text:
Post New | Our Blog: -- select recent posts --Green Is the New RedAnti-Christian BritainKangaroo CourtsMuslim No Go Areas in Britain?Homosexuality a Sin, Not an Alternative...John Paul II on the Fast Track to...Turning the Holy Land into HollywoodRick Warren's New GospelChurch of England Can't Agree that Christ Is...Scotland Returns to the Dark AgesThe Evolutionary Theory of Origins--One Day...Turning Kids into AtheistsArmy Chaplain Suppresses Baptist Chaplain's...Pervert in the PulpitThe God Debate—Fools Whistling in the DarkDebunking Dawkins' Drivel"Ignorant, Stupid, Insane or Wicked"Godless Britain's Barbaric LawsAnother False Prophet Bites the DustLunatic Left Rules in California Supreme -- by category --Hot Topics • 480LTBS News • 1 -- by date -- All upcomingJuly 2008June 2008May 2008April 2008March 2008February 2008January 2008December 2007November 2007October 2007September 2007August 2007July 2007June 2007May 2007April 2007March 2007February 2007January 2007April 2006March 2006January 2006December 2005November 2005
Search only includes current and past blogs.
FRIDAY, JUNE 6, 2008 15 years ago
Please, Oh Please, Call Us Scholars!
AUDIO BROADCAST: Please, Oh Please, Call Us Scholars
Let the Bible Speak Radio
Dr. Alan Cairns
For years the intelligentsia has looked down on evangelical believers as mentally challenged. They have charged them with being anti-intellectual obscurantists, people of pretty low intelligence whose views are a holdover from primitive, pre-scientific past. No doubt the description has fitted many ordinary people who knew little of the wisdom of the world but had enough instruction and intelligence to accept God's revelation and build their lives on it. But Bible-believing Christianity has never lacked its scholars, men and women of immense intellect who have made major contributions in almost every area of the arts and sciences. Despite this, the stereotype has persisted. The academic world has arbitrarily adopted as axiomatic the fallacy that anyone who believes the Bible to be the inspired and infallible word of God must be of limited intelligence or suffering from some form of derangement.
Now a researcher from Boston University has set about proving the stereotype wrong. Evangelical scholarship has come a long way, according to sociologist Peter Berger, who is a liberal Lutheran. Berger has joined forces with Timothy Shah, a professedly evangelical political scienctist at the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. Shah is documenting the history of the evangelical movement, including its historical hostility to higher learning, a revival of scholarship, and the minds and ideas it has since produced.
It all sounds so beneficial for the public image of evangelical Christianity but it is far from it. No matter how scholarly, nobody who takes the Bible for what it is and believes what it says need apply for recognition. A belief in evolution (guided by God, of course) is a given. So all those Creation Scientists-people of high academic achievement who use their immense scholarship to expound and defend the Bible-are not welcome under this tent. Another Boston sociologist, Alan Wolfe, is skeptical of the attempt to give evangelical scholars acceptance. According to him, evangelicals in the academy too often aren't open to truly engaging those who disagree. He points to things like "faith statements" at evangelical colleges, which require professors to proclaim Christian belief, and said that a prospering intellectual culture wouldn't make that requirement and shut other views out.
That sound rather hypocritical coming from an academic when all across America Universities have made belief in Darwinism their faith statement! This statement, however, tells us what is really going on in the struggle of many evangelicals to gain acceptance in academia. To gain it they have started down a path that must destroy all genuinely Christian education. It seems that some "evangelical scholars" cannot abide the thought of not being recognized by the ungodly academy. "Please, oh please, call us scholars! We'll not knock Darwin or insist on taking the plain meaning of the Bible literally. Just accept us as scholars." That seems to be their position.
We must repudiate all such compromise. God does not put a premium on ignorance, so we must continue to pursue deep, Biblical scholarship in every area. Let the world accept it or reject it, we must remain true to God's word. Scholarship divorced from Scripture can never be sanctified to the glory of God. It may produce "science falsely so called" but it has no place in evangelical Christianity. The reason is simple: God's word is truth and it enlightens the mind. All that contradicts it is a lie. That is the basis of all real scholarship-scholarship that God accepts. All other scholarship misuses the data God has revealed and exemplifies the statement of the Lord Jesus, "If the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!"
Weblog Category: Hot Topics
• permalink | email to friend
THURSDAY, JUNE 5, 2008 15 years ago
Evangelical—with Emphasis on the Jelly!
AUDIO BROADCAST: Evangelical -- With Emphasis On the Jelly
About a month ago, a group of "evangelical" theologians and thinkers went to the National Press Club to launch An Evangelical Manifesto. They felt, quite rightly, that the title "evangelical" had been hijacked and misused so that in the minds of the great masses of people there is a great deal of justifiable confusion about what an evangelical is. There is obviously much in An Evangelical Manifesto with which all believers should agree. Its critique of some of the excesses of evangelical churches is devastatingly honest:
"All too often we have trumpeted the gospel of Jesus, but we have replaced biblical truths with therapeutic techniques, worship with entertainment, discipleship with growth in human potential, church growth with business entrepreneurialism, concern for the church and for the local congregation with expressions of the faith that are churchless and little better than a vapid spirituality, meeting real needs with pandering to felt needs, and mission principles with marketing precepts. In the process we have become known for commercial, diluted, and feel-good gospels of health, wealth, human potential, and religious happy talk, each of which is indistinguishable from the passing fashions of the surrounding world."
However, there is much to cause alarm. Two aims of the manifesto are to distance Evangelicalism from Fundamentalism and theological Liberalism. From what the framers have written, I judge that they have certainly made clear their departure from Biblical Fundamentalism while cozying up to Liberalism by accepting or allowing for some of its deepest heresies. Take a few examples.
1. As to whether the Lord Jesus Christ is the exclusive way for anyone to be saved, the manifesto is strangely ambivalent. It is known that at least one of the framers was not an exclusivist. By what stretch of the imagination a person who does not accept that "no man cometh to the Father" except by Jesus Christ can be called an evangelical is beyond me.
2. The manifesto's definition of the gospel is broad and simply states, "[A defining belief for Evangelicals is] is the belief that the only ground for our acceptance by God is what Jesus Christ did on the cross and what he is now doing through his risen life." That sounds good until you remember that a number of "evangelicals" are advocating a "non-violent" theory of the atonement-that is, that what Jesus did on the cross might have been a ransom to Satan or an example but not the substitutionary bearing of God's wrath against us for our sins. This manifesto statement is disturbingly imprecise. No man who denies the vicarious atonement of our Saviour can be recognized as an evangelical.
3. The manifesto says: "All too often we have ... fallen into an unbecoming anti-intellectualism that is a dire cultural handicap as well as a sin. In particular, some among us have betrayed the strong Christian tradition of a high view of science ... and made themselves vulnerable to caricatures of the false hostility between science and faith. By doing so, we have unwittingly given comfort to the unbridled scientism and naturalism that are so rampant in our culture today." This is a clear repudiation of Young Earth Creationism. It sounds like a plea for Theistic Evolution and it automatically excludes the majority of professed evangelicals, for they believe in Creationism.
Nobody can mistake the framers of this Evangelical Manifesto for Fundamentalists-these are "New Evangelicals," who don't want to fight the Darwinists or the Liberals but accommodate them. When I read what these men say I am reminded of Dr. Ian Paisley's quip: "Evangelicals, yes, but emphasis on the jelly!"
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 4, 2008 15 years ago
Sexual Orientation Is Not a Civil Rights Issue
AUDIO BROADCAST: Sexual Orientation Is Not a Civil Rights Issue
Crystal Dixon was the associate vice president of human resources at the University of Toledo. That was until she wrote an opinion column for the April 18 issue of the Toledo Free Press expressing the belief that sexual orientation is not a civil rights issue. In that column, Dixon was careful to say that she was not representing the University or its opinions. She said she was writing "as a Black woman who happens to be an alumnus of the University of Toledo's Graduate School, an employee and a business owner." Her point was that sexual orientation is not an immutable characteristic such as race or sex and therefore should not be afforded the same protection under civil rights laws.
The University acted speedily against her. She was immediately placed on administrative leave and a few days later University President Lloyd Jacobs wrote his own column. He condemned his former employee's comments, asserting that Dixon's views "do not accord with the values of the University of Toledo." He also pledged that the university would be "taking action to align its policies" with its own value system.
That alignment meant that Dixon was fired. Apparently the university removed her from her job in human resources and offered her another position, which she refused-and was immediately fired. Her lawyers are adamant that the firing was improper and possibly illegal and according to Matt Barber, policy director for cultural issues at Concerned Women of America, "an egregious violation." Barber went on to say, "I think the University of Toledo has really betrayed their anti-Christian bigotry and intolerance. Just because many Christians have a viewpoint that is unpopular in leftist circles, does not mean those leftists have a right to violate the law and discriminate against Christians."
This case should concern all of us. Crystal Dixon was fired for exercising her right to speak as a private citizen. The University of Toledo has censored her in the most brutal manner they could-they fired her. Could you imagine them firing a homosexual or a Muslim for giving their private opinions on this or almost any other subject? Not at all, yet to discriminate against a professing Christian is perfectly acceptable with that school.
We are reaching the place in America where the Constitutional rights of Christians are being sacrificed to the gods of secular humanism and political correctness. It doesn't matter how obviously true the sentiments expressed may be, if they contradict the spiel of the sodomite lobby they will be punished. Currently, there is a big push on to curtail the freedom of radio-and it will particularly impact Christian stations. If we are not vigilant we will soon be told that we are barred from stating publicly what we believe to be true. So let us use our freedom while we have it and make it clear: sexual orientation is not a civil rights issue. It is a matter of personal, moral preference or behavior. Last month, the secular media were agog with excitement because they could report that a "man" was expecting a baby. Of course this "man" was a woman who wanted to be known and accepted as a man. Somehow she forgot she was a man and conceived a child. I pity the child but to make that woman's desire to be accepted as a man a civil rights issue is just plain dishonest-no matter what the politically correct crowd at the University of Toledo or anywhere else say to the contrary.
TUESDAY, JUNE 3, 2008 15 years ago
Einstein Wrong—Absolutely!
AUDIO BROADCAST: Einstein Wrong -- Absolutely
Perhaps the major 20th century scientist was Albert Einstein. His theory of relativity has guaranteed his place in science's gallery of geniuses. But Einstein was also a fool-and I can say that on the authority of the word of God. Einstein's published views on religion were somewhat ambivalent. For example, he once said, "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Such statements have been the subject of much debate, and have been used by some to back up arguments in favour of faith. However, in a letter dated January 3, 1954 that was auctioned in London last month he wrote to the philosopher Eric Gutkind and gave his views on God, the word of God, religion and the Jews as God's chosen people.
