We went to ZomBcon yesterday, it is still on today. Go. We had a blast. Today is the last day, but run down there.
Don't believe the PI's article in Seattle surviving old newspaper. It says ZomBcon starts tomorrow, when it ends today!
I'm putting together a blog about what happened yesterday, but I wanted to mention it today if anyone local reads this. This is the first annual con for this. It did so well they expect another next year. If you go this weekend, you'll have been at the first ever of something that could potentially be the next big thing.
Tonight, AMC's 90 minute premiering show was said to be, by Thom Carnell of Fangoria (and his new book, "No Flesh Shall Be Spared" and others), that "The Walking Dead", not only changes Zombieness once it airs, but possibly even TV shows in general.
Bruce Campbell was too funny and entertaining (and educational too, kids). But Being in the room with Malcom McDowell, George Romero (The Godfather of Zombies), and others was kind of awesome, I have to say.
Anyway, more later....
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Weekend Wise Words
"Art arises from the interaction of the mind and the heart." - Maharishi Mahesh Yogi
"To shrink from challenges, is to shrink one's soul." - Murdock
[And yes, I quoted myself, just thought it was a good quote.]
Friday, October 29, 2010
The Founding Fathers
You know, it takes a strength of character to be in this universe on your own (sans deity). And a special intelligence to believe in reality.
Research has proved that to believe in an entity outside of yourself, can help you achieve things far beyond what you would have done without believing in that "outside force".
But this could also be your cat, your Father, or a rock, for that matter. It doesn't have to be God, not at all.
So, if you're into magical thinking, organized (or unorganized) religion, essentially, and I've met Wiccans more grounded in reality than most Christians, Muslims, even Buddhists, though Buddha's view of life mostly (not completely) makes more functional sense than the rest) etc.; well that's fine with me.
Understand what "magical thinking" means. People first and foremost always take it to be a negative connotation, as people tend to do with most words associated with a lot of baggage. But really it only refers to belief in something that is not considered "real" by the physical sciences.
Magical Thinking (in psychology) a belief that merely thinking about an event in the external world can cause it to occur. It is regarded as a form of regression to an early phase of development. It may be part of ideas of reference, considered normal in those instances, or may reach delusional proportions when the individual maintains a firm conviction about the belief, despite evidence to the contrary. It may be seen in schizophrenia. [and religion]
Dorland's Medical Dictionary for Health Consumers. © 2007
Psychology
Dereitic thinking, similar to a normal stage of childhood development, in which thoughts, words or actions assume a magical power, and are able to prevent or cause events to happen without a physical action occurring; a conviction that thinking equates with doing, accompanied by an unrealistic understanding of cause and effect. Examples: Dreams in children, in primitive peoples, and in Pts under various conditions.
McGraw-Hill Concise Dictionary of Modern Medicine. © 2002
dereism a mode of thinking directed away from reality and toward fantasy without cognizance of ordinary rules of logic.
Ologies & -Isms. Copyright 2008
But not really. I mean, it takes all kinds to make a world go around. But the world would be a better place if we had fewer people looking down on those, not of their religion. So, those who would eliminate the thoughts of a deity could actually get some work done, could help some people on our own, and allow us to view life as we need to. But those types are too few and far between.
We need too much emotional support to be functional. Why? Well, we could look at childhood, the damage done there by our parents, our authorities in our proximity and just life in general; which would also have to include, our genetics.
The Founding Fathers of the USofA, thought that religion was a sad way for people to act, and especially so regarding governing of a State. Its why so many of them were FreeMasons. FreeMasons are a group that try to better themselves, to function better in society, without overbearing considerations to a God. But even they cannot go so far, as you have to believe in some kind of deity , a "Great Archetect", as it were.
So, if you can see beyond deity worship, then ...cool.
And as for the Founding Fathers, please don't say, "but these were people who left England because of religious persecution".
No. They weren't.
Remember, these leaders, who we revere so much, who founded the US, were actually all born in America, for the most part, anyway. They didn't flee England to escape religious persecution. You're thinking of the Puritans, or the Quakers, or something. And, have you ever tried to deal with Puritans? Its little wonder they were pushed from their own homelands.
