text:
Francis's Catechesis
In today's audience in Saint Peter's Square, Pope Francis spoke of the Holy Spirit. Vatican Radio has the full text. Here is an excerpt [translation modified for the sake of clarity]:
This is the precious gift that the Holy Spirit brings into our hearts: the very life of God, the life of true children, a relationship of familiarity, freedom and trust in the love and mercy of God, which brings also a new vision of others, near and far, seen always as brothers and sisters in Jesus, to be respected and loved. The Holy Spirit teaches us to look with the eyes of Christ, to live life as Christ lived, to understand life as Christ did. That's why the living water that is the Holy Spirit quenches our thirst because it tells us that we are loved by God as His children, that we can love God as his children, and that by his grace we can live as children of God, as did Jesus. And what of us? Do we listen to the Holy Spirit who tells us: God loves you? Do we really love God and others as Jesus did?
About the Author
Rev. Robert P. Imbelli, a priest of the Archdiocese of New York, is Associate Professor of Theology Emeritus at Boston College.
36 comments
- All
- Editor Featured
And just before that, Francis met with the nuns and told them not to be "old maids".http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/pope-to-nuns-don-t-...
The Pope's address to the Sisters is here:http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/francesco/speeches/2013/may/documents/... lines regarding "spiritual maternity" are these:"Ma, per favore, una castit feconda, una castit che genera figli spirituali nella Chiesa. La consacrata madre, deve essere madre e non zitella! Scusatemi se parlo cos, ma importante questa maternit della vita consacrata, questa fecondit!""But, please: a fertile chastity, one that brings forth spiritual progeny in the Church. The consecrated woman is a mother, she must be a mother and not a "spinster." Excuse me if I speak so, but it's important this motherhood of the consecrated life, this fruitfulness."Vatican Radio has just posted extensive excerpts in English:http://www.news.va/en/news/pope-meets-with-heads-of-womens-religious-com...
Pope Francis' prose style is so much less dense than Benedict's. I find it more congenial to preaching to the people.
The speech to the sisters seems fine. I saw that AP release (about "not being spinsters") this morning and hoped it was out of context. But I don't think anyone needs to caution Catholic women against careerism in the Church, though. What careers would we be talking about?Thank you for linking to fuller explanation of the Pope's speech.
What is the male equivalent of zitella? Would the pope instruct a group of male religious not to be zitelli?"In modern everyday English," the New Oxford American Dictionary says, "spinster cannot be used to mean simply 'unmarried woman'; it is now always a derogatory term, referring or alluding to a stereotype of an older woman who is unmarried, childless, prissy, and repressed."[1] Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/spinster#ixzz2SiaqKRIH
Gerelyn --Not only does the Pope say that the nuns aren't (gasp!) "spinsters", he even apologizes for using the term with reference to nuns: "The consecrated are mothers: they must be mothers and not 'spinsters'! Forgive me if I talk like this but this maternity of consecrated life, this fruitfulness is important! May this joy of spiritual fruitfulness animate your existence."In fact the nuns aren't mothers, they're consecrated spinsters. But what can you expect in a church that never, ever prays for the 1-in-10 Catholics who never marry. Oh, it prays for the pet cats and dogs and pigs on the feast of St. Francis, but never for the spinsters and bachelors. Now that more and more people are remaining single the Church can expect to lose more of them by sheer neglect, Add to the neglect, we've even been insulted by Pope Francis, of all people. Sigh.
I appreciated waht the Pope said about poverty, one of the "three pivots" underlying the "existence" of religious communities:"Poverty, which teaches solidarity, sharing, and charity and which is also expressed in a soberness and joy of the essential, to put us on guard against the material idols that obscure the true meaning of life. Poverty, which is learned with the humble, the poor, the sick, and all those who are at the existential margins of life. Theoretical poverty doesn't do anything. Poverty is learned by touching the flesh of the poor Christ in the humble, the poor, the sick, and in children.""Theoretical poverty doesn't do anything." A blunt but appropriate reminder for all Christians. ;)
Men and women of the Church who are careerists, social climbers, who use the people, the Church, brothers and sisters - those they should serve - as a springboard for their own ambitions and personal interests do great damage to the Church," he said.I wonder what he means by that. Does anyone know nuns who could be called "careerists" and "social climbers"? Sad that he shares the antipathy so many priests feel toward nuns. And the antipathy so many men feel toward women.When I was a child, we had lots of lessons about vocations. We were told there were three "states" to which Catholics might be called. The highest (of course), was the priesthood. (Or religious life for girls, although nuns were still just laywomen.) The second highest was the married state. The lowest was "unmarried life in the world." Even though it was not something to aspire to, at least it was recognized. Now, a pope from Latin America tells unmarried laywomen not to be old maids/spinsters.He should read Mary Daly (a radical feminist) to appreciates what spinsters have done for MANkind throughout history. http://www.google.com/search?site=&source=hp&q=mary+daly+on+spinsters&oq...
I took the pope's words to merely mean that although they do not physically give birth, the religious sisters must not remain sterile: they must bear fruit in other ways. I like the (obvious) idea that, even for women, there are ways to contribute to the world other than by having and raising babies. He used "being a mother" for all the ways of bearing fruit, and in that fashion recognized the worth of the lives of women who are childless. Isn't that right?
Gerelyn Then the Pope is telling the sisters not to allow themselves to be repressed?
"What is the male equivalent of zitella?"I once attended a weekend retreat for divorced & separated. A visiting Catholic cleric-speaker shared his hope that he would never eventually turn into a "crusty old s.o.b." (because of celibacy if I remember).
Claire --Indeed, Francis is telling the nuns to be generous with their lives as most mothers are, at least to their own children, and I'm sure he appreciates that most of them are. What I object to is his treating the word "spinster" (unmarried woman) as if it were a dirty word, one not to be mentioned in the presence of a nun. He even asks *forgiveness* for talking about spinsters and nuns in the same sentence! Poor man was obviously trying to be nice to them, but what a view of unmarried women.
I once attended a weekend retreat for divorced & separated. A visiting Catholic cleric-speaker shared his hope that he would never eventually turn into a crusty old s.o.b. (because of celibacy if I remember).Another term that insults women. What's the male equivalent of bitch? And how disrespectful of his mother. (I've read that priests use lots of derogatory language about women, starting in the seminary. Another way to insulate themselves from what they fear and loathe.)
Maybe "spinster" isn't derogatory in Italy or Argentina, it could just be odd in translation?Aren't unmarried men called "bachelors"? I've sometimes heard men referred to as "Irish bachelors" which I took to mean men of a certain age who would probably not get married.
If it's not derogatory, why did he apologize for using it?
A few thoughts.I do not think Pope Francis is in any way disparaging the unmarried. He's contrasting two attitudes: one that is creative, spiritually fecund, and one that is cramped and in-turned. His "apology" is that he is being blunt. I referred to his "sermo humilis" popular style in another post. And most certainly the attitude of the "zitella" is equally applicable to men -- recall his homily to priests at the Chrism Mass.What strikes me about the talk is how Ignatian it is: his call to be firmly centered in Christ. His evocation of "sentire cum ecclesia:" experiencing in and with the Church. These are themes that have pervaded his homilies as well. Recall his exhortation to the Cardinals in the very first homily he preached: without Christ and his cross at the center, the Church would be only a charitable NGO.
Exactly, Gerelyn.Irene -- note that "bachelor" doesn't have the same connotations as "spinster". You wouldn't hesitate to call a man a bachelor, but you wouldn't call a woman a spinster, at least not to her face. Or would you?
Francis is a product of his generation of clerical training and experience and will not reflect liberal or moderate wishes.That is who he is and that is who the church has gotten. Now that the initial blush of wishful thinking is fading, reality is setting in.Maybe he will appoint Joo Braz de Aviz as head of the CDF, the Apostolic Signatura, or Secretary of State and position him well for the next papal election.
Robert:I didn't like the Chrism Mass homily, either. (I dislike smelly sheep comparisons. We're human beings, not sheep. The "pastors" come from human families, not from pastures.)But getting back to today's remarks: I still find it odd that women religious would be cautioned by the new pope against careerism and social climbing. On what does he base that? Is it a problem? Will any specific examples be forthcoming? I'm still hoping the results of the inquisition will be made public. What answers did the religious give to the questionnaires? How many nuns are there? (Now we're told 57,000 in the U.S., an absurd figure.) What did the "visitators" uncover? (And speaking of secrets: has the new pope opened the secret dossier the old pope left for him? Who's being blackmailed? Who are the blackmailers? Do they have anything on Francis?)
Jim McC --I"m still hopeful that Francis will change his mind about some things. He has already shown that he is willing to make changes in the Church. Maybe that willingness to change will extend to some of his own mistaken assumptions. As a scientist (he was a chemist), surely he must have a healthy respect for evidence. But he is old, so who knows.
I think he's a great Pope so far.
Gerelyn --I've known some ambitious nuns -- wanted to be head of the order, dean of the college, etc. Not that there is anything necessarily wrong with such ambitions. But unreasonable or self-centered ambition has certainly not been typical of the many nuns I've known, though I must admit there have been a few holy horrors (some heads of orders I once knew slightly) plus a couple of others I knew well.The generalizations the CDF committee made about the nuns were outrageous. If Francis finds out what the facts are I'm hopeful he'll make some changes. Not that there aren't some serious differences between many nuns and the Vatican. So the changes might be a while coming.
Yeh, I thought Francis was a John xxiii too. Signed: Proud to be a spinster
The Pope's remarks reminded me of a talk Newman gave to his Oratorian brethren warning them about collapsing celibacy into bachelorhood.
Precisely right -- and an often comfortable bachelorhood at that.
Fr Komonchak,Would you happen to remember the exact reference to the Newman quote you mentioned above?Thanks
Just a thought:Could the pope's admonition about careerism and social climbing be a subtle way of saying nuns should not seek ordination.
