I found Dirt! to be a great work. But I find that I am in the minority, unfortunately. Dirt! is a movie that everyone should watch and think about very, very carefully.It has a lot of pretty important and very pertinent information and perspectives. Which, I admit, are against the general consensus which seems to be of the opinion that the earth is just here for our wanton extraction and harvesation of its resources.
But we aren't. We are just here. And we should respect that. This is the central message I got out of the movie.
Dirt! is actually an enjoyable movie, which is what should be stated first, I suppose. It has cartoons. Cartoon are always fun. I enjoyed the style of the cartooning as well, it was very expressive. It is not as depressing as many environmental movies can get, though, of course, it has its moments.
Dirt! is not a political movie, it is not religious, but it is about some strong opinions and some stark facts and predictions which I think are entirely reasonable if not a little optimistic. (I like to think of myself as a realist: I don't think the glass is half empty, or half full, I think "that glass is twice as big as it needs to be") But even if the movie is, itself, not political or religious or (outrightly) ethical, it will spark some heated debates along all those lines.
All I ask is that when discussing the ramifications expressed in this "Wonderful" (yeah, I'll call it wonderful) movie, you do not regurgitate comebacks that you haven't thought about. Instead, please consider the point of view of the people in this movie. Realize that these are opinions held be intelligent people who have thought long and hard about this stuff and therefore have some very valid things to say. Just as valid as yourself. Discuss it. It's important.
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Entre les murs "The Class" (2008 movie)
"The Class" (or, by its original title, Entre Les Murs) reminded me of The Story of the Weeping Camel. Not because it was really "Mongolian", but because it was a window (a small, rectangular, 90 minute bathroom window, but a window) into another culture. French culture in this case, which is much more similar to mine own.
Like The Story of the Weeping Camel, The Class makes the viewer think of a documentary even though it is obvious that it isn't one. But it wasn't filled with flawless Hollywood actors, it had a shaky camera, and it was "Vividly Realistic", short on plot and heavy on character by design. Real life has one thing leading to another, but there isn't a dramatic conclusion and there isn't one here. There are only incidents and episodes that occur in the course of a year.
That is not a recipe palatable to everyone. Or even most people. It is the type of recipe that makes people suspect there will be a metallic "artistic" flavor. But if that is what you are expecting, it can an enjoyable movie. I especially like the casting. Hollywood actors can get tiresome.
The Class is supposed to be about a class of relativity disruptive and unruly suburbian children. Kids who are likely to be forgotten by France's educational system which places a disturbing amount of faith on one test after your "high school" education. This test will decide whether the student goes to "grande ecolar" or crappy technical college. Discipline in the school seems very authoritarian from my perspective, but then from my perspective that class isn't all that unruly or horrid. There is question, however, whether it is working very well.
If you want to know more, watch the bloody movie. It is interesting to the sociologist or psychologist.
Like The Story of the Weeping Camel, The Class makes the viewer think of a documentary even though it is obvious that it isn't one. But it wasn't filled with flawless Hollywood actors, it had a shaky camera, and it was "Vividly Realistic", short on plot and heavy on character by design. Real life has one thing leading to another, but there isn't a dramatic conclusion and there isn't one here. There are only incidents and episodes that occur in the course of a year.
That is not a recipe palatable to everyone. Or even most people. It is the type of recipe that makes people suspect there will be a metallic "artistic" flavor. But if that is what you are expecting, it can an enjoyable movie. I especially like the casting. Hollywood actors can get tiresome.
The Class is supposed to be about a class of relativity disruptive and unruly suburbian children. Kids who are likely to be forgotten by France's educational system which places a disturbing amount of faith on one test after your "high school" education. This test will decide whether the student goes to "grande ecolar" or crappy technical college. Discipline in the school seems very authoritarian from my perspective, but then from my perspective that class isn't all that unruly or horrid. There is question, however, whether it is working very well.
If you want to know more, watch the bloody movie. It is interesting to the sociologist or psychologist.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Labels
Quaker service Sunday:
That's from "Quaker Faith and Practice". A lot of the "verses" in that book have to do with peace, a particular obsession for the Quakers. From this, our conversation went on to talk about labels. There are many people who will do something such as label themselves lazy.
That's what I really want to talk about.
We really like our labels. They make life easier. Possible, actually. Without these shortcuts there would be way, way too much to know. Every single minute of your life is packed with a good hour's worth of information. Compounded that by all the information you have to take in that isn't (or wasn't) part of your life and you have a situation which would make even the most studious researcher balk. So we place reality and each other in various constrained categories: male, female, Scandinavian, skin-head, tea-bagger, heterosexual, psychopath, happy, lucky, lazy, depressed, ADD, boring, successful, arrogant, black, white, red-neck, man, dog... That list could go on forever. None of these labels tell the whole story about a person, some of them don't tell any of the experience of a person, but they are sometimes used as though they do.
