text:
The year 1968 saw plenty of upheaval in America and also on Mad Men, with things changing socially, politically, professionally, and personally. And yet the sixth season ended with many of the AMC drama's characters appearing to accept the cards they'd been dealt. Don stops trying to repress the ugly truths lurking of his past. Peggy loses her chance to be with Ted, but doesn't seem to mind working through Thanksgiving in Don's spacious office. Pete finds his freedom, even if it comes at an unforeseen cost. Megan finally stops denying how little she means to Don. But Mad Men creator Matthew Weiner cautions viewers not to get too hopeful about these various developments as we head toward the show's end. As we begin to process the show's sixth season in the wake of Sunday's finale, Vulture called Weiner to ask about what that last scene in front of his childhood home might mean for Don's future and to address the criticism directed that his lead character seemed to be stuck in a holding pattern. In the lengthy interview, Weiner also shared his thoughts on the many conspiracy theories that cropped up this season and what his original designs were for Bob Benson.
You said after last year's finale that the lyrics to Nancy Sinatra's song "You Only Live Twice," which played over the end credits, held the key to understanding the entire fifth season. This year ended with Joni Mitchell's "Both Sides, Now," which would fit lyrically with Don's reconciliation with his past. Did you know going in that you'd be capping the season with that song?
No, I didn't — and it is the popular version from that period, which is Judy Collins's version of the song. I didn't know about the song itself until probably when I was writing episode nine or ten, so I was pretty deep in. But I knew that this whole season was about — and you can tell from the way we laid the children into it and the way that the premiere starts — Don and [the idea that] if he couldn't change, he could at least have a moment of reconciliation, of recognition. I at least knew from the beginning that he was going to tell a true story in that pitch, in an inappropriate place. And I knew that he was going to reveal to his children, and Sally in particular, after what has happened with Sally, where he grew up, that he was going to make that tiny gesture, which is a huge thing for him.
Will it make things better for him? Professionally, he took a big hit.
Yeah. He's given some hits, too. I know that that [ejecting Don] seems like a very dramatic conclusion to the season, but let's look at his behavior. No matter how much of a genius you are, when you dump the biggest client, force your agency to merge, and then attack the people you merge with and withdraw from the business completely, you are a liability. You saw that in episode twelve when he's really trying to kill Ted — that's not someone you want to tolerate. And then, of course, the Hershey pitch being just the climax to a season of inappropriate behavior business-wise. But, you know, like I said from the opening, there's a lot about the children and those last moments with Roger and Kevin and Joan, and Roger and Margaret, and Pete and Tammy, and then Don. All the conversations …
At the start of the season, Jon Hamm said this year would be about Don needing to fix his foundation.
Right. The idea was, whether it was the Martin Luther King episode, or the premiere, or Grandma Ida, or Sally actually catching Don, all of that was about the story of what is Don going to do? He wants to stop doing this. [His childhood] is the place to start. Ted even says it when he talks about sort of making a sacrifice, that the world is in such a mess. And then, of course, there is Mitchell, his mistress' son. The world is an open revolution in 1968, and ends with Richard Nixon as the president, and tanks rolling into Czechoslovakia, and a blood bath in Mexico City, and everything sort of gets tamped down. My analysis of it was that he's got to turn to the thing that he can control, and if there's a possibility of change there, that's outside all of that.
It seemed for a moment in the finale that he was going to escape again, but then the Hershey pitch sets him off. Why Hershey's?
The Hershey pitch was something I came in with at the beginning of the season, and I knew it would be Hershey. And I knew that we would spend time in the whorehouse and get a sense of where he was really from. It's not the carousel. He gives this speech. I mean, it's very personal and the audience knows that what he's saying is true. It just felt like, after the wreckage he has wrought with his lies and seeing Ted basically say, "I know you're a good man," that it was time to come clean. That beautiful scene between Don and Megan where he says, "It got out of control — I got out of control," I think that he is recommitting himself to her. And then the reality of the fact that Sally has changed her name and is drinking. Betty thinks it's because they got divorced; Don knows it's something else. I think there's so much shame there that it finally catches up with him and he realizes that he has to do this.
When you wrote that final moment between Don and Sally, did you do it thinking that things were going to get better for Don on a personal level?
I honestly think that that act and that look that is exchanged so beautifully between those two actors is a moment that many of us have never even had in our life, and if nothing else, that moment in itself is an improvement. So is it the beginning of something? Who knows? The season started with Don saying, "I don't want to do this anymore." There is an indication that he doesn't. I don't know what to tell you beyond that. I hope that people feel the seriousness of the journey that we went on of questioning who Don is, and the repeated behavior, and the fallout from that.
There was some criticism midway through the season that Don's behavior was starting to feel repetitive, or stagnant. What do you think when you read things like that, knowing how the season eventually plays out?
Honestly, I don't hear it. And the idea that there are cumulatively [millions] of viewers a week, and one person said that? The amount of criticism that goes on is purely flattering. It shows an investment. The idea that anything is stagnant in this show, unless we are saying it's stagnant because the story is that Don's life is stagnant, that's a ludicrous criticism to me. But I don't hear it. I will be honest with you. It's like a secret club sometimes, this show. The idea that we are at 80 episodes and told this fresh new story, I think the audience appreciated it. They appreciated us playing with the form. They appreciate that we are playing with genres because we don't really have one. I've never had a more positive experience when the show was on the air than I have this year. I'm not kidding. I'm including everything.
There were so many conspiracy theories this season! Is Bob Benson a government spy? Is Megan going to die? Is she already dead? Why do you think the show inspired all that this time?
I don't know. Again, it's flattering. If I was smart and I was really Don Draper, I would find a way to plant those things so people would talk about the show. The fact that it happens naturally is thrilling to me. I'm still lingering on the idea that people were critical of the show. You know, the show has been out there for a long time now and there are huge expectations on it. And we start the story fresh every year and there's always resistance because people feel a sense of ownership. So sometimes they think they should be writing the show. Where we take it is where it needs to go. And whether it was the premiere this year, which really explored how we're seen from the outside world; Megan's miscarriage right away; the use of the soap opera; Sylvia and what she meant to Don; Don's obsession with Sylvia; Peggy's lack of choices; the Martin Luther King assassination; Don's realization about his relationship with his kids; people being driven closer together … The merger — I mean, that's episode five. So I don't even know what to tell people. I feel very proud of the big events of this season, which are, honestly, where Don is, and where Don and Megan are, and Sylvia, the introduction of the chaos of the world in 1968, the merger, then Don reuniting with Betty, his obsession with and rejection by Sylvia, being discovered by Sally, trying to crush his partner, and eventually reconciling with himself. I don't know what more you can do in twelve weeks of TV.
The mystery of Bob is one viewers really latched on to. Can you talk a little bit about why you teased him out the way you did?
We're always looking at the management structure of the agency like it's a real business. And our feeling was that Pete would, at this point, be really at the top of his game at the beginning of the season. His interaction with Don in the premiere — you've never seen him that calm, and that in charge, and that clear on what his profession is. His disintegration over the season, a lot of it had to do with sort of seeing his job through the eyes of Bob. We wanted him to have a protégé, and my feeling was that Pete is very admirable to somebody. Who is that person? The characters of Don and now Bob are drawn from what I think is the story of American success. We are very tolerant of a certain kind of, let's put it this way, unsubstantiated achievement. And the fact that Bob has merit in his job, a lot of it comes from the fact that he's a chameleon. It really, really works in this business environment. I just love that, over the course of the season, we would see that Pete had learned something. And that he knew, after all this time, even though he didn't learn how to deal with his marriage, didn't learn how to deal with his mother, all the problems that he's had and been carrying around, he had learned not to mess with someone like Bob.
Until he does in Detroit and gets burned.
Unfortunately, he couldn't contain himself. But the show is about underdogs and Bob is another underdog. I feel like the show itself is an underdog. It's part of why there's room for so much conversation and argument, and why there's 18-year-olds talking to their grandparents, and husbands and wives either having sex or fighting after they watch the show. Your allegiances are constantly being switched based on the idea that everybody has a reason for why they're doing what they do. And who among us has not done something really bad. On this scale, too. You know what I mean? It's not murder.
The finale ends, for me, on a lot of hopeful notes for a lot of these characters. Relationships on the mend between Pete and Trudy, and Joan and Roger. Peggy's alone but she's also on the rise professionally. As you head towards the final season, do you feel like you have you grown attached to these characters in a way that it impacts the way their stories will end? Could you really not give Peggy some sort of happy ending?
Here's the challenge of the final season: It's not just an ending of a season; it's the ending of the show. I haven't really thought about it. I've always taken this one season at a time, and we tell the story. I and the writers get a sense of how it's going to end [before each] season. Because [in season six] we're also telling the story of 1968, and 1968 is a lot like Don [in the sense that] even if he could get away with returning to normal, that was not enough. He actually had to have at least a small breakthrough. That's where that came from. In terms of how it works season to season, I never know what's dark. I couldn't believe that people felt "Shut the Door, Have a Seat" had a hopeful ending. I mean, Betty was going to get divorced, Don was moving out alone to the Village, the song "Shahdaroba" is playing, the children are alone with the housekeeper. I'm always looking for something that's beyond words because I'm not a critic. I'm trying to express something. It's always a mixed bag, just like life. That's the pleasure of doing the show. And the last season has got to end the whole thing, so it's an extra thing on top of it. And I may just punt and just deal with the season as itself and hope that is resonates.