But, the Founding Fathers were able to see beyond religion, to a better way to live. They couldn't eliminate Church, so they did the next best thing. And, funny it is, how that has turned out to be the world's "Great Experiment".
Ironic now, how we have become a "Christian nation", which Obama recently has said, we no longer are, being also now, Islamic, Buddhist, and many others, both, reasonable and insane.
Catch up.
Is this a bad thing, to no longer be, a "Christian Nation"? Absolutely not. We may no longer be the "Melting Pot" of the World, and are more of a "Mixed Salad" now. But it will only take us back to our roots. It won't be long that Spanish will be more widely spoken in America than English. Still, then we will be right back to the religious issue, as most Latino's are Christian, if not Catholic.
So, how do you manage a situation like that? Separation, of Church and State.
Research has proved that to believe in an entity outside of yourself, can help you achieve things far beyond what you would have done without believing in that "outside force".
But this could also be your cat, your Father, or a rock, for that matter. It doesn't have to be God, not at all.
So, if you're into magical thinking, organized (or unorganized) religion, essentially, and I've met Wiccans more grounded in reality than most Christians, Muslims, even Buddhists, though Buddha's view of life mostly (not completely) makes more functional sense than the rest) etc.; well that's fine with me.
Understand what "magical thinking" means. People first and foremost always take it to be a negative connotation, as people tend to do with most words associated with a lot of baggage. But really it only refers to belief in something that is not considered "real" by the physical sciences.
Magical Thinking (in psychology) a belief that merely thinking about an event in the external world can cause it to occur. It is regarded as a form of regression to an early phase of development. It may be part of ideas of reference, considered normal in those instances, or may reach delusional proportions when the individual maintains a firm conviction about the belief, despite evidence to the contrary. It may be seen in schizophrenia. [and religion]
Dorland's Medical Dictionary for Health Consumers. © 2007
Psychology
Dereitic thinking, similar to a normal stage of childhood development, in which thoughts, words or actions assume a magical power, and are able to prevent or cause events to happen without a physical action occurring; a conviction that thinking equates with doing, accompanied by an unrealistic understanding of cause and effect. Examples: Dreams in children, in primitive peoples, and in Pts under various conditions.
McGraw-Hill Concise Dictionary of Modern Medicine. © 2002
dereism a mode of thinking directed away from reality and toward fantasy without cognizance of ordinary rules of logic.
Ologies & -Isms. Copyright 2008
But not really. I mean, it takes all kinds to make a world go around. But the world would be a better place if we had fewer people looking down on those, not of their religion. So, those who would eliminate the thoughts of a deity could actually get some work done, could help some people on our own, and allow us to view life as we need to. But those types are too few and far between.
We need too much emotional support to be functional. Why? Well, we could look at childhood, the damage done there by our parents, our authorities in our proximity and just life in general; which would also have to include, our genetics.
The Founding Fathers of the USofA, thought that religion was a sad way for people to act, and especially so regarding governing of a State. Its why so many of them were FreeMasons. FreeMasons are a group that try to better themselves, to function better in society, without overbearing considerations to a God. But even they cannot go so far, as you have to believe in some kind of deity , a "Great Archetect", as it were.
So, if you can see beyond deity worship, then ...cool.
And as for the Founding Fathers, please don't say, "but these were people who left England because of religious persecution".
No. They weren't.
Remember, these leaders, who we revere so much, who founded the US, were actually all born in America, for the most part, anyway. They didn't flee England to escape religious persecution. You're thinking of the Puritans, or the Quakers, or something. And, have you ever tried to deal with Puritans? Its little wonder they were pushed from their own homelands.
But, the Founding Fathers were able to see beyond religion, to a better way to live. They couldn't eliminate Church, so they did the next best thing. And, funny it is, how that has turned out to be the world's "Great Experiment".
Ironic now, how we have become a "Christian nation", which Obama recently has said, we no longer are, being also now, Islamic, Buddhist, and many others, both, reasonable and insane.
Catch up.
Is this a bad thing, to no longer be, a "Christian Nation"? Absolutely not. We may no longer be the "Melting Pot" of the World, and are more of a "Mixed Salad" now. But it will only take us back to our roots. It won't be long that Spanish will be more widely spoken in America than English. Still, then we will be right back to the religious issue, as most Latino's are Christian, if not Catholic.