Einstein described belief in God as "childish superstition." As one of the world's most famous Jews, Einstein was asked to become Israel's second president. He refused but said that he identified with them. He wrote, "The Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people." He added: "As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them."
He was scathing about the Bible: "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this." He utterly repudiated all religion, including Judaism: "For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions."
There can be no doubt that Albert Einstein by now knows the utter folly of his views-too late for his change of mind to do him any good. He was undoubtedly a man of immense ability but he was a fool who perverted the ability his Creator had given him to deny the Giver. That is not my opinion; it is the plain statement of God Himself. "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God" (Psalm 14:1).
I must say that I find no joy in reporting Einstein's religious views. It is ineffably sad to think of any man dying with such a denial of God in his heart. We are dealing with the eternal destruction of a human soul. The Bible is unequivocal: "He that believeth not shall be damned." Wishful thinking cannot alter the awful reality that one of the 20th century's most celebrated men-a man eulogized for his intellectual powers-lived his life as the ultimate fool. Einstein's words about the Bible are applicable to his own views: "No interpretation no matter how subtle can change this."
Let us be clear on one thing. The reason for Einstein's atheism was not intellectual. It was rooted in his heart. As the Bible says, "He did not like to retain God in his knowledge." His trouble was heart trouble. He was a sinner and loved his darkness-and that was why he lived in the darkness of hopeless atheism. The father of relativity was wrong-absolutely.
MONDAY, JUNE 2, 2008 15 years ago
More Bogus Virgin Mary Visions
AUDIO BROADCAST: More Bogus Virgin Mary Visions
You thought that Charismatic TV evangelists had a corner on bogus schemes to filch people's hard earned money out of their pockets. You thought that they were the great exponents of bogus visions and strange apparitions. Those TV charlatans deserve to be exposed for how they have made merchandise of the gospel but in many ways they are mere beginners at the game. The real experts in reeling people in with false claims and bogus visions are the pope and his cohorts. For centuries they have beguiled unwary souls with empty claims of appearances by the Virgin Mary. They have made millions out of useless pilgrimages. They have plied a lucrative trade in useless relics. And if interest seems to be waning they can always come up with some new apparition or vision or miracle or whatever. Listen to this.
Between 1664 and 1718 a girl who lived in the French Alps by the name of Benoite Rencurel claimed to have received visitations from the Virgin Mary-that is from she was 17 until she was 71 years old. She claimed that the Virgin appeared to her every day for four months in 1664, instructing her to build a church and a house to receive priests. All that took place back in the 17th century. So why raise it today? Here's why.
A few weeks ago, Monsignor Jean-Michel di Falco Leandri spoke at a Mass that was broadcast nationally on France-2 television and announced that he recognized the "supernatural origin" of the apparitions to Benoite Rencurel. In an interview on France-Info radio, the bishop said the decision meant the church "has committed itself in an official way to say to pilgrims, 'You can come here in total confidence.'" He reported that the recognition process involved a panel of "experts," including two theologians and an investigating judge.
Today, the sanctuary that Rencurel founded welcomes about 120,000 pilgrims a year. Some of them go there in the hope of receiving healing oils based on a method that the Virgin Mary was said to pass on to the Alpine shepherd girl. By adding it to the official list of alleged genuine appearances by the Virgin Mary the Church of Rome has made sure to multiply those numbers-and the revenues the pilgrims will bring.
I must confess that I know nothing about Benoite Rencurel. I have no idea if she was devout or deranged or both. What I do know is that the Bible does not traffic in occult appearances and that the claimed visitation by the Virgin Mary is a farce. Yet Rome has now officially recognized Rencurel's claimed visions as genuine-after almost 300 years, no less! "You can come here in total confidence," Rome is telling its deluded pilgrims. Come for what? Have confidence in what? Does she mean that pilgrims will receive an indulgence? Or some needed grace? Does she mean that Mary will somehow do them good? If so, she is as guilty as the worst Charismatic charlatans who disgrace so-called Christian television.
Forget about running after Mary for some imagined spiritual benefit. The only Mediator between God and men-the only channel of divine blessing for needy souls-is the Lord Jesus Christ. And you'll not find Him at Benoite Rencurel's sanctuary.
FRIDAY, MAY 30, 2008 15 years ago
Darwinism the Official Religion of Higher Education in Texas
AUDIO BROADCAST: Darwinism the Official Religion of Texas Higher Education
The Institute for Creation Research has a history of well documented academic research and educational excellence. While it was situated in California, after going to Federal Court to turn back a denial from the Darwinist educational establishment, it earned the privilege of conferring Masters' degrees on students who studied under a faculty that boasted Ph.Ds from UCLA, Penn State, the University of Montana, Colorado State, Case Western and Indiana University. On its recent removal to Texas ICR Graduate School had to apply to the Texas Higher Education Consulting Board for a Certificate of Authority to grant degrees. The Board rejected the application despite the fact that a site team sent by the state agency to evaluate the educational offerings at the ICR Graduate School and the agency's advisory committee both recommended granting a Certificate of Authority. However Commissioner Raymund Paredes recommended against granting it and the Board went along with him.
There was no question about the academic standards observed by ICR. There was no question about the credentials of the faculty. The sole ground on which the application was turned down was the fact that ICR approaches the question of origins from a Biblical viewpoint. It is not that it does not teach its students the theory of evolution. It does but it also points out the difficulties associated with that theory. According to ICR's spokesman, going into the hearing, ICR Graduate School had revamped its offerings "to meet, and in some areas to exceed, virtually all of the AAAS Project 2061 Benchmarks (in science, mathematics, technology, etc.) and the National Science Education Standards." In other words, there was no sound academic reason for the Texas Board to deny the ICR application.
The only reason for the Board's decision was their blind faith in Darwinism. In effect the Higher Education Consulting Board decreed that the religion of higher education in Texas must be Darwinism. Christianity is not to be tolerated. Remember that all this took place while Ben Stein's Documentary, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" was exposing the weakness of Darwinism to millions of people across America. By all accounts, in that documentary the Darwinists took a hammering-they are supporting an insupportable theory. But Darwinists will not give up their monopoly in the field of science education easily. Hence the Texas decision. Darwin's little puppets fear that ICR may turn out too many well educated science teachers who can give the other side of the story. Evolutionists have been losing the debate in the public forum and therefore are all the more determined to cut off a vital source for the education of science teachers that lies outside their control.
ICR will be back before the Texas Board. It's too early to say if they will once again have to go to court to obtain their right to confer advanced degrees. Hopefully the state of Texas will come to its senses and let Darwin's little men know that they cannot trample on the rights guaranteed to Christians by the US Constitution. Despite the efforts of Darwinists, Christians and Christian institutions have the right to free speech and free inquiry. It's time the Texas Higher Education Consulting Board stopped monkeying with those inalienable rights.
THURSDAY, MAY 29, 2008 15 years ago
Record Global Cooling
AUDIO BROADCAST: Record Global Cooling
After all the hoopla about man-caused global warming we are now learning that in reality the earth's surface is actually getting colder. Yes, colder! According to British scientists, Atlantic currents will have a cooling effect. This phenomenon is not limited to the Atlantic. Cooling Pacific currents have already been reported and the result is that experts expect a decrease in the temperature of the earth's surface until around the year 2015. Of course, some of the people who are reporting these facts are avid global warming fans and they are desperate that we do not draw the obvious conclusion that their favorite fantasy has been exposed for the foolishness it is. So they warn us that we need to keep with the program of crippling the US economy in search of a reduction in greenhouse gasses to save the planet.
But their own data show that temperatures have varied constantly over time and continue to do so. The earth warms and the earth cools-and it has little or nothing to do with human activity. Remember that as recently as 1975 there was deep concern that the earth was cooling so much that scientists warned of a new ice age! Similar patterns of heating and cooling have been traced on other planets. For example, in recent times Jupiter has heated up and the last time anyone checked there were no little men in SUVs polluting the atmosphere there!
There's even worse news for Al Gore and his global warming crowd. Consider the following Fox News report: "There is word that all four major global temperature tracking outlets have released data showing that temperatures have dropped significantly over the last year. California meteorologist Anthony Watts says the amount of cooling ranges from 65-hundredths of a degree Centigrade to 75-hundreds of a degree. That is said to be a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years. It is reportedly the single fastest temperature change ever recorded - up or down. Some scientists contend the cooling is the result of reduced solar activity - which they say is a larger driver of climate change than man-made greenhouse gases."
Let that sink in: the natural cooling that has taken place over the last year alone has nothing to do with human efforts to reduce greenhouse gasses. It is the result of reduced solar activity and even Al Gore, famously willing to lay dubious claim to many accomplishments, cannot really believe that he has had anything to do with that! Furthermore, one year's natural cooling is large enough to wipe out a century of global warming.
Some time ago I reported that the founder of the Weather Channel, John Coleman, has floated the idea that since it is impossible to get a fair hearing or an informed debate in academic or political circles, we should launch a court case against Al Gore and company in the hope that a competent court could provide a platform for an enlightening probe of the evidence on all sides of the question. People have donated money to fund such a case and others are gung-ho for the idea. Coleman is said to be mulling over the possibility. If the case ever gets to court, they'd better have the heat turned up for by all accounts the temperature around them will be a little colder!
WEDNESDAY, MAY 28, 2008 15 years ago
Darwin and Hitler—Cause and Effect
AUDIO BROADCAST: Darwin and Hitler - Cause and Effect
"Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" is a feature-length documentary film produced by Ben Stein, an economist, lawyer, university lecturer, speech writer for two Presidents and a well known movie and TV actor. It is a film about researchers, professors, and academics who claim to have been marginalized, silenced, or threatened with academic expulsion because of their challenges to some or all parts of Darwin's theory of evolution. It has become a box office success. Indeed it is one of the most successful documentaries ever produced. A major part of the film explores and traces the roots of Darwinism, and its relation to the genocidal policies of some of the major tyrants of the 20th century. It particularly explores the links between Darwinism and the policies of Adolf Hitler.
