"The world would be astonished if it knew how great a proportion of its brightest ornaments--of those most distinguished even in popular estimation for wisdom and virtue--are complete skeptics in religion."

Should I be in the least bit astonished by how such a claim could even be verified? Really. How does one go about proving such a statement? 

Certainly it becomes a matter of how words are being unpacked.

Would I be "astonished" in finding out this number of God-deniers to be not so great as implied by this quote (would the quote be any less true if such was the case)? What of the categories of "brightest" or "distinguished" described in such a way that excludes many or most that are God-believers of some sort? What cultures of the world are included in this "popular estimation" that is being made? Who are these "complete skeptics" that he mentions (atheists, agnostics, or perhaps even people who distrust the church for any number of reasons)? 

One thing can be known for certain and I believe it to be a reasonable inference. Mr. Mills is wise enough not to exclude from the group of "brightest ornaments" those who do have faith and do believe in God.

This reveals a measure of reality that many atheists are quick to deny.

Embracing faith as a way of solving the riddle of life doesn't equate to the abandonment of the mind or its ability to reason. Just as the embrace of Atheism as a way of assuming our reality to be a closed-system doesn't equate to being any more or less rational.

The quality of intellect crosses over both sides of the fence.

Some atheists and theists make a "leap of faith." Some atheists and theists take a smaller step into the riddle of life. There are simple-minded atheists as there are theists with the same caliber of faculties. In both of these groups, there are those who know how the car works and others who are content just knowing that it works and they can drive to the local grocery to get dinner.

There are atheists and theists in this group described as "the brightest ornaments."

Warning: This is a long post. You still have time to bail out!

The Bright's Movement

Ever heard of the Brights' Movement? No? Yes? Either way, let me tell you a little about it. It's a blossoming intellectual movement that seeks to promote understanding, acknowledgment, and propagation of the naturalistic worldview---a worldview free of supernatural and mystical elements. A "Bright," then, is a person who claims such a worldview. So, why this name? Well, bright is kind of a synonym of sorts. Considering themselves heirs of the Enlightenment, this descriptor seemed to be an appropriate and positive (not to mention clever!) fit. And the opposite of a Bright? According to brights, it's a "Super": someone who claims a supernatural worldview---believing in something immaterial that is beyond or above nature itself. So, there you have it; there's the basic terminology. Kinda' fun lingo, huh? I think so. There's a lot of stuff that's fascinating about the Brights Movement (especially because many self-identified Brights are mega-famous people!), and you can find out all about it at The Brights' Net. However, this post centers on just one little things about the Brights---their core assumption.

Brights. Supers. And Super-Brights?

The core assumption underlying the Brights' Movement is you can be a Bright or you can be a Super, but you can't be both. Why not? Because a naturalistic worldview (bound by the observable laws of nature) precludes the possibility of a supernaturalistic worldview (which extends above and beyond---or breaks?---the laws of nature), and vice versa. This seems logical enough, right? Sure. So, let's apply these worldviews to religious belief and see what you get: Brights typically reject God (or gods), angels, spirit, and miracles (just to name a few of their favorites) because they transcend or break natural law; but Supers embrace some or all of these things, regardless of what nature has to say about it. In this context, at least, it appears that "never the twain shall meet." This dichotomy seems to be as big as the Grand Canyon---but it doesn't have to be! In fact, I'm convinced that at least one system of religious thought---if you guessed Mormon thought, you guessed right---embraces both worldviews quite well. Hold on, the conservative Mormons identify with Brights? Yes, that's what I'm saying. If we personified Mormon thought by putting words in its mouth, I think it would say: "You can be both a Super and a Bright---a Super-Bright!---because they're the same stuff."

I'll give some evidence for this not-so-far-out claim by sharing (or more like regurgitating) several things I've read recently. But first, a caveat: this stuff isn't meant to be an exhaustive review on the topic; rather, it's just a starting point. It's intended to facilitate a more positive view of the naturalistic worldview by seeing its application to supernaturalistic things, and to hopefully plant some new ideas in someone's brain. It's just a smattering, but here it is nonetheless.

Science: The Naturalistic Method

First things first: Naturalism is grounded in the natural sciences, and, believe it or not, Mormons believe in such science! Whatever science demonstrates, we embrace:

"The religion of the Latter-day Saints is not hostile to any truth, nor to scientific search for truth. 'That which is demonstrated we accept with joy,' said the First Presidency in their Christmas greeting to the saints." --Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine (3 ed.), p. 3

We don't just tolerate science, either; we believe it to be a means whereby God's laws---which are natural laws---can be discovered:

"The Church, the custodian of the Gospel on earth, looks with full favor upon the attempts of men to search out the facts and laws of nature. . . . It holds further that every scientific discovery may be incorporated into the Gospel, and that, therefore, there can be no conflict between true religion and correct science. The Church teaches that the laws of Nature are but the immutable laws of the Creator of the universe." --John A. Widtsoe, Evidences and Reconciliations (3 ed.), p. 125