So, how do you manage a situation like that? Separation, of Church and State.
Invictus - Springbokke
I just watched Invictus. A Great, inspiring film.
It did however, get me curious.
How perfect was it that South Africa won a World Cup, JUST when they needed to. And I agree, they really needed to win that year, it was necessary to help cleanse their national palate of Apartheid.
I met a lad from South Africa in about 1994. He was a groom for his horse trainer at the farm I as living at with my soon to be wife. We had him up for a barbeque. He accepted and hung out, had a beer, while he waited for a girl to show who he had just met somewhere locally after he arrived at Auburn Washington. When she arrived, she looked like a model, beautiful. He was not that different looking than Matt Damon in Invictus, strongly built, lightly colored hair and very good looking. He was quite pleasant, until I asked him about the troubles going on in South Africa. He got pretty heated about it.
I said, well, the news, I see all over the TV that there is civil unrest, people are having all kinds of problems it seems. He said that when he was in South Africa, he was a little afraid to come to the US because it was all about problems, murders, crime, etc. But once he got here, he saw none of that. Then he admitted that he too saw problems about back home and he called his mother. They owned a farm and were out of the city. He asked her what the heck was going on. Her response was there was nothing going on; what was he talking about. The media. I guess that's what it was all about. He left with his date and I never saw him again. But considering how South African whites have been portrayed (think Lethal Weapon II), I had a nice impression of South African whites, having never met any South African before.
But how does one do that? Assure that you will win what your nation needs to win? The following is a quote from Wikipedia that I think, may spell out what happened. Normally, I would say, if this was how they assured a victory, that this was horrible. But on this occasion, I think, it may have been necessary. And I think the world needed South Africa to get their act together on the world stage, so this may have been a good thing, no matter how they won. That being said, they are currently the holders of the World Cup, so, maybe the food poisoning, was a mere coincidence. And maybe, they would have won anyway. But, it was a close match regardless.
---
South Africa national rugby union team - Springboks
Paul Roos, Springbok captain, of the first South African touring rugby team to the British Isles in 1906 The 1906 Springboks team.
Paul Roos was the captain of the first South African team to tour the British Isles and France. The team was largely dominated by players from Western Province, and took place over 1906–07.
1990s
From 1990 to 1991 the legal apparatus of apartheid was abolished, and the Springboks were readmitted to international rugby in 1992. They struggled to return to their pre-isolation standards, and in their first games after readmission the Springboks were defeated 27–24 by New Zealand on 15 August 1992 and also suffered a 26–3 loss to Australia the following month. Ian McIntosh was sacked as national coach following a series defeat to the All Blacks in New Zealand in mid-1994. In October of that year, Kitch Christie accepted an offer to take over from McIntosh.
South Africa was selected to host the 1995 Rugby World Cup, and there was a remarkable surge of support for the Springboks among the white and black communities in the lead-up to the tournament. This was the first major event to be held in what Archbishop Desmond Tutu had dubbed "the Rainbow Nation." South Africans got behind the 'one team, one country' slogan.
By the time they hosted the 1995 World Cup, the Springboks were seeded ninth. They defeated Australia, Romania, Canada, Western Samoa and France to play in the final.
South Africa narrowly won the epic 1995 Rugby World Cup Final 15–12 against traditional rivals the All Blacks, who later claimed that players were suffering from severe food poisoning prior to the match. A drop goal by Joel Stransky secured victory in extra-time.
Wearing a Springbok shirt, Nelson Mandela presented the trophy to captain Francois Pienaar, a white Afrikaner. The gesture was widely seen as a major step towards the reconciliation of white and black South Africans.
Mandela's enthusiasm and support for the Springboks is portrayed in the 2009 film Invictus. SARFU President Louis Luyt caused controversy at the post-match dinner by declaring that the Springboks would have won the previous two World Cups if they had been allowed to compete.
The day after the World Cup victory, the Xhosa word for Springbok, Amabokoboko! appeared as the headline of The Sowetan's sports page.
----
All that being said:
It did however, get me curious.