According to Coral Ridge Ministries, one of the largest Christian media ministries in the nation, the link between Darwin and Hitler has been historically proven time and time again. In 2006, Coral Ridge Ministries produced its own documentary on the subject titled, "Darwin's Deadly Legacy." Jerry Newcombe, co-producer of the film, said "Expelled" brought up a fresh examination of the facts-namely that Darwinism, and later, through its racially charged forms of social Darwinism advocating the extermination of "inferior" races, provided Hitler with the springs to launch the most horrific genocide known to man. "The ideas of Charles Darwin helped fuel the Nazi killing machine, which took the lives of some 10-15 million people," Newcombe stated. According to Richard Weikart, author of From Darwin to Hitler and a featured guest on the Coral Ridge Ministries' television special, "Among German historians, there's really not much debate about whether or not Hitler was a social Darwinist. He clearly was drawing on Darwinian ideas. It drove pretty much everything that he did. It was not just a peripheral part of his ideology." Weikart added that Darwinism was extremely influential throughout German academia during the period and Hitler drew "on what many other scholars, biologists, and geneticists in Germany were preaching and teaching in the early twentieth century."
Coral Ridge Ministries also cited the words of their late founder and host of "Darwin's Deadly Legacy," Dr. D. James Kennedy, to illustrate the enduring connection between Hitler and Darwinism. In 2006, Kennedy said, "We have had nearly 150 years of the theory of Darwinian evolution. And what has it brought us - whether Darwin intended it or not? Millions of deaths, the destruction of those deemed 'inferior,' the devaluing of human life, and increasing hopelessness. Darwin's legacy has been deadly indeed."
And yet this is the theory that has gained control of major sections of our educational system. All around us we are seeing the devastation caused by the godless philosophy of Darwinism. Never for a moment forget that that is exactly what evolutionism is-a godless philosophy. It passes itself off as scientific but it is far more philosophy than science. Proof of that is the hysterical denunciations that rattle around the hallowed halls of academia when a scientist-no matter how eminent-dares to point out that there are evidences of design in nature that cannot be explained by Darwinism. But design means a Designer and that is a thought that evolutionary philosophers hate and will oppose, whatever the cost to society. Ben Stein has done a good job in exposing their agenda. We must keep up the pressure and call on our political leaders to break the "closed shop" that Darwinists have set up in our schools and colleges.
TUESDAY, MAY 27, 2008 15 years ago
People Leaving America's Episcopal Church "in Droves"
AUDIO BROADCAST: People Leaving America's Episcopal Church in Droves
According to the Bishop of Fort Worth, the Right Reverend Jack Iker, "faithful people" are leaving The Episcopal Church (TEC) "in droves." Iker's own diocese is in the process of leaving and is seeking to realign itself with the conservative Anglican Province of the Southern Cone in South America. Already the Diocese of San Joaquin became the first full diocese to secede when it severed its ties with TEC in December, 2007. The prospect of the Diocese of Forth Worth finalizing its withdrawal later his year was too much for TEC's Presiding Bishop, Katharine Jefferts Schori. When Archbishop Gregory Venables, head of the province of Southern Cone, received an invitation from Iker to visit his diocese and speak in a number of churches, Jefferts Schori wrote him a scorching letter. She alleged that if he accepted the invitation he would bring further discord into TEC and told him that his visit would be "an unprecedented and unwarranted invasion of, and meddling in, the internal affairs of this province."
Now remember why all this is happening. Control of TEC has fallen into the hands of theological radicals. Those radicals have decided that they are going to force their acceptance of homosexuality on the entire denomination, come what may. TEC is part of the worldwide Anglican Communion and the entire body is being wracked by this dispute. The best the Archbishop of Canterbury and his advisers can come up with is a proposal for a patched up compromise that allows "conservatives" to align themselves under bishops of their liking while doing nothing to rein in the madness of the pro-homosexual lobby. TEC could not wait for such a proposal to work its way through the system and went ahead with the "consecration" of the openly homosexual Bishop of New Hampshire, Gene Robinson. It would take more than the vain mumblings of an Episcopal Archbishop to "consecrate" or make holy what God's word declares to be an abomination that condemns those who practice it to destruction. But the TEC arrogantly places itself above the word of God. It has made a sodomite a bishop, no matter what the Bible may have to say against it. So it appears that TEC is willing to rip itself apart in the cause of allowing homosexual deviants into the ranks of its clergy.
One must be glad that some churches and dioceses are willing to separate on this issue. And yet we must be careful here. These "conservatives" are not necessarily down the line Bible believers. They may be conservative on the homosexual issue but, for example, ecumenical or rationalistic in matters of Christian theology. Many "conservative" Anglicans are very admiring of Rome with all its false doctrine. Indeed, many of them share Rome's faith in the blasphemous Mass-claimed by its proponents to be an actual sacrifice of Christ for the sins of the living and the dead and described by the Anglican Church's Thirty Nine Articles of Religion to be a "blasphemous fable and dangerous deceit." I am glad that some men are willing to separate from apostate denominations on moral grounds. I would be a whole lot happier if they were willing to take the same stand because of fundamental departures by those denominations from the "faith once delivered to the saints."
MONDAY, MAY 26, 2008 15 years ago
Christian Principles Are Not for Sale
AUDIO BROADCAST: Christian Principles are Not for Sale
When Connie Heintz signed on to work with Christian Horizons, a Canadian ministry geared to meeting the needs of the handicapped, she willingly signed the group's code of moral conduct as the basis of her service. It was a freely entered work contract. In signing that contract Heintz did what every other employee of Christian Horizons did: she undertook to abstain from immoral behavior, including pornography, pre-marital, extra-marital, and homo-sexual activity as a condition of employment.
But Connie Heintz did not abide by her contract. She entered into a lesbian relationship and she resigned and sued her employers, alleging that she was "subjected to a poisoned work environment" and pressured into quitting her job. Christian Horizons actually tried to help her find another job, providing her with listings of vacancies in other charities.
When her case came before Michael Gottheil, the single adjudicator appointed by Ontario's the Human Rights Tribunal, Heintz won her case. Gottheil ordered Christian Horizons to pay her $23,000 in fines plus two years wages and benefits. He also ordered the organization to abandon its Christian principles barring homosexual behavior and issued mandates that it begin requiring all employees to attend a "human rights training program" that is oriented toward homosexuality.
The Human Rights Tribunal ignored the fact that the moral code adopted by Christian Horizons did not single out homosexuality but covered all forms of moral deviation from God's law. In other words, heterosexual misconduct would also be a violation of the terms of employment accepted by all employees of the charity. Apparently, it is allowable, at least for now, for a Christian organization to terminate a person's employment for heterosexual misconduct but not for homosexual. In other words, homosexuals have "rights" that go far beyond those of heterosexuals, rights that trump even contractual agreements.
This matter concerns not only Canadians. Here in the U.S. the Gay and Lesbian Task Force and its fellow travelers are pushing for the adoption of the federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). ENDA would mandate employer tolerance of all forms of sexual orientation in hiring, firing, promotion, and many Christian-oriented businesses (such as bookstores and radio stations) may not be protected by the bill's limited religious exemption. In fact, once the state goes this far it will not stop short of including churches. We will soon face the wrath of the state if our churches fire an employee because of homosexual activity. Our religious freedom and even freely entered contractual agreements will be overthrown just to protect the perversion of homosexuals who lie their way into our employment and demand to remain there, no matter how much it violates our principles.
One factor in the Canadian decision that we will have to ponder deeply is that Christian Horizons as a charity benefits from government funding. It seems that the state is saying, "If you take our money you must adopt our morals." If that's the case, no matter how it may restrict the work of Christian charities, we would be better to tell the state to keep its money and we will keep our morals. Christian principles are not for sale.
PG 1 | Page 3 · 480 entries · Jump: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 more


text:
Previous Reporting
Investigative MEDIA
Flin Flon Flim Flam
Yarnell Hill Fire
Rosemont Mine
National Parks News
Strayhound Chronicles
"Flin Flon Flim Flam" to be broadcast at 4 p.m., Dec. 13 on Tucson's KGUN-9
November 28, 2015 By John Dougherty 1 Comment
The documentary "Flin Flon Flim Flam" on Toronto-based miner Hudbay Minerals' worldwide operations and the company's plans for the proposed Rosemont open-pit copper mine in the Santa Rita Mountains on the Coronado National Forest east of Tucson will be broadcast at 4 p.m., Dec. 13 on Tucson's KGUN-9.
The documentary will be aired in a special edition of Tucson journalist Jim Nintzel's ZonaPolitics weekly news show.
The film reports on the environmental destruction that would occur if Hudbay Minerals obtains state and federal permits to construct the Rosemont mine on the northeastern face of the Santa Rita Mountains and the threat to Green Valley's water supply from Hudbay's planned groundwater pumping.
The documentary also reports on Hudbay's operating legacy including contaminating its home community in Flin Flon, Manitoba with high levels of heavy metals from a smelter the company operated for more than 80 years.
The 51-minute film also reports on Hudbay's former mine in El Estor, Guatemala where the company's security guards allegedly clashed with residents over land claims. A Mayan community leader was shot to death and another man left paralyzed in the September 2009 violence.
Hudbay is now the target of a three, precedent-setting civil suits in Toronto that have withstood the company's attempts to have the case thrown out. The cases are proceeding to trial. The cases mark the first time a Canadian company is being held accountable in Canadian courts for the acts of an overseas subsidiary.
The documentary also reports on demonstrations and community opposition to Hudbay's recently opened Constancia open pit copper mine in Uchucarco, Peru. Residents in the community were beaten and teargassed by Peruvian National Police . Residents in the rural community claim Hudbay reneged on its promises to the community in exchange for rights to the land for the open pit mine.
Hudbay has promised to replace groundwater it pumps from the Santa Cruz River Valley with Central Arizona Project Canal water. Critics, however, cast doubt that Hudbay will be able to fulfill its promise as Colorado River supplies continue to decline.
Pima County Supervisor Ray Carroll criticizes the company for engaging in what he says is a "cover up" and "white collar malfeasance" over Hudbay's failure to publicly disclose to its shareholders and regulators that its Air Quality Control permit for the Rosemont project was overturned last February by a Maricopa County Superior Court judge.
This is the second documentary produced by award-winning reporter John Dougherty on the proposed Rosemont mine project.
The 2012 film "Cyanide Beach" revealed the checkered history of the top executives of Augusta Resource Corporation, the previous owners of the Rosemont mine site. Cyanide Beach won first place as best educational film at the Yosemite International Film festival and attracted large crowds at screenings across southern Arizona.
Hudbay acquired Augusta in 2014 in a $500 million stock deal.
