text:
The Branson Macbeth Project
Sophomores at Branson analyze Macbeth
Macbeth Discussion Forums
Act 2 Scene 2
What change has occurred in Macbeth and Lady Macbeth's relationship?
Hide All Comments Unfold All Fold All
Macbeth and Lady Macbeth's Relationship
Henk Tillman 06 Nov 2013 01:46
In Act 3, Scene 2, Macbeth retains his remorse over the brutal murder of Duncan and fears that he has only "scorched the snake, not killed it" (line 15), that is, he is still in danger. Although Macbeth is racked with guilt (and even contemplates killing himself - "Better be with the dead, whom we, to gain our peace, have sent to peace" - lines 22-23), he realizes that to keep his power, he must continue murdering until his position is safe. In this respect, the tables have turned in Macbeth and Lady Macbeth's relationship, as Macbeth is the one who is proposing new murders and convincing himself to go through with them, while Lady Macbeth can only stand by and watch. In fact, Macbeth chooses to not even tell his wife of the murder ("Be innocent of the knowledge, dearest chuck, till thou applaud the deed" - lines 51-52), showing that Lady Macbeth has succeeded in changing Macbeth's nature and is no longer needed in Macbeth's plots.
Unfold Macbeth and Lady Macbeth's Relationship by Henk Tillman, 06 Nov 2013 01:46
Re: Macbeth and Lady Macbeth's Relationship
Angel Zhou 08 Nov 2013 05:14
While it is true that Macbeth's actions show some signs of independency from Lady Macbeth, it is also important to acknowledge the fact Macbeth and Lady Macbeth's former equal relationship has now evolved into a more distant relationship, due to Macbeth's self confidence from his success in killing king Duncan to satisfy his personal ambitions. Prior to the murder of king Duncan, Macbeth addresses Lady Macbeth in his letter as "my dearest partner of greatness," demonstrating the two's remarkable connection and partnership (1.5.11). In fact, the equal respect Macbeth expresses to Lady Macbeth prompts her to plan the murder of Duncan, for she identifies that her role as Macbeth's loyal wife is to help him achieve his goals of becoming king. Following Macbeth's successful murder however, Macbeth begins to address his wife as "[my] dearest Chuck" in an overly polite and formal manner. Macbeth's awkward address to his wife displays a less intimate connection, which was shown in their previous collaboration. Macbeth further displays a change in their relationship by controlling how she should present herself. In planning the murder of Duncan, Lady Macbeth instructs Macbeth to "look like th' innocent flower, But be the serpent under't" to conceal who killed the king (1.6.77). Ironically, Macbeth reciprocates Lady Macbeth's words by giving the advice she gave to him earlier: "be innocent of the knowledge" (3.2.51) when she asks about his plans to murder Banquo. Macbeth's deliberate decision to keep his plan in secrecy and refrain from telling her his, plan further illustrates their progressive weakening bond. As a result of his ambition for power, Macbeth compromises his strong consanguinity with Lady Macbeth.
Unfold Re: Macbeth and Lady Macbeth's Relationship by Angel Zhou, 08 Nov 2013 05:14
Shift in power
Caroline R 06 Nov 2013 02:28
Before Macbeth became king, Lady Macbeth exhibited more authority in her relationship with Macbeth. However, after murdering Duncan, Macbeth develops independency and begins to assert power without Lady Macbeth's persuasion or consent. Prior to Duncan's murder, Lady Macbeth exerted more authority over Macbeth, and pressured Macbeth to kill Duncan. When Macbeth is hesitant in murdering Duncan, Lady Macbeth questions Macbeth's masculinity. "When you durst do it, then you were a man" (1:7:56). By questioning Macbeth's masculinity, Lady Macbeth bullies Macbeth into killing Duncan. Though Macbeth continues to fear the consequences of murdering Duncan, he is persuaded by Lady Macbeth to perform the murder. "I am settled and bend up Each corporal agent to this terrible feat" (1:7:92). Though Macbeth still believes Duncan's murder to be a 'terrible feat,' he vows to carry out Lady Macbeth's plan. However, Macbeth later refuses to inform Lady Macbeth of his arrangement of Banquo's murder, wishing for Lady Macbeth to remain ignorant of Macbeth's plot. "Be innocent of the knowledge, dearest chuck, Till thou applaud the deed. —Come, seeling night, Scarf up the tender eye of pitiful day …" (3:2:51). By concealing his plot from Lady Macbeth, Macbeth begins to assert power without Lady Macbeth's persuasion, exhibiting a power shift in Macbeth and Lady Macbeth's relationship. Instead of Lady Macbeth prompting power plays, Macbeth beings to independently assert his power.
Unfold Shift in power by Caroline R, 06 Nov 2013 02:28
Re: Shift in power
ShannonG116 08 Nov 2013 20:04
Great paragraph overall, but the thesis could have been rephrased to have a greater emphasis on the dynamics of the relationship opposed to a summary. A replacement could have been " Prior to Duncan's murder Lady Macbeth was an equal conspirator or even was the dominant in the relationship, but after Macbeth becomes more independent forcing Lady Macbeth into a subordinate position. It was great to use the line about dearest chuck but without the contrast of "my dearest partner of greatness," from his letter it is not as strong as it could be(1.5 L11). By calling her his partner before it insinuates that they are equals, unlike chuck. And you could have used "better be with the dead," to contrast the line about the terrible feat(3.2 L22). This line shows that Macbeth wants to kill not because it is necessary, but to quell his paranoia. The line you used showed that when Killing Duncan was required to become king he didn't want to do it then. That would make the argument about Macbeth's change in personality influencing their relationship better by showing progresssion.
Unfold Re: Shift in power by ShannonG116, 08 Nov 2013 20:04
angela_seeger 08 Nov 2013 20:33
Although Macbeth conspires to kill Banquo without consulting Lady Macbeth, their roles in the relationship inversely change and tint their connection. After Lady Macbeth hears of the witches' prophecy, she realizes that her husband is too "full o' th' milk of human kindness" to be able to adequately pursue his desire of kingship (1.5.16). Despite Macbeth's longing for authority, his inherent kindness prevents him from pursuing the throne. Lady Macbeth acknowledges Macbeth's inability to independently assert his authority and consequently summons spirits to block her "access and passage to remorse" (1.5.51). By getting rid of rational and moral thoughts, Lady Macbeth enables herself to help her husband become king without any ethical quandary. After Macbeth kills Duncan, he ambiguously foretells and justifies Banquo's death. While Macbeth is initially overcome by the immorality of killing Duncan, as he plots to kill Banquo cries that his mind is "full of scorpions" (3.2.42). Rather than being filled with compassion and morality, Macbeth is now plagued with malevolent thoughts. Additionally, as Macbeth hints at his intentions to kill Duncan, Lady Macbeth says that "things without all remedy should be without regard" (3.2.13). Lady Macbeth's newly developed rationality and desire to avoid everything that could pin Duncan's murder on Macbeth mirrors Macbeth's initial attitude towards the prophecy.
Unfold Re: Shift in power by angela_seeger, 08 Nov 2013 20:33
Macbeth in Control
Chloe Battelle 06 Nov 2013 04:04
In earlier encounters between Macbeth and Lady Macbeth, conversation in most cases, was lead by Lady Macbeth, who offered Macbeth strategy and justification for their cruel deeds. However, in Act 3 scene 2, Macbeth took the reigns and individually forged new plans of murder and ambition. Though still in remorse food the murder of Duncan, Macbeth's ambition for power overwhelmed his mind, while Lady Macbeth stood merely as an observer to his conspiracies. Throughout the scene on multiple occasions, Macbeth reintroduced the immoral actions of times past, "Duncan is in his grave. After life's fitful fever he sleeps well.", which suggests to Lady Macbeth his continuous upset, and the hint at a conscience (3:2:25). The fact that Macbeth hid the plan to kill Banquo, and rather complained to Lady Macbeth about how "full of scorpions" his mind was, implied that he now felt independent from Lady Macbeth's pressure and help (3:2:42). The authoritative figure in the relationship had swapped due to Macbeth's overpowering ambition for power.
Unfold Macbeth in Control by Chloe Battelle, 06 Nov 2013 04:04
Re: Macbeth in Control
Jack Weinstein 08 Nov 2013 15:31
This argument makes a good point about how the strategic aspect of carrying out cruel and amoral deeds was generally assigned to Lady Macbeth, who superimposed the "illness necessary," upon Macbeth in an attempt to unkinder his "vaulting ambition," from his strong moral code of ethics (1.7.27, 1.8.18-20). However, it would be negligent not to mention that the balance of power between the two could also be attributed to the horrors which Lady Macbeth witnessed her husband commit, such as murdering Duncan and his guards, then attempting to reassure herself that everything is alright, "a little water clears us of this deed." (2.2.64). Additionally, Macbeth decides to exclude Lady Macbeth from his plot to assassinate Banquo, a testament to his growing suspicion of others, paranoia due to lack of sleep ("Sleep no more, Macbeth hath killed sleep.") and overwhelming desire to maintain his position of power. Lady Macbeth continuously tried to remove the sense of morality Macbeth has, he was able to compartmentalize his violence by only fighting viciously in war, but with her influence, he became a monster who scares even his dark wife. Macbeth even calls forth the dark forces similar to Lady Macbeth before the murder of Duncan, "Come, selling night,…rouse.––" (3.4.52-60). Lady Macbeth's serious downgrade from her title of "partner" to "chuck", which is synonymous for the modern "babe", further illustrates the transition in their influence over the other.
Unfold Re: Macbeth in Control by Jack Weinstein, 08 Nov 2013 15:31
CarrieWentzel 08 Nov 2013 19:16
While the argument above displays the switching in roles in Macbeth and Lady Macbeth's relationship, it does not include the apparent tension and awkwardness in their relationship. When before Lady Macbeth was his "dearest partner of greatness", now she is treated formally and her opinions are ignored (1.5, 11). Macbeth is so caught up in his own quest for power that he disregards everything that Lady Macbeth has to say. When Lady Macbeth inquires "What's to be done?" Macbeth responds to Lady Macbeth saying "be innocent of the knowledge, Dearest Chuck" (3.2, 50-53). This exchange shows the distance that has emerged in their relationship. Macbeth no longer feels comfortable confiding in Lady Macbeth, and she has become wary of her husband. Macbeth realizes Lady Macbeth's discomfort when he says "Thou marvel's at my words", and this pushes him to keep information from her. Lady Macbeth no longer supports her husbands desires to go farther and commit more murder. Macbeth believes "[they] have scorched the snake, not killed it" (3.5, 15), but Lady Macbeth pleas "come on, gentle my lord, sleek 0'er your rugged looks. Be bright and jovial" (3.5, 30). The distance in their relationship grows, and continues to allow Macbeth to plan more deaths.
Unfold Re: Macbeth in Control by CarrieWentzel, 08 Nov 2013 19:16
Changing Relationships
Bronte Jenkins 06 Nov 2013 04:13
Since Duncan's murder, Macbeth and Lady Macbeth's relationship has changed in so much as they no longer confer regarding their decisions. In Act 3 Scene 3, Macbeth chooses not to tell Lady Macbeth of his plan to murder Banquo and Fleance; a decision he has made in order to prevent the prophecy regarding Banquo's children succeeding Macbeth as ruler, rather than his own children. Though he warns Lady Macbeth that "there shall be done a deed of dreadful note," he does not inform her that this deed is murder (3.3.48-49). He does not want his wife involved in another crime, because it was difficult for both of them to act genuinely surprised by Duncan's death. When Lady Macbeth questions Macbeth about what is going to happen, he replies by stating that she should "be innocent of the knowledge" (3.3.51). Macbeth wants no one to suspect that he is the murderer. By not telling Lady Macbeth what will happen, she can react with real emotion and truthfully defend his innocence. By withholding knowledge from Lady Macbeth, Macbeth is distancing himself from her; therefore, causing their relationship to become more secretive, and resulting in their no longer being partners in crime.
Unfold Changing Relationships by Bronte Jenkins, 06 Nov 2013 04:13
Re: Changing Relationships
Sara Braun 08 Nov 2013 00:09
While the argument above makes a strong claim about the distance and secrecy between Macbeth and Lady Macbeth when it comes to his plans to murder Banquo, it is also important to make note of how this scenario highlights Lady Macbeth's overall downgraded role in the life and actions of her husband. Lady Macbeth, whom her husband once referred to as his "dearest partner in greatness", is now simply referred to as his "dearest chuck". (2.5.11; 3.2.52). The success of Duncan's murder has transformed him into a man of immorality and great ruthlessness, and he feels that he doesn't need the guidance or support of his wife in his quest to make sure the throne is passed on to his offspring, and not Banquo's, as the prophesy from the witches foretold. Lady Macbeth's own wisdom and cunning has been overshadowed by her husband's own ambition, and she has simply become an unknowing agent of Macbeth's corrupt actions.
Unfold Re: Changing Relationships by Sara Braun, 08 Nov 2013 00:09
LexiePolevoi 08 Nov 2013 06:23
While the argument above suggests the loss of intimacy between Macbeth and Lady Macbeth that develops in Act 3 Scene 2, Macbeth and Lady Macbeth's relationship further changes as Macbeth exhibits authority in his own actions absent the advice of his wife who begins to question the morality of their crimes. Prior to Duncan's murder Lady Macbeth commands Macbeth to "screw [his] courage [to] the sticking place," encouraging him to have confidence in murdering Duncan despite the potential consequences (1.7.70). Morally uncertain and impressionable, Macbeth allows his wife to determine his actions as he solely feels capable of committing murder if "[i]t were done [so] quickly" that he did not have to consider the implications of his own actions (1.7.1-2). While Lady Macbeth advises Macbeth to "be the same in [his] own act and valor [a]s…in [his] desire," she manipulates him into committing the murder and establishes herself as the decision maker in their relationship (1.7.44-45). Shadowed by his "vaulting ambition" to become king, Macbeth succumbs to Lady Macbeth's orders despite his rational desire to act with "even-handed justice" for fear of the consequences of committing murder (1.7.27, 1.7.10). Yet, following Duncan's murder, Macbeth and Lady Macbeth's roles quickly reverse as Macbeth assumes the position of authority in their relationship and Lady Macbeth begins to question the morality of their actions. No longer the assertive individual in their relationship, Lady Macbeth explains she would prefer to experience death like Duncan than face the "destruction [that] dwell[s] in doubtful joy" (3.2.9). Plagued by guilt and uncertainty, Lady Macbeth tells her husband he "must leave" behind any additional desire to commit murder as she acknowledges the immorality of his ruthless actions (3.2.40). In response, Macbeth takes matters into his own hands as he plans to commit "[a] deed of dreadful note" without his wife's involvement (3.2.39). He asserts, "[w]e have scorched the snake, not killed it," displaying his eagerness to kill despite Lady Macbeth's disapproval and the immorality of his own actions (3.2.15). Macbeth no longer relies upon the advice of his wife in determining his actions, asserting "[t]hings bad begun make strong themselves by ill," as he believes that once he has committed murder he must continue to follow his malicious intentions through additional crimes (3.2.61-62). Instead of relying upon Lady Macbeth's initial prodding to show himself as "much more than a man," Macbeth tells his wife she must be "innocent of the knowledge" of his intended actions as he conspires to commit immoral acts independent of his wife (1.7.58, 3.2.51). Macbeth and Lady Macbeth's relationship changes as Macbeth becomes more assertive in his actions and as Lady Macbeth assumes a position of rationality.
Unfold Re: Changing Relationships by LexiePolevoi, 08 Nov 2013 06:23
Lady Macbeth's Loss of Power
Gigi Alper 06 Nov 2013 04:19
In Act Three, Scene 2, Lady Macbeth gives up her predominant management role in her relationship with Macbeth, becoming subordinate to her husband. Because Macbeth has taken the throne, Lady Macbeth's supremacy has been abolished and her guidance has lessened. Lady Macbeth is no longer able to express her thoughts freely to Macbeth at any time she wants, but now is forced to politely ask his servants to talk to him as she would "attend his leisure for a few words" (3:2 3-4). Before Macbeth's journey as king began, it was Lady Macbeth who had authority and pushed Macbeth into murdering Duncan. Without her counsel and fortitude, Macbeth would have not gone through with murdering Duncan, therefore squandering the throne. Although Macbeth may have obtained the throne through other means, his immediate kingship would not have been possible without Lady Macbeth's leadership.
Unfold Lady Macbeth's Loss of Power by Gigi Alper, 06 Nov 2013 04:19
Re: Lady Macbeth's Loss of Power
Jasmine Klein 07 Nov 2013 03:16
Although Gigi's argument expresses how Lady Macbeth has lost power in the relationship, I believe the couple has also become more distant towards one another because Macbeth no longer trusts his wife with his plans for the future. Macbeth blatantly lies to his wife when he tells her to "let [her] remembrance apply to Banquo; present him eminence with both eye and tongue" (3.2.34-35). Lady Macbeth has not been told Macbeth's plan to kill his best friend, and Macbeth makes no effort to confide in his wife. Macbeth goes on to hint at his malicious plans, but in the end only says to "be innocent of the knowledge, dearest chuck" (3.2.52). Before Duncan's death, Lady Macbeth was encouraging her husband to not hold onto his morality. Macbeth knows that this time his wife may not be as supportive, so he does not share the details with her. The lack of communication and trust shows how Macbeth and Lady Macbeth's relationship has changed for the worse.
Unfold Re: Lady Macbeth's Loss of Power by Jasmine Klein, 07 Nov 2013 03:16
Dylon22 08 Nov 2013 20:31