And this favorable view of science isn't tentative or conditional. Some Supers think that science and religion can agree on some things but must, obviously, disagree on other things (e.g., the origins of man). However, a complete harmony seems to be possible:

"The religious preachers of the people advance many ideas and notions for truth which are in opposition to and contradict facts demonstrated by science, and which are generally understood. . . . In these respects we differ from the Christian world, for our religion will not clash with or contradict the facts of science in any particular." --Brigham Young, Discources of Brigham Young, pp. 397-398

But what about when scientific findings blatently conflict with revealed truth? Well, there should be a follow-up question: Is it the facts or the interpretation of the facts that conflicts? Typically, it's the interpretation---based on philosophy and theory---that doesn't jibe; while the facts can be reconciled:

"There must be a distinct segregation of facts and inferences in the utterances of scientific men. . . . Even well-established inferences should not lose their inferential label. The facts discovered by an eminent investigator may be safely accepted; his explanations may be of doubtful value." --John A. Widtsoe, Evidences and Reconciliations (3 ed.), p. 12

Considering all of this, I think it's safe to say that Mormon thought is pro-science. And because science is the creator and shaper of the naturalistic worldview, Mormon thought is, by default, naturalistic.

Supernatural Agents: God, Angels, and the Spirit

So far, so good? I hope. Now let's focus on supernatural agents---beings that are doing things, but are unobservable (most of the time) to the natural eye. Supers commonly believe that such agents are immaterial and thus unbound by natural law. So, aren't supernatural agents irreconcilable with naturalism? Not necessarily. Why not? Because Mormon thought doesn't believe this; rather, it conceives of these beings as tangible, corporeal, and physical: in other words, very natural. It's in the scriptures:

"There are two kinds of beings in heaven, namely: Angels, who are resurrected personages, having bodies of flesh and bones---for instance, Jesus said: Handle me and see, for a spirit has not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. Secondly: the spirits of just men made perfect, they who are not resurrected, but inherit the same glory." --Doctrine and Covenants, 129:1-3

"The Father has a body of flesh and bones, as tangible as man's; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but it is a personage of spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us." --Doctrine and Covenants, 130:2

So that accounts for the natural presence of the Father and the Son, but what about the spirits of just men and the Holy Ghost---they're just spirit, right? Yes, they are, but Mormon thought teaches that spirit isn't immaterial, as some tend to think:

"There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes; we cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter." --Doctrine and Covenants, 131: 7-8

Here's a logical comparison: Just as it takes the right instrument, a microscope, to observe something at the atomic level, it also takes the right instrument, a purified body, to observe some things at so-called spiritual levels. Simply because we can't see it doesn't mean it's not material. Science learned that lesson a long time ago. So, spirit is stuff!

Given that all supernatural agents exist in a natural (for lack of a better word) form, we have to confront a very tricky question: How do they do things (e.g., appear and then disappear, transport places, not live on earth, demonstrate extraordinary abilities, etc.) that seem so unnatural? Well, that question concerns what appears to be transgressions of the laws of nature---which human beings have not yet been able to duplicate---known as miracles. After the existence of supernatural agents, miracles (whether carried out by supernatural agents or human beings or inanimate things) are the next hardest thing for Brights to swallow. So, let's dive into that, too.

Miracles: They aren't Really Miracles

Mormon thought, I think, presents a unique conceptualization of miracles: they don't transcend natural law, they just transcend our understanding of such law and thus our capability of duplication:

"In the broadest sense, miracles embrace all those events which are beyond the power of any presently known physical power to produce. They are occurrences which deviate from the known laws of nature and which transcend our knowledge of those laws. In this sense atomic explosions, now commonplace, would have been classified as miracles in a less scientifically advanced society." --Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine (2 ed.), p. 506

And here's a little more descriptive explanation:

"God always acts in accordance with well-defined and understood laws and does not violate the laws of nature in the least in performing all his wonderful works. Because men, not comprehending how such works are performed, term them miraculous, it does not necessarily follow that that there is a suspension of the laws of nature in such cases; neither does it follow, because men can partially comprehend a law according to which certain results are produced, that god has nothing to do with it. Everything that the Lord himself performs or which he commands his servants to perform is plain and simple and easily understood by Him---it is no miracle to Him, because He comprehends the law by the observance of which such things are produced.

"Mankind term such works miracles and supernatural, because they have not progressed sufficiently to understand how they can be done without the suspension of the laws of nature. Did they fully understand all the laws of nature, however, they would then perceive that in the performance of these 'miracles' no law of nature is in the least violated but rather that they are produced by the superior knowledge of these laws which the person has who works them or the Being who permits them to be worked." --George Q. Cannon, Gospel Truth (3 ed.), p. 149

Within these teachings there's a clear meta-message: any miraculous event (e.g., angelic visitations, parting the Red Sea, moving a mountain, turning water into wine, etc.), is congruent with natural law. Ironically, this implies that human beings' perspective on naturalism is quite limited, being ignorant of most (if not all) of the laws that enabled such events to take place. And it is to such ignorance that strict Brights whole-heartedly cling! (Because, well, it's better than nothing.)