© Copyright 2015 John Dougherty, All rights Reserved. Written For: Investigative MEDIA
Filed Under: Current Investigations, Featured, Flin Flon Flim Flam, Rosemont
terri brooks says
Stand up Tucson citizens and fight Hudbay's attempt to destroy our pristine Santa Rita environment.! Anyone who watched this film would be crazy to be in favor of it moving forward. The way this company has treated indigenous people in 3rd world countries where they have mining operations is outrageous. They are far worse that Augusta Resourses whom they recently purchased. Shameful!
Are you a human? *
Support Independent Public Interest Journalism
Please support independent investigative journalism by making tax-deductible contributions to the Arizona Center for Investigative Journalism, an IRS-approved nonprofit corporation.
Flin Flon Flim Flam Press Kit
Click the button below for the digital press kit for the Canadian tour of Flin Flon Flim Flam. Press Kit
Yarnell Hill Fire Serious Accident Investigation Supporting Documentation
Arizona Department of Occupation Safety & Health Yarnell Hill Investigation
Join the Yarnell Hill Fire Discussion
Archives Select Month December 2019 (1) October 2019 (2) July 2019 (1) June 2019 (1) May 2019 (1) August 2018 (3) July 2018 (1) April 2018 (2) March 2018 (1) September 2017 (1) June 2017 (1) May 2017 (2) April 2017 (1) February 2017 (1) January 2017 (2) September 2016 (1) August 2016 (1) July 2016 (2) June 2016 (5) May 2016 (8) April 2016 (1) March 2016 (2) February 2016 (1) January 2016 (1) December 2015 (5) November 2015 (2) October 2015 (2) September 2015 (1) August 2015 (1) July 2015 (3) June 2015 (1) May 2015 (3) April 2015 (4) March 2015 (1) February 2015 (1) December 2014 (3) November 2014 (4) September 2014 (1) August 2014 (1) July 2014 (3) June 2014 (2) May 2014 (2) April 2014 (3) March 2014 (3) February 2014 (3) January 2014 (4) December 2013 (6) November 2013 (4) October 2013 (2) September 2013 (3) August 2013 (5) July 2013 (6) April 2013 (2) December 2012 (3) November 2012 (2) October 2012 (5) September 2012 (3) August 2012 (4) July 2012 (4) June 2012 (1)
Copyright © 2020 InvestigativeMEDIA.com · Disclaimer · Log in

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
with John Passant
Revolutionary reflections on this world of ours
Abbott Abbott government Aborigines Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders ACTU Afghanistan ALP Asylum seekers ATO Australia Australian Building and Construction Commission Australian Council of Trade Unions Australian Labor Party Australian politics Banks Barack Obama Big business Budget Building industry Building unions Building workers Canberra Capitalism Carbon tax CFMEU China Classes Class struggle Climate change Democracy Demonstrations Economic crisis Economics Education Egypt Environment Equal love Fascism Fighting back France Free speech Genocide Gillard Labor Global Warming Greece
Oz House
Bill Nile (102)
John Passant (3787)
Leonie Bronstein (105)
Get new blog posts delivered to your inbox.
Keep socialist blog En Passant going - donate now
If you want to keep a blog that makes the arguments every day against the ravages of capitalism going and keeps alive the flame of democracy and community, make a donation to help cover my costs. And of course keep reading the blog. To donate click here. Keep socialist blog En Passant going. More... (4)
Sprouting sh*t for almost nothing
You can prove my 2 ex-comrades wrong by donating to my blog En Passant at BSB: 062914 Account: 1067 5257, the Commonwealth Bank in Tuggeranong, ACT. More... (12)
My interview Razor Sharp 18 February
Me interviewed by Sharon Firebrace on Razor Sharp on Tuesday 18 February. http://sharonfirebrace.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/18-2-14-john-passant-aust-national-university-g20-meeting-age-of-enttilement-engineers-attack-of-austerity-hardship-on-civilians.mp3 (0)
My interview Razor Sharp 11 February 2014
Me interviewed by Sharon Firebrace on Razor Sharp this morning. The Royal Commission, car industry and age of entitlement get a lot of the coverage. http://sharonfirebrace.com/2014/02/11/john-passant-aust-national-university-canberra-2/ (0)
Razor Sharp 4 February 2014
Me on 4 February 2014 on Razor Sharp with Sharon Firebrace. http://sharonfirebrace.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/4-2-14-john-passant-aust-national-university-canberra-end-of-the-age-of-entitlement-for-the-needy-but-pandering-to-the-lusts-of-the-greedy.mp3 (0)
Time for a House Un-Australian Activities Committee?
Tony Abbott thinks the Australian Broadcasting Corporation is Un-Australian. I am looking forward to his government setting up the House Un-Australian Activities Committee. (1)
Make Gina Rinehart work for her dole
Sick kids and paying upfront
Save Medicare
Demonstrate in defence of Medicare at Sydney Town Hall 1 pm Saturday 4 January (0)
Me on Razor Sharp this morning
Me interviewed by Sharon Firebrace this morning for Razor Sharp. It happens every Tuesday. http://sharonfirebrace.com/2013/12/03/john-passant-australian-national-university-8/ (0)
Club Troppo
Other lefties and politicos
Bartlett's blog
Benjamin Solah, Marxist horror writer
Larvatus Prodeo
Left Focus
Marxist interventions
Marxist Left Review
Marxists internet link
Superannuation for the rich?
Posted by John, February 6th, 2013 - under Pensioners, Superannuation, Tax, Tax expenditures, Tax the rich.
Tags: Age pension
There has been a bit of talk that the Gillard government may reduce the superannuation concessions going to the rich. One rumour doing the rounds is that all those with a super balance greater than $800,000 would lose the over 60s tax exemption on their retirement income.
The Australian Institute has produced figures which show that the top 5% of income earners currently receive $10 billion of the $30 billion in tax benefits given by the concessional tax treatment of superannuation. They say:
'When in government the Coalition turned superannuation into a rort for the rich. The forward estimates show super tax concessions will be worth $45 billion in 2015-16. 37 per cent of that goes to the top five per cent of taxpayers' said David Richardson, senior fellow at The Australia Institute.
'Someone on $250,000 receives a tax concession worth $6,750 on their contributions alone. That compares with low income earners who get a rebate of up to $500 which the Coalition wants to scrap' said Mr Richardson.
'If the Coalition wants to find savings they should be looking at the subsidies going to the top end of town—not assistance for the 3.5 million low income earners who are likely to struggle in their retirement' said Mr Richardson.
So what is going on?
Let me explain tax expenditure theory to help readers understand what I am talking about. I'll use a simple self-indulgent example. Let's assume there are 100 people in our economy, Utopia. There are three tax rates – 30% on all income up to and including $100 per day and 60% for all income above that up to $200 a day. After that the rate is 90%. Everyone in Utopia earns $100 a day, so all 100 of us pay $30 tax a day and so earn $70 a day after tax.
Now the government in its infinite wisdom decides that anyone whose name at birth was John Passant should be exempt from tax. There is only one John Passant. This means JP's after tax income is the same as his pre-tax income – $100 a day.
It is effectively the same as him being taxed just like everyone else and the government giving JP a grant of $30. That is the essence of tax expenditure theory – that tax concessions are deviations from a benchmark tax system and are effectively just like grants to the beneficiaries equivalent to the revenue forgone.
The Utopian Government did this because they realise the one John Passant in their population is hard working, industrious, creative, intelligent, good looking, witty… Oh, back to the story. The Government wants to attract more John Passants to Utopia because they want more hardworking people in the economy and they think the tax exemption will do that.
And it does. At first it is just one other John Passant, from the UK. Now UK John Passant earns $200 a day, double what everyone else earns. So Aussie JP gets a tax benefit or disguised grant of $30 a day, while the tax benefit of the exemption for UK JP is $30 plus $60, ie $90 all up.
Notice something here? The higher the income, the bigger the benefit. This is called the upside down effect and is a common problem with many tax expenditures.
But soon the many John Passants of the world hear about the exemption, and they flock to Utopia. The population grows from 100 to 150, and the extra 50 are all John Passants from around the globe so they all get the concession.
One of them earns $300 a day. Because he qualifies for the exemption his effective tax benefit is $30, plus $60, plus $90, ie $180. This is 6 times Aussie JP's tax benefit. Yet his salary is only 3 times bigger. In any event, shouldn't it be the other way round, with the bigger benefit going to the lower paid and the well paid getting a low or no benefit?
Imagine a government going to an election promising to spend more on the rich than on the poor. Evidently they can do that if it is disguised as a tax expenditure program.
The other good thing from the point of view of the recipients and governments is that disguised spending programs never face the same sort of slash and burn savagery often meted out to spending programs on the poor.
Back to Utopia. The Utopian Tax Office – Michael D'Abenzo – administers the spending program rather than a spending department. A conservative estimate is that is is now costing the revenue $2000 a day, which given that the economy before the upsurge in John Passants coming was only $10,000 a day represents a sizeable part of the Budget.
And of course these new arrivals, the other 50 John Passants, want basic services like roads, public transport, health and education facilities. Yet they aren't contributing to the coffers to pay for these benefits.
The Government is considering cutting back on some of its programs because it doesn't have the money to fund them. There will be less teachers, nurses, road repairers than budgeted for to be employed. But they need and will employ more tax officers.
Michael D'Abenzo, the Utopian Tax Office (UTO), cannot cope on his own. Things are so busy he has had to give up his other job as head of the Guinness Appreciation Society and go full time as the UTO.
But he is overworked. He is monitoring the exception to make sure no one pretending to be John Passant gets the benefit.
He has also had to deal with a number of ruling requests on the law. Jean Passant from France and Jean-Luc Passant from Switzerland have received rulings granting them the exemption. Jan Passant from Luxembourg was ruled not to be exempt and he has appealed to Utopia's Court.
More tax cases are expected and Barfield Garwick, also the town rat catcher and sewer sweeper, is already stretched to the limit.
The Government has mooted cutting back the exemption but given there are now 51 John Passants in a population of 150 on Utopia, and they all vote, the electoral consequences would be disastrous for a Laborious Party Government already on the nose.
Surely suckling on the teat of government wouldn't influence voting? Well, since writing this Julia Gillard has ruled out taxing the superannuation payments of the rich over 60s.
So what happens with the taxation, or not, of superannuation in Australia? When money goes into a super fund it is lightly taxed. When the fund earns income it is lightly taxed. And when the money is paid to the superannuant, in the main it is exempt if the recipeint is over 60.