Peggy says she didn't have choices this season. Can she have a happy relationship?
That's something that we talk about all the time and the story of this season for her was that she did not have any choices. Every decision was made for her. Whether it was who she was going to work for, where she was going to live, who she would have a relationship with. Even her business life was completely out of her control. And even when she has the conversation with Joan, when Joan brings in Avon, you're seeing someone who has really grown as a businessperson and trying to face reality. So yeah, her personal life has been a disaster. I don't know what to tell you. Sometimes it's the secret of doing great creative work.
Here are a few things that happen in 1969: the Moon landing, Woodstock, the FCC's ban on cigarette advertising on television and radio. Have you begun to think about things that you're going to deal with?
No. And I don't know if we're going to come back [in 1969]. I don't know anything yet. I literally have to stop thinking about it, let the finale play out, and really get my head blank. For me, I was sort of dreading dealing with 1968 because it was kind of, on some level, the climax of the '60s and everything that I was making the pilot about. The pilot of the show was kind of about, Can you imagine that in eight years that's what the world will be? The fact that we've gotten to go on this journey with these people is in itself an incredible experience, and 80 episodes into it, I'm thinking more about the people and the timelessness of that journey. I never really start with the year. The events are intimidating usually and I don't want it to be a history lesson. I don't want people just checking things off in their book. Although, you know, I love that you're curious about how we're going to handle it.
Megan appears to be done with Don, and it feels permanent because, unlike Betty, she has no kids with him. Does Megan have a future with the show?
Well, I mean, it certainly looks bad, and she does say, "I can't take this right now." But what is she? I think there's just a moment of realization that Jessica [Paré] just hit out of the park. We were talking about the scene [and she asked], "Is this a tearful experience?" No, it's angry. Where she looks at [the situation] and she realizes, Oh, my god, I have been helping someone who is really not looking out for my best interests. And she's the most modern character on the show to me. She really is. I love that her job is so important to her and I love that she is sort of skating the traditional wife thing. She is not Betty Draper, or Joan, or even Peggy in terms of her concept of what the traditional wife is. So for me, it was literally just like the partners putting Don on leave. At a certain point, [everyone's] like, "Really? Forget it." And that's what her use of profanity is about also. I think that that's the first time we've heard a woman say that on the show.
Peggy said the f-word once when that guy was re-enacting that bit on The Tonight Show.
I guess it's the second one then. There — Megan's in good company. [Cursing] has been part of the evolution of the show because I've wanted to show it coming into the culture more. It's about the language of the culture and the network has been great about letting me dip it in. You don't hear it, but people know it's there, and that has shock value, which [actual cursing] really doesn't any more. But, back to Megan, I feel like we left her in a place where she's had a realization.
Ted and Pete are going to California. Megan has lined up meetings there. Is it possible for the show to be bi-coastal next year?
We have no idea when we're coming back in the story. And my take on it is: I haven't really thought about it. All I can say is, when Don divorced Betty, everybody thought that we'd never see her again. No matter whether they're in California or not, these characters are part of our story.
Viewers seemed to have softened on Betty, coincidentally, when the character herself appears more content than she's ever been.
I look at that phone call in the finale — I got to be there and direct January. Probably her great moment [of the season] is, of course, that scene in bed in episode nine. But that phone call with Don? I'm just sitting there watching everything go on in her head. Look at it all together: the stuff in the car with Sally, that moment with the admissions lady at Miss Porter's where she says, "It's tough to raise a young lady, let alone be one." I just feel like January brings this, for want of a better word, this weight of the reality of someone who is maturing. I don't know if Betty's learned anything. I just felt that her whole frustration with her failure … anybody who's ever wondered if she is really a mother to those children can hear it in that moment on the phone. And that was all January.
Vincent Kartheiser said that you personally demonstrated how Pete should fall down the stairs in "For Wide Release." True?
There are always stunt issues and I never ask them to do anything that I wouldn't do myself. You don't want somebody to get injured. We did shoot it with a double, but that is Vincent that ended up in the show. Because I did [the fall] three times and did not have any injuries, I think he knew he could [pull it off]. I wanted it to look like he'd slipped and it had to be small enough that he could recover. What's so funny to me about it is that he falls and it's totally humiliating but he gets up like nothing happened.
Pete's alone, his mom is gone, and he's out of the Chevy account. But, like Don, he seems to have reconciled with his personal situation.
That moment between him and Trudy in the finale, when she goes, "Now you're free," and he says, "This is not the way I wanted it," and she says "Now you know that" — like, talk about the whole season hitting you in the face. Like, Oh, right! I screwed up! Who does not identify with that?


text:
A vulnerability in a library is a single vulnerability, whether it
can be exploited in 12 different ways or not.
Use of the CVE® List and the associated references from this website are subject to the terms of use.
CVE is sponsored by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA). Copyright © 1999–2023, The MITRE Corporation. CVE and the CVE logo are registered trademarks of The MITRE Corporation.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Schooled by Occupy movement, fast-food workers put demands on the table
Hundreds of fast-food workers protested in New York Tuesday, demanding their minimum wages be doubled as part of a nationwide effort that has drawn on the organizational lessons of the Occupy movement.
| New York
Along with thousands of fast-food workers in at least seven cities this week, Naquasia LeGrand decided to walk off her job at KFC for a day and demand a "living wage" of $15 an hour.
Chanting "we can't survive on seven twenty five" – a reference to the federal minimum wage – Ms. LeGrand marched with hundreds of other workers yesterday in a nation-wide effort to draw attention to what they say is an ever-widening income gap.
New York's contingent of protesters, some of whom carried signs saying "supersize my pay," demonstrated all day in front of a number of McDonald's, Wendy's, and KFC's throughout Brooklyn and Manhattan.
It is a scene playing out in other cities as well: Kansas City fast food and retail workers walked out Tuesday, and Milwaukee workers plan their one-day strike on Thursday. Chicago, Detroit, and St. Louis workers have also walked off the job – each asking for a $15-an-hour wage and the ability to unionize without reprisals from their employers.
This week's strikes cast light on a simmering social movement of media-savvy youth and urban low-wage workers that began with the Occupy Wall Street protests nearly two years ago.
Like the Occupy movement, the walkouts this week arose from a parallel form of community organizing – rather than a hierarchy of leadership from above. Workers have been mobilizing through social media – even as a host of community organizers redouble their commitment to traditional pavement pounding and grassroots gatherings.
Call it Occupy 2.0. Organizations with Twitter-ready names such as "Low Pay Is Not OK" and "Fast Food Forward" have helped galvanize the workers, and hashtags such as "#strikefor15" and "#iamfastfood" have instantly shared pictures of the protests and pin-pointed their locations in real time.
"The Occupy movement created sort of a consciousness, a political space to talk about income inequality, and these workers really relate to the idea of the 99 percent," says Hilary Klein, director of Make the Road New York, a community advocacy group with offices throughout the city.
"So I think there has been a real upsurge in low-wage organizing in general since then," continues Ms. Klein, who helped coordinate this week's protests.
"Workers are saying, enough is enough, it's time to organize, it's time for something to change," she says. "So I think the fast food strikes that you're seeing this week are just one of a whole series of low-wage workers in different sectors organizing to unionize, to demand a living wage, and to say, 'We deserve more respect and dignity on the job.' "
Yet while the strikes have received support from unions such as the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), headquartered in Washington, D.C., many are skeptical that a fast-food workers' union is viable, simply because of the nature of the business. The National Restaurant Association estimates that fast food restaurants have 75% employee turnover rates, for example.
"This walkout seems to be more for public opinion and educating," says Ed Wertheim, professor of management and organizational development at Northeastern University in Boston. [Editor's note: The original version of this story misspelled Ed Wertheim's last name.]
"Organizing for this large of a group of workers is extremely difficult, and many of these people are not going to stay in and continue the fight," he says. "Many can and will decide to move on and get a job that pays more – ostensibly abandoning ship for the next group of workers to inherit the problem."
But unions recognize that with membership still on the decline, these types of sectors of low-wage workers – who are often urban immigrants and minorities – may represent a new constituency.
"I think there's been a real effort on the part of labor unions and community organizations to work together to collaborate, to say, what can we do to make these strikes real?" says Klein.
"We are proud to support these workers," says Mary Kay Henry, president of SEIU. "The best inspiration has been from the workers, because this is a very dramatic action.... It's not an easy decision to make, it puts pressure on families, but I think it represents how determined people are to turn things around, not just for themselves, but for their families and communities."
Like many of the young protesters this week, LeGrand, who works at two KFC restaurants, one in Brooklyn and another in Queens, was surprised at how energized the protests made her feel. She even was able to stand up and speak to hundreds of people gathered near Prospect Park in Brooklyn – something she had never done before.
"It just felt good," she says. "I just enjoyed how this campaign is getting bigger and stronger – every time I come out, it's always the biggest crowd, it's always more people, more media, more clergy. And you know, it felt so good.… Young people are part of this campaign, and we as a community are coming together to better our people and the future."


text:
Same-sex marriage symposium: The protean case against same-sex marriage
on Sep 20, 2012 at 11:42 am
The following contribution to our same-sex marriage symposium comes from William N. Eskridge Jr., the John A. Garver Professor of Jurisprudence at the Yale Law School. He is the author of The Case for Same-Sex Marriage (1996) and dozens of other books and articles arguing for the civil rights of sexual and gender minorities. He has filled a brief as amici curiae in support of the respondents in Hollingsworth v. Perry.