While the argument above supports the fact that, "Lady Macbeth gives up her predominant management role in her relationship with Macbeth,[and therefore] becoming subordinate to her husband", it doesn't acknowledge the awkward tension that has been created in their relationship. Earlier in the story, Macbeth addresses Lady Macbeth by calling her: "my dearest love"(1.5.58), and "thy love"(1.7.39). This shows that there was once an intimate relationship between Macbeth and his wife, that has been lost after the murder of Duncan. During their conversation in Act 3 scene 2, Lady Macbeth first addresses Macbeth, saying: "how now, my lord"(3.2.10). This is the first time we see Lady Macbeth addressing Macbeth in a formal matter. Although it could be said that she is only calling him lord because he is now the king of Scotland, the formality/awkwardness of the conversation continues when Macbeth calls Lady Macbeth " [my] dearest Chuck", and "[my]dearest wife"(3.2.50, 40). By creating this awkwardness between him and his wife, Macbeth has ended another relationship with a close companion, just like with Banquo. The murder of Duncan has taken a major toll on Macbeth's mental health, and as a result his rationality and ability to carry out basic conversation with people close to him is impaired.
Unfold Re: Lady Macbeth's Loss of Power by Dylon22, 08 Nov 2013 20:31
A Change in Macbeth and Lady Macbeth's Relationship
Katie Madden 06 Nov 2013 15:59
Macbeth and Lady Macbeth switch roles in Act 3, Scene 2 because Macbeth becomes absorbed in protecting his power and is an instigator of murder, while Lady Macbeth is content in her position. Previously in Act 1, Lady Macbeth leads and encourages Macbeth to murder Duncan, but the act of killing the king alters their relationship such that Macbeth is now the one encouraging himself to do bad. In fact, while in the first Act Macbeth seeks his wife's guidance in attaining his goals, he no longer shares with her his plans, and instead acts almost independently of her. Macbeth believes that they "have scorched the snake, not killed it,"and by saying so indicates how fear now provides him the drive to kill all by himself (3.2 line 15). Contrastingly, Lady Macbeth now has the mentality that "things without remedy should be without regard. What's done is done" (3.2 lines 13-14). She no longer has the first impulse to kill as Macbeth does, and is accepting of consequences. Also, the morbid attitude that Macbeth displays which Lady Macbeth would previously have appreciated from him when they were deciding to kill Duncan, she instead admonishes. Lady Macbeth now encourages him not to continue his dark train of thought, but to "be bright and jovial" (3.2 line 31). In their relationship, Macbeth is now the one to take control of the situation and act on his desire to kill, while Lady Macbeth no longer encourages him to act—she is content where she is.
Unfold A Change in Macbeth and Lady Macbeth's Relationship by Katie Madden, 06 Nov 2013 15:59
Re: A Change in Macbeth and Lady Macbeth's Relationship
Ali Boutros 07 Nov 2013 19:18
Although the paragraph above makes a good point at pointing out Lady Macbeths desire to move past the murder in order to continue on with her life, it is also important to note that Lady Macbeth has no knowledge of what Macbeth plans to do, therefore it is not necessarily true that she would be against it. Macbeth blantantly lies to Lady Macbeth and instead of telling her of his plans to kill Banquo, Macbeth says, "let your remembrance apply to Banquo" (III. ii 34). Instead of telling Lady Macbeth of his plans, he decieves her and tells her to pay special attention to Banquo, even though he very well knows that Banquo will not be attending the dinner party. Like Katie has previously noted, Macbeth says, he "ha[s] scorched the snake, not killed it," (III. ii 15). It is also possible that he says this not because he realizes he must commit the murder alone because of fear, but because he realizes that it is the immoral thing to do and must convince himself that it is the right thing to do before telling anyone else.
Unfold Re: A Change in Macbeth and Lady Macbeth's Relationship by Ali Boutros, 07 Nov 2013 19:18
Bice 07 Nov 2013 22:53
Although there is a definite switch in authority in act 3 scene 2 between Lady Macbeth and Macbeth, Macbeth also distances himself from her so they are no longer even a team. In the previous conversation between Lady Macbeth and Macbeth regarding murder, they are on more even ground. Macbeth calls her "my dearest partner in greatness" and although she generally leads the conversation, steering him towards murder, they formulate the plan together(1.5.11). He treats her more formally, there is less of a closeness in their conversation. In Act 3 Scene 2, Macbeth no longer refers to her as an equal but as "dearest chuck", "love"and "dear wife"(3.2.51)(3.2.34) (3.2.41). These terms are more generic and less intimate, like the relationship Macbeth now has with his wife. He also makes these plans without her and deliberately keeps her out of them. Lady Macbeth must ask "what's to be done?" when she hears Macbeth's insidious tones and even then he merely dismisses her questions, telling her to "be innocent of knowledge"(3.2.50)(3.2.51). She is no longer his partner in crime, together creating a plan. And he intentionally keeps his plans to himself, as he tries to distance himself. Macbeth says that he must destroy "bonds which keeps [him] pale"(3.2.55). Since Macbeth thinks that bonds with people like Duncan and Banquo make him weak, he tries to destroy his bond with Lady Macbeth by being distant and cut himself off from her.
Unfold Re: A Change in Macbeth and Lady Macbeth's Relationship by Bice, 07 Nov 2013 22:53
Protecting his wife.
Samin Yazdi 06 Nov 2013 23:09
The relationship between Macbeth and Lady Macbeth has become a lot more tense. Lady Macbeth is unhappy and Macbeth would rather have the peace that death rewards because of the nightmares that plague him. He discloses this to Lady Macbeth, but she doesn't voice her unhappiness. Macbeth has started to become more in command with the plots, not consulting with Lady Macbeth (or needing her to bully him into doing it like she did with Duncan), claiming to want her to remain innocent. "Be innocent of the knowledge" (3.2:95) In this case, it is him that's protecting her from being involved or being caught involved, as opposed to after Duncan's death, where Lady Macbeth was the one protecting Macbeth from being caught by cleaning his hands and replacing the dagger. Keeping his plan away from Lady Macbeth gives him responsibility of the outcome and also gives him more power because he becomes independent from Lady Macbeth's influence. In a way, he switches their roles, having power over himself instead of his wife having power over him.
Unfold Protecting his wife. by Samin Yazdi, 06 Nov 2013 23:09
Re: Protecting his wife.
Piers Deeth-Stehlin 08 Nov 2013 20:38
While the above paragraph conveys the tension that has developed in the relationship between Macbeth and Lady Macbeth and the authoritative role that Macbeth now embodies, the interpretation above fails to highlight the switch in morality that occurs between husband and wife in Act Three, Scene Two. Previously, as Macbeth is "his [Duncan's] kinsman and his subject, strong both against the deed," Macbeth displays his moral conscience and sense of duty that he owes towards Duncan while insinuating at the immorality of killing Duncan, his king (1.7: 13-14). Likewise, "as his [Duncan's] host," Macbeth admits the depravity, "bear[ing] the knife," thus accentuating the ethicality of Macbeth in the earlier acts of Macbeth (1.7: 14-16). Lady Macbeth, however, lacks any moral conscience, instead displaying ruthlessness as she calls upon the spirits to, "stop th' access and passage to remorse," and to, "fill me [her]… with the direst cruelty," (1.5: 51, 1.5: 49-50). Contrastingly, in Act Three, Scene Two, as "full of scorpions is my [Macbeth's] mind," Macbeth now lacks any moral conscience, instead only displaying a cruelty which Lady Macbeth once exhibited (3.2: 41). Macbeth additionally manifests his immoral character and remorselessness, as he wishes to, "tear to pieces that great bond [w]hich keeps me [Macbeth] pale," (3.2: 55-56). However, as Lady Macbeth acknowledges that, "'tis safer to be that which we destroy [t]han by destruction dwell in doubtful joy," Lady Macbeth expresses a moral guilt and conscience for their foul murder of Duncan (3.2: 8-9). Additionally, when Macbeth discusses deceiving Banquo, Lady Macbeth states, "you must leave this," (3.2: 40). The object Lady Macbeth raises conveys her newfound moral conscience and guilt for their unethical murder of Duncan. Thus as Macbeth loses his moral conscience and instead embodies cruelty, and Lady Macbeth displays a sense of right and wrong, the roles which Macbeth and Lady Macbeth play are reversed from earlier in Macbeth.
Unfold Re: Protecting his wife. by Piers Deeth-Stehlin, 08 Nov 2013 20:38
Marlena Skall 07 Nov 2013 01:57
Macbeth and Lady Macbeth's relationship begins to disintegrate because of their vaulting ambitions for power, causing them to lose happiness and eventually swap roles. In the beginning of the play, Macbeth and Lady Macbeth plan to seize the throne by killing Duncan. Lady Macbeth, the mastermind behind the scheme, tells Macbeth to "leave all the rest to [her]," (Act 1, Scene 5, Line 85). Macbeth is left in the dark without a sense of how the plan will pan out, although Lady Macbeth eventually convinces Macbeth to kill Duncan instead of having her do it. In contrast, Macbeth in Act 3, takes on the primary role. He needs to maintain his power, but does not reveal his intentions to Lady Macbeth so that she is "innocent of the knowledge," (Act 3, Scene 2, Line 51). When Macbeth assumes the position as leader, Lady Macbeth no longer has a significant role like before. In addition to switching their roles, "brave Macbeth" transforms to someone who worries about being stripped from his power: "We will eat our meal in fear, and sleep in the affliction of these terrible dreams that shake us nightly," (Act 1, Scene 2, Line 18 and Act 3, Scene 2, Lines 20-21). He focuses more on keeping his throne that cannot enjoy life. Macbeth is plagued by fear because of his immoral method of becoming king. Lady Macbeth also recognizes that nothing beneficial has come out of their wrongdoing: "Naught's had, all's spent, where our desire is got without content," (Act 3, Scene 2, Lines 6-9). Lady Macbeth and Macbeth's ambitious efforts to rise to power have ultimately led to nothing. The two of them are not enjoying their lives but instead are worried about whether or not they will lose their place of dominance. Living in unease leaves no room for Macbeth and Lady Macbeth to have a stronger relationship than they do now. Their quest for power broke the bond between them and along the way, caused their roles to reverse.
Unfold Macbeth and Lady Macbeth's Relationship by Marlena Skall, 07 Nov 2013 01:57
Henry Feinberg 07 Nov 2013 02:01
In act 2 scene 3, Macbeth shows that he is now the one in charge of planning and thinking of what will come. Previously, Lady Macbeth was always there to sway Macbeth's opinions and to comfort him. It was her job to make the plans that Macbeth would then very quickly carry out. Without Lady Macbeth's heavy influence, the murder of Duncan would not have been committed. However, in this scene, Macbeth shows that he now embraces the leadership role and is comfortable with giving advice. When Lady Macbeth asks "whats to be done", Macbeth answers in the same tone that Lady Macbeth previously held (2.3 line 50). This calm and comforting tone is one that both have realized comforts the other. The role of authority has now switched from Lady Macbeth and now resides in the hands of Macbeth, the king.
Unfold Macbeth and Lady MAcbeth's relationship by Henry Feinberg, 07 Nov 2013 02:01
lukemobley 08 Nov 2013 00:56
Both Macbeth and Lady Macbeth are troubled and are being driven mad because they now have what they initially wanted which was the throne but their "desire [was] got without content(3.2.7)." Lady macbeth believes that "Tis safer to be that which we destroy than by destruction dwell in doubtful joy(3.2.8)." Lady Macbeth thinks that it is awful that they now are in a constant state of worry even though they have what they initially wanted. both lady macbeth and Macbeth are plagued by their conscious and the fear of being exposed as duncan's murderers is driving them insane. Macbeth's and lady Macbeth's views on how to deal with the fear of being caught are different. As henry said we once saw lady macbeth being the more powerful one but now she is more passive and believes that they should stop the murdering; she says "what's done is done (3.2.14)." Now we see Macbeth fill the more sinister role and instead of dealing with this uneasiness of the mind by accepting and forgetting he intends to continue murdering stating that they "have scorched the snake, not killed it(3.2.15)." Macbeth thinks the only way to cure his fear of being caught and his conflicting morals is to murder his friend Banquo. So to add to Henry's point we see that the role of authority has now switched to Macbeth because of the different ways Macbeth and Lady Macbeth are dealing with their psychological distress.
Unfold Re: Macbeth and Lady MAcbeth's relationship by lukemobley, 08 Nov 2013 00:56
kyletwescott 08 Nov 2013 06:04
Although Lady Macbeth's and Macbeth's roles have switched in terms of their cruelty and ambition, Macbeth takes on a very different role in terms of guidance than Lady Macbeth. In contrast, it seems Macbeth responds to Lady Macbeth's queries in a very different tone than she responded to him about Duncan's murder. When Lady Macbeth asks "What's to be done?", Macbeth responds with a condescending and dismissive attitude, saying, "Be innocent of the knowledge, dearest chuck." (3.3.50, 3.3.51) Lady Macbeth's response in a previous scene, when Macbeth asks, "[What] if we should fail [to kill Duncan]?", Lady Macbeth responds with a concrete plan and encouragement, saying, "We'll not fail … his two chamberlains will I with wine and wassail so convince that memory, shall be a fume." (1.7.69) Lady Macbeth and Macbeth seemed to have switched roles in act 3, however they switch roles while changing their relationship so that they become for distant. Macbeth becomes just as power-hungry as Lady Macbeth was in act 1, however he doesn't take on the same guiding and teaching role Lady Macbeth had.
Unfold Re: Macbeth and Lady MAcbeth's relationship by kyletwescott, 08 Nov 2013 06:04
Samantha Rubin-Pope 08 Nov 2013 08:16
While the role of authority has switched to Macbeth, Macbeth's tone is neither calm nor comforting. Rather, Macbeth further demonstrates his dominant position by calling Lady Macbeth "dearest chuck", as opposed to his "dearest partner of greatness" as he did previously (3.2.51;1.5.11). By calling Lady Macbeth his "partner", Macbeth shows that he thinks of her as an equal. But by calling her "chuck, he demonstrates that he thinks himself to be more dominant and therefore making their relationship unequal in authority. As well, Macbeth then launches into a speech that resembles that of Lady Macbeth's before Macbeth killed Duncan. Macbeth says: "come, sealing night" and "cancel and tear to pieces that bond that keeps me pale", however now, it is Macbeth praying for immorality (3.2.52;55-56). It is now Lady Macbeth who believes that murder was not a good idea, while Macbeth wants to commit more evils. Macbeth is now the mastermind in the planning and execution of murders, and does not consult Lady Macbeth anymore, therefore proving that their relationship has become a more distant and unequal partnership, if a partnership at all.
Unfold Re: Macbeth and Lady MAcbeth's relationship by Samantha Rubin-Pope, 08 Nov 2013 08:16
Caroline Carothers 07 Nov 2013 04:28
In Act 3, Scene 2, Macbeth becomes the dominant person in his relationship with Lady Macbeth. Rather than executing Lady Macbeth's plans as before, he instead plans his own murders and keeps his wife in the dark to protect her. He says, "Be innocent of the knowledge", hoping to keep his wife free of blame in case anything should go wrong. Also, Lady Macbeth had challenged Macbeth's masculinity in an earlier scene, but Macbeth is now confident that she will appreciate his cleverness and strength. He predicts that she will "applaud the deed" and be proud of his accomplishment. Although he felt severe regret and unease about killing Duncan, Macbeth now realizes that he must continue to murder in order to secure his power. He tells Lady Macbeth, "We have scorched the snake, not killed it", implying that Macbeth is planning another murder (3.2.15). Whereas before Lady Macbeth was the mastermind behind Macbeth's rise to power, Macbeth himself now takes charge of securing his kingship.
Unfold Macbeth and Lady Macbeth's relationship by Caroline Carothers, 07 Nov 2013 04:28
gracewilkins333 08 Nov 2013 06:43
While I agree with the paragraph above, I do think that Macbeth is hiding the details of his murderous plans, not to simply protect Lady Macbeth, but also, because, due to his newfound power in their relationship, he no longer finds it necessary to confide in her his plan to kill Banquo and Fleance. Rather than being Macbeth's "dearest partner of greatness," the title Macbeth gives her when they plan to kill Duncan, he now refers to her as his "dearest chuck" who should "[b]e innocent of the knowledge" regarding his impending murderous actions, showing how Lady Macbeth has been isolated from her husband and his nefarious plans because he simply no longer sees the need to involve her in his scheming and plotting (Act 1. Scene 5. Line 11; Act 3. Scene 2. Line 51). Also, while the paragraph above talks about the power shift between Macbeth and Lady Macbeth, more evidence for this same shift can be seen when Macbeth tells Lady Macbeth they must "make [their] faces vizards to [their] hearts,…[d]isguising what they are," (Act 3. Scene 2. Lines 38-39). This request is reminiscent of the time when Lady Macbeth tells Macbeth to "[l]ook like th' innocent…flower,…[b]ut be the serpent under 't." (in Act 1, Scene 6. Lines 76-78). While both are telling the other the same thing: to hide their real emotions and plans, the fact that Macbeth is now saying this to Lady Macbeth shows that he now has the majority of the power in the relationship, for when Lady Macbeth first requests Macbeth to hide his emotions, she is seen as the mastermind and more powerful person in the relationship, but now the roles are reversed.
Unfold Re: Macbeth and Lady Macbeth's relationship by gracewilkins333, 08 Nov 2013 06:43
Christian Lee 08 Nov 2013 07:06
This paragraph argues well that Macbeth goes from following Lady Macbeth's instructions to becoming independent of her, but it is also important to note that Lady Macbeth shifts from encouraging murder to discouraging further action, and that Macbeth not only follows his own plan but ignores Lady Macbeth's advice. Lady Macbeth attempts to stop Macbeth from worrying further about his power by saying to him "things without all remedy should be without regard," but rather than follow her advice Macbeth continues to "regard" his crime: he replies with "she'll [the metaphorical snake] close and be herself," arguing that danger still persists (3.2.13-14, 16-17). Lady Macbeth says again to "be bright and jovial," and then to "leave this [attitude]," but Macbeth remains unaffected by her (3.2.31, 40). Macbeth even calls Lady Macbeth "dearest chuck" as opposed to before when he called her "dearest partner in greatness," suggesting that he no longer regards her as sharing his "greatness" (3.2.51, 1.5.11).
Unfold Re: Macbeth and Lady Macbeth's relationship by Christian Lee, 08 Nov 2013 07:06