How perfect was it that South Africa won a World Cup, JUST when they needed to. And I agree, they really needed to win that year, it was necessary to help cleanse their national palate of Apartheid.
I met a lad from South Africa in about 1994. He was a groom for his horse trainer at the farm I as living at with my soon to be wife. We had him up for a barbeque. He accepted and hung out, had a beer, while he waited for a girl to show who he had just met somewhere locally after he arrived at Auburn Washington. When she arrived, she looked like a model, beautiful. He was not that different looking than Matt Damon in Invictus, strongly built, lightly colored hair and very good looking. He was quite pleasant, until I asked him about the troubles going on in South Africa. He got pretty heated about it.
I said, well, the news, I see all over the TV that there is civil unrest, people are having all kinds of problems it seems. He said that when he was in South Africa, he was a little afraid to come to the US because it was all about problems, murders, crime, etc. But once he got here, he saw none of that. Then he admitted that he too saw problems about back home and he called his mother. They owned a farm and were out of the city. He asked her what the heck was going on. Her response was there was nothing going on; what was he talking about. The media. I guess that's what it was all about. He left with his date and I never saw him again. But considering how South African whites have been portrayed (think Lethal Weapon II), I had a nice impression of South African whites, having never met any South African before.
But how does one do that? Assure that you will win what your nation needs to win? The following is a quote from Wikipedia that I think, may spell out what happened. Normally, I would say, if this was how they assured a victory, that this was horrible. But on this occasion, I think, it may have been necessary. And I think the world needed South Africa to get their act together on the world stage, so this may have been a good thing, no matter how they won. That being said, they are currently the holders of the World Cup, so, maybe the food poisoning, was a mere coincidence. And maybe, they would have won anyway. But, it was a close match regardless.
---
South Africa national rugby union team - Springboks
Paul Roos, Springbok captain, of the first South African touring rugby team to the British Isles in 1906 The 1906 Springboks team.
Paul Roos was the captain of the first South African team to tour the British Isles and France. The team was largely dominated by players from Western Province, and took place over 1906–07.
1990s
From 1990 to 1991 the legal apparatus of apartheid was abolished, and the Springboks were readmitted to international rugby in 1992. They struggled to return to their pre-isolation standards, and in their first games after readmission the Springboks were defeated 27–24 by New Zealand on 15 August 1992 and also suffered a 26–3 loss to Australia the following month. Ian McIntosh was sacked as national coach following a series defeat to the All Blacks in New Zealand in mid-1994. In October of that year, Kitch Christie accepted an offer to take over from McIntosh.
South Africa was selected to host the 1995 Rugby World Cup, and there was a remarkable surge of support for the Springboks among the white and black communities in the lead-up to the tournament. This was the first major event to be held in what Archbishop Desmond Tutu had dubbed "the Rainbow Nation." South Africans got behind the 'one team, one country' slogan.
By the time they hosted the 1995 World Cup, the Springboks were seeded ninth. They defeated Australia, Romania, Canada, Western Samoa and France to play in the final.
South Africa narrowly won the epic 1995 Rugby World Cup Final 15–12 against traditional rivals the All Blacks, who later claimed that players were suffering from severe food poisoning prior to the match. A drop goal by Joel Stransky secured victory in extra-time.
Wearing a Springbok shirt, Nelson Mandela presented the trophy to captain Francois Pienaar, a white Afrikaner. The gesture was widely seen as a major step towards the reconciliation of white and black South Africans.
Mandela's enthusiasm and support for the Springboks is portrayed in the 2009 film Invictus. SARFU President Louis Luyt caused controversy at the post-match dinner by declaring that the Springboks would have won the previous two World Cups if they had been allowed to compete.
The day after the World Cup victory, the Xhosa word for Springbok, Amabokoboko! appeared as the headline of The Sowetan's sports page.