The Supreme Court has before it petitions for review in several cases that present issues of marriage equality. I shall focus my comments on Hollingsworth v. Perry, a petition for certiorari filed by the supporters of California's Proposition 8, a voter initiative that revoked the state supreme court's recognition of marriage equality under the state constitution. The Ninth Circuit invalidated Proposition 8 on the ground that the revived discrimination against lesbian and gay couples did not rest upon a rational basis and therefore violated the Equal Protection Clause, as construed in Romer v. Evans. That 1996 decision evaluated a voter initiative that revoked antidiscrimination protections previously enjoyed by gay people; the Court ruled that the public justifications advanced to support the initiative were so "discontinuous" with the initiative's actual operation that the initiative lacked a rational basis and was presumably adopted on the basis of unconstitutional "animus.")
In an earlier post, I suggested that the Supreme Court ought to pay careful attention to Professor Alexander Bickel's passive virtues in its deliberations about the Proposition 8 case. Because the country is not yet at rest on the issue of marriage equality, the Supreme Court ought to deny the petition for review in Perry or, if it grants review, dispose of the case on narrow procedural (standing) or substantive (Romer) grounds.
Since that earlier post, I have been struck by the protean nature of the arguments against marriage equality. One argument rules the roost for a few years, only to be abandoned and replaced by a new one. The instability of these arguments is, standing alone, an interesting phenomenon. The fact that even the most devout opponents of marriage equality have not settled on a stable public justification is also an excellent Bickelian reason for the Court not to take review in the Proposition 8 case. If the Court does grant the petition in Perry, moreover, the constantly shifting justifications for discrimination ought to make the Justices especially reluctant to reverse the Ninth Circuit's finding of a constitutional violation and even eager to follow the Ninth Circuit's narrow reasoning, grounded upon Romer.
When marriage equality litigation started in the 1970s, the main justifications for discriminating against committed lesbian and gay couples were moral and definitional. In the first appellate decision on the issue, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled in Baker v. Nelson (1971) that both God and the state had traditionally limited marriage to one man and one woman and, therefore, that the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage was not discrimination, but rather was a natural consequence of the institution's make-up. The Supreme Court dismissed the couple's appeal from this judgment.
The definitional argument lost some of its cultural cogency once the country became aware that thousands of lesbian and gay couples were rearing children in committed (essentially "marital") relationships, but a new argument took its place. "Civil laws that permit only heterosexual marriage reflect and honor a collective moral judgment about human sexuality," opined congressional supporters of the Defense of Marriage Act (1996). "This judgment entails both moral disapproval of homosexuality, and a moral conviction that heterosexuality better comports with traditional (especially Judeo-Christian) morality." This stamp of approval argument was almost immediately problematic, however, because there is too thin a line between "moral disapproval of homosexuality" and the antigay "animus" rejected in Romer.
In the wake of Romer, stamp-of-approval arguments were superseded by the defense-of-marriage argument: extending marriage licenses to same-sex couples would undermine marriage as an institution. This had the advantage of tying discrimination to a neutral public policy; it had the disadvantage, however, of resting upon no evidence that marriage equality "caused" marriage to decline as an institution. The fact that marriage equality in Massachusetts (2003-04) and other states (as well as Canada in 2005) has done nothing to undermine the institution in those jurisdictions has taken the wind out of that argument as well.
The defense-of-marriage argument has, in turn, given way to the responsible-procreation-and-child-rearing argument. "[T]hrough the institution of marriage, societies seek to increase the likelihood that children will be born and raised in stable and enduring family units by both the mothers and the fathers who brought them into this world," wrote the supporters of Proposition 8 in their Supreme Court petition, and such inducements are not needed for same-sex couples, who pose no risk of irresponsible procreation. Because this new argument demonizes "irresponsible" straight couples and says nothing bad about lesbian and gay couples, it is a kinder, gentler form of rights-denying discourse. But it still justifies a serious antigay discrimination.
The Proposition 8 case itself has been a microcosm of the dramatic shifts in justification for marriage discrimination. In the ballot materials provided to voters, the supporters of Proposition 8 emphasized definitional and stamp-of-approval arguments denigrating lesbian and gay families as inferior. At trial in the case, the lawyers and witnesses supporting Proposition 8 largely abandoned arguments openly denigrating these families and highlighted defense-of-marriage arguments. On appeal, they emphasize the argument that discrimination against committed lesbian and gay couples can be justified by marriage's concern with responsible procreation and child-rearing.
Nor is this new justification the last one that opponents will offer for denying marriage equality – in part because it is so vulnerable under the rational basis analysis the Supreme Court performed in Romer. The discrimination is completely "discontinuous with the reason[] offered for it," the precise reason the Supreme Court struck down an antigay voter initiative in Romer. That is, the exclusion of committed lesbian and gay couples from the status of civil marriage does not plausibly advance the state policy of "responsible" procreation and child-rearing. One can imagine a number of policies that might steer potentially irresponsible straight couples toward responsible procreation – from penalties for reckless procreation to subsidies awarded to responsible couples. But it is virtually impossible to see how procreative responsibility is engendered by excluding lesbian and gay couples from marriage. The trial judge asked counsel for the defenders of Proposition 8 "how permitting same-sex marriage impairs or adversely affects" the state's interest in marital procreation. The counsel replied "Your honor, my answer is: I don't know. I don't know."
Even worse than the discrimination invalidated in Romer, the exclusion in Perry actually undermines the stated goal, understood in the context of official California state policy. Thousands of children are being raised in California by committed lesbian or gay domestic partners. California state policy offers these families the same legal protections as marital families, with the exception created by Proposition 8. Because California's family law focuses on the interests of children, the state's interest in responsible child-rearing is the same for all couples, whether gay or straight. So denying marriage to lesbian and gay couples and thereby denigrating their relationships undermines the state's goal that petitioners try to invoke.
Is there a public interest that might justify excluding lesbian and gay couples from civil marriage? Opponents of marriage equality have not yet settled on a stable justification for the discrimination, and the most recent attempt at justification seems the most disconnected from the plausible reasons voters might have had for adopting Proposition 8. The protean case against marriage equality is one reason the Supreme Court might deny the petition for review in Perry: do not adjudicate the constitutionality of marriage discrimination until the supporters have settled on a stable rationale.
I have now, also, concluded that the mobility of the arguments supporting discrimination remains relevant if the Supreme Court reaches the constitutional merits in either Perry or the cases challenging the constitutionality of DOMA, especially Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, U.S. House of Representatives v. Gill, which seeks review of the First Circuit's decision striking down DOMA's exclusion of lesbian and gay married couples from all federal statutes and regulations relating to marriage.
We have seen this kind of mobility of justification before – in constitutional defenses of laws barring different-race couples from civil marriage. Initially, such laws were justified by religious condemnation of "miscegenation," but as America became more secular the anti-miscegenation laws were justified instead by eugenic concerns with "dilution" of the "white" race. By the time the Supreme Court struck down such laws in Loving v. Virginia (1967), proponents had pretty much run out of arguments and rested their case on tradition and the continuing resentment against "mixed race" couples.
As the litigation history of Hollingsworth v. Perry illustrates, the proponents of same-sex marriage bars are swiftly running out of arguments, more swiftly than anyone thought possible at the turn of the millennium. As was the case with different-race marriage bars a generation ago, the protean nature of the public justifications for same-sex marriage bars today and the dearth of factual support for any of them are evidence that the discrimination rests upon animus or stereotypes and not upon a neutral public policy.


text:
Hop Slam DUNK!
True story: I am an Ohio State Alumni, ex-two-sport Ohio State Athlete … and an obsessive Buckeye Football fan.
And if you know anything about Ohio State, know this: We Don't Give A Damn For The Whole State Of M*CH*GAN.
Unfortunately, though … The Beer Wench cannot ignore the abundance of amazing craft breweries located in " That State Up North."
One such brewery is Bell's.
Bell's Brewery is the oldest craft-brewer east of Boulder, Colorado.
Formerly known as Kalamazoo Brewing Company, Bell's Brewery Inc. was founded by Larry Bell in 1983. Larry initially opened a home-brewing supply shop, which became a brewery by default. Its first beer was sold in 1985.
Bell's story is very similar to that of many craft breweries – small production in a small facility with very little equipment. In the beginning, Larry Bell brewed his beers in a 15-gallon soup kettle, producing only 135 barrels a year. The tiny operation originally took place in a former plumbing supply warehouse. During the first four years, the Bell's crew brewed, bottled and delivered all of the company's beer to market themselves.
Things have definitely changed since then. Now Bell's Brewery Inc. has over twenty years of brewing experience, the ability to produce over 90, 000 barrels of beer a year, owns a 60,000 square feet brewing facility with 24 acres … as well as makes some of The Wench's all-time favorite beers.
On June 11, 1993, Bell's Brewery, Inc. became the first Michigan brewery to serve beer by the glass to the public. Bell's The Eccentric Cafe offers small batch brews that are not distributed outside of the pub as well as interesting food, an extensive collection of art and ephemera, and live music. I regret never visiting The Eccentric Cafe while I lived in Ohio (something in my blood would not let me cross the border).
Depending on how long you have been following my blog and whether or not you know me in person … you may or may not know that I love hops. I love love love love love hops. My palate loves bitter flavors. I am a fan of super tanic red wines, dark dark chocolate, espresso, black coffee … etc.
The Wench loves American craft IPAs. And I love love love Double IPAs. One of my favoriteDouble IPAs is Bell's Hopslam.