Therein lies the problem. The important thing about labels is to remember that they are just labels, just shortcuts, and aren't such a fundamental aspect of a persons character that they can't be changed. Hell, Mike Jackson changed his race, so even that one is modifiable if you desire it enough. But in seriousness, the physical aspect of race isn't what I'm talking about. If a person is unhappy with the label "white" or "black" they can begin to distance themselves from that label even if they don't change their skin pigment. See George Carlin on "Happens to Be".
Again, I'm getting myself off topic. The damaging labels, which people tend to apply to themselves for whatever masochistic or misguided reasons, are labels such as "lazy".
It devolves into an excuse. Why didn't you get your homework done? "I'm lazy." Where are those TPS reports? "Well, I'm lazy." I thought you wanted to go to the fair, "Welp, I'm a lazy bastard, so..." So you're losing your life confining yourself under a very removable label. Laziness is nothing but a habit. I've been there before, I used to have myself oppressed under the "ADD" label. I still associate myself with the label but I don't use it to limit myself. Sure it's difficult for me to stay on task. So what? Not like it's impossible. Not like it's actually gruelingly difficult. It's not like it's a good excuse.
Like Aristotle would say, Laziness, like greatness, is a habit. You become what you do.
24:05 We entreat all who profess themselves members of our Society to be faithful to that ancient testimony, borne by us ever since we were a people, against bearing arms and fighting, that by a conduct agreeable to our profession we may demonstrate ourselves to be real followers of the Messiah, the peaceable Saviour, of the increase of whose government and peace there shall be no end.
That's from "Quaker Faith and Practice". A lot of the "verses" in that book have to do with peace, a particular obsession for the Quakers. From this, our conversation went on to talk about labels. There are many people who will do something such as label themselves lazy.
That's what I really want to talk about.
We really like our labels. They make life easier. Possible, actually. Without these shortcuts there would be way, way too much to know. Every single minute of your life is packed with a good hour's worth of information. Compounded that by all the information you have to take in that isn't (or wasn't) part of your life and you have a situation which would make even the most studious researcher balk. So we place reality and each other in various constrained categories: male, female, Scandinavian, skin-head, tea-bagger, heterosexual, psychopath, happy, lucky, lazy, depressed, ADD, boring, successful, arrogant, black, white, red-neck, man, dog... That list could go on forever. None of these labels tell the whole story about a person, some of them don't tell any of the experience of a person, but they are sometimes used as though they do.
Therein lies the problem. The important thing about labels is to remember that they are just labels, just shortcuts, and aren't such a fundamental aspect of a persons character that they can't be changed. Hell, Mike Jackson changed his race, so even that one is modifiable if you desire it enough. But in seriousness, the physical aspect of race isn't what I'm talking about. If a person is unhappy with the label "white" or "black" they can begin to distance themselves from that label even if they don't change their skin pigment. See George Carlin on "Happens to Be".
Again, I'm getting myself off topic. The damaging labels, which people tend to apply to themselves for whatever masochistic or misguided reasons, are labels such as "lazy".
It devolves into an excuse. Why didn't you get your homework done? "I'm lazy." Where are those TPS reports? "Well, I'm lazy." I thought you wanted to go to the fair, "Welp, I'm a lazy bastard, so..." So you're losing your life confining yourself under a very removable label. Laziness is nothing but a habit. I've been there before, I used to have myself oppressed under the "ADD" label. I still associate myself with the label but I don't use it to limit myself. Sure it's difficult for me to stay on task. So what? Not like it's impossible. Not like it's actually gruelingly difficult. It's not like it's a good excuse.
Like Aristotle would say, Laziness, like greatness, is a habit. You become what you do.
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Mimes and Marvels (Symphony performance, Sat. 4/17/2010)
The Bismarck-Mandan Symphony performance of Dan Kamin's mime performance was "Enjoyable". I'd never seen a real mime really perform before (few people have I guess), but I have never really seen what annoys people so much. And I don't see it now. He was funny. Gave picture, story, and context to classical music. What more do you want?
Ok, words, I guess. But not really during a symphony performance.
The level of audience participation, and orchestra participation, is what made the show truly interesting. There is one part where Kamin begins conducting the applause in the audience. It's amazing how quickly we all learn to listen to him.
...Well... perhaps "listen" isn't quite the right word....
I am impressed with the Bismarck-Mandan Symphony for their adventurous spirit. It is obvious, from just their willingness to undertake this performance, let alone their tenacity in seeking it out, that they possess one. There are an impressive number of spoken lines in the performance all delivered by the conductor. Their sense of humor is refreshing.
For a good idea of Kamin's sense of humor, watch Benny and Joon, for he designed Johnny Depp's Keaton-esque comedic sketches as well as Robert Downy Jr.'s Chaplin-esque sketches in Chaplin. This is the second time Dan Kamin's been to Bismarck.
Ok, words, I guess. But not really during a symphony performance.
The level of audience participation, and orchestra participation, is what made the show truly interesting. There is one part where Kamin begins conducting the applause in the audience. It's amazing how quickly we all learn to listen to him.
...Well... perhaps "listen" isn't quite the right word....
I am impressed with the Bismarck-Mandan Symphony for their adventurous spirit. It is obvious, from just their willingness to undertake this performance, let alone their tenacity in seeking it out, that they possess one. There are an impressive number of spoken lines in the performance all delivered by the conductor. Their sense of humor is refreshing.