----
All that being said:
| William Ernest Henley. 1849–1903 |
| Invictus |
| OUT of the night that covers me, | |
| Black as the Pit from pole to pole, | |
| I thank whatever gods may be | |
| For my unconquerable soul. | |
| In the fell clutch of circumstance | 5 |
| I have not winced nor cried aloud. | |
| Under the bludgeonings of chance | |
| My head is bloody, but unbowed. | |
| Beyond this place of wrath and tears | |
| Looms but the Horror of the shade, | 10 |
| And yet the menace of the years | |
| Finds, and shall find, me unafraid. | |
| It matters not how strait the gate, | |
| How charged with punishments the scroll, | |
| I am the master of my fate: | 15 |
| I am the captain of my soul. |
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Art - The Barnes Foundation
Now, I am not an artist. Though I like to think of myself as one, as a writer. I wish I could be a painter, but I don't have the patience. I'd like to think that at some point, I would be considered an artist in at least some of my writings, some day, before I die. But a true artist, or "Artiste" as I like to say, takes a genius amount of talent, effort, skill and something almost (or truly) spiritual in its creations.
If you consider yourself an artist, if you are an American, or not, but especially so, if you are, then you really should know about The Barnes Foundation collection of art, located in Merion, Pennsylvania.
From the home page of The Barnes Foundation:
"The Barnes Foundation houses one of the finest collections of nineteenth and twentieth-century French painting in the world. An extraordinary number of masterpieces by Renoir, Cézanne and Matisse provide a depth of work by these artists unavailable elsewhere. Established as an educational institution the Barnes carries out its mission teaching classes in its galleries and Arboretum. The Barnes welcomes visitors and students throughout the year."
Alfred Barnes was a Doctor who invented a replacement to the Silver nitrate eye drops for newborns they used to put in every baby's eyes to save them from venereal disease. He made a fortune with it. A friend then turned him on to art and the rest, dear friends, is history. And an incredible history it is.
From Dr. Barnes's Last Will and Testament (as distinct from the Barnes Foundation's Indenture of Trust) was limited to:
Dr. Barnes pretty much hated "Society", the rich and the politicians who see art as some commodity. To get a feel for how Dr. Barnes saw things, he had said:
When he first opened his art up to viewing, the professional art critics slammed him into the ground. Almost viciously. After that, if he got a letter saying, "I'm an art critic for a NY newspaper, I'd like to come see the art." He would write back, "No", and have his dog, Fidele, sign it. But if someone wrote saying, "I'm a plumber and I would like to come see the art." He would say, "Yes."
When asked how much the collection is worth, a custodian of the collection couldn't even put a price on it. In looking at art (Cézanne's, Van Gogh, Matisse's) at Sotherby's, this custodian just dismissed most of the pieces as not worthy to be in the Foundation's collection.
Henri Matisse, said that, "The Barnes Foundation is the only sane place to see art in America."
If you ever feel like traveling to see art, go see the Barnes Collection. The number and quality of the pieces, even compared to the Louvre, or the NY Metropolitan Museum of the Arts, or any others, cannot in may ways, compare.
If you want to know more about The Barnes Foundation collection, see The Art of the Steal, a very interesting documentary. See also, Article
If you consider yourself an artist, if you are an American, or not, but especially so, if you are, then you really should know about The Barnes Foundation collection of art, located in Merion, Pennsylvania.
From the home page of The Barnes Foundation:
"The Barnes Foundation houses one of the finest collections of nineteenth and twentieth-century French painting in the world. An extraordinary number of masterpieces by Renoir, Cézanne and Matisse provide a depth of work by these artists unavailable elsewhere. Established as an educational institution the Barnes carries out its mission teaching classes in its galleries and Arboretum. The Barnes welcomes visitors and students throughout the year."
Alfred Barnes was a Doctor who invented a replacement to the Silver nitrate eye drops for newborns they used to put in every baby's eyes to save them from venereal disease. He made a fortune with it. A friend then turned him on to art and the rest, dear friends, is history. And an incredible history it is.
From Dr. Barnes's Last Will and Testament (as distinct from the Barnes Foundation's Indenture of Trust) was limited to:
- reiterating that the Collection was given to the Foundation prior to his death;
- bequeathing the real property (i.e., land and buildings) in Merion, as well as Dr. Barnes's country property known as Ker-Feal to the Foundation (with express directions that Ker-Feal be used as a "living museum" in perpetuity by the Foundation); and
- giving the residue of his estate to his wife Laura.
Dr. Barnes pretty much hated "Society", the rich and the politicians who see art as some commodity. To get a feel for how Dr. Barnes saw things, he had said:
- "Philadelphia is a depressing intellectual slum."