Coming in around 10% ABV, one should never underestimate the power of Bell's Hopslam. Unfortunately for its enthusiasts, Hopslam is a limited release ale – only released in January and February. In the past, Bell's Hopslam has been hard to find … but as the brewery has become more successful and popular – I have seen a tremendous increase in Hopslam availability.
Each year, the recipe of Hopslam appears to change. In my opinion, last year had more flavors of malt & honey and was not as hoppy as the previous year. This year … however … may be different …
Style: American Double IPA
Brewery: Bell's Brewing Inc.
Region: Kalamazoo (how cool is that name?!!) … in "That State Up North"
Color: Cloudy (as expected), golden amber with a small foamy white head
Carbonation: Normal. Decent head, lacing lingers till the end.
Aroma: Mmmm hops. Very dry and musty with a slight hint of grassy sweetness. Its aroma reminds me of the time I walked into the hops "cellar" in Victory Brewing company… total hops immersion! If there is malt in the beer, than I am none the wiser. The honey is virtually undetectable. Lots of pine and citrus rind. ABSOLUTELY loving the way this beer smells … mmmm heaven.
Flavor: Bam wam, thank you mam.Please sir, may I have another. PUNCH you in the face hops. I'm sorry Mr. Bell … but did you say that this ale has a 10% ABV. Well, heck if I can tell. This beer drinks as smooth, if not smoother, than mother's milk. The honey comes out after a few sips … as the beer gets warmer the malt and sweetness is more apparent. But in the end, the hops dominate my tongue. Which is FINE BY ME.
Mouthfeel: Beautifully smooth, super graceful. It is VERY RARE to find a 10% beer that drinks this well. In fact, it drinks almost too well. I could easily take down a 6 pack of this without blinking an eye … although, after taking down a 6 pack I might not be blinking my eyes too well … haha.
Finish: AWESOME! Good job, Bell's.
Pairings: CHEESE! Esp the aged ones … blue would be beautiful!
Comments: Since I am very familiar with Bell's, I am confident in saying that this is one of the best batches of Hopslam that I have tasted. It is extremely similiar in profile to the Two-Hearted Ale, which is one of my all-time favorite beers EVER. I would really like to taste them side by side to confirm my conclusion. In my opinion, Hopslam is Two-Hearted taken to the next level.
According to my roommate … the lovely Miss Candace "It smells like moldy clothes – like say you left my wet clothes in the dyer for 5 days. The taste is lingering bitter … even after a sip of water. Let me taste it … OH HELL NO! I feel like I just ate someone's moldy clothes." Well, once again … to each their own, right?
On another note … the aroma of this beer is completely intoxicating. I suppose that hops is a very acquired taste, which is hard for me to understand since I love it so much. If I had my way, I would make a hops essence perfume and wear it all day. In fact, I wish there was a line of hops products … shampoos, conditioners, candles … soaps. Maybe my good friend Gwen, the brilliant founder and owner of BEYOND THE PICKET FENCE, will create a specialty soap using hops?
MORAL OF THE STORY: Go grab as much of Bell's Hopslam as you can … while it is still available! Its high alcohol level allows it to age fairly well … but, it is also very drinkable at this moment! CHEERS!


text:
FURCY, Haiti – Where the road gave way to trails, the hunger-hunters parked their motorcycle and hiked for more than an hour up a mountain too steep even for mules. There, in a foggy clearing high above the Haitian capital, the Baptist aid workers made their find.
Two glassy-eyed boys stood beside a wood and mud hut. Their low weight made them look half their ages, but their hair, grey and patchy from lack of nutrition, gave them the appearance of old men.
"They looked as though they were ready to die," said Hilaire Etienne, one of the aid workers. "They were merely bones and just skin on their bodies."
Haiti has long struggled with malnutrition as a result of widespread poverty, a dearth of jobs and a feeble agricultural sector. UNICEF says malnutrition is responsible for about 60 percent of all deaths in people under 18 in the country. An estimated 30 percent of Haitian children are chronically malnourished, their growth often stunted.
Health workers believe there are thousands of children like Jameson and David Paul, the starving brothers discovered in Furcy, who are slowly suffering out of sight of the massive humanitarian effort in the capital just 30 miles away.
There's a little more hope for the Paul brothers now, due to the efforts of the Baptist Haiti Mission, which tracks down hungry children in remote areas of the country and feeds them. Etienne and his partner, Michel Raphael, earn about $75 a month trekking into the mountains and banana groves of Haiti with supplies of vitamins and vaccines and a portable scale to weigh children.
In the Haitian countryside, children are seven times more likely to be malnourished than their counterparts in densely populated Port-au-Prince and other cities, said Mohamed Ayoya, UNICEF's chief of nutrition in Haiti. Such remote areas can be difficult to reach because many roads are damaged or dwellings are accessible only by foot, making food delivery a challenge.
The 68-year-old Baptist Haiti Mission is one of Haiti's oldest charities, but it isn't alone in trying to reach poor people deep in the countryside. The U.S.-based Partners in Health has been working in the country's remote areas for years, as has UNICEF, which plans to send workers with the Haitian government later this month to the Grande Anse area, in the country's far west, to investigate a reported spike in malnutrition.
Hunger also is an issue high on the agenda of newly elected President Michel Martelly, who has pledged to revitalize the country's farming sector, devastated by the effects of cheap food imports and deforestation. Much of the country's foliage has been destroyed by Haitians chopping down trees to make charcoal.
Raphael said he welcomes the aid that has come to Haiti since the 2010 earthquake leveled the capital, but laments that he doesn't see much of it in the mountains.
"When I think about how much money comes into the country, I realize that nothing ever comes to the peasants in my area," said Raphael, 35, who followed in his father's footsteps by becoming a health care worker.
On the morning Raphael and Etienne found the Paul brothers, they had left the Baptist Haiti Mission at sunrise, wearing jackets against the chilly air and carrying chewable vaccinations for typhoid and tetanus. They brought their scale with them on house calls, and the villagers referred to them as "doctors," even though they aren't.
The pair urged parents to bring their children to be weighed, but a few of the more agile tots scampered behind banana trees, fearful of vaccinations.
The health workers nabbed one preschooler who squealed as Etienne hung him by his T-shirt from a hook at the end of a scale. He weighed about 20 pounds, far lighter than a normal child his age.
An hour later, the aid workers found the Paul brothers — 6-year-old Jameson and David, 4. The brothers had the gray hair of village elders, and were being raised by their grandmother after their mother dropped them off and left.
Etienne and Raphael gave them vitamins and potatoes that they had grown from their own gardens.
"When I look at these kids and look at mine, it really hurts," said Raphael, a married father of two girls and a boy.
The Pauls' grandmother, Sentina Estime, said they suffer from constant itching — a sign of malnutrition — as well as hunger.
"They itch all the time," Estime said. "They need to go to see a doctor, but I can't bring them because I'm not in good health myself."
Yes, Etienne and Raphael, agreed, they need to see a doctor. Meanwhile, the aid workers promised to return in a couple of weeks with more vitamins and potatoes.
"We do what we can do," Etienne said. Malnutrition brings many complications.
He packed his scale and vitamins and set off to look for more hungry children.


text:
Slava Isusu Khrystu! All Praise Be to Jesus Christ!
To affirm that the "Apostolical Canons" were a collection of canons made by the Apostles would be about as sensible as affirming that the "Psalterium Davidicum" was a collection of his own psalms made by David.
Many of the Psalms had David for their composer; many of the Proverbs had Solomon for their originator; but neither the book we call "The Psalter" nor the book we call "The Proverbs" had David or Solomon for its compiler. The matter contained in the one is largely, many think chiefly, of Davidic origin, the matter contained in the oilier is no doubt Solomonic; and just so "The Apostolical Canons" may well be to a great extent of Apostolic origin, committed to writing, some possibly by the Apostles themselves, others by their immediate successors, who heard them at their mouth; and these at so,he period not far removed from the date of the Nicene Council (a.d. 325), probably earlier than the Council of Antioch, were gathered together into a code which has since then been somewhat enlarged and modified. This is the view of the matter to which the general drift of the learned seems to be moving, and it is substantially the view so ably defended by Bishop Beveridge in his Synodicon, and in his remarkably learned and convincing answer to his French opponent, entitled Codex Canonum Ecclesioe Primitivoe vindicatus ac illustratus. (This last volume, together with the "Preface to the Notes on the Apostolical Canons" has been reprinted in Vol. XII. of Bishop Beveridge's Works in the "Library of Anglo-Catholic Theology.")
In thus accepting the old conclusions we are far from intending to imply that more recent research has not shewn some of the details of the bishop's view to be erroneous. In brief, the proposition which seems to be most tenable is that in the main the Apostolic Canons represent the very early canon-law of the Church, that the canons which make up the collection are of various dates, but that most of them are earlier than the year 300, and that while it is not possible to say exactly when the collection, as we now have it, was made, there is good reason for assigning it a date not later than the middle of the fourth century. With regard to the name "Apostolic Canons" there need be no more hesitation in applying it to these canons than in calling Ignatius an "Apostolic Father," the adjective necessarily meaning nothing more than that the canons set forth the disciplinary principles which were given to the early Church by the Apostles, just as we speak of the "Apostles' Creed."