Helen, yes, I think you're right.I really found that admonition hard to understand. It made no sense at all to me. The (many) nuns I've known, known of, read about in (numerous) convent histories, etc., etc. could never be accused of being "careerists" or "social climbers." Obviously there were nuns who led their communities, ran schools and hospitals, etc., but it was at the behest of Popes Pius XI and XII that they obtained the education necessary to achieve important positions. Surely the new pope was not criticizing the old nuns for obeying his predecessors. And social climbing? There have always been nuns whose apostolates were the education of rich girls. In some cases, orders that started out with the intention of teaching poor girls and "wayward" girls, were forced by bishops into habits, cloisters, and select academies. (The Ursulines are a prime example.) And the nuns, retired now, who gave their lives to teaching in parochial schools for little or nothing, were hardly social climbers. I even thought maybe Francis was so accustomed to the nuns of Mexico and Central and South America with their very different histories, that he didn't understand nuns of the U.S.A., Canada, and Europe. But your idea makes perfect sense.
Helen,I'm adding a question to your question. Would the pope tell men not to social climb? Would he tell that to seminarians, a gathering of priests, of bishops, that?
Little Bear:Actually, he has used the term, careerism, several times since being elected pope and even before as Archbishop. In those cases he qualified it as CLERICAL careerism.
Re: "be mothers and not spinsters". Matthew Schmitz at the First Thoughts blog has compiled a list of striking phrases that Pope Francis has used in his preaching. "Be mothers, not spinsters" seems to me to be of the same ilk.http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2013/05/09/the-vivid-imag...
I was mistaken about the occasion of Newmans remark about celibacy, which occurs not in a talk of his Oratorian brethren but in a sermon for the religious profession of a nun; but bachelorhood does seem to be an appropriate word for what he says celibacy is not. Here is the relevant passage, along with a second paragraph describing celibacy or virginity instead as a relationship with Christ.
The Gospel recommends celibacy, but observe how it draws around it the choicest blessings of human nature, while it seems to be giving them up. There is a state of celibacy recommended by philosophers, exemplified in religious teaching, which does but harden the heart, which is of that forlorn, haughty and repulsive natureas it has been imaged and extolled in the pages of heathen writers or in the teaching of false religions. There have been those among the philosophers of antiquiity who ave been led to praise of a life of asceticism and self-denial almost Christian. There have been those among false religions who have actually observed the state of celibacy, and that on the ground that it was higher than the common life of man. To make a single life its own end, to adopt it simply and solely for its own sake, I do not know whether such a state of life is more melancholy or more unamiable, melancholy from its unrequited desolateness and unamiable from the pride and sclf-esteem on which it is based.This is not the Virginity of the Gospelit is not a state of independence or isolation, or dreary pride, or barren indolence, or crushed affections; man is made for sympathy, for the interchange of love, for self-denial for the sake of another dearer to him than himself. The Virginity of the Christian soul is a marriage with Christ. Hence the words, I have espoused you to one husband that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ (2 Cor 11:2). O surprising love and wisdom, that has thus allowed us to aim at being Angels without ceasing to be men. O transcending condescension that He should stoop to be ours in the tenderest and most endearing wayours to love, ours to consult, ours to minister to, ours to converse with, ours to joy in. Ours so fully that it is as if He had none to think of but each of us personally. The very idea of matrimony is possessionwhole possessionthe husband is the wifes and no others, and the wife is the husbands and none but his. This is to enter into the marriage bond, this is the force of the marriage vow, this is the lesson of the marriage ring. And this it is to be married to Jesus. It is to have Him ours wholly, henceforth, and for everit is to be united to Him by an indissoluble tieit is to be His, while He is ours.
(Newman the Oratorian, ed. Placid Murray (Dublin: Gill and Macmillan, 1969) 276-77)
In my opinion, a perfect example of clerical careerist is Archbishop Georg Ganswein, is person secretary to emeritus Pope Benedict XVI, now living with him on the grounds of the Vatican.He is also prefect of the Pontifical Household, a job that entails arranging papal audiences and the logistics for Vatican events and ceremonies as well as the pope's travels in Rome and other parts of Italy.The ethical thing for him to do is resign for his Vatican post due to a conflict of interest.Fat chance.
Actually, he has used the term, careerism, several times since being elected pope and even before as Archbishop. In those cases he qualified it as CLERICAL careerism.A pope who was concerned about clerical careerism could do several things to put a stop to it. He could abolish the Pontifical North American College (and its counterparts for fast-track seminarians from other countries) and the Pontifical Gregorian University (the "Pope's Harvard").He could require appointments of newly ordained priests to be made by drawing lots. Ditto for appointments to chancery positions. Ditto for choices of auxiliary bishops. Bishops would be elected by the laity of the dioceses. Bishops would be natives of the dioceses and would have served as pastors of parishes in the dioceses. Etc., etc.
Jim P.Thanks for the link. I suspect there will be more to add to the list.
I had the same rather shocked reaction of many to his language. I am not a native speaker of Italian but my huge bilingual dictionary, my monolingual dictionary, my Spanish-Italian dictionary and my book of Italian synonyms all describe this word zitelle in italics as ''scherzo o spreg". I know I need not translate. My monolingual dictionary [Garzantini] adds - "a cui si attribuisce como luogo commune, un carattere bisbetico, acido". [Bisbetico - peevish, shrewish, cantankerous, odd]. In my Spanish -English dictionary the Spanish equivalent gives as an example - "He fusses round like an old maid", thus stressing the point that there is no male equivalent. ie It does not just mean 'spinster' as a neutral word for an unmarried state or a simple equivalent to 'bachelor'; it is what here we used to call an 'old maid', very much used as an insult and a jeering stance. Given his apology I presume he knows that. It was a horrible word to use and one whose English equivalent I have not heard here for decades. [For amusement I looked up 'man' and 'woman' in the book of Italian synonyms: there were 5 for men, all positive; there were 10 for women, 6 of them would qualify as "scherzo or spreg", some very "spreg" indeed]. I too did not understand the point of a lecture about careerism being given to women - and, in view if the situation of American nuns, ended up wondering how iron a hand there is inside his very velvet glove.


text:
The Center for Industrial Research and Service — CIRAS — is part of the College of Engineering and Extension and Outreach at Iowa State University. Since 1963 CIRAS has been partnering with Iowa companies and communities to help them prosper and grow.
Last year companies that worked with CIRAS reported $414 million in impact — new investments, higher sales, and lower costs. Healthy communities through business prosperity: that's the CIRAS vision for Iowa.
With an official proclamation from Gov. Terry Branstad, in 2013 CIRAS is celebrating 50 years of service to Iowa business and industry.
On June 6, Gov. Branstad signed the proclamation acknowledging that CIRAS enhances the performance of industry through applied research, education and technical assistance and has a vision for Iowa of healthy communities through business prosperity. In the proclamation he urged Iowa companies and communities to partner with CIRAS "to help our state prosper and grow."
CIRAS was established at Iowa State in July 1963 with leadership from the College of Engineering. The Iowa Legislature appropriated funds and authorized the Board of Regents, State of Iowa to establish the Center.
"During its first five years of service, CIRAS field staff made more than 8,000 personal calls on Iowa industry, handled more than 2,500 individual industry requests and created an inventory of Iowa firms and individuals," said CIRAS Director Ron Cox.
"Compare that to the momentum of the past five years, with CIRAS and its partners making more than 52,000 contacts with industry," Cox said. "Companies have reported a cumulative impact of more than $1.8 billion, including $1.5 billion in sales gained or retained, $227 million in new investments and $100 million in costs saved or avoided. These companies also reported adding or retaining 25,675 jobs as a result of the assistance they received."
CIRAS assists Iowa companies with a variety of services, Cox explained, from engineering and government contracting to management practices, productivity, quality and innovation.
Mike Ralston, president of the Iowa Association of Business and Industry, called CIRAS a key resource for manufacturers in this state. "But CIRAS isn't just for manufacturers. Thanks to CIRAS, Iowa businesses are safer, smarter and more innovative. At ABI we value our partnership with CIRAS, because CIRAS helps Iowa grow," Ralston said.
Thanks to CIRAS, Iowa businesses are safer, smarter and more innovative.Mike Ralston, Iowa Association of Business and Industry
CIRAS has helped Hawkeye Steel Products Inc., located in Lee County, sort through a broad range of issues, and the company continues to use CIRAS resources, said company president Tom Wenstrand. "The staff is uniformly responsive, courteous and always asking how they can be more relevant in advancing manufacturing in the state of Iowa. CIRAS does a great job of making it easy to access the considerable expertise of the Iowa State University faculty," Wenstrand said.
"The whole point of a land-grant university like Iowa State is to offer access to highly qualified faculty interested in investigating phenomena and problems whether they require basic research or are applied in nature," said Cathann Kress, vice president for ISU Extension and Outreach.
"This combination benefits both learning and discovery. CIRAS, like the rest of ISU Extension and Outreach, works to foster an engagement effort using that knowledge to drive economic activity, enhance productivity and improve the quality of life for our citizens," Kress said.
Contact CIRAS: 515-294-3420, email@example.com
Hagie Manufacturing, in Clarion, Iowa, focuses on innovation in the agricultural machinery manufacturing industry. Hagie's long-term partnership with CIRAS has been a key factor in the company's success.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
I think canbelto makes a good point. As observed earlier in the thread, people are getting taller over the decades (and centuries) and it's simply not possible or even desirable for companies to conform to such rigid standards. And although it may well distort the choreography as you say, leonid, it seems to that's inevitable to some extent - over the years bodies change, styles in attractiveness and physicality change, training changes. It's absolutely true that Pavlova was considered tall (and skinny) back in the day, but that only serves to highlight that things are very different today.
