber...
2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
BKNEES "Letters like yours which vilify a group of people is nonsensical, since you likely don't know, have not truly scrutinized and probably don't care WHAT "liberals" want. This was purely meant to incite controversy and it's childish, tiresome and unproductive." A tolerant hypocritical liberal calling people names and judging people?
0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Lefties and unintended consiquences.
Incandescent bulb ban leaves bird hospital cold...
Ottawa's Wild Bird Care Centre wasn't ready for federal government change on Jan. 1
Ottawa's Wild Bird Care Centre has put the call out for incandescent light bulbs, which it uses to provide warmth for injured and recovering birds, after the federal government banned manufacturers from making the bulbs.
In Canada, the more energy-efficient compact fluorescent light bulbs are considered the norm. The incandescent light bulbs use more power, but they are also warmer and serve an important role inside incubators.
"As the light bulb is on, it will obviously warm things up and then the setting will turn it off to keep the right temperature," explained Mireille Goguen, who works at the centre.
2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
I hate to say I told you so, but....
Bailing Out Health Insurers and Helping Obamacare
Robert Laszewski—a prominent consultant to health insurance companies—recently wrote in a remarkably candid blog post that, while Obamacare is almost certain to cause insurance costs to skyrocket even higher than it already has, "insurers won't be losing a lot of sleep over it." How can this be? Because insurance companies won't bear the cost of their own losses—at least not more than about a quarter of them. The other three-quarters will be borne by American taxpayers.
For some reason, President Obama hasn't talked about this particular feature of his signature legislation. Indeed, it's bad enough that Obamacare is projected by the Congressional Budget Office to funnel $1,071,000,000,000.00 (that's $1.071 trillion) over the next decade (2014 to 2023) from American taxpayers, ...
2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
I, like many people – and probably most people, if they are honest with themselves, have a combination of conservative and liberal views. And the issue really depends on your point of view.
For instance, my feelings are very conservative regarding the unborn; I am extremely inflexible in my views about our duty to rigorously conserve our environment; And, I was very old-fashioned in establishing my daughters' curfew. I have very liberal feelings about gay rights, marriages/unions, marijuana legalization and my son's curfew (if I had a do-over, I would change that one, would have saved some heartache.)
Letters like yours which vilify a group of people is nonsensical, since you likely don't know, have not truly scrutinized and probably don't care WHAT "liberals" want. This was purely meant to incite controversy and it's childish, tiresome and unproductive.
1 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
I know what will make me feel good. Taking over the Senate and keeping the house in Nov. Then bath house Barry's hair will do more that turn grey it will fall out, and moochell will be gone.
6 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
This may not make liberals feel good.
Rumours of marriage problems threaten to overshadow Michelle Obama's 50th birthday
A LEADING American divorce mediator will visit Washington this week to offer members of Congress advice on ending the "tiresome bickering" between Republicans and Democrats. If US tabloids are to be believed, she may need to visit the White House first.
Michelle Obama's extended absence from Washington and a flurry of renewed speculation about the state of the first couple's marriage are threatening to overshadow her 50th birthday party at the White House on Saturday.
God Bless George H.Bush And Barbara, and George W. Bush and Laura!
7 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Great letter, Rob.
Unintended consequences. Liberals fail to look further than their own immediate needs, no further than the end of their nose. Feelings, as Rob pointed out.
Why is it that what liberals want must become law, and what conservatives want must become illegal?
7 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Showing 11 of 11 comments
Post a Comment
You must first login before you can comment.


text:
Ghana Country Hoody (Red)
$44.99Support your country of choice in this comfy hoody! Team flag printed across the front. 80/20 cotton/poly with fleece lining. Pre-shrunk. Rib collar and cuffs. > more
COUNTRY: Ghana TEAM: Ghana National Soccer Team
- 8.5 oz, 80/20 ring-spun cotton/polyester hooded sweatshirt. Preshrunk for a long-lasting fit.
- Set-in sleeves, all-over cover-seamed construction and a full generous fit for comfort.
- Rib collar and cuffs made with Lycra�. Double-ply self-fabric lined hood.
- Orders shipping outside the U.S. are subject to customs fees.
- BigSoccer Shop stands behind everything we sell. View our guarantees for more information.


text:
Going Organic: Is It Worth the Cost?
In This Article:
Sounds great! So what's the downside of organic farming? Well, one of the major reasons that farmers use fertilizers is to put nitrogen back into the soil for plants to feed on. Since organic farms don't use synthetic fertilizers, they have to rely on natural methods instead, like manure and cover crops, such as legumes. Unfortunately, manure can't put enough nitrogen back into the soil to grow the huge amount of crops that it takes to feed the world's livestock. Cover crops are promising, but many farmers can't afford to grow crops they can't sell. Though some legumes are edible, the ones that are best for nitrogen production are not. This means that organic farmland has to occasionally be given over to producing crops that no one will buy. Even die-hard organic food lovers agree that if the world wants to continue consuming huge amounts of meat, organic farming just won't cut it.
The solution to this problem, of course, is for people to eat less meat and more grains, fruits, and vegetables. According to the American Institute for Cancer Research (AIRC) most Americans eat too much meat and should cut back for health reasons, as well as environmental ones. So, if you're concerned about your family's health and the environment, eating less meat and buying organic produce is a great option. Meat generally costs more than vegetables, so buying less of it should help to offset the higher cost of organic products. Just make sure that your family gets enough protein and nutrients from other sources to ensure a balanced diet.


text:
Remember to register for free PSUTXT
Penn State encourages faculty, staff, students, and their families to register for PSUTXT, an easy and accessible system that sends a text message alert to your cell phone if classes or campus schedules are changed or cancelled due to weather conditions or other campus situations. Registration is effective immediately. To register, visit http://newswires.psu.edu/ and click on the PSUTXT REGISTER button at the bottom of the page. If you have questions or need more information, contact Annemarie Mountz at firstname.lastname@example.com.