While this is true there can be no question that in the East the Apostolic Canons were very generally looked upon as a genuine work prepared by the Holy Apostles. I proceed now to quote Bishop Hefele, but I have already (Cf. Council in Trullo) expressed my own opinion that there is not contained in the Quinisext decree any absolute definition of what is technically known as the "authenticity" of the Canons of the Apostles. (Hefele. Hist. of the Councils, Vol. I., p. 451 et seq.).
The Synod in Trullo being, as is well known, regarded as ecumenical by the Greek Church, the authenticity of the eighty-five canons was decided in the East for all future time. It was otherwise in the West. At the same period that Dionysius Exiguus translated the collection question for Bishop Stephen, Pope Gelasius promulgated his celebrated decree de libris non recipiendis. Drey mentions it, but in a way which requires correction. Following in this the usual opinion, he says that the Synod at Rome in which Gelasius published this decree was held in 494; but we shall see hereafter that this synod was held in 496. Also Drey considers himself obliged to adopt another erroneous opinion, according to which Gelasius declared in the same decree the Apostolic Canons to be apocryphal. This opinion is to be maintained only so long as the usual text of this decree is consulted, since the original text as it is given in the ancient manuscripts does not contain the passage which mentions the Apostolic Canons.4 This passage was certainly added subsequently, with many others, probably by Pope Hormisdas (511-543) when he made a new edition of the decree of Gelasius. As Dionysius Exiguus published his collection in all probability subsequently to the publication of the decree of Gelasius, properly so called, in 496, we can understand why this decree did not mention the Apostolical Canons. Dionysius did not go to Rome while Gelasius was living, and did not know him personally, as he himself says plainly in the Proefatio of his collection of the papal decrees. It is hence also plain how it was that in another collection of canons subsequently made by Dionysius, of which the preface still remains to us, he does not insert the Apostolic Canons, but has simply this remark: Quos non admisit uniniversalitas, ego quoque in hoc opere proetermisi. Dionysius Exiguus in fact compiled this new collection at a time when Pope Hormisdas had already explicitly declared the Apostolic Canons to be apocryphal.
Notwithstanding this, these canons, and particularly the fifty mentioned by Dionysius, did not entirely fall into discredit in the West; but rather they came to be received, because the first collection of Dionysius was considered of great authority. They also passed into other collections, and particularly into that of the pseudo-Isidore; and in 1054, Humbert, legate of Pope Leo IX., made the following declaration: Clementis libel, id est itinerarium Petri Apostoli et Canones Apostolorum numerantur inter apocrypha, Excetis Capitulis Quisquaginta, quoe decreverunt regulis orthodoxis adjungenda. Gratian also, in his decree, borrowed from the fifty Apostolic Canons, and they gradually obtained the force of laws. But many writers, especially Hinemar of Rheims, like Dionysius Exiguus, raised doubts upon the apostolical origin of these canons. From the sixteenth century the opinion has been universal that these documents are not authentic; with the exception, however, of the French Jesuit Turrianus, whoendeavoured to defend their genuineness, as well as the authenticity of the pseudo-Isidorian decrees. According to the Centuriators of Magdeburg, it was especially Gabriel d' Aubespine, Bishop of Orleans, the celebrated Archbishop Peter de Marca, and the Anglican Beveridge, wire proved that they were not really compiled by the Apostles, but weremade partly in the second and chiefly in the third century. Beveridge considered this collection to be a repertory of ancient canons given by synods in the second and third centuries. In opposition to them, the Calvinist Dullaeus (Daille) regarded it as the work of a forger who lived in the fifth and sixth centuries; but Beveridge refuted him so convincingly, that from that time his opinion, i with some few modifications, has been that of all the learned.
Beveridge begins with the principle, that the Church in the very earliest times must have had a collection of canons; and he demonstrates that from the commencement of the fourth century, bishops, synods, and other authorities often quote, as documentsin common use, a kanwn apostolikoj, or ekklhsiastikoj, or arkaioj; as was done, for instance, at the Council of Nice, by Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, and by the Emperor Constantine, etc.5 According to Beveridge, these quotations make allusion to the Apostolic Canons, and prove that they were already in use before the fourth century.
In opposition to Beveridge Dr. von Drey wrote with profound learning;6 and Bickell, in his work just quoted, to a great degree accepts his conclusions as being well-founded. These conclusions in short are that the so-called "Apostolic Canons" are a patchwork taken from the "Apostolic Constitutions," which are said to have been of Eastern origin and to date from the latter part of the third century, and from the canons of various synods, notably Nice, Antioch, and Chalcedon.
But this last reference to Chalcedon is too much for Bickell to stomach; and for many reasons he makes the date of the collection earlier.
Hefele points out a rather significant document which he says both "Drey and Bickell have overlooked. In 1738 Scipio Maffei published three ancient documents, the first of which was a Latin translation of a letter written on the subject of Meletius by the Egyptian bishops Hesychius, Phileas, etc. This letter was written during the persecution of Diocletian, that is, between 303 and 305: it is addressed to Meletius himself, and especially accuses him of having ordained priests in other dioceses. This conduct, they tell him, is contrary to all ecclesiastical rule (aliena a more divino et regula ecclesiastica), and Meletius himself knows very well that it is a lex patrum et propatrum ... in alienis paroeciis non licere alicui episcoporum ordinationes celebrare. Maffei himself supposes that the Egyptian bishops were here referring to the thirty-fifth canon (the thirty-sixth according to the enumeration of Dionysius), and this opinion can hardly be controverted."
After Bickell and Drey about ten years passed and then Bunsen and Ultzen wrote on the subject. Of these Bunsen renewed Beveridge's arguments, and considers the "Apostolic Canons" as a reflex of the customs of the Primitive Church, if not in the Johannean age, at latest in that which immediately succeeded; and he is of opinion that the legend attributing them to the Apostles is earlier in date than the Council of Nice. Ultzen does not express himself definitely on the point, but in a note to p. xvj. of the Preface to his book regrets that Bunsen should have renewed Beveridge's argument with regard to the relative age of the Apostolic Canons and those of Antioch because in his judgment "all the more recent judges of this matter had refuted it."
The reader should be warned that Beveridge has been often misunderstood and misrepresented, i.e., he expressly says that according to his theory "these canons were set forth by various synods, so too they seem to us to have been collected by different persons, of whom some collected more, some fewer. ... And these canons, thus collected, some called ecclesiastical and some called them Apostolical; not that they believed them to have been written by the very Apostles,for they had made the collection themselves, but because they were consonant to the doctrine and traditions of the Apostles, and they were persuaded that they had been originally established at least by apostolic men." This is Beveridge's position in his own words.
We now come to the most recent writings upon the subject. Harnack has developed a theory which is partly his own with regard to the Apostolical Constitutions, in his edition of the "Didache," and has also considered the question of the Apostolic Canons. The fullest discussion however of the matter is in a work entitled, Die Apostolischen Konstitutionem, Eine Litteran-historische Untersuchung, von Franz Zaver Funk. Rottenburg am Neckar. 1891.
Funk gives the history of the controversy, and refuses to allow that Hefele's citation of the Letter of the Egyptian bishops throws any light upon the point. In most matters he agrees with Bickell, and declares (p. 188) that "the Synod of Antioch is certainly to be regarded as the source of the Apostolic Canons," and that thus by comparing the canons, it is manifest that the Apostolic "are certainly to be regarded as the dependent writing" (p. 185). And after considering their relation to the Apostolical Constitutions, Funk states his conclusion as follows (p. 190): "The drawing up of the canons falls therefore not earlier than the interpolation of the Didaskalia and the preparation of the two last books of the Constitution, hence not before the beginning of the fifth century. On the other hand there is no ground for fixing the writing at a later period, not a single canon bears the mark of a later time."
Such was the state of things until Mar. Rihmani, the Syrian Archbishop of Aleppo, gave notice that he had found in a codex atMossul a Syrian version of the Apocryphal book known as the Testamentum Jesu Christi. It is stated that in the discoverer's opinion the Testamentum is earlier in date than the Apostolic Canons, than the Canons of Hippolytus, and than the VIIIth Book of the Apostolic Constitutions; and further that it was the direct source of the Apostolic Canons. As we know nothing further of this matter, we must simply note it for the guidance of the reader in his further study of the subject.
Having now traced the history of the discussion, we need only add that Mr. Turner has just issued a very critical text of the version of Dionysius Exiguus, the full title of which is as follows:
Ecclesiae Occidentalis Monvmenta Jvris Antiqvissima Canonvm et Conciliorvm Graecorum, Interpretationes Latinae. Edidit Cvthbertvs Hamilton Turner, A.M. Fascicvli Primiei Pars Prior Canones Apostolorvm Nicaenorvm Patrvm Svbscriptiones. And that I have taken, except where noted to the contrary, Hammond's translation.
Canon I.
Let a bishop be ordained by two or three bishops.
Canon II.
Let a presbyter, deacon, and the rest of the clergy, be ordained by one bishop,
Canon III. (III. And IV.)
If any bishop or presbyter offer any other things at the altar, besides that which the Lord ordained for the sacrifice, as honey, or milk, or strong-made drink instead of wine,2 or birds, or any living things, or vegetables, besides that which is ordained, let him be deposed. Excepting only new ears of corn, and grapes at the suitable season. Neither is it allowed to bring anything else to the altar at the time of the holy oblation, excepting oil for the lamps, and incense.
Canon IV. (V.)
Let all other fruits be sent home as first-fruits for the bishops and presbyters, but not offered at the altar. But the bishops and presbyters should of course give a share of these things to the deacons, and the rest of the clergy.
Canon V. (VI.)