Surely the answer could equally be, that you only train and employ dancers for Romantic and Petipa ballets with the correct emploi. Since when does the fact that people are taller today become either an artistic or aesthetic consideration. We do not transpose up or down operatic scores for singers because of limited or peculiar abilities. Today we find authenticity an accepted approach in the restoration and performance of opera and music. Counter tenors up until 40 years ago were almost de trop. Today they are di rigueur in many vocal works.
Either academic Romantic/Classical ballet is a high art or its an entertainment wherein we can choose to change rules willy nilly. Where are we all coming from?
Either its ok to bastardize an art form or its not and as you can plainly see, I think not.
I have absolute no problem with tall dancers in modern classical or neo- classical ballets as long as the line, shape and tempo are not interfered with.
Let us truly respect, Bournonville, Perrot, Saint-Leon, Petipa, Ivanov et al and lets hear it for shorter dancers.
I have had fun writing the above
but I am also serious in my
contention. We live in what appears
to be a vulgar age. Lets try to go back,
not to the inequalities of those early ballet
eras, but to truly respecting the
choreographers most of us admire.


text:
20 Baby Products Great For Traumatizing Infants
#10. Metallica Lullabies
Despite what metal purists think, Metallica Lullabies is not a box set of everything they've released after "..And Justice For All". It is reimagined and repackaged metal designed to soothe your baby to sleep and begin brokering their relationship with Satan. Kids don't usually embrace the Dark Lord until they discover Dungeons & Dragons, so they'll be way ahead of their peers.
#9. Manual Snot Sucker
Here are two key points when using this product :
* Take the time to fully sterile the equipment before every use. You will also want to budget some time during use for letting the waves of nausea pass when you realize what you're collecting in that straw.
* When you feel pressure inserting the tube, stop promptly. If you notice the child cannot move the left side of its body when you apply suction, you've gone too far.
#8. Her First Heels
Coming soon: Her First Drunken Bar Encounter and Her First Awkward Morning After. Collect all three!
Tart Her Up, LLC. cannot be held accountable for any swing in sexuality associated with putting these on your son.
#7. Baby Mop
Inventors in Japan are fed up with babies constantly making messes and never cleaning up after themselves. Introducing the baby mop, this leverages the all natural cleaning power of drool to buff your floors to a high shine. Please note that extended wear on carpet may build a static charge equivalent to licking a car battery.
#6. Po-Knee
The cleverly named Po-Knee brings the technology of faux pony rides into the new millenium. Never before has Creepy Uncle bait been so sophisticated.
Parents, always verify the individual offering a spirited Po-Knee ride is wearing pants.
#5. Man Boobs
From the instant any man dons this apparatus he can count on deeper bonding with his child, getting paid 25% less to do the same job as other men, and being grossly objectified for his sweet, sweet ass. On the flipside, he'll probably never have to buy his own drinks again.
#4. Baby Whoopee Cushion Costume
Pro: The whoopee cushion will inevitably self-inflate given enough time and a diet rich in legumes
Con: The instant someone opts to sit on it the joke will take a horrible, strangely poetic turn
#3. Bucktooth Pacifier
Not only is this unspeakably cute , it comes with additional benefits as well. This gift will encourage random people to point and laugh at your baby, the one individual who isn't in on the joke.
This will help educate your baby on the soul-crushing bleakness that this world will rain upon them through the whole of their painful, pathetic lives. It's a small price to pay to have your baby wook wike a widdle bunny-wabbit! Awwwww!
2 & #1 Baby Toupee & Baby Tattoos
Babies, though generally placid creatures, can become extremely violent when defending their territory. All it takes is some fresh fish toddler crawling into your kid's corner of the sandbox to incite Lego shivs appearing and suddenly you've now got a baby on the lam.
The least you can do as a responsible parent is to help your baby cloak their appearance with these convenient baby wigs (so they can make a run for the nearest international border) and with these tattoos so that once in prison the fellow inmates will know they're hardcore.
For more bizarre things people want you to buy for children, check out The 5 Least Surprising Toy Recalls of All-Time or if you're a child yourself, check out Monday's HBN to find out how to blow yourself up.


text:
Im a bit offended that Fabio Capello gets the opportunity to pick who will be GB U23 manager. GB U23s also appear under the England tab but not Scotland or Wales. They are basically treated as England under 23s rather than Great Britain.
Im a bit offended that Fabio Capello gets the opportunity to pick who will be GB U23 manager. GB U23s also appear under the England tab but not Scotland or Wales. They are basically treated as England under 23s rather than Great Britain.
Cant expect anymore mate it had to go under somewere.Im scottish aswell btw
Isn't that how its set up in real life? England representing the whole UK at the Olympic's because the governing bodies of the other Home Nations could not agree on how to set up a UK wide Olympic team?
As the Welsh & Scottish FA's will have nothing to do with Team GB then putting the GB team as a tab on the England page is logical.
I trust that in the main non-English players will decline an invitation to take part & that the team becomes defunct after the 2012 Olympics, I will be very disappointed in SI if they appear at the 2016 games.
But it means as a Scottish manager i wasnt even considered for the job. I won the league comfortably, won the scottish cup and reached the quarter final of Europa league, but wasnt even considered for the position which was given to Steve Bruce who got Sunderland relegated and got sacked!
As a patriotic Scotsman I'm hardly suprised. Will the Olympic team be anything other than an England under 23's. Accurate simulation there methinks...
The decision for the team to be English run is because the Olympics home is in England.
In regards to FM. I can only surmise its because the last I heard was the Scottish FA are adamant they will not allow players to play in the team, whilst Wales and Northern Ireland have said they are unlikely to allow their players to participate but haven't given a definite answer. I haven't player FM12 long enough to actually see if the side actually picks other nationalities apart from English.
It's an interesting one, because there's still no real certainty as to what's going to happen in real life.
I don't know of any precendent of an FA trying to prevent a player from taking part in the Olympics, although off the top of my head I can't think of anywhere else in the world that the same FA vs country argument could happen. I would think it'll turn out that the FAs can't legally prevent anyone (e.g. Gareth Bale) from going. The nearest comparison is at club level and (rather than Messi, who came to an agreement with Barca) is probably Rafinha, who went to the 2008 Olympics despite his club (Schalke) saying he couldn't. They fined him no end when he came back from them.
The main problem that surrounds this in regards to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland is that they are concerned that it will hinder their independence and voting power when it comes to other FIFA sanctioned competitions.
Even though Blatter has come out and said that, this wont hinder their standing in regards to FIFA, it is Blatter at the end of the day and we all know how trust worthy FIFA are at the moment.
If Bale plays Wales can try and punish Bale through a disciplinary procedure but being one of ours best players would you want to cut your nose of to spite your face in order to make an example of him, for what will most probably be a one year thing if GB don't win.
What the Olympics should be is Beckham last horrar for effectively England which he hasn't got with the main national side whilst playing along side youngsters who can be put in the shop window. If GB didn't win the right to host the Olympics this conversation would never have arisen.
It would have also been good to actually have seen the short list for the managers job because whilst the negotiations are still effectively going on with the FAs, it was no surprise that the jobs were given to people already involved with the English set-up both Mens and Womens.
Unless selections guidelines are set so they have to pick X amount of english, X amount of Welsh, X amount of Scottish and X amount of Northern Irish, we will see both mens and womens teams dominated by english players.
Pearce has already come out and stated that he wants to select from all of the nations, the implication being that there's nothing in his contract saying he can't. It isn't overly surprising that both of the managers came from the English setup, since at the moment the other FAs don't want anything to do with it. I do believe a trick was missed in not appointing Martin O'Neill, but I don't know what his personal view on the whole thing is- he may be just as opposed to it.
The question is whether the Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish FAs could stop their players going. The answer- based on what happened with Schalke, who had their player under contract and presumably had more control over what they did- is probably no.
Blatter has given conflicting statements about the situation, and I don't entirely blame the other FAs for the stance they've taken- FIFA is not a pillar upon which you'd wanna lean at the moment.
The three players that where stopped form playing in the 2008 Olympics their clubs had to European matches and Domestic matches during the tournament, so their respected clubs didn't want them to go but Rafinha still went and got fined 700,000 euros after the C.A.S. ruled in favour of the clubs.
Would be interesting if Tottenham have to qualify for the Champions League in the early stages and if they let Bale go then. I know Redknapp has said that he has no problem in letting him go, but would that change.
My understanding in Scotland. Players such as Jamie Ness and Greg Wylde have offered services to The GB team. However the SFA and a large number of former players are encouraging them to change their minds.
I think looking at it the balance could be pretty even. Alot of good young players breaking into first teams north of the border and ive also seen decent young N. Ire players and Welsh players breaking into teams too. Gareth Bale another top example. My biggest problem will be with the +23 players. Other than say McGregor/Gordon (both keepers) do any other non-english +23 player stand a chance of getting selected.
Id happily see a team GB fwiw but if it effects the Scottish game then no.
Its a grey area because its been many years since there was a last GB team and it will most likely only be a team for 1 year unless they win it and then they will feel obligated to put in another team.
If the BOA came out and said it was going to enter a team every year whether that be using top players with FAs backing or Amateur players, I think it would sway opinions.
The fact is that the BOA has seen this has a perfect money spinner for their Team GB brand. To the extent of Addidas bring out 2 kits for the football team 1 a celebration kit which Bale has been advertised wearing and then an official kit that will be worn in the tournament.
I feel, that if the BOA decided to keep entering a team, the conditions of the selections should be set to give youth players a chance, i.e. only players outside the clubs provisional 25 man squad (because the tournament takes place before the deadline for clubs) and also the clubs 25 man European Squad selection.
I feel, that this would please clubs in regards to letting players leave for the tournament but the nations FAs are still going to be in the air on their decisions.
The other point, and one which I don't think is being used enough as an argument is that it's the freaking Olympics, the biggest sporting event in the world. Bar none. Bigger than the World Cup. Bigger than the Superbowl, which I guess someone else might put forward as a suggestion. People might try and argue it, but for a lot of people in a lot of other sports, an Olympic Gold Medal is viewed as the absolute pinnacle of sporting achievement. Maybe not so much for football because of the age restrictions (although I dunno, again, this may only be true in the UK since we haven't been entering teams- it was clearly worth it to Messi et al.), but it is still a highly prestigious international tournament.