For a good idea of Kamin's sense of humor, watch Benny and Joon, for he designed Johnny Depp's Keaton-esque comedic sketches as well as Robert Downy Jr.'s Chaplin-esque sketches in Chaplin. This is the second time Dan Kamin's been to Bismarck.
The Cat in the Hat (2003 movie)
The Cat in the Hat is... uh... Mike Myers cracking jokes in front of an audience of two children. You got to watch the children watch him make a fool out of himself.
And that is all it was. I try to avoid overly value-laden words when critiquing movies and whatnot, but I can't think of a better description than "obnoxious", or "horrid", or "wretched". I'll go with "Foolish" for this film.
It perhaps has some value. For small children. But their parents will not be able to stand it, I predict. If you want to see a Dr. Suess movie, go watch Horton Hears a Who. That is really brilliant and very funny.
And that is all it was. I try to avoid overly value-laden words when critiquing movies and whatnot, but I can't think of a better description than "obnoxious", or "horrid", or "wretched". I'll go with "Foolish" for this film.
It perhaps has some value. For small children. But their parents will not be able to stand it, I predict. If you want to see a Dr. Suess movie, go watch Horton Hears a Who. That is really brilliant and very funny.
Field House Too Soon After College Center
Western State College has gotten in a frenzy. Dropping enrollment has caused the administration to fear for the future of our institution. The facilities are there, they say. We could have, and have had, nearly double the number of students we currently have. Why aren't they here anymore? What could be done to get them to come back? We must encourage them to come back!
In a loss, it seems, we have looked to CU and other big institution for what to do. What we noticed right away is that CU has a lot more buildings, a lot more new buildings, and a lot more special purpose buildings than we have. So that is what we decided to copy. Using "Build it, and they will come" as a mantra, we have been building new structures for the past five years (well, some renovations as well).
But is this the answer? In chess, if you find yourself responding to your opponent’s moves, because you feel there is no other option (you must protect your queen! No, don't kill my rook!) then you have already lost. Copying CU is not the answer; nor is competing with an institution that size. That is not, and never will be, what Western is. Gunnison is not and never will be Boulder. Thank the Heavens.
Asking Western to compete with a place like CU is like telling the Ukraine to compete with the US economy: it will bankrupt our school. This hasn't stopped the Ukraine, and every other country in the world, from trying to compete with the US, and to play the same game. In hindsight, however, globalization has given rise to starvation, poverty and disease. They were there before, but not on the scale we see today.
I do not believe that this is the time to build a brand new $32 million field-house. We haven't dealt with the last massive expenditure, the new College Center. Until that is fully paid for, we don't go into the red again. That is the bottom line. It might be nice, but it is not worth the proposed tuition raise and I can't see it bringing in so many more students. Besides, that was the theory behind the College Center; we should allow it time to show if it worked or not before we spend $32 million on the same experiment. In the mean time we could focus on expanding programming in ways that will be interesting, take advantage of our location (not destroy our location), but realize that there aren't actually all that many people who want to live where it gets to -40° in the winter. Building something to escape that weather will not make it go away, after all, and those who don't like it still will not come. For those who do like it, Gunnison is a great place.
I have been told before that Western has had more students in the past and "the facilities are here". So why do we have this compulsion to build? That should be the first clue that it's not necessary. Possibly helpful, but not necessary and too expensive. We have created a world-class running team for neigh 40 years without a field house and we can continue without it. It's not a question of "need".
The associated cost will be too big of a deterrent. What will draw in students is to embrace our location, sell WSC down coats, make skiing teams, try to make deals with CB (unlikely, but try) and Monarch. Not stay inside.
In a loss, it seems, we have looked to CU and other big institution for what to do. What we noticed right away is that CU has a lot more buildings, a lot more new buildings, and a lot more special purpose buildings than we have. So that is what we decided to copy. Using "Build it, and they will come" as a mantra, we have been building new structures for the past five years (well, some renovations as well).
But is this the answer? In chess, if you find yourself responding to your opponent’s moves, because you feel there is no other option (you must protect your queen! No, don't kill my rook!) then you have already lost. Copying CU is not the answer; nor is competing with an institution that size. That is not, and never will be, what Western is. Gunnison is not and never will be Boulder. Thank the Heavens.
Asking Western to compete with a place like CU is like telling the Ukraine to compete with the US economy: it will bankrupt our school. This hasn't stopped the Ukraine, and every other country in the world, from trying to compete with the US, and to play the same game. In hindsight, however, globalization has given rise to starvation, poverty and disease. They were there before, but not on the scale we see today.
I do not believe that this is the time to build a brand new $32 million field-house. We haven't dealt with the last massive expenditure, the new College Center. Until that is fully paid for, we don't go into the red again. That is the bottom line. It might be nice, but it is not worth the proposed tuition raise and I can't see it bringing in so many more students. Besides, that was the theory behind the College Center; we should allow it time to show if it worked or not before we spend $32 million on the same experiment. In the mean time we could focus on expanding programming in ways that will be interesting, take advantage of our location (not destroy our location), but realize that there aren't actually all that many people who want to live where it gets to -40° in the winter. Building something to escape that weather will not make it go away, after all, and those who don't like it still will not come. For those who do like it, Gunnison is a great place.