Let not a bishop, presbyter, or deacon, put away his wife under pretence of religion; but if he put her away, let him be excommunicated; and if he persists, let him be deposed.
Canon VI. (VII.)
Let not a bishop, presbyter, or deacon, undertake worldly business; otherwise let him be deposed.
Canon VII. (VIII.)
If any bishop, presbyter, or deacon, shall celebrate the holy day of Easter before the vernal equinox, with the Jews, let him be deposed.
Canon VIII (IX.)
If any bishop, presbyter, or deacon, or any one on the sacerdotal list, when the offering is made, does not partake of it, let him declare the cause; and if it be a reasonable one, let him be excused; but if he does not declare it, let him be excommunicated, as being a cause of offense to the people, and occasioning a suspicion against the one who offers, as if he had not made the offering properly.
Canon IX. (X.)
All the faithful who come in and hear the Scriptures, but do not stay for the prayers and the Holy Communion, are to be excommunicated, as causing disorder in the Church.
Canon X. (XI.)
If any one shall pray, even in a private house, with an excommunicated person, let him also be excommunicated.
Canon XI. (XII.)
If any clergyman shall join in prayer with a deposed clergyman, as if he were a clergyman, let him also be deposed.
Canon XII. And XIII (XIII.)
If any one of the clergy or laity who is excommunicated, or not to be received, shall go away, and be received in another city without commendatory letters, let both the receiver and the received be excommunicated. But if he be excommunicated already, let the time of his excommunication be lengthened.
Canon XIV.
A bishop is not to be allowed to leave his own parish, and pass over into another, although he may be pressed by many to do so, unless there be some proper cause constraining him. as if he can confer some greater benefit upon the persons of that place in the word of godliness. And this must be done not of his own accord, but by the judgment of many bishops, and at their earnest exhortation.
Canon XV.
If any presbyter, or deacon, or any other of the list of the clergy, shall leave his own parish, and go into another, and having entirely forsaken his own, shall make his abode in the other parish without the permission of his own bishop, we ordain that he shall no longer perform divine service; more especially if his own bishop having exhorted him to return he has refused to do so, and persists in his disorderly conduct. But let him communicate there as a layman.
Canon XVI.
If, however, the bishop, with whom any such persons are staying, shall disregard the command that they are to cease from performing divine offices, and shall receive them as clergymen, let him be excommunicated, as a teacher of disorder.
Canon XVII.
He who has been twice married after baptism, or who has had a concubine, cannot become a bishop, presbyter, or deacon, or any other of the sacerdotal list.
Canon XVIII.
He who married a widow, or a divorced woman, or an harlot, or a servant-maid, or an actress, cannot be a bishop, presbyter, or deacon, or any other of the sacerdotal list.
Canon XIX.
He who has married two sisters, or a niece, cannot become a clergyman.
Canon XX.
If a clergyman becomes surety for any one, let him be deposed.
Canon XXI.
A eunuch, if he has been made so by the violence of men or [if his virilia have been amputated] in times of persecution, or if he has been born so, if in other respects he is worthy, may be made a bishop.
Canon XXII.
He who has mutilated himself, cannot become a clergyman, for he is a self-murderer, and an enemy to the workmanship of God.
Canon XXIII.
If any man being a clergyman shall mutilate himself, let him be deposed, for he is a self-murderer.
Canon XXIV.
If a layman mutilate himself, let him be excommunicated for three years, as practising against his own life.
Canon XXV. (XXV. And XXVI.)
If a bishop, presbyter, or deacon be found guilty of fornication, perjury, or theft, let him be deposed, but let him not be excommunicated; for the Scripture says, "thou shall not punish a man twice for the same offence." In like manner the other clergy shall be subject to the same proceeding.
Canon XXVI. (XXVII.)
Of those who have been admitted to the clergy unmarried, we ordain, that the readers and singers only may, if they will, marry.
Canon XXVII. (XXVIII.)
If a bishop, presbyter, or deacon shall strike any of the faithful who have sinned, or of the unbelievers who have done wrong, with the intention of frightening them, we command that he be deposed. For our Lord has by no means taught us to do so, but, on the contrary, when he was smitten he smote not again, when he was reviled he reviled not again, when he suffered he threatened not.
Canon XXVIII. (XXIX.)
If any bishop, presbyter, or deacon, having been justly deposed upon open accusations, shall dare to meddle with any of the divine offices which had been intrusted to him, let him be altogether cut off from the Church.
Canon XXIX. (XXX.)
If any bishop, presbyter, or deacon, shall obtain possession of that dignity by money, let both him and the person who ordained him be deposed, and also altogether cut off from all communion, as Simon Magus was by me Peter.
Canon XXX. (XXXI.)
If any bishop obtain possession of a church by the aid of the temporal powers, let him be deposed and excommunicated, and all who communicate with him.
Canon XXXI. (XXXII.)
If any presbyter, despising his own bishop, shall collect a separate congregation, and erect another altar, not having any grounds for condemning the bishop with regard to religion or justice, let him be deposed for his ambition; for he is a tyrant; in like manner also the rest of the clergy, and as many as join him; and let laymen be excommunicated. Let this, however, be done after a first, second, and third admonition from the bishop.
Canon XXXII. (XXXIII.)
If any presbyter or deacon has been excommunicated by a bishop, he may not be received into communion again by any other than by him who excommunicated him, unless it happen that the bishop who excommunicated him be dead.
Canon XXXIII. (XXXIV.)
No foreign bishop, presbyter, or deacon, may be received without commendatory letters; and when they are produced let the persons be examined; and if they be preachers of godliness, let them be received. Otherwise, although you supply them with what they need, you must not receive them into communion, for many things are done surreptitiously.
Canon XXXIV. (XXXV.)
The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent; but each may do those things only which concern his own parish, and the country places which belong to it. But neither let him (who is the first) do anything without the consent of all; for so there will be unanimity, and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit.
Canon XXXV. (XXXVI.)
Let not a bishop dare to ordain beyond his own limits, in cities and places not subject to him. But if he be convicted of doing so, without the consent of those persons who have authority over such cities and places, let him be deposed, and those also whom he has ordained.
Canon XXXVI. (XXXVII.)
If any person, having been ordained bishop, does not undertake the ministry, and the care of the people committed to him, let him be excommunicated until he does undertake it. In like manner a presbyter or deacon· But if he has gone and has not been received, not of his own will but from the perverseness of the people, let him continue bishop; and let the clergy of the city be excommunicated, because they have not corrected the disobedient people.
Canon XXXVII. (XXXVIII.)
Let there be a meeting of the bishops twice a year, and let them examine amongst themselves the decrees concerning religion and settle the ecclesiastical controversies which may have occurred. One meeting to be held in the fourth week of Pentecost [i.e., the fourth week after Easter], and the other on the 12th day of the month Hyperberetaeus [i.e., October].
Canon XXXVIII. (XXXIX.)
Let the bishop have the care of all the goods of the Church, and let him administer them as under the inspection of God. But he must not alienate any of them or give the things which belong to God to his own relations. If they be poor let him relieve them as poor; but let him not, under that pretence, sell the goods of the Church.
Canon XXXIX. (XL.)
Let not the presbyters or deacons do anything without the sanction of the bishop; for he it is who is intrusted with the people of the Lord, and of whom will be required the account of their souls.
Canon XL. (XL. Continued.)
Let the private goods of the bishop, if he have any such, and those of the Lord, be clearly distinguished, that the bishop may have the power of leaving his own goods, when he dies, to whom he will, and how he will, and that the bishop's own property may not be lost under pretence of its being the property of the Church: for it may be that he has a wife, or children, or relations, or servants; and it is just before God and man, that neither should the Church suffer any loss through ignorance of the bishop's own property, nor the bishop or his relations be injured under pretext of the Church: nor that those who belong to him should be involved in contests, and cast reproaches upon his death.
Canon XLI.
We ordain that the bishop have authority over the goods of the Church: for if he is to be entrusted with the precious souls of men, much more are temporal possessions to be entrusted to him. He is therefore to administer them all of his own authority, and sup ply those who need, through the presbyters and deacons, in the fear of God, and with all reverence. He may also, if need be, take what is required for his own necessary wants, and for the brethren to whom he has to show hospitality, so that he may not be in any want. For the law of God has ordained, that they who wait at the altar should be nourished of the altar. Neither does any soldier bear arms against an enemy at his own cost.
Canon XLII.
If a bishop or presbyter, or deacon, is addicted to dice or drinking, let him either give it over, or be deposed.
Canon XLIII.
If a subdeacon, reader, or singer, commits the same things, let him either give over, or be excommunicated. So also laymen.
Canon XLIV.
Let a bishop, presbyter, or deacon, who takes usury from those who borrow of him, give up doing so, or be deposed.
Canon XLV.
Let a bishop, presbyter, or deacon, who has only prayed with heretics, be excommunicated: but if he has permitted them to perform any clerical office, let him be deposed.
Canon XLVI.
We ordain that a bishop, or presbyter, who has admitted the baptism or sacrifice of heretics, be deposed. For what concord hath Christ with Belial, or what part hath a believer with an infidel?
Canon XLVII.
Let a bishop or presbyter who shall baptize again one who has rightly received baptism, or who shall not baptize one who has been polluted by the ungodly, be deposed, as despising the cross and death of the Lord, and not making a distinction between the true priests and the false.
Canon XLVIII.
If any layman put away his wife and marry another, or one who has been divorced by another man, let him be excommunicated.
Canon XLIX.