Ginfluence interviews Bob Peters and finds out what makes this master mixologist tick, and tries to learn a few tricks.
"Mixology is the last great frontier. It is limitless and beautiful, yet illusive. All of those things were extremely appealing to me. Now its my passion."
"I try my hardest to balance complex flavors with simple fresh, local ingredients into a seamless refreshing cocktail. [...] I know that I have made something special when happy customers talk about a drink much the same way the would as a complex glass of wine."


text:
Can you love tenderly and still maintain lusty-steamy sex?
Posted by James, 28 Aug
Couples who have been married for long find themselves resisting sexual eroticism. Its even harder when one spouse want to keep the lust alive and the other just wants to keep love making simple. For most, caring deeply about a spouse takes lust from the whole equation; its like there is a choice between tender loving care and lustful feelings - which are often aroused by other women (and men) who aren't in the relationship.
For some men – I included – tender loves comes at a price. Sadly, the price is... the lack sexual heat and lustful seduction. I find it somehow disrespectful for the woman involved. Most men find themselves treading on this tight rope. And when the woman complains about it, the result in most cases is less sex.
These struggles are quite common that it makes me wonder… Is lustful passion so objectifying that it can't coexist with tender love?
During courtship, we usually have no issues maintaining the sexual heat. So what happens when commitment checks in?
Looking at how sex is portrayed in films, lust is clearly divorced from tenderness. A man grabs the woman, pushes her against the wall, practically presses his lips on her, the nibbles seem somewhat hurting (but oh no… they aren't) …. Sooooo HOT!!! Then compare this with a married couple in bed; tender kiss on cheek, snuggles … tender yes … not as hot though.
Both men and women alike get confused. It's like it's either one or the other. I know there are couples who have no trouble merging these two extremes. These lucky couples can move flawlessly from gentle sexual experiences to the rough animalistic encounters that leave one screaming "Ga! Ga! Ga!" For such couples, the emotion of love is brought into some steamy physical expression … spiritual yet steamy!
Its not easy to explain why this happens to some couples and not to others. During dating, its easy to merge both tenderness and lust because for some reason, couples feel like they have nothing to lose; plus you have to impress. But I think its all guided by a concoction of trust issues, control, religion, society's view of lustful expression of love and fear of becoming unlovable.
On one hand, society urges us to freely express our sexual desires; on the other hand society judges those who do harshly – even those in committed relationships. As a result, we retreat to our shells.
So how can we maintain sexual heat without compromising the loving connection?
When we give less attention to our genitals, and more attention to the sensual stuff (scent, touch of skin against skin, sound); when you explore ones entire body, eroticism and tenderness emerge. Playfulness is also creates a deep connection between individuals. Turn the childlike play into erotic play. Trust me, something as simple as laughter has a way of loosening people up.
The other thing we forget to do is making our spouses feel loved, desired and sexy all at the same time. So when you deprive the person you love of such feelings, they will definitely go into some cage. Also, fantasizing about someone else when you are with your partner re-awakens the animal in you. Try switching from imagining you are with someone else and back to your partner. Better still, why not fantasize about that moment your partner lusted after you and made passionate love to you.
Talk about it and put your defenses aside … move away from your comfort zones as a couple. Ladies, make your man know that lustful expressions of love won't be interpreted as objectification. Men, allow your woman to express herself by assuring her that exploring her inner stripper won't be viewed as "slutty".
In the end it takes two… it takes practice. I believe loving and lusty are not exclusive to one another by nature. So are sexy and spiritual. Look at it as an adventure. If your spouse is loving enough, I believe he/she will be more than willing to explore with you these 'uncomfortable' territories which will bring the two of you even closer.
25 responses to "Can you love tenderly and still maintain lusty-steamy sex?"
tommysue says:
Just would like to comment on this topic briefly,I have just recently come to the conclusion that no matter how much you really care for that special one and all your hopes and dreams are to be with that person ,don't let yourself become fooled into believing that he cares for you and you only because Ihave recently been made aware that he is visiting this site.So was it love or lust .Just thank.ful I saw the LIGHT.
It_wasn't_me says:
I speak from my own experience, but lust can definitely live side by side with love. Each one of us has their own word to describe that deep desire that one person brings out in you.. I prefer 'lust ' because [to me] it perfectly describes that wanting for the person that owns your heart. I love unconditionally and lust the same way. I do apologize if I insult someone but I could not pass this without a comment.
mts2sea says:
WOW! Who is this guy serenity33...let it go. It's just semantics.
Dejuana says:
I'm new to this site and just picked up on this blog. The Bible says the marriage bed is undefiled. Which to me means go for whatever makes the two of you happy. I believe it ceases to be lust when love comes into play. Does love exclude sexual desire? I think not, I think it enables a married couple to feel safe in their sexual explorations due to the love commitment. Grant it I am talking about a committed relationship of love and just a girlfriend or boyfriend. As long as there is no binding committment of love there will always be trust issues which lead to the love/lust issues.
serenity33 says:
Lust is a bad thing and doesn't translate as desire. You think couples that truly love each other don't desire each other sexually? Lust is indiscriminate desire for sex while true love in a committed relationship is desire for your one and only and no one else. Wikipedia definition of lust: "Lust is a craving for sexual intercourse, which can sometimes assume a violent or self-indulgent character. In the three major Abrahamic religions, it is considered a sin. " Wikipedia definition of desire: "a sense of longing or hoping" Wikipedia definition of love: The word love can refer to a variety of different feelings, states, and attitudes, ranging from generic pleasure ("I loved that meal") to intense interpersonal attraction ("I love my wife") Lust is bad. True love is good and leads to faithfulness and still sexual attraction to just one person, your spouse. Lust often leads to divorce and all of its horrible consequences, so true love should be sought after, not lust. But you have to distinguish between lust and love. Lust goes for anyone and love is sexual desire only for your partner. Lust causes you to go astray by its very definition. If you are in a long term married relationship, you need love, not lust so you don't stray and end up with infidelity and divorce. Is there anyone married on here who could comment because of course single men are going to think lust is important but fidelity with your passion is the most important part. Otherwise we are just like animals with no sense of fidelity to our partner. We could easily go on to the next one if presented with it. So bottom line, don't get married if you are just lusting after your partner. Do the world a favor and sleep around and stay single. But don't get married and create another divorce or messed up marriage for me to have to try and fix as a marriage counselor.
Sk1963 says:
IMTHEBAT says:
yes I think that it can becouse if you are confident in who your partner is, and you love them 4 the right reasons then God will suport the marriage bed
kissime says:
I agree, Serenity33. But I'm also very open minded--so if one chooses to be promiscuous that's their choice as well...just make sure to make it known to your encounters (wishful hope)
Don't worry. It is better to repress it if you aren't in a happy committed relationship. Most people just go the other way and become promiscuous and don't even try for real love any more. They just go for sex and never think about trying to find true love again. I think you made the wiser choice in your situation.
fenway2k says:
And I tend to agree with newawlunz guy: Lust is translated as desire and is very healthy in a relationship. While I have never cheated on a woman, I have experienced relationships where a woman is so 'reserved' and had so many control issues that she NEVER initiated sex. She seemed to get off on having me come to her, just so she could reserve the option of denial. I can tell you that did not last long.
In the words of Martin Lawrence: Guys, which would you prefer? A woman who caresses your cheek and says, "Make love to me." Or a woman who grabs you by the back of the neck and says," I want you to phuck the sh!t out of me?" headnubianincharge.com
Can you love tenderly and still maintain lusty-steamy sex? ...I don't know...I don't remember...it's been too long to remember. I've repressed all sexual feelings. Thanks for the reminder, James. Posting this topic should be illegal. Your Crime : Interruption of Selective Amnesia Punishment: Water torture for 2 years (Yes, 2 years-the time should fit the crime) Water will slowly dripped onto your forehead, eventually driving you insane. And you will get no pleasure out of this. With Love, Kissime
So according to that logic which I agree with, hopefully couples can work on becoming more fulfilled and secure so no lusting or cheating goes on and they stay happily together.
2sexyb says:
In a mutually committed relationship its equal. You both want and appreciate each other. Men are no more lustful than women. In terms of liking the article, it will vary depending on the honestly level. In general, women lust after things and men lust after things and sex. Lust comes from unfulfillment and insecurity.
So according to that logic which I agree with, hopefully couples can work on becoming more fulfilled and secure so no lusting or cheating goes on and they stay happily together. I think you hit the nail right on the head.
All right 2sexyb!! That is what I want to hear and from a lady. You nailed it right on the head. I wish more women and especially men were like you. Do you think men usually think in terms of lust in a committed relationship more than women? You did an excellent description and better than me. I really value your opinion so what do you think about my question? Is it more men than women in general that think like article?
A woman wants a man that she can trust and not a fool that is in lust! Love and passion are a part of life. It should be hot in and out of bed. If not, you are in the wrong relationship. Love, desire, lust as descriptons are rarely agreed upon. Are you lusting when you desire the unknown depths of unknown passion with the spiritual side of your nature along the mind, body, spiritual essence? Reckless abandonment and focus upon what is love as an experience with oneself? Is that lust? Even if lovemaking is allowed to become unrestricted between two people is it lust? Terms need to be defined and redefinded as enlightenment grows. The greater the degree of trust in her man, the greater a woman feels passion.
But you have to distinguish between lust and love. Lust goes for anyone and love is sexual desire only for your partner. Lust causes you to go astray by its very definition. If you are in a long term married relationship, you need love, not lust so you don't stray and end up with infidelity and divorce. Is there anyone married on here who could comment because of course single men are going to think lust is important but fidelity with your passion is the most important part. Otherwise we are just like animals with no sense of fidelity to our partner. We could easily go on to the next one if presented with it. Any ladies that are into commitment want to comment on the difference between lust and love?
JimShorts says:
i dont agree with ya seren - i think like nawlunz does. desire, passion n lust r vital parts of a relationship. itz healthy to have stemy romance with your partner.
But you have to distinguish between lust and love. Lust goes for anyone and love is sexual desire only for your partner. Lust causes you to go astray by its very definition. If you are in a long term married relationship, you need love, not lust so you don't stray and end up with infidelity and divorce. Is there anyone married on here who could comment because of course single men are going to think lust is important but fidelity with your passion is the most important part. Otherwise we are just like animals with no sense of fidelity to our partner. We could easily go on to the next one if presented with it. Any ladies that are into commitment want to comment on the difference between lust and love?
Lust is a bad thing and doesn't translate as desire. You think couples that truly love each other don't desire each other sexually? Lust is indiscriminate desire for sex while true love in a committed relationship is desire for your one and only and no one else. Wikipedia definition of lust: "Lust is a craving for sexual intercourse, which can sometimes assume a violent or self-indulgent character. In the three major Abrahamic religions, it is considered a sin. " Wikipedia definition of desire: "a sense of longing or hoping" Wikipedia definition of love: The word love can refer to a variety of different feelings, states, and attitudes, ranging from generic pleasure ("I loved that meal") to intense interpersonal attraction ("I love my wife") Lust is bad. True love is good and leads to faithfulness and still sexual attraction to just one person, your spouse. Lust often leads to divorce and all of its horrible consequences, so true love should be sought after, not lust.
Newawlunzguy says:
No lust is a good thing in a relationship. It's also known as desire.
Isn't lust a bad thing? Aren't we striving to find true love on this site and not be shallow and base things on lust? My parents have been married 54 years and are still sexually active and they wouldn't go back to the lovemaking they used to do because over the years, the have learned how to please each other better and their true love makes the love making much more satisfying without lust plus they stay faithfully in love with each other and never look at other women or men and that's the way the always have been. Isn't that kind of faithfulness another thing we are looking for in live long partners?
Isn't lust a bad thing? Aren't we striving to find true love on this site and not be shallow and base things on lust? My parents have been married 54 years and are still sexually active and they wouldn't go back to the lovemaking they used to do because over the years, the have learned how to please each other better and their true love makes the love making much more satisfying without lust plus they stay faithfully in love with each other and never look at other women or men and that's the way the always have been. Isn't that kind of faithfulness another thing we are looking for in live long partners?
What makes a perfect relationship Whenever we watch movies of princesses and princes, they usually have the perfect relationship with happy endings. Read on how to have one
'They are done' - Kim Kardashian and Kanye West are reportedly getting divorced
"They are done" - Kim Kardashian and Kanye West are reportedly getting divorced Is 2021 the new 2020? Seems like the year is getting off to a terrible start, as this could very well be the end of Kimye as we know it! According to reports, Kim Kardashian and Kany...
Why Being Jealous of a Friend's Time is Natural what happens when suddenly this friend of yours has less or no time for you? Is it wrong to be jealous of a friend's time? Read more
Former Bachelorette, Rachel Lindsay supports petition for systematic change on the franchise
Former Bachelorette, Rachel Lindsay supports petition for systematic change on the franchise "The whole franchise needs a diversity makeover... If changes are not made, I will dissociate myself from it" - Rachel Lindsay
Kanye West says he is officially 'running for president of the United States!'
Kanye West says he is officially "running for president of the United States!" Kim Kardashian could very well become a First Lady, as Kanye West has announced that he is officially running for president. Stranger things have happened this year…
Dating someone with OCD. Things to keep in mind
Dating someone with OCD. Things to keep in mind Do you have any experience dating someone with OCD? Read on and find out how I have been dealing with OCD in a relationship...