And it is literally a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for the majority of the eligible players. For years and years before now as a Brit, it wasn't even that- there was no team entered, so it was simply impossible. And, if Team GB is disbanded after the Olympics, it really will be once-in-a-lifetime. Rafinha knew he'd be getting in serious trouble for going, and still went. I don't care how you quantify a 700k Euro fine, that is a LOT of money, and I highly doubt he's on Tevez wages.
So, for one moment forgetting the specifics of the issues with Team GB, the risk to the FAs and their power over eligibility, simple questions- just how do you order someone not to go to the Olympics, if they've got the ability and the opportunity? How can you be that cold hearted?
And how, as a player, would you say no? If the opportunity came to go to the Olympics, to represent my country, how could you pass that up?
I have to disagree. With Olympics being bigger than the World Cup for footballers or the Superbowl for American Footballers.
The Olympics in Football term has been another avenue for young players to get a taste of tournament football, and for them to be put in the shop window so to speak.
The Olympics is the pinnacle of a career for Athletics, Swimming, Gymnastics etc. They have the Commonwealth Games and the Olympics effectively the Euro Championship and World Cup in football terms.
Although whilst I am enjoying this little debate, it is kind of moving from the OP so this will be my last on this subject in this thread.
Ok if you ask a player would the represent GB in the Olympics they will say yes the same has Messi, Rafinha, Diego or anyone else. But if you ask them would they rather a World Cup Medal or a Olympic Medal I think the World Cup would come first.
Ok for players like Bale who are less likely to achieve winning a World Cup Medal then this maybe the only opportunity to get an International Medal but then I still think Bale would rather a WC Medal.
I'm also enjoying it, but you're right, this isn't really what the thread's about so I'll stop here too and let anyone who wants to bring the subject back to the placement of the GB team in FM do so.
I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on the tournament size- you may well be right about footballers as a whole valuing the World Cup higher, but I'd still be wary of how that view might be coloured through the eyes of people whose country haven't taken part in it in 40-odd(?) years. Either way, I think we do agree that it would be recognised by a player as a big competition.
I must admit I hadn't even considered it from Bale's perspective as a Wales player who, with no disrespect intended, might never get the opportunity to play in another international competition. That makes it an even bigger ask for him to say no to an Olympic spot- even without getting near a medal, just the experience could be once in a lifetime for him.
But anyway, that's enough of that, it's all off-topic. Cheers for the considered responses, Welsh Lad.
IMO the Welsh, Scottish and N. Ireland F.A.'s are looking at this from a totally selfish but also stupid point of view. They say "We don't want our reputation as an independant sports body damaged blah blah blah..." Has it not, at any point dawned on them that by allowing their players to play they could actually highlight their best talents, show the world there is more than one national team in Great Britain that has top quality players. If someone from the F.A. told them that should they play for GB they wouldn't be able to play for Wales, N. Ireland or Scotland again i'd seriously think (given enough players from one country) they would call their bluff. Imagine how much of an uproar there would be in Wales if fans found out that they will now be without Ramsey or Bale because of a stubborn bunch of douche bags in a board room don't want to be made to look silly (still i have no idea how they could be). Declining to release players is making them look like spoilt children rather than giving them the look of a serious F.A. Also i'm puzzled by the fact that the stubborn 3 have said that they don't want to lose Fifa voting power by being a part of this, now i'm not sure but the football side of things in the Olympic's are in no way connected to Uefa or Fifa so how would they lose anything?
Back to FM, i've heard of people getting the job and picking players from Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland in the game. Not sure what nationality each of them were as a manager but from the teams i've seen Bale, Bannan and a few others from the 3 named nations have been in their squads without a problem. As for it being under the England national team, it will all be down to the fact that Wales, Scotland and N. Ireland don't want to be associated with us. England has been left to sort it all out so why shouldn't it come under the England national team?
Say No to Team GB!
Hope the get humped.
I personally dont care about this Mickey Mouse footballing tournament, the Olympics is not about football and team GB is a complete joke as far as im concerned.
In FM terms im quite happy for it to be lumped under the England national team, at the end of the day it is an English run team, managed by an English man, sure to be full of English players, keep it that way id say.
Wales, N. Ireland and Scotland can't highlight their top players when they can't even make it to a bloody competition. This gives them the chance to highlight their best young talent on a pretty big stage and also give those young players a taste of tournement football thus aiding the chance of them actually going to the European Championships or World Cup one day. I'm not an Olympic fan. Like Cricket and Rugby i find Athletic's to be boring beyond belief BUT i am in no way blind to the size of the Olympic's and what it could mean to the players who are involved. Look at how Kelly Holmes and Chris Hoy (who is scottish btw) are seen by many as sporting heroes for their contributions at the Olympic's, really want to tell players they can't go there and perhaps make themselves the stuff of legend?
The question is, do we really want Gareth Bale taking the title Ryan Giggs holds of being the best player to never play at an international tournament..... Do you want to wait another 16 years (as it will be when the 2014 World Cup rolls around) for a Scottish player to be on the world stage again?
As for complete joke.... Well the only one i see isn't funny and is found in the form of the attitude's of the Welsh, N. Irish and Scottish F.A.'s
As the governing body of world football the Olympic tournament is an official FIFA event & is conducted under their rules.
The IOC merely organises the events but iirc all the various participating sports are handled by the relevant governing body of that sport.
@ Matt No7 can you name the last 5 men's Olympic football champions without going to wiki? Conversely I am fairly sure that you could name the last 5 World Cup or European Championship winners.
Football has no place in the Olympics & I very much doubt that as an 8 year old boy Bale, Beckham, Rooney et al dreamt of winning a gold medal in Olympic football, it's a meaningless event & with the under-20/17 world cup & continental u21/19/17 championships it is also a needless event.
Last edited by Barside; 02-11-2011 at 19:00.
Argentina have won it back to back with Nigeria and a couple of others. Knowing the winners is irrelevant and football has just as much right there as anything else, it's a sport, a great sport. Many (including myself) would say it's the best sport in the world.... Instead of saying football has no place, why not have a little bit of forward thinking and imagine what football could do for the Olympic's and vice-versa.
This is taken from the FIFA statutes.
Article 39: Organising Committee for the Olympic Football Tournaments
The Organising Committee for the Olympic Football Tournaments
shall organise the Olympic Football Tournaments in compliance
with the provisions of the regulations applicable to these
tournaments and the Olympic Charter.And here is the Olympic Charter,Article 78: International matches and competitions1) The Executive Committee shall be responsible for issuing
provisions for organising international matches and competitions
between representative teams and between League and/or club
teams. No such match or competition shall take place without the
prior permission of FIFA.
Which basically goes on to state that a committee 'Sessions' review the last Olympic Program and decided if disciplines can be added or taken away, but before a decision is made they ask the governing bodies of all the disciplines (International Federations 'IF') to inform the International Olympic Committee if they want to discipline to be part of the next Olympic Program.
So, to summarise FIFA have the deciding say on whether football will be played in an Olympics.
With regards to disbanding the Home Nations. Whilst they are unlikely to to do it FIFA does have the power in the sense, that it will be put to a Vote and all members will vote on the outcome.
Like Barside says, name the last 5 winners of the male and female Olympic footballing tournaments without looking it up, i couldnt name you one, Olympic football is a side show to bring in some money, nothing at all about increasing exposure of players, and anyway if the Olympics was such a big deal, why do we never enter teams? Why all of a sudden when its being held in England do we HAVE to have a team in them? If you think its anything more than a publicity stunt to try and show the world Britian is home of football you've sadly misread the whole thing.
At the end of the day the home nations either dont get to tournaments, or get there and completely embarrass themselves thinking they would do well, sadly we have been in the first group for a while, but we will get back there on our own, without the exposure of team GB, remind me again how them playing in this tournament helps our national team?
The Talk of this GB football team has already over shadowed all these athletes hard work for the last for years.
Milnerpoint I agree with you, the British Olympic Association (BOA) has done this to increase sponsorship and to improve sales of Team GB merchandise.
Has I stated earlier Addidas also jumped on the band wagon by releasing a celebratory Football Kit for Team GB (Which Bale has been advertising) and then they will release an official kit for the tournament.
not sure why Scotland and Wales would not want their players to take part - probably the only experience of international finals they will get tbh.
If the Oceania countries had to band together to make a football team for the Olympics. New Zealand would be acting the same way with the threat of losing independence.
Its a one off tournament so I cant see the harm. Anyway, professional footballers shouldnt be allowed to play in it. Should be part timers playing.
Club football is different to international football.
And the fact is Cardiff and Swansea have been in the English League system since the 1920s.
I think those club teams that have early european qualifiers or domestic games should make provisional 25 man sqauds and then only players outside that squad should get picked i.e. If tottenham have to play in the early qualifiers then Redknapp could name Bale in his 25 man squad so he wouldn't get called up.
actualy this is not the first time GB team has played in the olimpics befor and indeed won it as a amateur team in the 40s and 50s, and the home countries did not lose their independece.
Why can Pro Footballers play in the Olympics, but you have to be an amateur to fight in the boxing in the Olympics...
Just saying...
Boxing is the last truly amateur only sport left in the Olympics, unfortunately this could be the last time that is the case.


text:
Clinton Invests in Future with Streets, Development
(Editor's Note: In this Clinton Herald news story, Brian Richman, director of the Hawkinson Institute of Business Finance, analyzes the city of Clinton's decision to sell bonds to finance economic development projects.)
Comparing an average wallet to that of a city can yield shock, confusion, and even anger. Add that to the constant stream of information on the debt ceiling, fiscal cliff, and general concern over federal government borrowing, and the comparison could even spur outrage.