I have been told before that Western has had more students in the past and "the facilities are here". So why do we have this compulsion to build? That should be the first clue that it's not necessary. Possibly helpful, but not necessary and too expensive. We have created a world-class running team for neigh 40 years without a field house and we can continue without it. It's not a question of "need".
The associated cost will be too big of a deterrent. What will draw in students is to embrace our location, sell WSC down coats, make skiing teams, try to make deals with CB (unlikely, but try) and Monarch. Not stay inside.
Go Outside and Think about Global Warming
I was walking to church in Bismarck at 8:00 in the morning today. It's a nice short walk, a good way to wake up. As I was cresting a hill, I heard a huge roar coming from the south. At first, I didn't know what it could be. The fantasist in me thought, maybe the USSR is finally bombing us. I knew that wasn't the case, so I tried to think about it more rationally. Whatever it was, it was a huge noise and it was coming from pretty far away; or seemed to be. I looked south and couldn't see what it could be. I still felt like it should have been something catastrophic: a terrorist attack, the coming of the rapture, giant lizards escaping from the ground to eat us all, the return of Zeus. But I realized, the airport is over that way. About four, five miles away. That was probably a plane.
Just a plane. Really far away. And it occurred to me:
Anyone who doesn't think it's possible humans could cause global warming doesn't spend enough time outside.
That statement doesn't mean that I definitely, without question, believe that people are behind global warming. (it's actually not that important to me... even if we aren't causing global warming doesn't mean we shouldn't change our behavior. Because it is damaging, it is Not "good", we're still changing the acidity of the freakin' ocean!) That just means that I believe, without question, that it is possible.
Look at a photograph of the earth from space and at night. Look out your window and try, just try, to see something that isn't impacted by human expansion. Even if you live in the country side, it's difficult. The only place I have been where it is not really difficult is the remote wilderness in central Saskatchewan. Even there isn't not easy.
Or just go walking outside and hear an airplane roar.
Just a plane. Really far away. And it occurred to me:
Anyone who doesn't think it's possible humans could cause global warming doesn't spend enough time outside.
That statement doesn't mean that I definitely, without question, believe that people are behind global warming. (it's actually not that important to me... even if we aren't causing global warming doesn't mean we shouldn't change our behavior. Because it is damaging, it is Not "good", we're still changing the acidity of the freakin' ocean!) That just means that I believe, without question, that it is possible.
Look at a photograph of the earth from space and at night. Look out your window and try, just try, to see something that isn't impacted by human expansion. Even if you live in the country side, it's difficult. The only place I have been where it is not really difficult is the remote wilderness in central Saskatchewan. Even there isn't not easy.
Or just go walking outside and hear an airplane roar.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
People in the Street on Health Care, published in the Prairie Independent, April 2010
People in the Street:What people around Bismarck-Mandan are saying about health insurance reform.
By Edward Morrison (full article on prairieindependent.com)
Mr. O’Callaehan:
“I think Obama did the right thing for the people. It’s pretty standard in the rest of the world.”
Joey:
“I think that it should definitely be changed. I just don’t really agree with it.”
George:
“It’s good. I mean, it’s kind of half and half. For me personally, it’s going to work for me. You have to progress.”
Mr. Dutton:
“I’ve been dealing with the VA and this is just going to be a glimpse of what government health care’s going to be about, I think.”
Kevin Horneman:
“I was always for it. I was always behind it.”
Recycling Articles, published in the Prairie Independent, April 2010
Director of Service Operations
Jeff Heintz estimates that approximately half of Bismarck residents recycle and
notes that there has been consistent growing use of recycling drop-off sites
all throughout the city. However, even those who are interested find it hard to
keep up on what the city recycles and how the system works and what is taken.
Many sites advertize that they only take plastics 1 and 2, but Bismarck will
actually pick up plastics #1 through #7.
After a phone survey conducted by UND, the Bismarck City
Commission voted unanimously in August of
2008 to establish a task force to research improvements to the system. Their recomendation was to
establish a two-sort curbside
pickup, meaning users would sort recycling between paper items and all others,
to be picked up by a commercial hauler.
The city could negotiate for a
percentage of the profits gained from the sale of the recyclables, but would
not invest in creating their own
infrastructure for pickup when it was
already in place through private enterprise. The task force also recommended providing economic incentives to
residents to encourage recycling and to begin recycling education.
“The commission accepted that report,” Heintz said, “but really didn’t go any further than
that.”
They wanted more information first.
This past January, a
survey on implementing a Pay-As-You-Throw
or PAYT program was sent out in the city water bill. There were 4,568
responses. A “tremendous response,” according to Heintz.