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Loewe v. Lawlor Information
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loewe_v._Lawlor
United States Supreme Court case
Loewe v. Lawlor
Argued December 4–5, 1907
Decided February 3, 1908
Full case name
Deitrich Loewe et al. v. Martin Lawlor et al.
208 U.S. 274 ( more)
28 S. Ct. 301; 52 L. Ed. 488; 1908 U.S. LEXIS 1769
Certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
The Sherman Antitrust Act prohibits any combination whatever to secure action which essentially obstructs the free flow of commerce between the states, or restricts the liberty of a trader to engage in business.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Melville Fuller
Associate Justices
John M. Harlan · David J. Brewer
Edward D. White · Rufus W. Peckham
Joseph McKenna · Oliver W. Holmes Jr.
William R. Day · William H. Moody
Case opinion
Fuller, joined by unanimous
Laws applied
Sherman Antitrust Act
Loewe v. Lawlor, 208 U.S. 274 (1908), [1] also referred to as the Danbury Hatters' Case, is a United States Supreme Court case in US labor law concerning the application of antitrust laws to labor unions. The Court's decision effectively outlawed the secondary boycott as a violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, despite union arguments that their actions affected only intrastate commerce. [2] It was also decided that individual unionists could be held personally liable for damages incurred by the activities of their union. [3]
2 Judgment
3 Significance
In 1901, D. E. Loewe & Company, a fur hat manufacturer, declared itself an open shop. [4] It was the third open shop ever established in Danbury, Connecticut, the center of the pelt industry since 1780 [4] (see North American fur trade). Loewe's declaration sparked a strike and a boycott by the United Hatters of North America (UHU), which had organized 70 out of 82 firms in the hat manufacturing industry. [5] The nationwide boycott was assisted by the American Federation of Labor (AFL) and was successful in persuading retailers, wholesalers and customers not to buy from or do business with Loewe. [5] The goal of the operation was for UHU to gain union recognition as the bargaining agent for employees at Loewe & Co. [5]
Loewe & Co. sued the union for violating the Sherman Antitrust Act, alleging that UHU's boycott interfered with Loewe's ability to engage in the interstate commerce of selling hats. [5] The act had been adopted in 1890, with the primary purpose to control business monopolies. [6] The appellee in the case was Martin Lawlor, the business agent for the UHU, but the list of defendants included 240 union members. [7]
The case was handled in the first instance by the United States Circuit Court for the District of Connecticut, which dismissed the suit on the grounds that the alleged actions fell outside the scope of the Sherman Act. Loewe & Co. appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which certified the case to the Supreme Court.
In a unanimous decision written by Chief Justice Melville Fuller, the UHU was found to have been acting in restraint of interstate commerce and to have violated the Sherman Antitrust Act. Fuller began the opinion by recounting the relevant provisions of the Sherman Act. The first, second, and seventh section of the act can be concisely described as follows:
1. Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is illegal.
2. Every person who monopolizes, or attempts to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is in violation of the statute.
3. Any person who is injured in his business or property by any other person or corporation by reason of anything forbidden or declared illegal by the act may sue in federal court in the district of the defendant and recover three fold damages.
Fuller concluded that the actions of the union did constitute unlawful combination of the type described in the act: "In our opinion, the combination described in the declaration is a combination 'in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States,' in the sense in which those words are used in the act, and the action can be maintained accordingly."
The union had raised a number of objections to the application of the act to its activities, all of which were found to be untenable by the Court. While the union had not interfered with the transportation of hats originating with Loewe & Co., a national boycott conceived on the initiative of the union that comprised vendees in other states was a violation of interstate commerce as proscribed by the statute:
If the purposes of the combination were, as alleged, to prevent any interstate transportation at all, the fact that the means operated at one end before physical transportation commenced, and at the other end after the physical transportation ended, was immaterial. And that conclusion rests on many judgments of this court, to the effect that the act prohibits any combination whatever to secure action which essentially obstructs the free flow of commerce between the States, or restricts, in that regard, the liberty of a trader to engage in business.
The fact that the union was not itself engaged in interstate commerce was irrelevant since the act did not distinguish between the types of associations involved but simply forbade every contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of trade. Fuller underscored that no exemption had been made for organizations of laborers or farmers, despite lobbying to include such language in the statute:
The records of Congress show that several efforts were made to exempt, by legislation, organizations of farmers and laborers from the operation of the act, and that all these efforts failed, so that the act remained as we have it before us.
Consequently, while the boycott and strike action had originated in a single state, the combination efforts had to be viewed in aggregation:
(...) [T]he acts must be considered as a whole, and the plan is open to condemnation notwithstanding a negligible amount of intrastate business might be affected in carrying it out.
The judgment of dismissal was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.
Verdict for the plaintiffs in the Loewe v. Lawlor case
In 1909, a new trial was held in the District Court to determine the outcome of the case. The presiding judge directed the jury to find for Loewe & Co., in accordance with the Supreme Court decision. The jury returned with a verdict of $74,000 in damages, which was tripled, under the Sherman Act, to $222,000. [8] The union won on appeal but then lost on retrial in 1912. [9] The case reached the Supreme Court in 1914, and in Lawlor v. Loewe (1915), the Court again held the union liable for damages. In 1917, the case was settled for slightly over $234,000 (approximately $3.9 million in 2009 currency) of which the AFL was able to obtain $216,000 in voluntary contributions from union members. [10]
The ruling deprived labor unions of an important and effective union tactic, and the decision to hold individual union members personally liable for damages had an adverse impact on union organizing efforts. [5] That led the AFL to initiate an aggressive campaign to convince Congress to address labor concerns about the Sherman Act in the reform of antitrust laws. [5] The push culminated with the passage of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914, which provided that "the labor of a human being is not a commodity or an article of commerce." Section 20 of the act further stated that no injunctions should be granted by federal courts in labor disputes "unless necessary to prevent irreparable injury to property, or to a property right." The provisions, however, were narrowly interpreted by the Supreme Court, which ruled, in Duplex Printing Press Company v. Deering (1921), that the exemptions in the Clayton Act did not protect secondary boycotts from judicial control.
Prosecution of labor under antitrust laws would continue until the enactment of the Norris–La Guardia Act in 1932, which included express exemptions of organized labor from antitrust injunctions. The exemptions were upheld by the Supreme Court in United States v. Hutcheson (1941), which stated that the act should be read broadly to provide a total antitrust exemption for labor unions, "so long as [the] union acts in its self-interest and does not combine with non-labor groups." The majority opinion in Hutcheson was written by Felix Frankfurter, who, before becoming a Supreme Court Justice, had served as one of the drafters of the Norris-La Guardia Act. [11]
United States labor law
Labor history of the United States
Albany International BV v Stichting Bedrijfspensioenfonds Textielindustrie [1999] ECR I-5751 ( C-67/96)
Mogul Steamship Co Ltd v McGregor, Gow & Co [1892] AC 25
^ Loewe v. Lawlor, 208 U.S. 274 (1908). This article incorporates public domain material from this U.S government document.
^ Carter, Saalim A. Labor Unions and Antitrust Legislation: Judicial Activism vs. Judicial Restraint from 1890-1941. Penn State University, 2006. p. 28.
^ Carter, p. 30.
^ a b Federal Writers' Project (1938). Connecticut: A Guide to Its Roads, Lore and People. Reprint: US History Publishers. ISBN 1-60354-007-5. pp. 132-133.
^ a b c d e f William H. Holley and Kenneth M. Jennings. The Labor Relations Process. South-Western, Division of Thomson Learning, 2008. p. 78.
^ Holley, p. 106.
^ Danbury Museum & Historical Society, Danbury. Arcadia Publishing, 2001. p. 79.
^ Ernst, Daniel R. Lawyers against labor: from individual rights to corporate liberalism. University of Illinois Press, 1995. p. 151.
^ Tomlins, Christopher. The United States Supreme Court: The Pursuit of Justice. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2005. p. 162.
^ Gould, William B. A Primer on American Labor Law. MIT Press, 2004. p. 14.
^ Dubofsky, Melvyn. The State and Labor in Modern America. University of North Carolina Press, 1994. p. 165.
Walter Gordon Merritt (September 1910). "The Law of the Danbury Hatters Case". Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. JSTOR 1011702. Missing or empty |url= ( help)
Works related to Loewe v. Lawlor at Wikisource
Text of Loewe v. Lawlor, 208 U.S. 274 (1908) is available from: Cornell CourtListener Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Loewe_v._Lawlor&oldid=895899710"
Labor disputes in the United States
United States Supreme Court cases
United States Supreme Court cases of the Fuller Court
United States labor case law
United States antitrust case law
1908 in United States case law
Legal history of Connecticut
UNITE HERE
Wikipedia articles incorporating text from public domain works of the United States Government
Pages using web citations with no URL