However, a number as high as $89 million in city sewer and general obligation debt at the end of fiscal year 2012 falls far short of shocking the people involved in city finances daily.
"This is just a snapshot of a point in time," City Finance Director Jessica Kinser said.
When broken down further by expense, the city of Clinton's outstanding obligations at the end of fiscal year 2012 show a city purchasing items for operational needs of the police, fire recreation, and library. At the same time, they tell a story of a city that's used its tax base to invest in streets and economic development.
Most of the city's outstanding obligations—nearly $71 million—are in sewer revenue bonds, of the remaining amount, $18 million, is in general obligation bonds that paid for projects such as street repairs and Vision Iowa projects like the marina and stadium that were completed to increase Clinton's visibility.
These projects, and other items that cities regularly borrow for such as police and fire department costs, are tied to the health of a community, city officials argue.
"It is a necessary evil, if you will. Like a small business. Cities are unique in that the lot of the projects they provide are services. Sometimes these can be very expensive," Iowa League of Cities Executive Director Alan Kemp said. "Financially, there's very few other options. It becomes very difficult for a city to compile it in a savings account and spend it."
Vision Iowa debt accounted for a large portion of the city's outstanding obligations. The Clinton marina, the recreational vehicle park and Riverview Park, a new skate park and band shell, and modifications to the Clinton Area Showboat Theatre, Riverview Pool, and a downtown pocket park were completed with help from the state and millions of dollars in funding from the city. City reports show that between 2006 to 2009, $8 million was borrowed for the project, which will mostly be paid off by 2018.
"I think that has increased our visibility and availability for events," Clinton City Councilwoman Julie Allesee said. "It's an investment in the quality of life. You can see the return on investment."
In the past year, the riverfront has garnered Tractorcade and RAGBRAI, which alone pumped an estimated $1.3 million into the Clinton-area economy.
Unlike operating needs, pursuing economic development projects can carry more of a risk than standard city expenditures.
"Generally, the answer is there's some level of risk in economic development projects," said Brian Richman, a former investment banker and municipal financial advisor and now the director of the Hawkinson Institute of Business Finance at the University of Iowa. "Cities take those on to build their tax base. For instance, they might build a stadium with the idea that other businesses are going to spring up around it. Sometimes that works out. Sometimes it doesn't."
Richman said the level of risk involved with a city forgoing economic development investment is a matter of perception.
"Proponents would say the risk of not taking it is very high," Richman said. "Opponents would say the risk is not as high. Sometimes they take longer than expected and when that happens the city and the taxpayers are on the hook."
The upper floor of the amenities building at the Clinton Marina, for instance, sat empty for a number of years. Finally, in 2011, the Candlelight Inn restaurant moved in, giving the city more than $4,000 a month in rent and drawing people to dine on the riverfront.
"This pre-dates me by a number of years, but I do not think you would find a person who would say Vision Iowa and the projects that resulted were a bad thing," Kinser said. "We want the riverfront to be a destination and an attraction and that requires investment to create that attraction as well as maintain it."
Cities of similar size to Clinton all had debt lower than Clinton's, but they also had a different objective when borrowing. The city of Burlington, with a population just shy of Clinton's roughly 27,000, had $62 million in outstanding obligations at the end of fiscal year 2012 placing the city at 80 percent of its debt capacity. None of Burlington's debt was for economic development projects. Their debt breaks down to $33.4 million in general obligation bonds for things like street maintenance and bridge replacement. Sewer Revenue Bonds totalled $18 million and urban renewal and TIF accounts for another $5.5 million.
"We're borrowing for the things we have to," said Stephanie Stuecker, director of administrative services with the city of Burlington.
Streets constituted another major portion of borrowing for the city. Of the city's outstanding obligations, more than $6 million was originally borrowed for street improvement.
"You have to borrow for things at some point if you don't have the money on hand or there becomes the decision of you have what you have or you need to improve," Kinser said. "Streets are something your citizens are going to be using no matter what. What's the cost of borrowing versus not improving them? What's the cost of not completing Vision Iowa projects? It's what is the cost of borrowing versus what is the cost of long-term improvement to the community?"
By law, the city cannot take out general obligation bonds for more than 5 percent of the assessed property values.
That doesn't mean the city should bond for as much as it legally can, Richman said.
"Just like any individual, how much can you afford to pay?" Richman said. "It's more of an economic issue than a statutory issue."
Kinser has suggested the city restrict general obligation debt to 75 percent of the debt capacity. At the beginning of this fiscal year, the city was nearly 59 percent of its legal bonding capacity. The proposed $20 million bond the city is expecting to issue across fiscal year 2013 and 2014 in order to fund some of the projects mandated by the consent decree from the Iowa DNR and EPA, though, would push the city to 73 percent of its debt capacity, leaving just less than $4 million available for additional general obligation bonds. As the city heads into budget workshops, officials will examine the proposed plans will bring the city even closer to the suggested 75 percent limit.
Ultimately, the city monitors what it borrows, while paying close attention to what would happen without any borrowing.
"If you have good streets, you have good housing stock, you have good jobs, people are going to come and then the value continues to grow," Kinser said. "It's a risk, but it's also a retention thing. If you have good streets are people going to stay here? If you have top-notch recreational opportunities and facilities like Vision Iowa, is that going to keep people in the community, spending dollars in the community? I think it is."


text:
I upgraded my kernel to 3.2.0-30-generic. Since the new kernel install my ati drivers are no more supported. I've tried reinstalling the ati drivers manually. But the process doesn't seem to help.
I am using amd raedon : 6400 series 1Gb graphic card. I have been following this link previously:-
Correct way to install ati drivers
Please provide your valuable inputs.


text:
WPF 4 Beta 1 Designer – Looking Forward
- Posted: Jun 12, 2009 at 2:03PM
- 46,839 views
- 9 comments
Loading user information from Channel 9
Something went wrong getting user information from Channel 9
Loading user information from MSDN
Something went wrong getting user information from MSDN
Loading Visual Studio Achievements
Something went wrong getting the Visual Studio Achievements
Right click "Save as…"
UPDATE: there's a new WPF Designer video showing the features added to Beta 2 now available. Check it out and let us know what you think!Mark Wilson-Thomas and Jaime Rodriguez discuss the current state and the future of the WPF and Silverlight Designer in Visual Studio 2010.
Oops, something didn't work.
A mess has been made of posting this video. Anyone who wants to put the best foot forward for WPF and VS2010 should start out by finding someone who can post a usable video. This presentation is an embarassment.
I can't see anything wrong with the video. What do you mean exactly?
I don't see anything wrong with the video, either... it was casual, informative and geeky, which is what I want out of a Channel 9 video.
Mark mentions in the video that they are looking to gather feedback on things like the color picker and binding tools. What is the appropriate avenue for this feedback?
Hi dnjake, please provide some more detail on your feedback. We're happy to take suggestions on how to make the video more usable.
vcomrhencke, posting to the WPF Designer Forum on MSDN is a good place to send your feedback.
The video looks fine to me. The full screen on the video is better than average on channel 9.
Thank god for the image location tool.
It is great to see WPF4 has so many good stuff
Thanks @JerryOdom and @tkchen7 for the feedback; I'm glad you like it.
If you get a chance to download Beta 1 of Visual Studio 2010, we'd love to hear your feedback after trying out the new features with your own WPF and Silverlight applications.
Post your feedback at our MSDN forum http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/vswpfdesigner/threads .
Mark Wilson-Thomas
Update on this posting: there's a new video showing the features added to Beta 1 here:
Check it out and let us know what you think!
Comments have been closed since this content was published more than 30 days ago, but if you'd like to continue the conversation, please create a new thread in our Forums, or Contact Us and let us know.


text:
I am building a game in which I want to simulate smooth movement of an object upon pressing a key or any other event. Could someone advice me to get that feel of gliding of an object, sliding on a frictionless surface. How could I have that?
Well, simulating a frictionless object is really just like simulating an object with friction, except you leave out the friction.
Seriously, the only sensible interpretation I can make of your question is that you've either forgotten Newtonian mechanics since high school, or that you're still in school and haven't studied it yet. In either case, here's a quick refresher on motion under constant acceleration:
Let x(t) be the position and v(t) the velocity of the object at time t. Then the position and velocity of the object after a time step Δt under constant acceleration a are:
You can express these quantities in any units you like, as long as they're consistent. For video games, a common choice is to measure time in update steps (which might typically occur, say, 20 to 60 times per second for smooth-looking motion), position in pixels, velocity in pixels per time step and acceleration in pixels per time step squared. This simplifies the formulas, since, in particular, Δt = 1.
Also, if the time step (and/or the acceleration per time step) is small enough, the (a × Δt² / 2) term will be so much smaller than (v(t) × Δt) that it can be left out of the second formula without anyone really noticing. A lot of games do that, since it makes the formulas even simpler.
And, before you ask, usually the positions, velocities and accelerations will indeed be two- or three-dimensional vectors. This is not a problem — you just apply the formulas to each component of the vectors separately. It's also perfectly okay for any or all of these quantities to be negative.
The idea is that friction is actually an explicitly added step, additional logic. So the answer is, "You don't". You just build for the basics -- forces, velocity, mass, collision response and then you will be able to play with frictionless bodies. The simulation is the theoretical "perfect" environment.
Fundamentally frictionless movement is just playing with inertia. In whatever your movement code is, don't stop the player immediately when they release their button/analog stick. Instead you want to very slowly reduce their velocity to zero. Or if you wanted to be truly frictionless you never reduce their velocity.
Your basic game code should be organized like this:
For the simualation of a moving object, you should store your objects current position, movement speed and direction.
When initialzing, set the movement speed to 0.
During handleInput, check if any inputs from the user have been made and if so, modify the movement speed and direction of the controlled object accordingly.
Then, during UpdateGamestate, add the current movement vector to the current postion.
Now, redraw your object at the new Position.