While the name may be a little
misleading, the program actually estimates a savings for residents. Currently,
the price for picking up a 95 gallon trash container is $9.55 per month. Under
the proposed PAYT system, 95 gallon trash containers are estimated to cost
$7.55 per month, with additional bags predicted to cost between $1 and
$1.75 per bag, to be marked by a pre-paid tag available at convinence stores
and grocery stores.
But if a person recycled, they could reduce their trash size to a 35 gallon pickup
at $5.55 per month because recycling containers, to be provided by the city,
would be free. The survey indicated that 41.5 percent of Bismarck is in favor of this plan while 34.6 percent oppose it. Of those surveyed, 70.6
percent feel informed.
The City of Mandan will meet
next month to discuss improvements
to their recycling system. Bismarck
discussed it Tuesday, March 23.
Tonya Schlaht of the Bismarck-Mandan Chamber of Commerce Leadership Team presented
the council with the findings from the survey, but the council is reticent with
less than 50 percent of Bismarck
on board.
The next step is educating
Bismarck residents of the
necessity for and the benefits of recycling. Of the kinks yet to iron
out is what to do with grass clippings and compostable garden waste, which
can currently be brough to drop-off sites. Connie
Sprynczynatyk, who helped form the Commerce Leadership Team, was the most
excited about their findings and wished that she could vote yes on the issue
later this year, but regrets that she will not have the office to do so.
The city is very interested in
recycling efforts largely to “be saving landfill space” as Galen Bren, the
city’s recycling specialist said. In 2009, 1332.3 tons of recyclable material
was kept out of the landfill. If the city landfill’s life can be extended, then
it will save all tax payers in the long run because the city will not have to
find a new place to deposit all of our garbage.
However, Bismarck residents
only contribute 1/3 of the garbage to the landfill. Bigger contributers are
businesses and nearby rural residents. Rural residents have indicated that they
are very interested in recycling but cannot feasably achieve it without support
from the city and a hauler to service them.
Current opportunities for recycling in Bismarck-Mandan include composting
drop-off sites thoughout both cities, thrift-stores, eye-glass recycling drop
boxes, and “freecycling” networks. One such network is
managed through a Yahoo! Group called “bisman-freecycle.” The Department
of Health manages the other, which is called the “North Dakota Materials Exchange Program.” Free-cycling offers the ability to trade items you do not want
for items that you do.
There have been over 3000
postings on this group to date.
When asked if Bismarck was closer to getting curbside
recycling or a Pay-As-You-Throw program that would provide economic incentives to citizens to recycle,
Galen Bren replied that recycling issues were on the agenda to be discussed by
the city later in March.
The mayor recently put a group together to
investigate recycling.
Recycling can be a source of
revenue. Collection of these
reuseable raw materials can be sold for approximately $155 per ton for iron and $140 per ton for white goods
(which refers to appliances such as refrigerators, washing machines, and dishwashers), according to Bren. The city could raise a good amount of income by collecting 8 to 10 tons of tin cans alone.
To contact Bismarck’s Recycling center, call 355-1700.
PULL OUT FOR SIDEBAR:
Saving Space
A city-wide recycling program could slow the rate at which the landfill takes in various materials each year.
- Newspaper 494 tons
- Cardboard 248 tons
- Office paper 3.3 tons
- Phonebooks 5 tons
- Plastics 76 tons
- Tin and Alum cans 28 tons
- Scrap Metal 478 tons
SIDEBAR 2 - RECYCLING OPTIONS:
ONLY LISTING FULL-SERVICE
LOCATIONS IN BISMARCK
Bismarck-Mandan Recycling Options
The cities of Bismarck and
Mandan have more opportunities for recycling than might be known by many of
their residents. There are, in total, 37 places in Bismarck to take various
recyclables. Mandan also has compost
drop-off sites.
Not all the sites in Bismarck
take the same things. There are 18 sites in the city where residents can take
their general recycling, which includes corrugated cardboard, newspapers,
aluminum cans, tin cans, and plastics #1
through #7.
(Recyclables do not include plastic bags, used motor oil or vegetable
oil bottles, or smooth or waxed cardboard, such as cereal boxes.)
At the moment, there is no glass
recycling in Bismarck, but the state government is facilitating discussions
with many interested groups in the hopes that glass will be recyclable in the
future.
Waste Management's Recycling
Center accepts magazines.
At ten of these sites, residents
can take their yard waste, grass clippings and leaves and some limited
vegetable product from gardents. These sites do not take woody debris. To
dispose of that, it is best to take it directly to the landfill or put it out
with the trash.
Twelve sites around the city take only yard waste.
In addition, six business in Bismarck accept other recyclables
such as rechargeable batteries, car batteries, plastic bags, CFL light bulbs,
ink and toner cartridges, cell-phones, scrap metal, tires, and aluminum cans.
Besides recycling or throwing out your used goods, there are five
trift stores in Bismark-Mandan and
several freecycling networks.
For a full list, including
addresses and a map, visit the city's website at www.bismarck.org.