These concessional tax arrangements mean a lot of tax that might otherwise be collected is forgone. Every year the Treasury releases its Tax Expenditure Statement. This year's one, Tax Expenditures Statement 2012, was released a week ago. The overall revenue forgone from all Commonwealth tax expenditures was estimated at $111 billion for the 2011/12 income year.
For superannuation the estimate for 2011/12 was $30 billion. This is projected to rise to $45 billion by 2015/16. Let me just emphasise what flows from this. If the Australia Institute analysis holds true (and there is no reason it won't), by 2015/2016 the top 5% of income earners will receive superannuation tax grants from me and you of over $15 billion that year.
Clawing that $15 billion back would be enough to fund Gonski, a full NDIS, and begin the process of moving to a renewable energy society.
The two big superannuation tax expenditures are the concessional treatment of employer contributions and fund earnings. These may be in Labor's sights, although how you distinguish between rich contributors and the earnings of the rich in the fund and the rest of us may prove difficult, unless you plan to attack all superannuation contributors.
There are various ways different countries treat the taxation of superannuation. One model is T-T-T, ie tax contributions fully, tax earnings on the fund fully, and tax income payments to retirees from the fund fully. Another would be e-e-e, ie exempt each of these stages. Australia's system used to be t-t-t, ie tax lightly at each stage, but in 2006 Peter Costello basically removed the tax on retirement incomes to the over 60s, so we now have a t-t-e system.
Our system forgoes $30 billion currently and this will rise to $45 billion in a few years. The tax benefits go disproportionately to the rich.
By way of comparison the age pension currently costs $38 billion but it is estimated the cost of the superannuation concessions will pass the cost of the age pension in 2015/16. There were about 2.25 million age pensioners in 2010/11. The age pension is means tested.
According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics in 2011 there were 3.08 million people aged over 65.
Now I am no genius when it comes to figures but if we added the cost of the pension and the revenue forgone from the superannuation concessions together and divided by 3.08 million, my back of the envelope calculations (literally!) are that you'd be able to pay every person aged 65 or over $23,000 a year, an increase of about $90 a week on the current payment, but unlike the current means tested, asset tested pension, including everyone aged over 65.
If it were restricted to the 2.25 million current age pensioners then the payment would be around $30,000 a year, an increase of over $200 a week. That would take pensioners out of the poverty zone.
Now revenue forgone is not the same as revenue that would be collected if the concessions were abolished. But much of the money currently benefiting from the superannuation tax concession would go into areas taxed at normal rates. If it were to flow into tax preferenced or no tax arrangements (such as negatively geared rental properties) then the time has come to remove these lurks too.
If rich people want to set aside amounts for their retirement they can pay normal tax on the interest, dividends, rent or superannuation streams.
The age pension for all is an example of a universal welfare payment. It may seem unfair that millionaires should get the pension but the argument is society recoups it from them during their lifetime of earnings through a steeply progressive income tax, wealth taxes and taxes on wealth transfer.
That would not only cover any revenue forgone versus collected shortfall alluded to above but also provide the base for increasing the pensions to an even more livable amount, say $30000 a year.
A universal benefits scheme such as the age pension for all people over 65 and steeply progressive income tax rates and wealth and wealth transfer taxes are traditional left wing approaches to make the rich support the poor and less well off in society. It is time to tax the rich and that means getting rid of their tax rorts like superannuation tax concessions.
© 2020 En Passant - Entries (RSS) - Comments (RSS) - Log in
Powered by WordPress - Theme design by Andreas Viklund
Web Design Brisbane by Internet Thinking


text:
Death toll rises to 15 in Danube tour boat crash
June 6, 2019 | 3:47am
BUDAPEST, Hungary — Hungarian police say two more bodies have been recovered from the Danube River tour boat crash, raising the death toll to 15, with 13 of the 33...
Boat sinking in Hungary leaves seven dead, at least 20 missing
Seven passengers died — and 21 were missing — when a Hungarian sightseeing boat sank early Thursday on the Danube River in Budapest. The vessel was carrying 33 South Korean...
Why doomed freighter sailed right into a megastorm
Late in the evening of Sept. 30, 2015, two shipmates stood on the bridge of the SS El Faro, reviewing their captain's order to stay on course. "We don't have...
Rare Titanic love letter offers insight into life on doomed ship
A rare letter written onboard the RMS Titanic is going up for auction, detailing what life was like during the final days of the ill-fated ship. The letter was written...
Couple's life savings go down with sunken sailboat
Their boat sank — but their dream did not. A ditzy Colorado couple whose vessel went underwater just a day after they embarked on what they hoped would be a...
The real-life love story on the Titanic
Many people are familiar with the emotional moment in Titanic when Kate Winslet's character sacrifices her place on the lifeboat to be with Leonardo DiCaprio's character. But did you know...
Two rescued after boat sinks in Queens
A man and woman fishing on a boat off Queens on Sunday had to be rescued when their craft started sinking, police said. The 55-year-old man and 34-year-old woman were...
At least 9 dead in Colombian tourist boat disaster
At least nine people were dead and 30 feared missing after a Colombian tourist boat suddenly sank in the waters near Medellin, officials said. The boat, which was carrying more...
Colombian tourist boat sinks with nearly 200 on board
A Colombian tourist boat suddenly sank into a reservoir with about 200 on board — leaving a number dead and countless missing. Firefighters and rescue helicopters scrambled to save scores...
100-year-old Coast Guard shipwreck found off California coast
One hundred years after the Coast Guard Cutter McCulloch collided with another ship and sank, it has been found. The ship, which hit a passenger ship and sank near the...


text:
Previous episode: season 6, episode 7, "The Broken Man."
Following episode: season 6, episode 9, "Battle of the Bastards."
Let's not go to Riverrun, it's a silly place.
Sarah: Aaron, do you remember this season's first trailer? Let me remind you: it involved a particularly mournful cover of Chris Isaak's "Wicked Game," a lot of people walking around and looking sad (and, in the case of Jon Snow, looking dead), and some speechifying about piety and terror. It was all dimly lit and grim! BUT, in the middle of it, Cersei makes a grand declaration: "I choose violence." And then things get all swashbuckling and exciting! Violence is a total game changer, there are knights and swords! I ask if you remember this, Aaron, because this was the week that we predicted would be a total bloodbath, the "choosing violence!" episode! And indeed, this week, Cersei got to say her power line; really her only good line of the season; she chooses violence. But, I think to Game of Thrones's credit, it didn't take Cersei's choice of violence to be simple, or necessarily more "exciting" than other choices. Violence, in this episode, was strange and complicated — but brutal, even when it was defused, or pushed aside, or displayed only obliquely.
Case in point: the big threatened violent spectacle, the battle at Riverrun, completely disappeared: not because someone didn't choose violence, but because of the kind of violence they chose: Jamie threatened to murder a baby, and prevented a huge, bloody scenario. Or, on a smaller scale: the Brotherhood telling the Hound "We're not butchers!" so he can't chop people up with axes — instead he can hang them and pull off their boots, while the dying men look on, faces swelling. Or even the key, Cersei-violence-choosing moment, when The Mountain kills the Sparrow! You can't say it's "non-violent" to see a lot of long slow sideways shots of someone manually decapitating another person. But it is a very different spectacle than when The Mountain eye-ploded Oberyn, at the end of season four.
Aaron: Not to mention that the Cleganebowl looks to have been canceled. But you're absolutely right: how many deaths occurred off-screen this episode? The Waif, the Blackfish, the Very Good Actress? Were there others?
Sarah: The dragon, attacking the fleet!
Aaron: Wait, is that what's happening? That scene is SO INCONCLUSIVE. Dany doesn't even say anything, and what is even happening with the dragon? Sarah: Well, either it's just doing some calisthenics there, over Dany's shoulder, or it's swooping around and breathing fire on the fleet? I'd been assuming the later? There was a decent bit of confusion. I do not mean this as a criticism! I really found the "abracadabra" quality of it sort of appealing, particularly since it means that everyone can stop pretending that Riverrun matters to anyone? Also, I think there was a parallel between the oblique efforts at explaining the plot and the oblique portraits of violence.
Aaron: Yes! This episode was all about things happening somewhere else, about violence suggested and then… not happening, or happening off-screen. "Oh, the Blackfish? Yeah, he's totally dead. So."
But especially the sense that the real action is happening elsewhere. For example: Lili and I were trying to figure out whether Margaery's machinations have disappeared and been forgotten — perhaps because the showrunners have reverted to idiotic form? — or if she has been secretly engineering the whole thing behind the scenes, Littlefinger-style. But the fact that we don't know is actually the key thing: we — like Cersei — have been cut out of the elegant rooms where the important historical conversations are happening, so we don't even see the Sparrow manipulating Tommen anymore, much less Margaery manipulating Tommen against the Sparrow. We're in the gallery with Cersei, waiting for the king to make his announcement. Sarah: It's true: are there any scenes in this episode that are focalized through a character who knows what's happening? The rogue Brothers don't know The Hound is coming; The Hound doesn't know the Brothers are Rogue; Lady Crane doesn't know about the Waif; Jaquen Ha'gar doesn't know Arya has needle or killed the Waif; Tyrion and Missandei and Grey Worm don't know about the ships, or about Dany. It's a real position of surprise!
Aaron: The entire episode is built like that, now that you mention it; riffs on the narrative principle of "Suddenly, a knock at the door." Brienne shows up out of nowhere, and Pod gets surprised by Bronn; the Blackfish is surprised by a not-dead Edmure walking up to his drawbridge.
Sarah: Can I point out, nerdishly, that this all feels like a great extension of the moment Cersei calls out the knotted language of her Igor-dude: "Seven Sparrows have been permitted into the Red Keep." Cersei's like: cool it with the passive voice, asshole, we all know what's happening here; The King permitted them to enter. That passive voice, and her frustration with it, is really interesting! It's a different grammar of violence. Sarah Blackwood texted me in the middle of the episode to point out that things were getting really Discipline and Punish up in there.
Aaron: Wow, say more about that! How do we get from passive voice to Foucault?
Sarah: Well, look, I'm not prepared to offer a fully developed theory of Westerosi biopolitics — but I think the point is that there are a few colliding theories of power happening in the show right now. There's trial by combat, for instance, which is "punishment" — the revealed spectacle of bodies enacting power, which Tommen declares barbaric compared to the more rational, just, and civilized process of a jury trial. Now, Aaron, you and I would probably agree that trial by combat is barbaric, but in the moment of television, it's completely clear that the rational mode of social regulation is also strategic, power-bound, and also dramatically aimed at deploying power through the regulation of bodies — and, particularly, Cersei and Loras's wayward sexual desires.