This are the basic steps to do. You will need some kind of timer to make your animation smooth by making each step of the animation take an equal amount of time.
Not sure if this is helpful, but this is the code I used in my asteroids game:
Increasing the values of the *= on dx and dy decreases the "friction" the player receives. The clever part is that there isn't any top speed, the ship just slows it's accelration down until it's not noticeable. Of course, in a true frictionless environment you could accelerate infinitely, reaching ludicrous high speeds. In that case, you would simply remove this:
Store the current velocity of an object with each object. Each frame use that velocity along with the frame time to calculate how far to move it.
Acceleration (thrusters) and deceleration (brakes, or friction) simply modify the velocity to a new value.


text:
Henninger: Who Speaks for the GOP?
Republicans are failing to define their party's purpose during the fiscal-cliff talks.
After the presidential election, the biggest question out there is: What should the Republican Party stand for? The fiscal cliff, no matter the result, was an instant opportunity to elevate the party's basic beliefs. Instead the GOP is disappearing beneath waves of Beltway process.
John Boehner and Mitch McConnell have worked hard to keep their thumbs stuck in the dam of rising tax rates. Still, the fiscal cliff is looking more each day like an inside-the-Beltway CYA operation. Does anyone in the country beyond the halls of Congress and media specialists have any idea what these people are doing?
The Republicans' rote rationale for this sorry state is four words: We have no leverage. We lost the presidential vote. We only control the House. By law, the Bush tax rates will rise for everyone Jan. 1. The default strategy is: Survive. Give Barack Obama some version of the soak-the-rich revenue-raising he ran on, get past the cliff and regroup in 2013. Not a very happy New Year, but that's the best we can get.
This sad argument is not ridiculous.
Only a newborn babe in the Washington woods would think the congressional Republicans' leverage with the president is much more than zero. It'd be nice to think this is all a grim fairy tale and that come New Year's Eve, Prince John of Cincinnati will turn dross into gold. No, Virginia. Republicans lost the election.
But does that mean Republicans have to help Barack Obama dismantle their party by letting its most basic conservative principles disappear into the Beltway's smoke and mirrors? That is what's happening now.
Where is the Big Picture? Why is it not possible for John Boehner or anyone else in this party to articulate for the dumbstruck public watching these dreadful cliff negotiations what the Republican Party stands for? Who speaks for the GOP?
No end of people keep saying of the Republicans that "they" should do this or "they" should do that. Who's "they"? It is no one. With the Republicans, there's no "they" there.
Barack Obama is controlling the cliff narrative now because the GOP has no one whose job is counter-narrative. Mr. Obama this week was recycling campaign speeches about the middle class at the Daimler Detroit diesel plant while the GOP has been a Babel of Beltway voices. Don't any of these senators go to church on Sunday morning, rather than running around television punching the "entitlement crisis" card?
The GOP's postelection angst is no excuse for failing to define the party more clearly during the cliff crucible. No one's looking for a speech on Hispanic outreach or the anxieties of single white women. None of that post-Romney hand-wringing is relevant to what's at issue in the fiscal-cliff talks.
One issue sits at the center of all this: the Size of Government. Yes, the arcane detail is unavoidable. But what mere voters want to know is whether this means the government or the private sector is going to lead and shape the U.S. economy for a generation. Is "preserving the safety net" now the single most important existential reality in the life of every U.S. citizen, as in Europe, or is the core American idea still about something more exciting than that?
Republicans do have answers and can deliver them eloquently.
Recall Mitch Daniels's well-received response in January to the State of the Union. Speaker Boehner himself, in a speech last year to the Economic Club of New York, had the wit to enlist the support of a pro-growth president when the Democratic Party still understood growth:
"It was before this very club in 1962 that President John F. Kennedy said the following: 'Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our [needs] keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget—just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits.'"
John Boehner has his hands full dealing with the phantom of the White House. A House speaker's primary job has always been herding the congressional cats rather than publicly defending principles. But in the absence of a compelling conservative voice, the party is defaulting to a chaos of voices. They are letting their despondent supporters in the country sink deeper than they were the night of the election. They're going to leave a deep philosophical hole for every candidate in 2014 and any conceivable presidential candidate in 2016.
The GOP needs a person of stature and credibility to provide the public with a clear sense of the Republican purpose, no matter the negotiation's outcome. If people start talking about that person and the presidency, so be it. A cliff is no place to look shy, timid or lost.
Write to firstname.lastname@example.com


text:
The 5 Most Baffling Pieces of Christmas Themed Fan Fiction
#2. The Gilmore Girls Get Spanked by Boner-Sporting Santa
The Gilmore Girls, if you never watched the show, followed young Rory Gilmore and her single mother, Lorelai, as they learned, loved, and were molested by Santa Claus, apparently.
Or at least that's what New Christmas Tradition for the Gilmores tells us. It's Christmas Eve in the Gilmore household, and Rory is preparing to go to bed when Santa shows up and, without explanation, begins spanking her mercilessly:
She found herself in the presence of Santa in her upstairs bedroom and smiled, but Rory was pulled over Santa's lap while she yelled you wouldn't dare.
St. Nick didn't give a care that Rory thought this was unfair.
"Ho-ho-ho, Merry Rapesmas!"
Note that Rory doesn't seem at all surprised to learn of the existence of Santa -- she was only shocked when he revealed himself to be a perv, which suggests that in this world everyone knows that Santa is real, but his little hobby is kept secret and possibly covered up by the likes of the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy. Anyway, Rory tries to resist, but Santa's lust will not be denied. At one point, the narrator says that "Rory felt Santa's middle sticking," which is a subtle way of saying "He had a massive boner."
"Zip" Rory's jean zipper was lowered embarrassingly; helplessly Santa lifted her hips.
As Santa tugged and pulled until her snug jeans were lowered to her knees as Rory sounded her plea.
Rory's green panties displayed her butt crack,
as she saw her bare bottom in a large mirror size plaque.
Yeah, the whole thing is written entirely in the form of a prose poem, because really, what other format could give us beautiful imagery like this?
As opposed to the actual show, which was written entirely in the form of whimsical one-liners.
Her breathtaking spank spot was glowing bright red with blisters
like fields of white sugar plums all aflame on her bum.
A rump a-pa pum bum, drummed its cadence into her burning bum.
That's right, they rhymed "bum" with "bum" twice. We had to check to make sure we weren't reading T.S. Eliot.
Where It Gets Really Creepy:
Whatever shred of dignity may have remained here is destroyed when Rory farts on Santa's face:
When suddenly Rory got an eggnog, candy cane coffee induced cramp in her gut.
She reared up her butt and blew a put splut.
Santa was startled by the young woman's fart.
and doubled the swat for the unladylike plop.
"You were right, 'Yuletide Burritos' were a terrible idea."
Good luck taking your kids to see Santa at the mall without picturing that scene. Santa then ties the pantsless Rory to her bed, but sadly, we don't find out what his plans for her were, because the author of this story only finished one chapter. Write your own ending! Then never show it to us.
#1. Santa Reunites Harry Potter and His Dead Pedophile Lover
Harry Potter has been thrust into so many uncomfortable pairings by fan fiction writers that we're not even surprised by these stories anymore. Harry teams up with Batman? There are a bunch of those. Harry and Obama? Yep. The story Come Christmas Morning, however, is a real holiday miracle because it proves that our ability to be shocked by the Internet isn't completely broken yet.
The story, set in the future, begins with Harry's twin 4-year-old daughters sending a letter to Santa where they ask for their father's true love to be returned to life. Who are they talking about? Why, it's none other than the late Professor Severus Snape, the borderline sociopathic teacher who 90 percent of all non-Harry Potter readers assume to be the villain of the series.
SPOILER: He isn't really evil, just a child fucker.
And so, on Christmas morning, Harry finds a living Snape unceremoniously dumped on his doorstep by Santa Claus, apparently a necromancer as well as a toymaker. Although Harry is an adult now, the story explains that he and Snape hooked up while he was still a young student, carefully weaving their romance around the last book's events:
They had gotten together in the middle of Harry's six year with the help of their friends and family. The teachers had approved after many promises of no favoritism and the headmaster had congratulated them with a mad twinkle in his eyes.
Yeah, because that's the only problem here. Teacher favoritism. Anyway, Harry and zombie Snape soon get reacquainted and start getting hot and heavy:
The hands around his hips grew more confident as they moved sensually down to his arse. Harry couldn't help the moan that was lost into Severus' mouth. The fingers squeezed him as that tongue dueled with his, exploring every part of his mouth. They did not break apart until the need for air had left them gasping and lightheaded.
"Ten points to Gryffindor."
Where It Gets Really Creepy:
Now, we know what you're thinking. "If Snape was Harry's only love, where did his daughters come from? Also, where did this boner in my lap come from?" Only you can answer the second question, but the story explains the first plot hole. Snape and Harry made love once before Snape died and, well, accidents happen:
The twins, Eileen and Lyly, were born eight minutes apart with Eileen being the oldest. When Severus died, Harry had been six weeks pregnant.
Yes, Snape knocked Harry up. No, Harry isn't a girl in this story. So, are you imagining Daniel Radcliffe being sodomized by Alan Rickman and then giving birth to his children? You are now! Merry Christmas!
God bless us, every one!
You can read more from Mark, including his My Little Pony fan fiction, at his personal website.
For more ridiculous fan-fics, check out The 5 Most Baffling Sex Scenes in the History of Fan Fiction and 5 Fan Fiction Sex Scenes You Won't Believe Exist.


text:
Taxes » Tax Refund » How To Adjust Your WithholdingMost Americans pay the bulk of their annual tax bills via payroll withholding. Through this process, a percentage of your pay is taken out each pay period and sent to the Internal Revenue Service where it is credited toward your final tax bill.