text:
'Love Beyond Limits' chosen as Nonprofit of the Year
No. Long Beach, Calif --- Assemblymember Mike A. Gipson is proud to announce the selection of Love Beyond Limits as the 2019 California Nonprofit of the Year in the 64th Assembly District.
Founder and President Maleka Chris will travel to Sacramento next week to join with 100 other nonprofit leaders to be honored by their State senators and assemblymembers during a celebration luncheon as part of California Nonprofits Day on June 5th.
"I am proud to recognize an organization that transforms the lives of young women every day through their work and commitment," said Asm. Gipson. "Maleka and her team are the change agents that we so desperately need and appreciate in our communities."
The mission of Love Beyond Limits is to change and enhance the lives of young ladies by promoting and developing self-awareness, self-respect, high self-esteem and independence through academics, health, fitness and spirituality. To give young women the tools to become motivated, self-reliant, and confident while handling life's challenges and enhancing the quality of life. Focusing on the mind, body, and soul, Love Beyond Limits offers a 13 stone program that addresses image, love, respect, self-esteem, education, the role of a child, mother, and father, abuse, social skills, hygiene, meditation, and accountability.
"Nonprofits are often hidden in plain sight," explains Jan Masaoka, CEO of the California Association of Nonprofits (CalNonprofits). "California Nonprofits Day is an opportunity for our elected officials to celebrate the good work they see nonprofits doing in their districts, and for everyone to appreciate the collective impact of nonprofits in our communities."
Additional Background
California Nonprofits Day, now in its fourth year, was formally recognized by Assembly Concurrent Resolution 62, authored by the chair of the Assembly Select Committee on the Nonprofit Sector, Assemblywoman Monique Limón (Santa Barbara), who will speak at the celebration luncheon. Senator Holly Mitchell will keynote the luncheon. The day is organized by Assemblymember Limón and CalNonprofits.
According to "Causes Count," a 2016 report commissioned by CalNonprofits, the nonprofit sector is the 4th largest industry in the state, employing nearly one million people. Each year, California nonprofits generate over $200 billion in revenue and bring in $40 billion in revenue from outside of California. The unpaid labor contributed by volunteers at nonprofits is equivalent to 450,000 full-time jobs every year.
PDF Copy