A: FULL SERVICE CITY
RECYCLING DROP-OFF SITES:
Takes: yard waste, corrugated cardboard, newspapers,
aluminum beverage cans, tin cans, plastics #1-#7
1. W. Ash Coulee Road water tower (east of Horizon Middle
School)
2. N. 19th St & E. Oregon Ave (near Element Student
Center)
3. N. Stonewall Dr & E. Penn’s Ln (dead end)
4. N. Kavaney Dr. & W. Central Ave (Northbrook
Shopping Center)
5. N. 16th St & E. Spalding Ave (Optimist Park)
6. BSC Bowl on W. Edwards Ave (west end of campus)
7. N. 17th St & E. Avenue F (Hillside Park)
8. N. Hannifin St & W. Avenue D (south side of the
soccer fields)
9. N. Hannifin St & W. Sweet Ave (Kiwanis Park, west
of baseball fields)
10. S. Airport Rd & E. Tatley Park Rd (north end of
Tatley Park)
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Quakers and Clay Jenkinson
Quaker and Unitarian worship is somewhat similar. Both are pretty open minded and thoughtful, but I think I like the Quaker's style of worship more. Usually. I cannot say that every Quaker group works like this, but in Bismarck it is a discussion. Followed by "Quiet Time". Rather than having some high and mighty someone preach down to the masses, everyone takes part in discussion.
It is refreshingly thoughtful. I like the idea that God is still speaking.
We talked about nations. Reading passage -- in the third edition of the 'Quaker Bible' (which is a collection of materials that have been uttered or penned by Quakers in the last few hundred years). The passage is as follows:
The primary thing we, collectively, got out of this was, basically: war sucks. That's a pretty quick and obvious translation, we actually spend a good hour discussing this passage, but what I want most to talk about here is a thought of mine that this corroborated.
I mean no disrespect by the following, I realize that there is a lot to be said against it and that many people have spent their lives in opposition to it. But I don't like the idea of fighting for nothing more than the name of your country and it's symbols. For it's people... Well, maybe. That's another story, really. But the basic idea of a nation isn't something you should serve, but something that should serve you!
Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you!
That is why it's bloody there.
Following the Quaker service in Bismarck, I attended the Unitarian fellowship which was preached to by Clay Jenkinson, a radio star and reporter in the area.
He articulated very clearly many ideas which I hold dear. Which is the advantage of the UU set up: there are people who know things you don't and can say them better than you. So listen. Perhaps someday you can share something that you can articulate very well.
Like a Quaker, Clay is interested in modern theology. How the world is now and how to interact with it spiritually. He uses Thoreau's Walden as his bible, but wants to create a contemporary bible for the North American plains. Filled with songs and literature and excerpts from people who have actually lived in on these planes and preached what wisdom they had.
Such a compilation would be pretty useful, I do think.
You might be able to acquire a copy of this 'sermon' by going here.
It's good for you.
It is refreshingly thoughtful. I like the idea that God is still speaking.
We talked about nations. Reading passage -- in the third edition of the 'Quaker Bible' (which is a collection of materials that have been uttered or penned by Quakers in the last few hundred years). The passage is as follows:
Our principle is, and our practices have always been, to seek peace, and ensue it, and to follow after righteousness and the knowledge of God, seeking the good and welfare, and doing that which tends to the peace of all. All bloody principles and practices we do utterly deny, with all outward wars, and strife, and fightings with outward weapons, for any end, or under any pretence whatsoever, and this is our testimony to the whole world. That spirit of Christ by which we are guided is not changeable, so as once to command us from a thing as evil, and again to move unto it; and we do certainly know, and so testify to the world, that the spirit of Christ which leads us into all Truth will never move us to fight and war against any man with outward weapons, neither for the kingdom of Christ, nor for the kingdoms of this world.
And as for the kingdoms of this world, we cannot covet them, much less can we fight for them, but we do earnestly desire and wait, that by the word of God's power and its effectual operation in the hearts of men the kingdoms of this world may become the kingdoms of the Lord and of his Christ, that he might rule and reign in men by his spirit and truth, that thereby all people, out of all different judgments and professions might be brought into love and unity with God and one with another, and that they might all come to witness the prophet's words, who said, `Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more'. (Isaiah 2:4; Micah 4:3)
The primary thing we, collectively, got out of this was, basically: war sucks. That's a pretty quick and obvious translation, we actually spend a good hour discussing this passage, but what I want most to talk about here is a thought of mine that this corroborated.
I mean no disrespect by the following, I realize that there is a lot to be said against it and that many people have spent their lives in opposition to it. But I don't like the idea of fighting for nothing more than the name of your country and it's symbols. For it's people... Well, maybe. That's another story, really. But the basic idea of a nation isn't something you should serve, but something that should serve you!
Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you!
That is why it's bloody there.
Following the Quaker service in Bismarck, I attended the Unitarian fellowship which was preached to by Clay Jenkinson, a radio star and reporter in the area.
He articulated very clearly many ideas which I hold dear. Which is the advantage of the UU set up: there are people who know things you don't and can say them better than you. So listen. Perhaps someday you can share something that you can articulate very well.
Like a Quaker, Clay is interested in modern theology. How the world is now and how to interact with it spiritually. He uses Thoreau's Walden as his bible, but wants to create a contemporary bible for the North American plains. Filled with songs and literature and excerpts from people who have actually lived in on these planes and preached what wisdom they had.