Share this story
Email story
More On Taxes:
Understanding the W-4
Find the best Money Market account rates
Find the best CD rates
Create a news alert for "taxes"
Taxes » Tax Refund » How To Adjust Your Withholding
Most Americans pay the bulk of their annual tax bills via payroll withholding. Through this process, a percentage of your pay is taken out each pay period and sent to the Internal Revenue Service where it is credited toward your final tax bill.
Payroll withholding is something you want to get just right. Why?
If you have too little taken out, you'll owe money when you file your return. That's not good, obviously -- no one likes to write out a big check to Uncle Sam.
If too much is withheld, you'll get a refund, and that's not good either. What's wrong with getting a refund? That means you've given Uncle Sam free use of your tax money, which you could have made better use of yourself throughout the year.
The best course, tax experts say, is to adjust your withholding so your tax payments will match your actual tax liability. To Uncle Sam, you will be neither a borrower nor a lender.
To make the change, file a new W-4 with your employer. This will change the amount that comes out of your paycheck.
You should do this any time there's a major change in your life -- such as marriage, birth of a child or purchase of a home. Each of these circumstances can affect the amount of tax you'll eventually owe. The IRS offers an interactive withholding allowance calculator and a couple of work sheets on page two of Form W-4 to help you figure out just what changes you need to make to your withholding amount.
If you find the IRS language a bit dense, Bankrate explains it in "Understanding the W-4."
Those who usually write a big check to the IRS may have to deal with a slight cut in take-home pay so that it doesn't happen again. You can decrease the number of personal allowances on the W-4 form or simply ask that a set amount be taken from your paycheck each period.
To figure out how much, take the amount you paid to the IRS and divide it by the number of pay periods remaining in the current year. No one likes to see a paycheck shrink, but it will make next April much less painful.
If you regularly get a big refund, increase the number of personal allowances. Once you get the correct amount taken out and have a bit more cash each paycheck, don't automatically spend it. Because you're no longer a customer of the Unofficial Bank of the IRS, open an account -- savings, money market or certificate of deposit -- at an institution where your money will earn you, not the federal government, interest.
Bankrate's search pages can help you find the best rates on money market accounts or certificates of deposit.
Bankrate wants to hear from you and encourages thoughtful and constructive comments. We ask that you stay focused on the story topic, respect other people's opinions, and avoid profanity, offensive statements, illegal contents and advertisement posts. Comments are not reviewed before they are posted. Bankrate reserves the right (but is not obligated) to edit or delete your comments. Please avoid posting private or confidential information, and also keep in mind that anything you post may be disclosed, published, transmitted or reused. We do not permit the inclusion of hyperlinks in comments and may remove any comment that includes a hyperlink.
By submitting a post, you agree to be bound by Bankrate's terms of use. Please refer to Bankrate's privacy policy for more information regarding Bankrate's privacy practices.


text:
The new issue is live
Just posted to the homepage, our February 21 interreligious issue. Anchoring it is a four-part exchange on Catholic-Jewish dialogue, "Getting Past Supersessionism," with contributions from Steven Englund, Jon D. Levenson, Donald Senior, and John Connelly. From Englund's opening piece (subscription):
I believe that to foster a more productive Catholic-Jewish dialogue we need to pose two further questions, one backward-looking and one forward-looking. The first is "What harm have we done to the Jews?" and in addressing it I shall take a longer view than the three admittedly crucial decades covered by Connelly in his book. My reflections will present us with a contemporary situation rather more problematic than we tend to acknowledge—one that calls for stronger medicine as we answer the second question: "What more can we do to undo that harm?"
To begin with: How do we portray the ur-conflict, the "impossible relationship" between an old immovable object and a new irresistible force as they collided in antiquity? What shockwaves still reverberate from that Big Bang that was, for so long, an intra-Jewish religious schism, turning on the refusal of most Jews to adopt their neighbors' view of the messiahship of Jesus? At the start we should observe that while Christians were wrong to see the Jews as "willfully blind"—the refusal to accept a contested claim is not willful blindness—it was nonetheless true that most Jews did not acknowledge Jesus as Lord.
It would be hard to exaggerate the shock and distress this turn of events produced in the first Jesus-followers, as gradually but inevitably there developed a widening separation and deepening conflict between them and their fellow Jews. From the outset, the Jesus movement included talented apologists and evangelists who created a corpus of oral and written stories and myths about Jesus Christ—the basis of future dogma and doctrine—that inscribed the rejection of Christ as foreshadowed in the Jews' earlier rejection of their covenant with God. In time the refusal to acknowledge the Messiah became equated with an outright denial of God and the forfeiture of all claims to address God as father. The viewpoint dispossessed the Jews as sole interpreters and guardians of their own sacred writings. Thus, Justin Martyr: "These words were laid up in your scriptures, or rather not in yours but in ours for we obey them, but you, when you read them, do not understand their sense." Or as a modern Jewish theologian, Ben Zion Bokser, summed up the charge: "Authentic Judaism is really Christianity."
See the entire exchange on Catholic-Jewish dialogue here (subscription).
Also in the new issue, Charles R. Morris on the paradoxes of income inequality; George M. Marsden on Molly Worthen's Apostles of Reason: The Crisis of Authority in American Evangelicism; Eve Tushnet on Kathryn Edin's and Timothy J. Nelson's Doing the Best I Can: Fatherhood in the Inner City; and Rand Richards Cooper on Spike Jonze's Her. Full table of contents right here.
About the Author
Dominic Preziosi is Commonweal's digital editor.
21 comments
- All
- Editor Featured
Such an important topic as the Jews perhaps needs its own thread. It will always remain incredible how 7 million Jews were killed just because they were Jews in a Europe which was mostly Christian. Secondly, astonishing also are those who still believe it was just or those who are not aware that it happened. I agree with Englund that the Anti-Semitic writings in the church set up such a tragedy. And to think that Benedict XVI would have no problems restoring the prayer for the Jews in the liturgy. Englund maintains that acknowledging that the Jews might be right in rejecting the Messiah would be a great way to atone for all the suffering the church has caused for the Jews throughout the ages. Is that the only way to make amends?
Somehow the disrespect for Jews remains a problem withing the church.
I will depart from Englund where he maintains that the Pharisees got a raw deal in the NT. Even Catholic scholars are revising the way they look at the Pharisees. I disagree. I understand the Pharisees because their successors, the bishops, manifest the same attitude. It is a question of power corrupts.
Prejudice towards Jews remains a problem. It is like the Latin Mass though not as atrocious. . Since it was done for centuries it must be right. The answers are not easy. Maybe an active campaign throughout the church would help.
Bill, the scholarship on the Pharisees exists. You can read it. The primary sources for the Pharisees, such as they are, are there (e.g., Josephus, the New Testament, the rabbis) are there. I do not think that you will do any of this reading, because I think that you are unwilling to relinquish the Pharisees as a rhetorical tool for use in talking about a wholly unrelated group, the bishops. (for the only way you can continue to speak of the bishops as the successors of the Pharisees is by fully avoiding learning anything about them). I take some comfort in my belief that other Christian readers of the Bible are more open to increasing their knowledge.
I don't get it. We believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God. We believe that it's not just true for Christians but true, period. So everyone who does not recognize Jesus as the Christ is mistaken, no? Far be it from me to advocate forced conversions of or killing those who do not convert or otherwise being prejudiced against those who are not Christians, but if listening respectfully to people from other religions (or to atheists) is predicated on a willingness to not believe in the Good News, then I don't understand how that can work.
I think Professor Levenson shares your puzzlement.
Abe, As usual you do not reproduce the words of Josephus but refer to his book. you give no evidence other than your own word..... Then in characteristic fashion you go ad baculum, ad hominem to ad absurdum. Out of your own mouth are you judged. Just chill.
Bill, there was no ad hominem in what I wrote. You observe that there is a growing (if not full-grown) consensus among scholars that the New Testament presentation of the Pharisees is biased, yet you choose to ignore this scholarship because it clashes with your preferred way of understanding the bishops. What exactly is it that you would like for me to provide evidence for? That Josephus et al provide alternatives to the New Testament's presentation of the Pharisees? Shall I likewise prove to you that Goodnight Moon provides a survey of a bunny rabbit's bedroom? The material is there: take and read.
Allow me to point out an irony to you, Bill. You lament the lingering anti-Semitism in Catholic discourse on Judaism, but the choice you make concerning your perception of the Pharisees is part of that discourse. You say that the bishops are the successors of the Pharisees, but the fact is that the rabbis claimed that position for themselves; the Judaism fostered by the rabbis was developed under the impression that it was in some ways a continuation of the Pharisaic project. This means that when you denigrate the Pharisees, you denigrate those whom the rabbis lionized as models of what Judaism should be like. You think that the term "Pharisee" is an epithet useful for insulting bishops, but the collateral damage of that sort of rhetoric is that it reinforces Christian perceptions of Jews as hypocrites and legalists.
I never said all the pharisees were reprehensible. I do not criticize the position. Just those who served it poorly. By your argument one could not criicize Catholic clergy either because that would be prejudicial. Bishops are lionized also. Does not mean they are necessarily good. Same with Pharisees. Clearly Jesus was displeased with the religious leadership at the time. And he named them. Apparently the Pharisees were a large part of that criticism. He also praised particular Pharisees. You might say that this was the prejudice of the writers. They were not perfect and they reflect the experience of the community they wrote about. That does not mean that their experience of the Pharisees are not accurate.
In any event it is a matter of exegesis. Not prejudice. Jesus usually gives the Pharisee as someone who neglects the spirit of the law. Here is a case where the respected leader is not justifed, whereas the depised official is justified.
"The Pharisee who goes up to the temple to pray represents the model of strict religious observance, while the tax collector can say only, "God, be merciful to me, a sinner" (18:13). Nevertheless, the humble prayer of the tax collector—who would have been suspected of dishonesty and disloyalty to the Jewish people—is heard by God, whereas the Pharisee's list of his own spiritual achievements is rejected as not being a prayer at all. Jesus' lesson here is "I tell you, this man [the tax collector] went down to his home justified rather than the other [the Pharisee]; for all who exalt themselves will be humbled, but all who humble themselves will be exalted" (18:14).