Many people think that after a long road trip, a simple trip to the car wash is all that is necessary. Although your car may be in desperate need of a wash, there are other steps you should take to ensure your car is in good driving condition.
Are there rock chips in your windshield or any dents? Keep in mind that the sooner you repair any damage that has occurred; you may be able to avoid spending a lot of money.
After long periods of driving, normal wear and tear of your tires will begin to occur. Check the pressure of your tires with a gauge and ensure the thread depth is no less than 3/32.
Although your car may appear fine to you, bringing your car in for servicing after a road trip will give the pros a chance to look for any potential problems. Keep in mind that if any complications are left for a long period of time, they could result in a very costly repair.
Newer PostWhy do I need a new windshield?


text:
Meek Mill Vows To DESTROY Tekashi 6ix9ine
Credit: HipHopDX
Duration: 03:39s 12 May 2020 0 shares 1 views
Executive Produced / Voiceover By: Pro The Goat https://www.instagram.com/prothegoat Video Edit: CT https://www.instagram.com/goodluckct/ Subscribe to HipHopDX on Youtube: http://bit.ly/dxsubscribe Check out more of DX here: http://www.hiphopdx.com https://twitter.com/hiphopdx https://www.facebook.com/hiphopdx http://instagram.com/hiphopdx For over 17 years, HipHopDX has been at the forefront of Hip Hop culture online, featuring over 2.7 million readers per month.
As one of the longest-standing Hip Hop websites, DX not only stays current on Hip Hop culture, but continues to influence it, encourage it, and simultaneously reflect on its past.
Our insightful, honest editorials, unbiased reviews, premier audio and video sections, and original video content, draws one of the most loyal followings online.
Check us out at http://www.hiphopdx.com
Tekashi 6ix9ine Blasts Future, Snoop Dogg & Meek Mill For 'Snitch' Hypocrisy
HipHopDX 14 Jun 2020
Executive Produced By: Pro
https://www.instagram.com/jaysnprolifiq/
Voiceover: Alexandra..
6ix9ine & Nicki Minaj Drop Trollz And Slam Meek Mill
Tekashi 6ix9ine Mocks Meek Mill & YG While Akon Gets Butchered On Twitter For 'Locked Up' Remix
Nicki Minaj Defends 6ix9ine as He Trolls Meek Mill Over 'Rat' Accusations
AceShowbiz 12 Jun 2020
6ix9ine & Meek Mill's Feud Explained: A Timeline
Billboard.com 12 May 2020
Meek Mill Reminds Tekashi 6ix9ine He Snitched Following New Prison Photo
Meek Mill had something to say about Tekashi 6ix9ine's latest prison photo.
Produced & Voiceover: Pro (Jaysn..
HipHopDX 23 Jan 2020
Meek Mill Says Tekashi69 Should Apologize for Being a Rat
Meek Mill believes there's only one thing Tekashi 6ix9ine should be doing on Instagram Live ... saying sorry for being a snitch and..
TMZ.com 08 May 2020


Join us for our first ever Quilt Block Challenge! It is based on a beloved quilt in the VQM permanet collection, the block is a free download from our page, and will allow you to have your work displayed in the museum! Please see details below on how to participate! We can't wait to see all of the talented artists and beautiful blocks you will create!
Download the block for free here!
Create your block with any fabric you would like, but each block must have your name & location, either embroidered or drawn in fabric marker.
To enter the challenge, submit your block (in person or buy mail) + $5 (per block entered) and Challenge Contract (download here) to the Virginia Quilt Museum 301 South Main Street, Harrisonburg, VA 22801.
If you would like to pay online, click on the PayPal button below.
Block will hang in the museum from June 17- August 3, 2019.
After the blocks are taken down, you can choose to donate your block to the museum to be sewn into our next Opportunity Quilt! Every year we have a quilt we raffle and this is your chance to be a part of that quilt!
If you choose not to donate your block, please send a self-addressed and stamped envelope along with your block so it can be returned to you after August 3, 2019.