Such a compilation would be pretty useful, I do think.
You might be able to acquire a copy of this 'sermon' by going here.
It's good for you.
Friday, April 9, 2010
Invisible Monsters by Chuck Palahniuk
Invisible Monsters is a very unique book with unique characters that reads like poetry. It is very obvious that it was fun for Chuck to write and is full of dark humour and turns of phrase. It's also "Musically Repetitive", full of sonic intensity!
To bad it's not audio. It doesn't go over well at all in a print media. I was so bored by the half-way point in this book I started listing all the "refrains" in the margins. There are at least three, up to twenty, depending on how you count. At times, the book seems to be a collection of quotes... from itself. Perhaps this would have been good as a performance, where these repetitions would have been able to sonically build, but I think it is still too long for so many repeats. But, like I said, I'm sure it was fun to write.
The 'unique characters' didn't make the book any more enjoyable. They aren't... realistic enough. But there are plenty of unrealistic characters I like. Gandalf comes to mind; or Luke Skywalker, even. But they are unrealistic in a different way. They work in the world that is created by the book, which itself is deep enough to sustain them. These characters are in a world sorta like earth, except far shallower, and they can't even really swim in that pool. They lack any and all depth, are all pretty much each other, and have no life outside of this story. Now, a literalist would tell me, "of course they don't. They don't exist anywhere outside of the story." But, as a literatureist, I say, "they exist in your imagination." Except these characters don't. They profess to have motivations, but I can't believe that they are real, I just don't buy it.
It is a very small world full of amazing coincidences. Everything ties back into itself. Everything comes back. I like that sort of thing, but even that is really overdone. I still find it the most impressive part of the book. Before I finished the book, I thought I wouldn't have anything good to say about it; I didn't think it would ever surprise me, no matter how much it was trying. But the ending is good. Just not worth reading the book.
Even the humor, the big selling point of the book, wasn't enjoyable. Though I do respect it. Again, I think it would have gone over better as a performance. There are lines that I read, and only realized the joke after I was on to the next sentence. They are good jokes, but... I think it was the surrounding pacakge, the mood that it put me in, that prevented me from even seeing the humor in the best of Chuck's jokes. But it is filled with dark humor. If you are into that, this may be one of the best books you ever read. If you can get over the repetition, repetition, repetition.
All in all, this book was a complete failure for me. One of the least enjoyable reads I can remember. Aside from Patricia Cornwell's Black Notice. That was really awful.
To bad it's not audio. It doesn't go over well at all in a print media. I was so bored by the half-way point in this book I started listing all the "refrains" in the margins. There are at least three, up to twenty, depending on how you count. At times, the book seems to be a collection of quotes... from itself. Perhaps this would have been good as a performance, where these repetitions would have been able to sonically build, but I think it is still too long for so many repeats. But, like I said, I'm sure it was fun to write.
The 'unique characters' didn't make the book any more enjoyable. They aren't... realistic enough. But there are plenty of unrealistic characters I like. Gandalf comes to mind; or Luke Skywalker, even. But they are unrealistic in a different way. They work in the world that is created by the book, which itself is deep enough to sustain them. These characters are in a world sorta like earth, except far shallower, and they can't even really swim in that pool. They lack any and all depth, are all pretty much each other, and have no life outside of this story. Now, a literalist would tell me, "of course they don't. They don't exist anywhere outside of the story." But, as a literatureist, I say, "they exist in your imagination." Except these characters don't. They profess to have motivations, but I can't believe that they are real, I just don't buy it.
It is a very small world full of amazing coincidences. Everything ties back into itself. Everything comes back. I like that sort of thing, but even that is really overdone. I still find it the most impressive part of the book. Before I finished the book, I thought I wouldn't have anything good to say about it; I didn't think it would ever surprise me, no matter how much it was trying. But the ending is good. Just not worth reading the book.
Even the humor, the big selling point of the book, wasn't enjoyable. Though I do respect it. Again, I think it would have gone over better as a performance. There are lines that I read, and only realized the joke after I was on to the next sentence. They are good jokes, but... I think it was the surrounding pacakge, the mood that it put me in, that prevented me from even seeing the humor in the best of Chuck's jokes. But it is filled with dark humor. If you are into that, this may be one of the best books you ever read. If you can get over the repetition, repetition, repetition.
All in all, this book was a complete failure for me. One of the least enjoyable reads I can remember. Aside from Patricia Cornwell's Black Notice. That was really awful.
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Health Care Provided to "Bruce"
"Bruce"
No insurance, no life
North Dakota -- On February 19, 2009, John's father Bruce went to the doctor with the classic symptoms of having had a heart attack. His doctor advised him to allow for several tests and procedures, but Bruce only agreed to the least expensive of them because he simply could not afford to pay much. Four days later, Bruce was dead.
(Story in context at NDpeople.org)
Sunday, April 4, 2010
Avatar (movie, 2009)
I was very skeptical going into Avatar, despite all the applause and critical acclaim the movie has gotten. So did District 9, after all. I thought it'd be some beautiful example of modern cinematic special effects, but not much more than that. Certainly it would have a mediocre plot, at best.