Harrington, Daniel (2011-08-30). Jesus: A Historical Portrait (Kindle Locations 1058-1063). St. Anthony Messenger Press. Kindle Edition.
Bill, the point is not that you can't criticize the Pharisees (frankly, we know so little about them, that any sustained effort at criticism would be an exercise in awkwardness). The point is that you shoudn't use "pharisee" as a byword for hypocirite or corrupt religious official (which is precisely how the term is used in Christian rhetoric, and is precisely how you use the term when you apply it to bishops). Do you truly not understand the the New Testament's representation of the pharisees is primarily rhetorical, and not historical? If you say it is a matter of exegesis and not prejudice, then you need to take the rhetorical and social contextual dimensions of the text into account--and that means not accepting without criticism what the gospels say as being straight reporting. So, for example, Harrington's little analysis tells us about the basic rhetorical thrust of that section, without saying anything about what pharisees were really up to.
Abe, I am willing to refrain from using the word if it offends Jews. But even Josephus confirms some things that the NT talks about. Josephus notes the conflicts between the Sadducees and the Pharisees:
"It was this Jonathan who chiefly irritated him, and influenced him so far, that he made him leave the party of the Pharisees, and abolish the decrees they had imposed on the people , and to punish those that observed them. From this source arose that hatred which he and his sons met with from the multitude: but of these matters we shall speak hereafter. What I would now explain is this, that the Pharisees have delivered to the people a great many observances by succession from their fathers, which are not written in the laws of Moses; and for that reason it is that the Sadducees reject them, and say that we are to esteem those observances to be obligatory which are in the written word, but are not to observe what are derived from the tradition of our forefathers. And concerning these things it is that great disputes and differences have arisen among them, while the Sadducees are able to persuade none but the rich, and have not the populace obsequious to them, but the Pharisees have the multitude on their side. But about these two sects, and that of the Essens, I have treated accurately in the second book of Jewish affairs."Josephus (2012-10-14). Antiquities of the Jews (p. 468). Vook, Inc.. Kindle Edition.
Although Jesus sided with the Pharisees on the resurection he apparently went after them on the things they imposed that were not in the Law of Moses. So there appears support here even from Josephus. We cannot so easily conclude that things are rhetorical when they well may be historical.
What does that section from Josephus tell us in particular that supports the way the Gospels depict the Pharisees? That they were in dispute with the Sadducees? That they were proponents of oral Torah? Those are pretty basic components of any account of the Pharisees. The gospels do not simply present jesus going after the Pharisees "on the things they imposed that were not in the Law of Moses." (I wonder if you think Jesus didn't try to impose things not in the law of Moses? Or that anyone can read the Bible withe an eye toward applying it to life without "adding something") I think you should be able to recognize the viciousness of the rhetoric employed in the Gospels (typically in the mouth of Jesus) directed toward the Pharisees. I don't really get the point of your last statement about the rhetorical versus the historical. Are you saying that, historically, the Pharisees were hypocrites? That just brings us full circle to the question of how your determine that. If it is on the basis of the gospel depiction, then you again run smack into the question of the rhetorical nature of your evidence. Are you saying that, historically, Jesus really did speak about the Pharisees in that manner? Well, in that case you then you have a historical case of the employment of rhetoric.
I don't judge an ancient text for employing slanderous rhetoric. (what would be the point?) Sects in competition with one another were inevitably going to talk smack about each other. I do, though, think that there are moral implications to how contemporary people appropriate and adapt the rhetoric of ancients, especially when that rhetoric is impacted by centuries of water under the bridge (such as, for example, Christian antisemitism).
It is amazing to me that you almost put me to the point where it looks like I am defending anti-Semitism. I acknowledge that the Gospels have some anti-Jewish remarks. Especially john. Yet the writers were Jews so that should be considered. Clearly Jesus had problems with all the religious leaders at the time. I don't really think Josephus paints a pretty picture of the Pharisees. He describes their power and politics. But there is not much admiration there.
But what I object about your responses is that you give an opinion all the time. Without giving the words and reasoning on ancient texts and writers.
Well, yes, Bill, I think that you repeatedly employ a rhrtoical trope that is implictly anti-Semitic. I do not think that that means you are anti-Semitic; I think that it means that when you talk about Pharisees, you are demonstrating carelessness and an unwillingness to critique your own approach. And that's what's at issue: your rhetorical use of the material, contemporary Christians' use of the material. The originators of the material had their own context: you do not share it, and you cannot use their rhetoric without considering its wider implications.
And, seriously, you know how to internet, Bill. I have no intention of quoting blocks of primary source material here. You are obviously capable of locating the material from Josephus. he point is not that any of these texts are unreservedly enthusiastic about the Pharisees (though the Mishnaic material basically is); the point is that the material should quite handily destabilize any uncritical reliance on the gospel account as , well, the gospel truth.
As an addendum (and final note), let me just toss this out as a take-away: Using "pharisee" as a synonym for religious hypocrite is something that Christians do constantly, and it is really irritating. Think about updating your bag of tricks.
Abe, still your opinion without any backup." What you gratuitously assert I gratuitously deny." You do not add to the coversation. You stop it because you are dismissive instead of dialoguing. It looks like I know what is in Josephus. While for you it is hearsay. Because you are lazy, without facts, I am "good at internet." All you have is opinion---that is a bag of tricks. You did not read any of the articles in Commonweal. You chose to be superficial about the use of the "Pharisee" as if your opnion is true. The articles were reasoned and well referenced. Your words were like something from the corner bar. Until you can come up with facts you cannot be taken seriously. . You wrote: " I do not think that you will do any of this reading,.." The facts are that I did the reading while you did not. That is hubris.
Is this to be the whole conversation about the entire complex of issues raised in the set of articles in the current edition of Commonweal? I found them very challenging, and am hoping for some illuminating discussions from people better trained than I to help me understand how a sinful man in the 21st Century should adress the theological and social issues between Christians and Jews.
On the other hand, maybe the heat of the argument over a single point, indeed over whether such a single point is significant, beautifully illustrates that, and why, there remain such probelms. We have only language with which to express our understandings and beliefs.
Mark L.
The irony is that the gospels give us substantially more facts about the Pharisees than Josephus does.
Mark L,
There has been so much progress. It is not so much the religious message that divides us as much as the human behavior. There is just no excuse that the official condemned the Jews as second class or lower and prepared the way for all the atrociities. The wounds are still fresh. Hardly seventy five years since the Shoah. It has only been 50 years since the great Vatican II. Progress has been immense. Yet as the four articles bring out, we have a ways to go. If we learn to love the other matters will take care of itself. When the church of dogma lets the church of the Good News take over all things are possible.
Bill Mazzella,
Here is something you should consider. The Pharisees did not come into prominence until after the destruction of the Temple. In Jesus' day the Sadducees were the prominent party. One can reasonable ask whether Jesus entered into controversies with the Pharisees. It is very likely that the view of the Pharisees in the Gospels comes form the gospel authors and not from Jesus. So that the Pharisees do get a bum rap in the Gospels. They happend to be very pious, conscientious, Jews who tried to practice their religion impeccably. You need to give them a break.
All thing are possible, we are taught. Presumably, we Christians shall be led by the Holy Spirit. And yet:
Why did the guidance of the Holy Spirit not suffice during the two thousand prior years? The Gospel is no different today. Is it not likely that the human behavior we decry was mediated by the religious messages? Are we confident that the old messages have disappeared? I certainly am not.
I suspect that I need to spend much more time listening to our Jewish brothers ad sisters speak from the heart about how they see the world, and less time listening to myself talk about Christianity. I cannot see any usefulness at all to my own spiritual journey coming from contemplation of supersession, or concern over another person's unwillingness to acccept Jesus as Messiah. I can see good reasons to better understand Judaism's emphasis on justice, equality and freedom on Earth in our own time, whether or not I shall achieve salvation in Eternity.
Mark L
"It is very likely that the view of the Pharisees in the Gospels comes form the gospel authors and not from Jesus."
I appreciate your weighing in as I know this is your field. Although the Pharisees were not prominent at the time of Jesus they were still a powerful group and as Josephus says the masses believed in them. Why would Jesus not encounter such a group especially when it is such a theme of the gospels that internal trumps the external? Or are you suggesting that the Gospel writers differ with Jesus. Isn't it one thing to say that Jesus did not say this or that or to say that Jesus differs from the Evanglists on this?
" The Pharisees did not come into prominence until after the destruction of the Temple."
Could you give more specifics supporting the statement above? Are you saying that Josephus is only talking about the time after 70AD? He certainly talks about them being very powerful before that.Further, I am not saying that there were not sincere Pharisees.
I wonder if the fact that Rabbinic Judaism and really all Jews, stemmed from the Pharisees drives the movement to rehabilitate the Pharisees.
Apropos of nothing, yesterday I stayed at the Leo House in Manhattan and saw copies of both Commonweal and American magazine in their lounge.
However the issue of Commonweal was dated from early January and the postage was, I think, addressed to "Sisters of St Agnes". Maybe some of them stopped there and left their copy of Commonweal behind when they left.


text:
I've got a process that I want to inspect with strace, but since it's printing out a lot of stuff, I would like to sample only a few lines every X seconds from it. Is there any way of doing that with bash or similar?
For example:
strace -p 123456 | "print out most recent 80 lines every 2 seconds"


text:
After beginning to recede over the past weekend and the top yellow rail peeking out from the flood waters behind Eckerle Park, the water levels have inched back up and the top railing has once again disappeared under the water.
As of 8 a.m. this morning, the river level was holding steady at 29.2 feet, remaining in the minor flood stage, according to the National Weather Service. The water of the Little Wabash River is not expected to move below flood stage of 27 feet until next Monday, May 13.
Location, ST | website.com