The global village became very real as 2011 was consumed by debt, debate, downgrades, and potential default both here and overseas. U.S. economic data had to struggle for months against headwinds from abroad that preoccupied Wall Street even as Wall Street itself got occupied.
Driving markets worldwide were concerns about the impact of the Arab Spring revolts on oil markets, the triple disaster in Japan that left the world gasping for autos and parts, and most especially the shaky state of Europe's finances and banks with heavy sovereign debt exposure. After Greece, Portugal, and Ireland turned to their peers for financial support, the contagion threatened to spread to larger and potentially more threatening economies. As Italian and Spanish bond yields hit the 7% level considered unsustainable, investors worried they might be both too big to fail and too big to bail out despite an enhanced rescue fund and a new agreement increasing the eurozone's ability to impose fiscal discipline on members.
However, some of the turmoil was home-grown, such as the congressional combat that held the United States' credit rating hostage and threatened a first-ever default. Though the buck-inheriting super committee failed to prevent $1.2 trillion in budget cuts scheduled to start in 2013, the conflict ultimately didn't faze bond investors, who sought refuge from Europe's travails in U.S. Treasuries.
Despite the upheaval caused by the global financial system's need to deleverage, the U.S. economy ended the year looking a bit stronger, with increased potential for continued recovery in 2012–assuming that Europe can manage not to implode in the meantime.
•Equities: A strong first quarter helped push the Dow to its highest level in almost three years, and by the end of April, the Russell 2000 was at its highest level on record. However, May launched a downhill slide punctuated by the occasional hair-raising bout of volatility. Three of the Dow's 12 largest daily point gains in history occurred in 2011 (two in August alone); unfortunately, August also featured three of the Dow's 12 largest point declines ever. Nevertheless, the Dow was the only index of the four to show a gain for the year. The volatility cost the small-cap Russell 2000 dearly; despite a good start and strong finish, it ended the year down 14% from its April high. The Nasdaq also suffered, ending 2011 with a 9% fall from its April high and its first losing year since 2008. And despite all the ups and downs, the S&P 500 ended 2011 almost exactly where it began. Not surprisingly, global equities were harder-hit than their U.S. counterparts as credit markets showed signs of strain, threatening both emerging and developed markets.
•Bonds: Despite the Federal Reserve's easing its way out of quantitative easing, U.S. Treasury yields hit historic lows thanks to the European debt crisis and the Fed's intent to preserve rock-bottom interest rates through mid-2013. After sinking to roughly 1.7% in September, by year's end the benchmark 10-year yield had recovered slightly but remained below 2%, while spreads between the 2-year and 10-year bonds narrowed over the year.
•Oil: Despite the uncertain global economy, oil prices continued to rise at a slow but relentless pace. After spending much of 2010 under $80 a barrel, oil not only surpassed $90 in 2011, but ended the year near $100.
•Currencies: After reaching US$1.48 in the spring, the euro plummeted in 2011's last four months, ending the year just below US$1.30. By May, the dollar had lost nearly 10% against a basket of six currencies, languishing for much of the summer before the European debt crisis helped return it to roughly even for the year.
•Gold/silver: Global anxiety steadily pushed gold to record after record in 2011. The ascent became jet-propelled in August, when the price hit an all-time high near $1,900 an ounce only weeks after reaching $1,700 for the first time. However, by year's end the luster had begun to fade; despite a late-fall rally, the precious metal closed out 2011 at roughly $1,550 an ounce. Silver also went parabolic for a time, hitting a high near $49 an ounce in the spring before ending the year not far from its $29 starting point.
•Unemployment: Starting at 9.4% in December 2010, the unemployment rate remained stuck within a point or two of 9% until November, when the biggest monthly decline in more than 13 years cut it to 8.6% (a level last seen in March 2009). Cuts in state, local, and federal government employment partly offset gains in private-sector jobs.
•GDP: After a slow start–0.4% during Q1–the economy gradually began to improve. Though Q3's 1.8% annualized gross domestic product was much lower than 2010's 2.5%, it kept hope alive for continued recovery in 2012. The manufacturing and services sectors both avoided contraction, and by Q3, corporate after-tax profits were up more than 11% from a year earlier.
•Inflation: Ominously high inflation at the wholesale level in Q1 failed to flow through to consumers as retail spending remained tentative for much of the year, at least until the weekend after Thanksgiving. By November, consumer inflation was running at an annualized 3.4%–not far above its historical average–but wholesale prices were up 5.7% year over year.
•Housing: Housing starts and home sales showed signs of life by year's end. Housing starts were up 24% from last November, and new home sales were almost 10% higher. Though home prices seemed to stabilize a bit, by October they were back to mid-2003 levels and 3.4% lower than a year earlier.


text:
GOOGLE ANALITYCS REPORT
EDITORIAL TEAM PEER REVIEWERS AUTHOR GUIDELINES FOCUS AND SCOPE ONLINE SUBMISSIONS PUBLICATION ETHICS PURCHASE/SUBSCRIBE CONTACT US CITEDNESS IN SCOPUS
Law, Goverment, Criminal Law, International Law, Restorative Justice, Adat Recht, Bank, Human Rights, Land Use, Coastal Zone, Development Activities, Prevention, Social Conflict, Genocide, Alternative Dispute Resolution, Procedural Law, Islamic Law, Syari'ah, Legal Studies, Authority, Ulayat Right, Legal Protection, Constitutional, Supervision, Judicial Review, Supreme Court, Legal Policy, Legal Reform, Promotion of Civil Servants, Protection of Wages, Broker.
Home > Vol 19, No 2 (2019) >	Isharyanto
Post-Colonial Citizenship Law (Comparative Study of Asian Countries)
Isharyanto Isharyanto
This paper describes the system of citizenship law in Asia. The first part of this article provides a narrative by highlighting some of the related issues surrounding citizenship law and by discussing this issue with the process of (de) colonization. The second section presents a comparison of the law with respect to citizenship legislation from selected countries. Furthermore, the comparative analysis is seen in 3 main things: how to obtain citizenship because of birth, how to obtain citizenship after birth, and the problem of losing citizenship. The third part discusses dual citizenship and statelessness as well as differences between legal provisions and practice.
Amitai E. "Citizenship Tests: A Comparative, Communitarian Perspective". Political Quarterly, volume 78, 2007, p. 353 – 63
Alison H. Statelessness: "The 'de Facto' Statelessness Debate". Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Law, volume 24, 2010.
Almeida, Nene Correia De. 2015. The Difficult Choices of a Post-Colonial State:T imor-Leste andInternational Educational Aid: A Comparative Look at Educational Aid from Portugal and Australia to Timor-Leste. Thesis for Degree of Master of International Relations. Victoria University of Wellington.
Anwar, K., Abdul M. T. 2014. Pengantar Hukum Perdata Internasional. Bandar Lampung: Justice Publisher.
Avitabile, C., Irma C.F., & Paolo M. "Citizenship, Fertility, and
Parental Investments." American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 6(4): 35–65.
Linda B. "Citizenship Denationalized." Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies 7, 2000: 447.
Bratsberg, B., James F. R., & Zafar N. "The Effect of Naturalization on Wage Growth: A Panel Study of Young Male Immigrants". Journal of Labor Economics 20(3), 2002.: 568–97.
Bronwen M.. 2015. Citizenship and statelessness in Africa: the law and politics of belonging. PhD dissertation. Maastricht University.
Burlette, Julia A. G. 2007. French influence overseas: the rise and fall ofcolonial Indochina. Master Thesis. Louisiana State University.
Ch. Sajons. "Does Granting Citizenship to Immigrant Children Affect Family Outmigration?" Journal of Population Economics 29(2), 2016: 395–420.
Chiswick, Barry R. "The Effect of Americanization on the Earnings of Foreign Born Men." Journal of Political Economy 86(5), 1978: 897–921.
Choen, H. "National Identity and Citizenship in the People's Republic of China and the Republic of Korea". Journal of Historical Sociology 19(1), 2006: 84–118.
Choo C. L. 2017. Report on Citizenship Law: Malaysia and Singapore. http://cadmus.eui.eu/handle/1814/45371.
Chung, Erin Aeran. 2010. Immigration and Citizenship in Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Pres.
Dong, Pham Cao. 1985. Vietnamese Peasants Under French Domination. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Eisgruber, Christopher L. "Birthright Citizenship and the Constitution." New York University Law Review 72, 1997.
Ersboll, E. 2010. Country report: Denmark. Florence: EUDO Citizenship Observatory.
Felfe, Ch., H. Rainer, & J. Saurer. 2016. Why Birthright Citizenship Matters for Immigrant Children: Impacts on Parental Educational Choice? . CESifo Working Paper.
Filomeno, Aguilar. "The triumph of instrumental citizenship? Migrations, identities, and the nation-state in Southeast Asia." Asian Studies Review 23(3), 1999.
Gathmann, Christina, & Nicolas K. 2014. Returns to Citizenship?: Evidence from Germany's Recent Immigration Reforms. DIW
Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP). SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research.
Goodman, Sara W. 2010. Naturalization policies in Europe: Exploring patterns of inclusion and exclusion. Florence: EUDO Citizenship Observatory.
Guliatir H. "Citizenship and Ethnicity: Old Propiska and New Citizenship in Post-Soviet Uzbekistan" Inner Asia 10(2) 2008: 305–22.
Gunn, G. C. "Timor-Leste (Former Portuguese East Timor): From Colonial Anthropology to an Anthropology of Colonialism." Review (Fernand Braudel Center) 32(3) 2009: 289–337.
Herzog, B. "The paradoxes of citizenship removal: Soviet and post-Soviet citizenship" East European Politics and Societies 26(4) 2012: 792–810.
Hofhansel, C. "Citizenship in Austria, Germany, and Switzerland: Courts, Legislatures, and Administrators." International Migration Review 42(1), 2008: 163–92.
Isharyanto. 2016. Hukum Kewarganegaraan Republik Indonesia: Dinamika Pengaturan Status Hukum Kewarnegaraan Dalam Perspektif Perundang-Undangan. Yogyakarta: Absolut Media.
Isin, Engin F., & Peter N., ed. 2014. Routledge Handbook of Global Citizenship Studies. London: Routledge.
Kaplan, Robert D. 2014. Asia's Cauldron. The South China Sea and the End of a Stable Pacific. New York: Random House.
Kivisto, Peter, & Thomas F. 2007. Citizenship: Discourse, Theory, and Transnational Prospects. Oxford: Blackwell.
Kunal M. Parker."Making Blacks Foreigners: The Legal Construction of Former Slavesin Post-Revolutionary Massachusett." Utah Law Review 75, 2001.
Linda S. Bosniak, "Citizenship Denationalized". Indiana Journal of Global Law Studies, Vol. 7, P. 447, 2000.
Luntungan, A. Y. "Naturalisasi Warganegaraanasing Menjadi Warganegara Indonesia Menurut Undang-Undang Nomor 12 Tahun 2006 Tentang Kewarganegaraan." Lex et Societatis 1(5) 2013: 41–53.
Marr, D. G. 1991. Vietnamese Tradition on Trial, 1920-1945. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Maryellen F. The Intersection of Statelessness and Refugee Protection in U.S. Asylum Policy, Journal on Migration and Human Security, volume 2, 2014. p. 144 – 64
Ngai, M.M. "Birthright Citizenship and the Alien Citizen." Fordham Law Review 75(5) 2007: 2521.
Nørlund, I. "The French Empire, the colonial state in Vietnam and economic policy: 1885–1940." Australia Economic History Review 31(1) 1991: 72–89.
Punzalan, R. L. "Archives of the new possession: Spanish colonial records and the American creation of a 'national' archives for the Philippines". Journal of Archaeological Science 6, 2007: 381–392.
Reiter, B. 2013. The Dialectics of Citizenship. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press.
Sadiq, Kamil. 2009. Paper citizens: How illegal immigrants acquire citizenship in developing countries. New York: Oxford University Press.
Siim, B. 2006. Citizenship. on The Cambridge Dictionary of Sociology, ed. B.S. Turner. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Pres.
Singer, B., & John L.. 2004. Cultured Force: Makers and Defenders of the French Colonial Empire. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Sunil S. A. 2011. Migration and Diaspora in Modern Asia. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Suryadinata, L. 2015. The making of Southeast Asian nations. State, ethnicity, indigenism and citizenship. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing.
Vink, M. P., & Rainer B. "Citizenship configurations: Analysing the multiple purposes of citizenship regimes in Europe." Comparative European Politics 11, 2013: 621–48.
Volpp, L. "The Citizen and the Terroris." UCLA Law Review 49, 2002: 1580–83.
Vonk, O. 2014. Dual Nationality in the European Union. A Study on Changing Norms in Public and Private International Law and in the Municipal Laws of Four EU Member States. Leiden/Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
Woodside, A. "History, Structure, and Revolution in Vietnam." International Political Science Review 10(2), 1989: 143–57.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.20884/1.jdh.2019.19.2.2550
JURNAL DINAMIKA HUKUM Indexed by :
Jurnal Dinamika Hukum
Faculty of Law, Universitas Jenderal Soedirman Copyright of Jurnal Dinamika Hukum
Yustisia I Building, Room Number 111 ISSN 2407-6562 (Online) ISSN 1410-0797 (Print)
Purwokerto, Central Java, Indonesia, 53122 JDH is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License