Well, maybe that is true. But Juno had a mediocre plot as well. But it was told well and so is Avatar. This is a "Beautiful" movie and not just graphically. It has a beautiful sentiment, a beautiful world, and yeah, beautiful visuals. But it isn't so much about the plot, really. That's not the best part.
The best part is the art. Pandora itself, really. Special effects in most movies are just a beautification process for me. They enhance, but they don't really add much. They're just explosions, ohh! look they're flying, hey a space ship. Yawn. It's a little nicer viewing experience than it was in the 70's, it looks better, but that's all. It's not a better movie. But when the art is used to immerse the viewer into the world that they are creating, into the fantasy, such as the art (in the less battle-weary sections) of Jackson's Lord of the Rings, then something has been accomplished with it which is more than just the sum of the parts.
Eywa is a beautiful place. I'd love to live there. The Na'vi don't use bulldozers and understand the importance of a tree extends beyond paper and fence posts and kindling. Avatar is yet another re-iteration of an idea that's been coming up time and time again since the Celts were beaten up by Rome. That nature, while formidable, isn't to be feared, but embraced. Those dark forests England was so preternaturally afraid of aren't vile, but instead quite lovely.
And that our industrial-military complex is frighteningly destructive. Unfortunately, I don't think the movie really exaggerates the reality of it. We can be just as despicable as the people in this movie and just as callously ignorant of it. The attitudes which pushed native tribes out of America has not gone away. We still feel a misplaced sense of entitlement to anything we see.
Which leads into my biggest disappointment with the film: the Na'vi were too special. As a creature on Pandora, they stand out. They do not look native to the planet. Even more so than humans don't look native on Earth. At least we still breathe the same way other animals do. There is too much superiority given them and I would have liked the 'linking' system to be better explored.
Avatar was also my first movie seen in the new 3D format. It was significantly better than I expected it to be, and it didn't give me a headache so that's a plus, but it was a little overdone. There were parts where it would have looked better in a standard format. Not all of the movie should have been done in 3D. The fantastical plants in the forest were phenomenal through the glasses. Everyone talking in the command center... unnecessary. Clear things, like their computer screens and visors, didn't look that good. Nor did smoke and some movements were a little blurry. The tunnel vortex when gettin' into an Avatar was awful and excludes anyone with epilepsy from ever seeing this movie.
If you like Hayao Miyazaki, or any Studio Ghibli films like Princess Mononoke or Pom Poko, then watch Avatar. It's in the same vein.
Well, maybe that is true. But Juno had a mediocre plot as well. But it was told well and so is Avatar. This is a "Beautiful" movie and not just graphically. It has a beautiful sentiment, a beautiful world, and yeah, beautiful visuals. But it isn't so much about the plot, really. That's not the best part.
The best part is the art. Pandora itself, really. Special effects in most movies are just a beautification process for me. They enhance, but they don't really add much. They're just explosions, ohh! look they're flying, hey a space ship. Yawn. It's a little nicer viewing experience than it was in the 70's, it looks better, but that's all. It's not a better movie. But when the art is used to immerse the viewer into the world that they are creating, into the fantasy, such as the art (in the less battle-weary sections) of Jackson's Lord of the Rings, then something has been accomplished with it which is more than just the sum of the parts.
Eywa is a beautiful place. I'd love to live there. The Na'vi don't use bulldozers and understand the importance of a tree extends beyond paper and fence posts and kindling. Avatar is yet another re-iteration of an idea that's been coming up time and time again since the Celts were beaten up by Rome. That nature, while formidable, isn't to be feared, but embraced. Those dark forests England was so preternaturally afraid of aren't vile, but instead quite lovely.
And that our industrial-military complex is frighteningly destructive. Unfortunately, I don't think the movie really exaggerates the reality of it. We can be just as despicable as the people in this movie and just as callously ignorant of it. The attitudes which pushed native tribes out of America has not gone away. We still feel a misplaced sense of entitlement to anything we see.
Which leads into my biggest disappointment with the film: the Na'vi were too special. As a creature on Pandora, they stand out. They do not look native to the planet. Even more so than humans don't look native on Earth. At least we still breathe the same way other animals do. There is too much superiority given them and I would have liked the 'linking' system to be better explored.
Avatar was also my first movie seen in the new 3D format. It was significantly better than I expected it to be, and it didn't give me a headache so that's a plus, but it was a little overdone. There were parts where it would have looked better in a standard format. Not all of the movie should have been done in 3D. The fantastical plants in the forest were phenomenal through the glasses. Everyone talking in the command center... unnecessary. Clear things, like their computer screens and visors, didn't look that good. Nor did smoke and some movements were a little blurry. The tunnel vortex when gettin' into an Avatar was awful and excludes anyone with epilepsy from ever seeing this movie.
If you like Hayao Miyazaki, or any Studio Ghibli films like Princess Mononoke or Pom Poko, then watch Avatar. It's in the same vein.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)