The passive voice de-emphasizes subjectivity, separates verbs from agents. Similar stuff happens throughout the episode to diffuse agency, through language — like when Tommen says "the crown has decided" to give up trial by combat, or when the Blackfish and the guard argue about whether Edmure's word's are really his words, a "valid order," or the machinations of Jaime. So: I wouldn't say that that Westeros right now is a fully-developed disciplinary system of productive power, but it is the case that this was an episode about power happening, without anyone particular making it happen.
Aaron: That's totally right! In fact, the entire question of what it means to be "shit at dying," as the Hound puts it, is pretty Foucaultian. And the wonderful absurdity of arguing about who gets to kill the condemned men, and how.
Of course, the King and Sparrow are also re-locating The Spectacle of Power away from combat and onto their own non-combative bodies: their soft and gentle and soothing and pacific bodies, which serve as a lens for a different kind of government than Robert Baratheon's. And given how crazy, violent, or unpredictable the last few kings have been, who can blame the commoners if they're psyched to have a king who cedes some of his power to the church?
Sarah: I'm sure not going to blame them, Aaron, especially because I have no idea what they are doing, since this show seems to have no interest in King's Landing real life? Just saying.
Aaron: The episode might also have a Foucaultian slant on history, too; the show's general narrative focus on the aristocratic elite — the people who, by definition, have power and agency — can sometimes make it seem like History really is being written by aristocrats in elegant rooms, that having conversations is the sum of what makes the world go round. It's all conspiracies and plotting and plans! But in this episode, we get example after example of elegant rooms being surprised, mid-conversation, by something outside their ken. I wonder, for example, if Tyrion's entire theory of power has come apart in this episode, along with his tenure as hand-of-the-Queen; after all, he's fucked it up pretty royally, right? As it turns out, while we were watching people in elegant rooms having conversations, History was actually happening elsewhere.
Sarah: Well, at least that part of history was happening in some other elegant room, elsewhere, in Slaver's Bay? I'm actually somewhat perplexed by that whole scene. First of all, when the ships showed up, I was like: Yara! No? Euron? How could they have made those ships already? Where did they find the trees? I'm a little unclear how quickly they expected us all to know that the insignia on the sails was not the Ironborn. Also, aren't we supposed to be anticipating that Yara is going to get there and trap the slaver's in the harbor? I did not think the execution was great.
Aaron: Remember when Dany was asking about who had a thousand ships and Daario said "no one"? It now kind of feels like everybody has a thousand ships, actually.
Sarah: So many ships! And more than that, I was frustrated that the episode seemed to be punishing Grey Worm and Missandei for having a good time and drinking and getting all zesty and Tyrion-ish. Aaron, the last thing I want is for Grey Worm being all "Boy, I tried to loosen up and have some dialogue and a personality, but immediately things went shitbonkers so best go back to the grimacing and worrying!" I guess this is just another illustration that biopolitics is harshest on racialized bodies? Maybe that's taking it too far, but the narrative really seemed to be out to get them for exhibiting any interest in bodily pleasure, outside propriety or regulation. Aaron: No, I agree. Whenever anyone suggested that Tyrion was wasting his life in the taverns and brothels, we were always meant to side with Tyrion: the audience is supposed to be 100% pro-jouissance with him. His whole thing is drinking and knowing things; the more pleasure he has, the more effective he is, or something. But while Grey Worm and Missandei were charming and delightful in those scenes, there is a definite sense that they've let him seduce them into his decadent ways; no rest or pleasure for slaves, or former slaves. The masters are always just around the corner…
Actually, that reminds me of something I've been thinking of since you mentioned the Foucault: can we also note how many different moments this episode had in which primary characters contemplate an escape from the life they're currently living? The fantasy not of breaking the wheel, but, you know, getting off of it for a spin or two. Tyrion's little vineyard dream is so well-developed: he already has a name for it! Imp's Delight! But the pathos behind the "only my close friends can drink it" line was lovely; all he wants is friends to hang out with and get drunk with (which was echoed by the Hound's line about having no friends anymore, which is why he has to go back to the family business of murdering people.)
My favorite one of those scenes was Arya's sudden ambition to sail to the edge of the world. It just comes out of nowhere! She has dreams too, and they're not just dreams of killing people or of becoming an actor or something; her dreams are literally out of this world. A moment after she's hesitant about whether it's even possible to remember all those lines, she offhandedly suggests that it would be cool to sail beyond the boundaries of the known world and see what that's like.
Sarah: Somewhere, there's a place for us! I loved that moment, and particularly I loved that it was a moment between Sansa and Lady Crane: this brief moment where it seemed possible for women to help each other, or even just listen to each other! Ah, but, no! Here comes the Waif, all vengeful and violent, choosing her status in the eyes of the Faceless God's patriarchy rather than her possible friendship with Arya!
Aaron, I think is the point where we have to talk about the Arya plotline, and the miracle of her stomach wounds?
Aaron: Sarah, this is a thing we have to talk about. It is not good. It is extremely not-good. It is not good at all.
Sarah: Aaron, I'm going to make a bold claim, which is that I do not even care about the miracle of Arya's fast-healing stomach wounds! Okay, I cared a little, when she slid under a wagon, actually on her stomach. But I sort of love that the show was like, you know what? This was a bad idea. Let's pretend that this thing didn't happen! Leaking stomach bile? NO PROBLEM. My theory is that they didn't want to stay in the "Arya gets trained to not be Arya, by being hit with sticks" plotline any more than I did. Let's get out of there!
Aaron: So, here's my first thought: why not insert one crummy line of dialogue to the effect that "Gosh, since you've been staying with me for five days, you sure have had a marvelous recovery!" Or something. Couldn't they even pretend to care, even a little? This is a show that has generally been pretty strict about this sort of thing, but now, it's just so flagrantly dismissive!
Sarah: Now now! Let's not get testy! The stomach wounds really did start to pose a problem for her, the second time she jumped off a building! How is that not verisimilitude?
Aaron: LOL. To go back to the thing about genre, we really have entered action movie territory, haven't we? Forget about fantasy and anti-fantasy, the role of The Waif was actually being played by the role of the Terminator.
But I'm of two minds here. First of all, I do think that the ludicrousness of those scenes was a betrayal of expectations the show has very clearly instilled in us, in exactly the same way that Jon Snow's return betrayed an original premise about the finality of death. We are losing another pillar of the Game of Thrones narrative rules if characters are suddenly action-movie protagonists.
But also, maybe that's fine. And I do like the way Arya has become a free agent for the entire rest of the show, like she's starring in a separate story that only happens to share a universe with the rest of them. Does anyone else even know that she's still alive? And does she want them to? After all, in kicking herself loose from the rest of the show, she's become a fantasy hero by virtue of her singularity. She's got super assassin skills! She's going to sail across the world, just because! She's on her own!
Sarah: Anything is possible! And, to answer your question: Brienne knows that she was alive, and she told Sansa. So I think Sansa is hoping. But then, right now, Sansa is hoping for a lot of people to show up. Aaron, here's my question for you, in the midst of all this action-movie-ing that's currently happening here, in the midst of the implausibility of circumstance: what, Aaron, are you expecting to happen next week at Winterfell?
Aaron: I'm nervous. It seems bonkers. From the spoiler-preview, it looks like the entire episode is going to be taken up by that battle, and they do seem to enjoy having those entire-episode-is-a-battle shows. But to be honest, I'm not that psyched about it. I guess the Knights of the Vale will show up and save them? But a lot of times the big battles are actually not that interesting, and this one will have a lot of Ramsay Bolton in it. That's going to be bad news.
Sarah: Well, also Jon has to brood man-bunishly at Melisandre, so you know I'm excited about that.
Aaron: To get away from having to talk about Jon Snow, can I observe that we have a new contestant in the Worst Man-bun in Westeros category? How do you write seven violent deaths into two scenes, and not one of the dead people is the guy with the man-bun? Now that is bad writing.
Sarah: That guy's man bun is so much better than Jon Snow's! It has a real sense of humor about itself, as all man-buns should.
Aaron: It's true, though you can't be lenient about these things. Man-buns are never okay.
Sarah: You're categorically wrong, but let's put man-buns aside and talk more about Winterfell. We've had a real sequence of penultimate episode battles, right? Season two's Battle of Blackwater; season four's battle at the wall; season five's disastrous battle at Winterfell. Mostly, these battles have been won by people with plans: Tyrion's fire strategy at Blackwater; Davos's fast-talking at the Iron Bank (also a little bit Jon's mysterious cult of personality, unfortunately); Ramsay's scheming and supply-burning in the face of Stannis's naive piety.
But that's Game of Thrones of the past, and as we've been saying, "plans" and "realism" aren't really what the show has been investing itself in these past few episodes. Maybe Bran will show up with Benjen? Dany with Dragons? Maybe Arya will take the express train back home real quick and stab Ramsay with Needle?
Aaron: Maybe the white walkers will attack, and Jon and Ramsay will have to put aside their differences? Uggh. My concern is this: we are guaranteed to have a LOT of Ramsay Bolton in next week's episode. Ideally, the Knights of the Vale will show up and cream the Boltons. But what if Ramsay has a plan? What if he's been scheming with Littlefinger? What if he uses his ninja-tactics of "sneak into the camp and burn everything down." I have to admit, as much as I hate that character, I think I'm also a little bit traumatized by him, Reek-style: I kind of can't imagine him losing. He's just unstoppable awfulness.
Sarah: Also let's stop to imagine the show without him: if the Starks retake Winterfell next week, what happens for two more seasons? Though: frankly I don't think I can care about him for two more seasons. There's not much new awfulness he can manifest. He's just not that interesting.
Aaron: Uggh, there are so many possible bad outcomes, here. Are people looking forward to "the Battle of the Bastards"? I am kind of dreading it, to be honest. What's so great about Winterfell anyway? All the other plots are so much more interesting (with the possible exception of the 11-year-old Queen of Awesome. But at least it will be resolved, one way or another. And the show seems to be in fast-forward now, though I still can't imagine what the end-game actually is.
Sarah: I agree! You know, for several seasons now, the show has been stoking within us a desire to see the Stark children reunited, at Winterfell. But now that it's maybe, at least partially, going to happen, all I want to do is close my eyes until it's over. I am sorry to be in this position! It's entirely because Jon has become so floppy and uninteresting! Meanwhile Ramsay just gleams out of his demon eyes. I think what would make it better is some sense of planning, or collaboration, and not just Jon throwing himself at death and Ramsay getting out the flaying knives.