- "The main function of the museum has been to serve as a pedestal upon which a clique of socialites pose as patrons of the arts."
- "The Philadelphia Museum of Art is a house of artistic and intellectual prostitution."
When he first opened his art up to viewing, the professional art critics slammed him into the ground. Almost viciously. After that, if he got a letter saying, "I'm an art critic for a NY newspaper, I'd like to come see the art." He would write back, "No", and have his dog, Fidele, sign it. But if someone wrote saying, "I'm a plumber and I would like to come see the art." He would say, "Yes."
When asked how much the collection is worth, a custodian of the collection couldn't even put a price on it. In looking at art (Cézanne's, Van Gogh, Matisse's) at Sotherby's, this custodian just dismissed most of the pieces as not worthy to be in the Foundation's collection.
Henri Matisse, said that, "The Barnes Foundation is the only sane place to see art in America."
If you ever feel like traveling to see art, go see the Barnes Collection. The number and quality of the pieces, even compared to the Louvre, or the NY Metropolitan Museum of the Arts, or any others, cannot in may ways, compare.
If you want to know more about The Barnes Foundation collection, see The Art of the Steal, a very interesting documentary. See also, Article
Who coined the word, "Robot"?
Karel Čapek, a Czech writer coined the term "robot", or rather made it popular.
"He introduced and made popular the frequently used international word robot, which first appeared in his play R.U.R. (Rossum's Universal Robots) in 1920. The true inventor of the term robot was Karel's brother Josef Čapek"
"The word robot comes from the word robota meaning "drudgery", "work of a villein" in literary Czech and "work", "labor" in literary Slovak. While Karel Čapek is frequently acknowledged as the originator of the word, he wrote a short letter in reference to the Oxford English Dictionary etymology in which he named his brother, painter and writer Josef Čapek as its true inventor."
"In an article in the Czech Lidové noviny in 1930, he also explains that he originally wanted to call the creature dělňas (a substantive derived from the Czech verb "dělat"- to work, to do). However, Jozef did not like this word and advised Karel, who was writing the play R.U.R. in Trenčianske Teplice in Slovakia, to inspire himself by the local language, in which "work" is expressed by the word robota, also known in the Czech language. The origin of both the Czech and the Slovak word is the Old Church Slavonic rabota "servitude", which in turn comes from the Indo-European root *orbh"
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=1006051228302
"He introduced and made popular the frequently used international word robot, which first appeared in his play R.U.R. (Rossum's Universal Robots) in 1920. The true inventor of the term robot was Karel's brother Josef Čapek"
"The word robot comes from the word robota meaning "drudgery", "work of a villein" in literary Czech and "work", "labor" in literary Slovak. While Karel Čapek is frequently acknowledged as the originator of the word, he wrote a short letter in reference to the Oxford English Dictionary etymology in which he named his brother, painter and writer Josef Čapek as its true inventor."
"In an article in the Czech Lidové noviny in 1930, he also explains that he originally wanted to call the creature dělňas (a substantive derived from the Czech verb "dělat"- to work, to do). However, Jozef did not like this word and advised Karel, who was writing the play R.U.R. in Trenčianske Teplice in Slovakia, to inspire himself by the local language, in which "work" is expressed by the word robota, also known in the Czech language. The origin of both the Czech and the Slovak word is the Old Church Slavonic rabota "servitude", which in turn comes from the Indo-European root *orbh"
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=1006051228302
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Canada formally declares bisphenol A as toxic
OTTAWA — The government of Canada formally declared bisphenol A, a chemical widely used to create clear, hard plastics, as well as food can liners, to be a toxic substance on 10/20/2010.
The compound, commonly known as BPA, has been shown to disrupt the hormone systems of animals and is under review in the United States and Europe.
Canada’s move, which was strenuously fought by the chemical industry, followed an announcement by the government two years ago that it would eliminate the compound’s use in polycarbonate bottles used by infants and children.
The compound was formally listed as being toxic to both the environment and human health in an official notice published online by the government without fanfare, a noticeable contrast to the earlier baby bottle announcement, which was made by two cabinet ministers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)