If any bishop or presbyter, contrary to the ordinance of the Lord, does not baptize into the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, but into three Unoriginated Beings, or three Sons, or three Comforters, let him be deposed.
Canon L.
If any bishop or presbyter does not perform the one initiation with three immersions, but with giving one immersion only, into the death of the Lord, let him be deposed. For the Lord said not, Baptize into my death, but, "Go, make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."
Canon LI.
If any bishop, presbyter, or deacon, or any one of the sacerdotal list, abstains from marriage, or flesh, or wine, not by way of religious restraint, but as abhorring them, forgetting that God made all things very good, and that he made man male and female, and blaspheming the work of creation, let him be corrected, or else be deposed, and cast out of the Church. In like manner a layman.
Canon LII.
If any bishop or presbyter, does not receive him who turns away from his sin, but rejects him, let him be deposed; for he grieves Christ who said, "There is joy in heaven over one sinner that repents."
Canon LIII.
If any bishop, presbyter, or deacon, does not on festival days partake of flesh and wine, from an abhorrence of them, and not out of religious restraint, let him be deposed, as being seared in his own conscience, and being the cause of offense to many.
Canon LIV.
If any of the clergy be found eating in a tavern, let him be excommunicated, unless he has been constrained by necessity, on a journey, to lodge in an inn.
Canon LV.
If any of the clergy insult the bishop, let him be deposed: for "thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people."
Canon LVI.
If any of the clergy insult a presbyter, or deacon, let him be excommunicated.
Canon LVII.
If any of the clergy mock the lame, or the deaf, or the blind, or him who is infirm in his legs, let him be excommunicated. In like manner any of the laity.
Canon LVIII.
If any bishop or presbyter neglects the clergy or the people, and does not instruct them in the way of godliness, let him be excommunicated, and if he persists in his negligence and idleness, let him be deposed.
Canon LIX.
If any bishop, presbyter, or deacon, when any of the clergy is in want, does not supply him with what he needs, let him be excommunicated; but if he persists, let him be deposed, as one who has killed his brother.
Canon LX.
If any one reads publicly in the church the falsely inscribed books of impious men, as if they were holy Scripture, to the destruction of the people and clergy, let him be deposed.
Canon LXI.
If any accusation be brought against a believer of fornication or adultery, or any forbidden action, and he be convicted, let him not be promoted to the clergy.
Canon LXII.
If any of the clergy, through fear of men, whether Jew, heathen, or heretic, shall deny the name of Christ, let him be cast out. If he deny the name of a clergyman, let him be deposed. If he repent, let him be received as a layman.
Canon LXIII.
If any bishop, presbyter, or deacon, or any one of the sacerdotal order, shall eat flesh, with the blood of the life thereof, or anything killed by beasts, or that dies of itself, let him be deposed. For the law has forbidden this. If he be a layman, let him be excommunicated.
Canon LXIV.
If any clergyman or layman shall enter into a synagogue of Jews or heretics to pray, let the former be deposed and let the latter be excommunicated.
Canon LXV.
If any clergyman shall strike anyone in a contest, and kill him with one blow, let him be deposed for his violence. If a layman do so, let him be excommunicated.
Canon LXVI.
If any of the clergy be found fasting on the Lord's day, or on the Sabbath, excepting the one only, let him be deposed. If a layman, let him be excommunicated.
Canon LXVII.
If anyone shall force and keep a virgin not espoused, let him be excommunicated. And he may not take any other, but must retain her whom he has chosen, though she be a poor person.
Canon LXVIII.
If any bishop, presbyter, or deacon, shall receive from anyone a second ordination, let both the ordained and the one who ordains be deposed; unless indeed it be proved that he had his ordination from heretics; for those who have been baptized or ordained by such persons cannot be either of the faithful or of the clergy.
Canon LXIX.
If any bishop, presbyter, or deacon, or reader, or singer, does not fast the holy Quadragesimal fast of Easter, or the fourth day, or the day of Preparation, let him be deposed, unless he be hindered by some bodily infirmity. If he be a layman, let him be excommunicated.
Canon LXX.
If any bishop, presbyter, or deacon, or any one of the list of clergy, keeps fast or festival with the Jews, or receives from them any of the gifts of their feasts, as unleavened bread, any such things, let him be deposed. If he be a layman, let him be excommunicated.
Canon LXXI.
If any Christian brings oil into a temple of the heathen or into a synagogue of the Jews at their feast, or lights lamps, let him be excommunicated.
Canon LXXII.
If any clergyman or layman takes away wax or oil from the holy Church, let him be excommunicated, [and let him restore a fifth part more than he took.]
Canon LXXIII.
Let no one convert to his own use any vessel of gold or silver, or any veil which has been sanctified, for it is contrary to law; and if anyone be detected doing so, let him be excommunicated.
Canon LXXIV.
If any bishop has been accused of anything by men worthy of credit, he must be summoned by the bishops; and if he appears, and confesses, or is convicted, a suitable punishment must be inflicted upon him. But if when he is summoned he does not attend, let him be summoned a second time, two bishops being sent to him, for that purpose. [If even then he will not attend, let him be summoned a third time, two bishops being again sent to him.] But if even then he shall disregard the summons and not come, let the synod pronounce such sentence against him as appears right, that he may not seem to profit by avoiding judgment.
Canon LXXV.
An heretic is not to be received as witness against a bishop, neither only one believer; for "in the mouth of two or three witnesses, every word shall be established.
Canon LXXVI.
A bishop must not out of favour to a brother or a son, or any other relation, ordain whom he will to the episcopal dignity; for it is not right to make heirs of the bishopric, giving the things of God to human affections. Neither is it fitting to subject the Church of God to heirs. But if anyone shall do so let the ordination be void, and the one who ordains himself be punished with excommunication.
Canon LXXVII.
If any one be deprived of an eye, or lame of a leg, but in other respects be worthy of a bishopric, he may be ordained, for the defect of the body does not defile a man, but the pollution of the soul.
Canon LXXVIII.
But if a man be deaf or blind, he may not be made a bishop, not indeed as if he were thus defiled, but that the affairs of the Church may not be hindered.
Canon LXXIX.
If anyone has a devil, let him not be made a clergyman, neither let him pray with the faithful; but if he be freed, let him be received into communion, and if he is worthy he may be ordained.
Canon LXXX.
It is not allowed that a man who has come over from an heathen life, and been baptized or who has been converted from an evil course of living, should be immediately made a bishop, for it is not right that he who has not been tried himself should be a teacher of others. Unless indeed this be done upon a special manifestation of Divine grace in his favor.
Canon LXXXI.
We have said that a bishop or presbyter must not give himself to the management of public affairs, but devote himself to ecclesiastical business. Let him then be persuaded to do so, or let him be deposed, for no man can serve two masters, according to the Lord's declaration.
Canon LXXXII.
We do not allow any servants to be promoted to the clergy without the consent of their masters, [to the troubling of their houses.] But if any servant should appear worthy of receiving an order,14 as our Onesimus appeared, and his masters agree and liberate him, and send him out of their house, he may be ordained.
Canon LXXXIII.
If a bishop, presbyter, or deacon, shall serve in the army, and wish to retain both the Roman magistracy and the priestly office, let him be deposed; for the things of Caesar belong to Caesar, and those of God to God.
Canon LXXXIV.
Whosoever shall insult the King, or a ruler, contrary to what is right, let him suffer punishment. If he be a clergyman, let him be deposed; if a layman, excommunicated.
Canon LXXXV.
Let the following books be counted venerable and sacred by all of you, both clergy and Laity. Of the Old Testament, five books of Moses, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; of Joshua the Son of Nun, one; of the Judges, one; of Ruth, one; of the Kings, four; of the Chronicles of the book of the days, two; of Ezra, two; of Esther, one; [some texts read "of Judith, one" ;] of the Maccabees, three; of Job, one; of the Psalter, one; of Solomon, three, viz.: Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs; of the Prophets, twelve; of Isaiah, one; of Jeremiah, one; of Ezekiel, one; of Daniel, one. But besides these you are recommended to teach your young persons the Wisdom of the very learned Sirach. Our own books, that is, those of the New Testament, are: the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; fourteen Epistles of Paul; two Epistles of Peter; three of John; one of James, and one of Jude. Two Epistles of Clemens, and the Constitutions of me Clemens, addressed to you Bishops, in eight books, Which are not to be published to all on account of the mystical things in them. And the Acts of us the Apostles.
Fr. Archdeacon Sergiy Larin


text:
Powerful Corona, Norway
Front Cover of the book "Northern Lights - A Guide" by Pål Brekke and Fredrik Broms, Forlaget Press, Norway, 2013.
From the Forest Floor
Solar Storm, Norway
Awarded 4th place in the international photo competition by TWAN - 2013
Aurora Watchers on a Magic Night, Norway
Painting the Sky, Norway
Front Cover of the Book "Northern Lights - The Positive Policy Example of Sweden, Finland, Denmark and Norway" by Andrew Scott, Australia
Surrounded by Space
Awarded at the Astronomy Photographer of the Year (APOTY) photo competition 2012.