Aaron: I worry that they're going to ruin the Jon and Sansa reunion by making Sansa screw up in some fatal way, leaving Jon with no option to be the glorious and boring martyr. After all, the only planning we've seen is Sansa sending a raven to Littlefinger, right? And that has come to nothing, in addition to being flagged as A Betrayal of Her Brother. Unless the Knights of the Vale show up, which… who are the Knights of the Vale, again? Soldiers of some kind, I'm guessing. Sigh.
Sarah: Literally no one knows who the Knights of the Vale are, or what they can do, or how many of them there are. So, you're right, this plan is not a good one! But at least Sansa's been like: DUDES, WE NEED A PLAN; all we currently have is a giant, and a giant — as we learned in conclusion to season four — is not the same as a plan! I guess my hope is Sansa and Davos figure something out?
Aaron: Somebody needs to figure something out. But I'm picturing all the good guys in a huddle being like "So, who brought the play?" They might all be too busy having feelings to be properly scheming. It's like Ned Stark had kids but they lack his ruthless Machiavellian cunning.
Sarah: Aaron, we are complaining a lot, but I really want to get back to the part where: I actually really liked this episode!
Aaron: I need you to tell me more about why you really liked this episode. Other than the Arya video game — which I take issue with — I liked this episode OK, but I think you really liked it.
Sarah: Yeah, I really liked watching it! I think here's why: most of the episode was conversations, but unlike some of the conversations early in the season, these never felt like table setting to me: in almost every conversation, the meal was being served. Sometimes it was being served by the people talking — such as when Jaime really goes at Edmure, or at Brienne — and sometimes not. Sometimes, as you say, the conversations were pure fantasy! But in all of them, I felt like the narrative momentum of the show was really happening.
It's worth comparing, maybe, this week's episode with "Blood of My Blood," two weeks ago. That episode was also really talky, but nothing seemed to be getting done. When Cersei sends Jaime off to fight at Riverrun, not only did it make no sense, but neither she nor Jaime were displaying Cersei or Jaime-ness in any kind of new or convincing or interesting way. They exchanged lines with each other that they might have said in season one, when each of them was a substantially less interesting person. In this episode, when Jaime talks about Cersei to Edmure, he was more convincingly a complex, changed person. Aaron: He also comes off as capable and devious, and clear about what he wants and how he'll get it; he legitimately wins the battle in a clever and smart way, and gets what he wants, which is to win and gtfo. But the fact that he does it in such a self-revealing way was very good; he truths Edmure into submission. And aligning Cersei and Catelyn as mothers — which Edmure doesn't want to hear — also resonates with the way the Very Good Actress plays Cersei on stage but plays Catelyn with Arya. His monologue at Edmure is Jaime at his best: brutal without being cruel, and perhaps a kind of remorselessness that comes without seeming to have much ego? Post-amputation Jaime is very focused on What Matters, and this scene brought a lot of other things in the show into a clarity that they had lacked.
Best? Worst?
Sarah: My best is easy and obvious: Arya slicing the candle! Maybe that moment — and the one following, with Jaqun Ha'gar — is a real litmus test for what we want out of Game of Thrones, I don't know. I get that it was pure wish fulfillment, and I don't want to be the person who is always on the side of Game of Thrones being Dragonlance instead of its more complex self. But this show has been so miserably withholding for so long — and as we discussed last week, that's it's own kind of antirealism. I was really happy to get exactly what I wanted.
Aaron: I got exactly what I wanted with Arya, too: it was her little moments of non-utilitarian character. Sailing to the edge of the world was fantastic, but also the part where she worried about not being able to remember her lines: just like when Tyrion already has a name for his fantasy vineyard picked out, it shows that Arya has thought a lot about whether or not she could be an actress. And that's what I want from her: indications that she is a person underneath that ball of suffering, trauma, survival, and training montage.
That moment is actually like an anti-training montage: instead of everything about her story being reduced to a singular Sense of Purpose and the Telos of Awesome-Ninja-ing, we get a tiny sliver of daydreaming, along with an (adorable) fear about how hard it must be to memorize all those lines.
Sarah: It's a really amazing juxtaposition with Arya at the end of last season, when she displayed her personhood by being such a wonderful sociopath and just slaughtering Meryn Trant and gauging his eyes out and slicing his throat and everything. Though I loved that moment too.
Aaron: Right! It's not resilience, or Strong Female Character-ing, it's just… healing. Finding joy and normality. Dreaming!
Sarah: Well, before we get too much into normality: maybe we want to think about the Waif's face, on display in the hall, and remember that it, too, was bleeding from its eyes?! More off-stage insanity! But I think the point still stands. Is your worst Arya's "stomach wounds"?
Aaron: Oh, yeah, I didn't think of that! Sarah, she blinded the Waif. Uggh. And generally, the Waif is probably the worst? So evil! So pointless! Such a predictable Female Foil.
But I think I have to name the big jumps as the worst part of the episode. I feel like they could have written that whole sequence in a way that might have still stretched credulity a little, but wouldn't be blatantly spitting in its face. I mean, not just one wild jump, but two! Maybe just have a foot-chase! Maybe have the Waif be so overconfident that she toys with Arya, letting her get away just long enough that she's able to get to her secret dark cave. You could have still had the surprise reveal, but it wouldn't have felt like the show was just flaunting its wish-fulfillment. Sarah: Fair enough! My worsts aren't that bad this episode, really? I'm annoyed that Cersei got to say her big line but still didn't get to be smart or interesting or make anything happen. I'm a little annoyed that, while Jaime got to be complex and brutal, Brienne felt a little flat footed, and underused? I didn't want her to get into a big useless battle with Jamie, but Gwendoline Christie is such an amazing actress when she's given a hard choice to make, or a Hound to battle, or a bear, that it seemed like a failure of imagination just to have her wave plaintively from a boat. And I wish Lady Crane and the Blackfish weren't dead. I like them! Let's keep some witty characters around!
Aaron: She did have some good lines with the Blackfish; he doesn't do what she wants, but I'm not sure Jaime is right that he's more stubborn than her. The scene where she's following him around his castle and He Cannot Get Away From This Woman is pretty funny to watch.
"In the darkest region of the political field, the condemned man represents the symmetrical, inverted figure of the king,"
Sarah and Aaron


text:
Posted in | Microscopy | Nanoanalysis | Atomic Force Microscopes
Asylum Research Offer iPad to Winner of AFM Image Contest
From Asylum Research - An Oxford Instruments CompanyMar 6 2014
Asylum Research, an Oxford Instruments company, invites all Cypher™ and MFP-3D™ AFM users to enter their best AFM data, including images, force curves, or videos, in the Asylum Research Image Contest.
Each scientist will receive an Asylum gift pack just for sending in their images. An Apple iPad will be awarded at the close of each quarter to the winning image that best represents excellence in science and the "cool" factor as judged by our team of applications scientists. Select entries will also be featured in the Asylum Research website gallery.
"Our customers do amazing work with our AFMs and we'd like to help share the incredible results," said Ben Ohler, Director of Marketing. "We invite all of our users to send in their most unique, impressive, and captivating images, and that includes any data on force measurements and videos."
Researchers may submit as many images as they want and every image will be considered for the quarterly grand prize. Details and the online submission form can be found at www.AsylumResearch.com/ImageContest. All winners of the quarterly iPad prize will be notified by email. The first quarterly prize will be announced June 1.
Image caption: Carbon nanotubes and bundles emerging from a line of catalyst particles. 5µm scan courtesy of Scott MacLaren, Senior Research Scientist, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign.
About Asylum Research, an Oxford Instruments company
Asylum Research is the technology leader in atomic force microscopy for both materials and bioscience applications, dedicated to innovative instrumentation for nanoscience and nanotechnology. Founded in 1999, Asylum Research has over 300 years combined AFM/SPM experience among our staff. Asylum Research AFMs are used for a variety of nanoscience applications in material science, physics, polymers, chemistry, biomaterials, and bioscience, including single molecule mechanical experiments on DNA, protein unfolding and polymer elasticity, as well as force measurements for biomaterials, chemical sensing, polymers, colloidal forces, adhesion, and more.
About Oxford Instruments plc
Oxford Instruments designs, supplies and supports high-technology tools and systems with a focus on research and industrial applications. It provides solutions needed to advance fundamental physics research and its transfer into commercial nanotechnology applications. Innovation has been the driving force behind Oxford Instruments' growth and success for over 50 years, and its strategy is to effect the successful commercialization of these ideas by bringing them to market in a timely and customer-focused fashion.
Asylum Research - An Oxford Instruments Company. (2019, February 11). Asylum Research Offer iPad to Winner of AFM Image Contest. AZoNano. Retrieved on January 17, 2020 from https://www.azonano.com/news.aspx?newsID=29571.
Asylum Research - An Oxford Instruments Company. "Asylum Research Offer iPad to Winner of AFM Image Contest". AZoNano. 17 January 2020. <https://www.azonano.com/news.aspx?newsID=29571>.
Asylum Research - An Oxford Instruments Company. "Asylum Research Offer iPad to Winner of AFM Image Contest". AZoNano. https://www.azonano.com/news.aspx?newsID=29571. (accessed January 17, 2020).
Asylum Research - An Oxford Instruments Company. 2019. Asylum Research Offer iPad to Winner of AFM Image Contest. AZoNano, viewed 17 January 2020, https://www.azonano.com/news.aspx?newsID=29571.
Announcing the New Jupiter XR Large-Sample AFM from Asylum Research


text:
Integration of fluid dynamics into activation calculations for fusion
Integration of fluid dynamics into activation calculations for fusion https://scientific-publications.ukaea.uk/wp-content/themes/blade/images/empty/thumbnail.jpg 150 150 UKAEA Opendata UKAEA Opendata https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/bfb95e09a49fb313555a38d29c8599f7?s=96&d=mm&r=g 14th April 2021 16th April 2021
T. A. Berry C. R. Nobs A. Dubas R. Worrall T. Eade J. Naish L. W. Packer
The accurate modelling of the activation of flowing material in a fusion reactor, such as coolant water or lithium-lead breeder, has important safety and shielding implications. Two codes developed at UKAEA which account for neutron flux variation have been investigated for the potential for incorporating computational fluid dynamics (CFD) and combining the codes' capabilities. With the recent improvements, including path splitting and recombination, mixing and integration of CFD, benchmarking discrepancies have been clarified and the importance of fluid behaviour in the activation of both lithium-lead and water has been highlighted. This work paves the way for an accurate and benchmarked set of fluid activation codes.