The LD6000 provides various adjustment possibilities for a quick and precise leak detection and can optionally be operated by the user via touchscreen or keys and control dials.
Several default settings for many typical application cases are available for quick access, filters and further parameters can of course be configured individually.
In addition to the smart mode, the LD6000 is further provided with different acoustic modes for an automatic or individual amplitude analysis of potential leaks.
The smart function (patent pending) in this appliance class is unique in the world – the smart way of leak detection!
Complex calculation algorithms in the background ensure that in the foreground you can see directly what it's all about: Potential points of leakage are displayed as bar indicator and the highest level denotes the leak. It could not be easier or quicker!
For a clear identification of the point of leakage a non-stop measurement of up to 60 minutes can be recorded with the integrated noise logger and a potential leak can be recognized or eliminated by means of the recorded measured curve.
This mode serves to localize pressurized water lines especially those made of plastic, treated with ultrasound by pulse generator LD-PULS.
When combined with the hydrogen sensor LD6000 H2, trace gas leak detection in supply networks or domestic installations can be performed quickly and precisely.
The LD 6000 frequency analysis set allows you to carry out a variety of acoustic procedures from locating the course of pipes to narrowing down the position of or pinpointing a leak. A high quality microphone made in Germany can pick up signals which can subsequently be assessed with your PC.
Internal flash memory for up to 20 measurement series and as buffer memory for recording long-term measurements of 5, 15, 30 and 60 min.
Optional LD 6000 BMW ground microphone with dead man's switch. Suitable for acoustic pinpoint leak detection.
Eliminates background noise even better than before. Ideal on blustery days or in windy locations.
Using the trace gas detection method the LD6000 H2 hand sensor enables extremely accurate detecting of even the smallest leaks in pipe networks.
Required to connect the LD 6000 BMW ground microphone to the LD 6000 leak detector.
The H2-ground sensor is equipped with an active pump, which takes in the air, and thus the smallest concentrations of hydrogen, which escapes through a leak.


text:
Roy Edgar Cochrane, conocido como «Philip Ray» (Londres, 1 de noviembre de 1898 - Ibidem, 11 de mayo de 1978) fue un actor británico de películas y de televisión.

Filmografía
 Blue Smoke (1935)
 Head Office (1936)
 Not So Dusty (1936)
 The Perfect Crime (1937)
 The Man Who Made Diamonds (1937)
 Wanted by Scotland Yard (1937)
 It's in the Air (1938)
 Send for Paul Temple (1946)
 Fame Is the Spur (1947)
 No Place for Jennifer (1950)
 Derby Day (1952)
 The Fake (1953)
 Before I Wake (1954)
 The Good Die Young (1954)
 Where There's a Will (1955)
 Passage Home (1955)
  The Extra Day (1956)
 No Road Back (1957)
 Count Five and Die (1957)
 A Night to Remember (1958)
 Sons and Lovers (1960)
 The Mind Benders (1963)
 Devil Doll (1964)
Dracula: Prince of Darkness (1966)
  Frankenstein Created Woman (1967)

Referencias

Enlaces externos
  Ray en la Base de datos de Película del Internet
Nacidos en 1898
Fallecidos en 1978
Nacidos en Londres
Fallecidos en Londres

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
Romania's economy is not yet out of the woods and recent turmoil in the European financial markets has heightened risks.
The IMF expects a modest decline in real growth for 2010 as a whole, with a strong recovery on the cards for 2011.
Prior to the crisis, foreign capital had fueled consumer spending and led to an investment boom. The global credit crunch cut off funding and the exchange rate weakened by more than 15 percent against the euro. When the crisis hit, Romania's government turned to the international community for assistance, and received a €12.9 billion loan from the IMF in March 2009, as part of a coordinated financial support package of €20 billion. Since then, reserves have grown, Romania's country risk premium has declined, and domestic interest rates are falling steadily. Long-term borrowing costs have also declined under the IMF-supported program. But fiscal challenges remain, and the country's long-term growth potential has been damaged by the crisis.
In this interview, the IMF's mission chief for Romania, Jeffrey Franks, discusses the impact of Greece's debt crisis on Romania's economy and its banking sector, the new austerity measures announced by the government, and needed steps to improve competitiveness.
Franks: We don't see strong direct effects now in Romania, but of course this heightens risks. The government is going to have to be more vigilant in how it implements policies going forward, to avoid any effects from what is going on elsewhere in Europe.
Certainly, the fact the European economy is recovering less quickly than some other regions is affecting Romania. The economy's return to positive growth is delayed and somewhat weaker than we had originally anticipated. As a consequence, we have revised our economic forecast down from 0.8 percent of GDP to -0.5 percent for 2010. But growth will rebound in 2011.
The government has just announced new austerity measures, including a 25 percent cut in public sector wages. Was that really necessary?
Franks: Well, the government found itself in a difficult situation because the revised forecast for the deficit for 2010 with no action would have put the deficit at about 9 percent of GDP. So serious action was required. There were a number of possibilities that policymakers could have chosen―different mixes of revenue and expenditure measures―but their decision was to rely almost entirely on public expenditure cuts.
Franks: We had looked at a number of different options, and most of our proposals were more balanced between revenues and expenditures. We discussed a number of different scenarios with policymakers during our mission, which just wrapped up. The government―the president, the prime minister, and the minister of finance supported by the entire cabinet―made the decision to go ahead with this particular approach.
Franks: Yes, such measures are part of the IMF-supported program. Given that the authorities wanted to rely on heavy expenditure cuts in adjusting their budget, we asked that they put in place some protection for the most vulnerable. In particular, working with the World Bank, they want to make sure that although there are going to be cuts in social transfers of 15 percent, those cuts will be proportionately larger on inefficient and poorly focused programs, and there would be no cuts on the best-focused of the social assistance packages.
The program the World Bank would like to protect, and the government has agreed to, is called the "guaranteed minimum income scheme" which provides a floor on the income of the least fortunate.
Franks: The banking system has been affected by the very sharp recession in Romania, as would be expected. However, the banks remain well capitalized and highly liquid. The average capitalization of Romanian banks is currently 14 percent, significantly above the statutory minimum of 8 percent, so the banks have a cushion of capital that they can rely upon to take them through the recession.
There are several Greek banks that operate subsidiaries in Romania. But again, those banks are well capitalized, tightly supervised, and we do not see any significant negative effects at this stage in those banks.
Franks: Unemployment has risen significantly and stands at about 8 percent right now. But that still leaves Romania with an unemployment rate that is significantly below the EU average. So while there has been an increase in unemployment, Romania has been relatively less affected than some other countries. We believe that there will be a further increase in the number of unemployed during 2010 before unemployment begins to turn around in the fall. That's because the recovery will only happen during the second part of the year.
Franks: Romania suffered a significant depreciation of its currency going into the crisis. This downward pressure on the currency reflected some negative effects of the crisis, of course, but it had the positive effect of making Romanian exports more competitive. The bottom line is a gain of about 15 percent in competitiveness as a result of the more depreciated currency.
What is key going forward, now that the currency is stabilized and the financial markets in Romania have stabilized, is for the government to undertake structural reforms to make their economy more efficient, more flexible, and more productive, which would give them additional competitiveness going forward.
There are some reforms in the program which would help in the competitiveness area―for instance, measures that will make it easier to invest structural funds from the European Union. The authorities have also decided to reactivate their privatization program and are looking at measures to increase the efficiency of the public sector. Those policies will help to make the economy more productive so that, once the European recovery takes firm hold, Romania will be well placed to make the most of it.
The IMF Survey welcomes comments, suggestions, and brief readers' letters, a selection of which are posted under . Letters may be edited. Please address Internet correspondence to .
Read the article on International Monetary Fund
Romania: Delayed Recovery Now Expected