Purple Crown, Norway
Green Haze
Reflection in Ersfjorden
Tree in Solar Storm, Norway
Selected by NASA as Astronomy Picture of the Day (APOD)
Green Energy, Norway
Awarded 2nd place in the Astronomy Photographer of the Year 2013 photo competition
Watching Aurorae, Norway
Pure Happiness, Norway
November Magic
Aurora Curtains
Rare Purple Aurora Reflection
In early fall or late spring, a rare purple type of auroras can sometimes be seen just before sunrise when the sunlight is falling on ionized nitrogen molecules in the high atmosphere (the sunlight can not yet be seen by an observer from yjr Earth). This cause an intensified emission of light as shown in this photo taken in early October just before dawn. The full Moon (Harvest Moon) adds to the brightness of the landscape. In 15 years "under the northern lights", I have only witnessed this type of aurora once.
Rare Purple Autumn Auroras
Reflection, Skulsfjord, Norway
Magic Winter Night, Norway
Stargazing, Northern Norway
Sleeping under the Stars, Northern Norway
Butterfly Corona
Strong Corona
Rare Blood-Red Aurora over Kvaløya, Norway
February Night
Corona in Grøtfjord
With a View to the Sea, Norway
Intense Auroras over Kvaløya, Norway
Aurora Photographer in Action, Norway
Evening in Skulsfjord, Norway
Milky Way and Auroras
Autumn Aurora
Auroras over Vesterålen
Auroras on a Moonlit Night, Norway
Winter Night in Bright Moonshine
Southern Tip of Tromsø Island
Single Band Reflection
Aurora Watching from the Window
Window to the Northern Lights, Norway
Northern Lights Photography's Office
Early September Aurora
Reaching for the Sky, Norway
Norwegian Fjord in November, Norway
Power Cable
Strong October Corona
Strong Corona during Solar Storm


text:
Eyes Print Sleeveless Dress c/o Choies, Topshop Lace Trim Ankle Socks, Can U Not Looky Loo Ring, vintage purse
One of my favorite dresses to date. The print is as weird as I am, and the silhouette and cut couldn't be more perfect. I continued the optical theme with an eyeball ring.


text:
RootsTech, the largest genealogy event of its kind this year, have scheduled fourteen sessions to be broadcast live from Salt Lake City and free over the Internet. They will available through RootsTech.org.
The presentations are, with times converted to Eastern Standard Time (EST):
Thursday, February 2
10:30-noon, Inventing the Future, as a Community (Keynote Address) by Jay L. Verkler
1:00 pm-2:00 pm, Do I Trust the Cloud? by D. Joshua Taylor
3:45-4:45 pm, Effective Database Search Tactics by Kory Meyerink
5:00-6:00 pm, Twitter – It's Not Just "What I Had for Breakfast" Anymore by Thomas MacEntee
6:15-7:15 pm, Eleven Layers of Online Searches by Barbara Renick
Friday, February 3
10:30-11:30 am, Exabyte Social Clouds and Other Monstrosities (Keynote Address) by Josh Coates
11:45-12:45 pm, Publish Your Genealogy Online by Laura G. Prescott
1:00 pm-2:00 pm, Optimize Your Site for Search Engines by Robert Gardner
3:45-4:45 pm, Genealogists "Go Mobile" by Sandra Crowly
5:00-6:00 pm, Google's Toolbar and Genealogy by Dave Barney
Saturday, February 4
10:30-11:30 am, Making the Most of Technology to Further the Family History Industry(Keynote Address) by Tim Sullivan and Ancestry.com Panel
11:45-12:45 pm Genealogy Podcasts and Blogs 101 by Lisa Louise Cooke
1:00 pm-2:00 pm, Future of FamilySearch Family Tree by Ron Tanner
3:45-4:45 pm, Privacy in a Collaborative Environment by Noah Tatuk
This is a great opportunity to "attend" some interesting-sounding presentations without the hassle and expense of travelling to the event.
Trying to decide? Find out more about these and other presentations by checking out the free syllabus material. You can download the whole thing, 82MB, from RootsTech-AllSyllabi.zip or individual session syllabi by browsing the schedule. If you learn better from textual material that may be all you need.
Keep up with other things going on through the eyes of the official bloggers, unofficial bloggers like Audrey Collins, and Twitter using the hashtag #rootstech.
01 February 2012
RootsTech sessions online
RootsTech, the largest genealogy event of its kind this year, have scheduled fourteen sessions to be broadcast live from Salt Lake City and free over the Internet. They will available through RootsTech.org.
1 comment:
Thanks for adjusting the times! I had not thought about the time difference.
- 01 February, 2012 16:18


text:
Another badlands exploratory hike on Tuesday October 15 2019. We could not pass up the gorgeous blue skies and upper 60's weather. The "Black Place" was an inspiration area for some of Georgia O'keefe's paintings. While nobody is sure where the "Black Place" is actually located, this could be it! About 110 miles up US 550 from Bernalillo so very easy to get to. Lots of beautiful badlands scenery with grey/black rolling hills and a few hoodoos thrown in here and there. Looks very desolate and empty in places.
Updated this gallery two weeks later. We did another Black Place hike on Tuesday October 29, exploring the west section this time. Twice and we STILL have not covered all that was on the original exploratory route! Gorgeous blue skies again though a good bit cooler this time. New pictures are after the mid-gallery title image below.


text: For Sales Enquiries 6100-9851 Get Developer Price Book Appointment View The ShowFlat @ One Normanton Park & Get VVIP Discount Book Appointment To View ShowFlat Step 1 of 2 50% Date* Time*11:00AM11:30AM12:00PM12:30PM01:00PM01:30PM02:00PM02:30PM03:00PM03:30PM04:00PM04:30PM05:00PM05:30PM06:00PM06:30PMBedroom Size Preference*1 Bedroom2 Bedroom3 Bedroom4 BedroomPenthouseSelect your most preferred bedroom size. You can always change your preference later. Name*Email*Mobile*Level of Interest*Exploring OptionsReady to Place a ChequeComments/MessageTell us how we can help you by providing as much details as you can.Acceptance of Privacy Policy*I have read and agree to the Privacy Policy


text:
In Canada, they have no use for Octobeard. Instead, Ontario-based RIM is encouraging employees to cultivate mustaches along with smartphones in Movember. But to what (finely waxed) end?
Vizio's Latest TVs Go All Quantum
The entry fees of five dollars will collectively go towards prostate cancer research, which is great! But while the rules are quite explicit as to what does and does not qualify as a mustache, these rules don't do anything to tell me how one wins. Length? Depth? Artistic merit? Will a Fu Manchu be weighted more than a Trucker 'stache?
Deep questions that demand answers. In the meantime, gentlemen of RIM, godspeed. May your lips save many prostates this holiday season. [Reddit via Erictric]


text:
April 6, 2011
Google's Tilted Easter Egg
{ via Search Engine Land }
13 comments:
This sounds cool. I told my girlfriend immediately and asked her to try it. She tried it and it worked :D Haha. XDReplyDelete
Love it! I'm wondering if Bing will copy this search result too!ReplyDelete
You can also see it on your PC:ReplyDelete
...but only in Chrome, it seems. Doesn't work in FF.ReplyDelete
How dey doo dat?ReplyDelete
Yes, u cab see it on my PCReplyDelete
Cool.........Bing Learn itReplyDelete
- ThickyApril 7, 2011 at 4:14 AM
"slanted" also works. :DReplyDelete
- AnonymousApril 7, 2011 at 10:32 AM
Google [anagramm] in the German interface (go to google.de or google.com/de) and you get "Meinten Sie: mama rang"ReplyDelete
In other languages, googling [anagram] in the English and Dutch interfaces (google.nl, google.be/nl or google.com/en) give "Did you mean: nag a ram" (en) and "Bedoelde u: ma graan" (nl) respectively.
Googling anagramma in Italian beckons: "arma magna"
Googling anagrama in Spanish beckons: "gama rana"
They probably ran a program for every language.
Anyone got any others?
(* the recursion one seems to have no translations I can find)
Ha-ha! That's great ;)ReplyDelete
oh see how search engine is workingReplyDelete
Good informative article about smart phone searchReplyDelete
Keep it up


text:
Marchionne to update Fiat-Chrysler plan due to Europe woes
Sergio Marchionne, the chief executive of Fiat SpA and Chrysler Group LLC, said that he will revise his business plan for both automakers to account for the deterioration of the European auto market since 2009.
Marchionne will update his plans for 2013 and 2014 on October 30, he told reporters Monday in Columbus, Ohio.
Italian automaker Fiat took a 20 percent stake and management control of Chrysler in mid-2009 when the U.S. automaker emerged from government-funded bankruptcy protection.
Later that year, Marchionne unveiled a five-year recovery plan that called for the eventual combining of Fiat and Chrysler.
(Reporting by Bernie Woodall; Editing by Gary Hill)


text:
Gerald Jablonski is one of the most remarkable and mysterious underground cartoonists of his time. He made his first appearance in 1976 in the sixth issue of Art Spiegelman's & Bill Griffith's influential anthology 'Arcade'. Next came publications in anthologies like 'Snarf' and 'Tantalizing Stories', before Fantagraphics published a compilation of his work called 'Empty Skull Comics' in 1996.
In 2001, he got a Xeric Grant for the creation of the first issue of his absurd 'Cryptic Wit' series. New issues followed in 2008 and 2012. His irregelar appearing 'Cryptic Wit' comics can only be ordered directly by postage payment to the New York-based author. His comics are characterized by their endless variations on the same basic structural set-ups, each page bearing about 27 panels, and sometimes over 50 words of dialogue per panel. Recurring features are a barnyard fable starring 'Farmer Ned', a father-son conflict starring 'Howdy' and a fantasy confrontation between two boys in the silent comedic interludes.