text:
tizianacarraro » New Age » Jim Stubblefield - Cities of Gold
Jim Stubblefield - Cities of Gold album download
Jim Stubblefield
Cities of Gold
Contemporary Instrumental,Ethnic Fusion,Flamenco,Western European Traditions
SouthWest Sound, Sierra Madre, CA
MP4 ASF MP3 TTA MP1 AUD
Jim Stubblefield Contemporary Instrumental Ethnic Fusion Flamenco Western European Traditions
Profile: American acoustic guitarist. Cities Of Gold (HDCD, Album). Natural Elements Records. Incendio Featuring Jim Stubblefield. Incendio Featuring Jim Stubblefield - Misterioso (CD).
JIM STUBBLEFIELD, a native Californian, began playing guitar seriously in high school where he studied rock guitar styles with world renowned transcriber WOLF MARSHALL. He then went on to study jazz guitar with well known jazz educator JODY FISHER (known for his books with ALFRED PUBLISHING). During his college years JIM'S guitar influences included jazz guitarists AL DI MEOLA and JOHN MCLAUGHLIN, rockers YNGWIE MALMSTEEN, ALEX LIFESON, and STEVE MORSE as well as country guitarist ALBERT LEE.
Jim Stubblefield - Guitare Mystique (2017). Songs in album Jim Stubblefield - Guitare Mystique (2017).
An album to check out is Jim Stubblefield's brand new Guitare Mystique. Fresh, different and a bit mystical, Guitare Mystique adds magic to any summer playlist. Stubblefield's solo recordings are November, Cities of Gold, Rhythm of the Heart, Guitarra Exotica, Inspiracion and Encantado. His albums with Incendio ( ww. ncendioband.
Jim Stubblefield is a guitarist and composer with a great love for mixing elements of jazz and world-music together . With Stubblefield's second CD, Cities of Gold, he explored flamenco-based harmony mixed with Reggae, Afro-Cuban, South American, and Funk rhythms while refining his style
It was nominated as one of the Best World Music albums of 2018 by ZoneMusicReporter and won Best Acoustic Guitar album of 2018 for the One World Music UK Awards. The album made it as as high as on the ZMR Radio Charts and selections have appeared on the syndicated Echoes radio show and PRI's The World on NPR. . He then went on to study jazz guitar with well known jazz educator Jody Fisher. During his college years Jim's guitar influences included jazz guitarists Al Di Meola and John McLaughlin and rockers Yngwie Malmsteen, Alex Lifeson, and Randy Rhoads. After graduating from college, Jim was introduced to Kuwaiti oud player Waleed Hamad. Jim released the nylon string acoustic guitar driven Cities of Gold in 1997 followed by 1998's Rhythm of the Heart. Jim's music also appears on 1998's Neurodisc/Priority Record's Pure Flamenco: Nuevo Flamenco Passion compilation along with such artists as Ottmar Liebert and Govi. Jim's two most recent solo efforts include Guitarra Exotica (2007) and Inspiracion (2010).
Jim Stubblefield with Incendio - Cities of Gold - guitar solo. CAFÉ CAFÉ from Guitare Mystique by Jim Stubblefield. THE MYSTIC'S DREAM by Jim Stubblefield - Ka'anapali Beach, Maui - Romantic Guitar. ODYSSEY OF FIRE by Jim Stubblefield - Exotic Electric Guitar. Barcelona (excerpt) by Incendio - Jim Stubblefield, Eric Hansen & JP Durand solos. BEYOND THE HORIZON by Jim Stubblefield - Arabian influenced world fusion guitars and strings. JIM STUBBLEFIELD - Ascending Sextuplets with Open String. Tidal Wave (Stubblefield) - Jim Stubblefield Band, from the album "November". Jim Stubblefield: Saint Tropez - All About Guitar 10-02-2017. It was then followed by 1998's "RHYTHM OF THE HEART" recorded by the JIM STUBBLEFIELD GROUP. This recording was a semi-finalist in the NAV MAGAZINE'S "ACOUSTIC INSTRUMENTAL ALBUM OF THE YEAR" category for 1999. JIM'S music also appears on Neurodisc's "PURE FLAMENCO: NUEVO FLAMENCO PASSION" compilation along with such artists as OTTMAR LIEBERT and GOVI. In late 1999 JIM co-founded the Latin guitar oriented world music group INCENDIO with bassist LIZA CARBE' and guitarist JEAN-PIERRE DURAND.
1 Cities of Gold Jim Stubblefield Jim Stubblefield 3:52
2 Barcelona Jim Stubblefield Jim Stubblefield 4:53
3 Kalaharj Jim Stubblefield Jim Stubblefield 4:51
4 Midnight Fire Jim Stubblefield Jim Stubblefield 5:38
5 Cielo Grande Jim Stubblefield Jim Stubblefield 5:26
6 Mediterranean Breeze Jim Stubblefield Jim Stubblefield 4:52
7 Flame of Desire Jim Stubblefield Jim Stubblefield 4:29
8 Sundancer Jim Stubblefield Jim Stubblefield 6:16
9 The Sun and the Sea Jim Stubblefield Jim Stubblefield 3:40
10 Los Rios Jim Stubblefield Jim Stubblefield 4:43
Related at Jim Stubblefield - Cities of Gold albums
Kip Hanrahan - Desire Develops an Edge album mp3 flac
Kenny Barron - Golden Lotus album mp3 flac
Ruthie Foster - Let It Burn album mp3 flac
Pucho & His Latin Soul Brothers - The Hideout album mp3 flac
Mingus Big Band - Live in Time album mp3 flac
Ben Sidran - I Lead a Life album mp3 flac
Mingus Big Band - Mingus Big Band 93: Nostalgia in Times Square album mp3 flac
Nick Stubblefield - Sister album mp3 flac
Jim Stubblefield - The Rhythm of the Heart album mp3 flac
Howard Prince - Double Take album mp3 flac


text:
The Phoenix That Rose from the 1977 Gas Explosion [PHIL-OSOPHY]
Courtesy Spinner Publications
Early Tuesday morning, I was commenting on the Standard-Times' historic photos and story of the 1977 gas explosion that rocked downtown New Bedford.
Considering the eruptions recently in the Andover and Lawrence areas, the newspaper was asking if similar blasts could happen here. Because of their age, forty-five miles of old gas pipes are being replaced by Eversource locally at a cost of about $95 million over the next 20 years.
But this opinion piece is more about the aftermath of the detonation of O'Malley's Tavern and the nearly 60 buildings that sustained some damage due to the blow-up. Spinner Publications has done a superb job preserving our history in photos and words, but another area chronicler has an interesting twist on the catastrophe.
There's a 40th anniversary commemoration of the event written by eminent local historian Arthur Motta, who reconstructs the smoldering ruins in a way that puts you on Union Street that frigid January morning. But it's what happened after the explosion that I'm focusing on.
Today, look around the same area, and there's not a trace of the devastation because of the will of local people and groups who decided to rebuild with something bigger and better. Often times, that very will to persevere is the difference between mediocrity and success.
Twenty years after the disaster, ground zero was transformed into a beautiful Whaling National Park that attracts visitors from around the world. That blast destroyed some things, but couldn't extinguish the fire in the spirit of our local people.
That's an important part of the story that we should hang on to.
1977 Gas Explosion on Union Street in New Bedford
Phil Paleologos is the host of the Phil Paleologos Show on 1420 WBSM New Bedford. He can be heard weekdays from 6 a.m. to 10 a.m. Contact him at phil@wbsm.com and follow him on Twitter @PhilPaleologos. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.
Filed Under: Bew Bedford Whaling Museum, Gas explosions of Andover and Lawrence, historian Arthur Motta, historic 1977 gas explosion of New Bedford, Johnny Cake Hill, New Bedford Whaling National Historic Park, O'Malley's Tavern, spinner publications
Categories: Articles, Commentary, Events, SouthCoast News
Homeless Count Is January 29


text:
Are Headphones Safe For Kids? New Report Claims They Could Lose Hearing
When it comes to kids, headphones can be a life saver for parents. On long car rides, the last thing a parent wants to hear is "Let It Go" playing from their kid's iPad for the hundredth time in a row, after all. Headphones are the perfect way for kids to keep the activities rolling, without giving their parents a headache or disturbing others who are looking for a little quiet. Unfortunately, a new report claims that headphones might be a bigger problem than previously thought, prompting parents and caregivers alike to question, "Are headphones safe for kids?" Unfortunately, it seems the answer to that might not be good news.
As it turns out, headphones are safe for kids, as long as they regulate sound to acceptable volumes. The Wirecutter, the electronics review website owned by The New York Times that ran the study, recently tested children's headphones and found that 15 out of 30 pairs of headphone marketed as safe for children did not actually restrict volume to safe limits.
In other words, headphones are perfectly okay for kids to use, if the sounds coming through the headphones are being regulated, and not on full blast. According to The Times, children should not be listening to loud sounds for long periods of time anyway, as it's the volume and length of the sounds that causes the damage. The louder the sound, the shorter period of time kids should listen it. The report also found that half of the headphones tested did not regulate volume at all, and the worst offenders "produced sound so loud, it could be hazardous to ears in minutes."
Corey Blaz/Unsplash
According to The Wirecutter, most children's headphones claimed to limit volume to 85 decibels — the level the World Health Organization reports as the safest volume for eight hours of listening. However, when tested, the headphones exceeded those decibels.
For perspective: Loud sounds above 85 decibels can be heard in day to day life, without headphones — according to The Wirecutter, the sound of a hairdryer measures at 100 decibels. So while parents can't protect every sound that enters their kids ears, when it comes to what their kids are choosing to listen to, parents should pick a pair of headphones that are safe enough to limit injury. The best headphones for kids have volume limiters or built-in resisters that stop kids from listening to loud volumes, even when they turn the volume for their device up to full blast.
According to ParentalGuide.org, the most important thing to remember when it comes to kids using headphones and ear buds is volume control and exposure to the sound. Parents should make sure that their kid's music, movies and TV shows, or video games are being played at a reasonable level too, and that their kids are taking breaks during long listening periods. According to The Times, there's no pair of headphones guaranteed to completely do the job of limiting volume like a parent will, so the next time your child wants to listen to the Moana soundtrack on repeat, set the device's volume at a lower, reasonable level before allowing them to plug in their headphones.