Brights. Supers. And Super-Brights? (Revisited)

So, what do you think? Does the naturalistic shoe fit for you? If it does, then wear it! And if it doesn't, then trash it. Either way, at least give it a fair shake. Someone much better with words said it this way:

"Carefully scan, investigate, criticize, and examine everything that presents itself to [your] view, and so far as [you] are enabled to comprehend any truths in existence, [then] gladly hail them as part and portion of the system with which [you] are associated." --John Taylor, The Gospel Kingdom (1st ed.), p. 49

It seems that, in Mormon Thought at least, you're free to accept both: they don't preclude each other; rather, they inform each other. This is only possible by putting a slightly different spin on the supernaturalistic worldview. Rather than being a view that embraces transcending---and therefore breaking---natural laws, it's a view that admits mankind's ignorance of such laws and hopes and works for a future and complete understanding of naturalism---where miracles are explainable.

As for me, I happily embrace both Super and Bright worldviews. I believe is God, angles, spirit, and miracles, and I believe in science and all its fruits, too. And I look forward to someday understanding how they all fit together so nicely:

"Yea, verily I say unto you, in that day when the Lord shall come, he shall reveal all things---things which have passed, and hidden things which no man knew, things of the earth, by which it was made, and the purpose and the end thereof---things most precious, things that are above, and things that are beneath, things that are in the earth, and upon the earth, and in heaven." --Doctrine and Covenants, 101:32-34

Personally, I expect a surprisingly naturalistic explanation for it all, too. But until then, I'll take what I've got and keep searching for more. I guess that makes me somewhat of a conundrum to strict Brights: I'm a Super-Bright. And I'm OK with that. I'm also guessing I'm not alone. I bet there's probably more closet Super-Brights than I can even imagine. Are you a Super-Bright, too?

]]> http://skeptophrenic.wordpress.com/?p=69 Tue, 08 Jul 2008 01:45:17 +0000 Troythulu http://skeptophrenic.wordpress.com/?p=69 Being a guy who's just honing my skeptical chops after a year and a half, and having just listened to episode #154 of The Skeptics' Guide, I was considering a discussion by the Rogues on possible collective nouns for skeptics, and started thinking of a few of my own. A Rant of skeptics sounds a bit self-aggrandizing, so I'll stick instead to other terms, not directly associated with this blog. Hmmm, perhaps a Pod, no, that's already taken by cetaceans, or a Query of skeptics. In a similar vein, as far as I have been able to find out, there is no one, monosyllabic term universally accepted by the skeptical community, and the old attempt at labeling skeptics "brights" went over like a lead balloon, as it held the unspoken connotation that those not skeptically inclined were  NOT bright, hardly an effective selling point. I suppose it's rather unfortunate that those we skeptics oppose frequently win the linguistic battle, or at least can afford better marketing agents. But, veering back to the original subject matter, perhaps a Thought of skeptics, or a Plex of skeptics. Ah, incisions, incisions said the surgeon. One of these might get chosen as this blog's standard collective noun, or perhaps something completely out there in left field, who knows...

I deny nothing, and doubt everything.- Lord Byron

Den neuen Atheismus nicht verharmlosen

M ü n c h e n (idea) – Vor einer Verharmlosung des so genannten neuen Atheismus hat der Kulturwissenschaftler und Publizist Alexander Kissler (München) gewarnt.

Diese Bewegung, zu deren berühmtesten Vertretern der britische Evolutionsbiologe Richard Dawkins („Der Gotteswahn“) gehört, sei keine philosophische Richtung, sondern eine politische Bewegung, die eine globale Ethik anstrebe, sagte Kissler am 1. Juli in der evangelischen Paul-Gerhardt-Kirche in München. Zu den gemeinsamen ethischen Positionen der neuen Atheisten gehöre das Eintreten für aktive Sterbehilfe, die Möglichkeit der Abtreibung bis zur Geburt sowie Klon- und Genexperimente mit menschlichen Zellen.

Ethik orientiere sich nur noch an den tatsächlichen oder mutmaßlichen „Interessen“, die ein Mensch habe, weshalb die Tötung von schwerstbehinderten Kindern oder Wachkomapatienten, die sich nicht äußern können, ethisch als weniger bedenklich betrachtet werde. Kissler kritisierte den Vernunft-Begriff der „neuen Atheisten“, der nur das anerkenne, was sich im Experiment beweisen lasse. Das führe nicht nur zu einer Geringschätzung der christlichen Ethik, sondern auch der Philosophie. Ein herausragender Vertreter der neu-atheistischen Bewegung, der englische Chemiker Peter Atkins, habe die Philosophie als „primitiven Vorgänger der Wissenschaft“ bezeichnet. Kissler wies darauf hin, dass im deutschsprachigen Raum die Kinderbuchszene stark von neuen Atheisten geprägt sei. So bekennten sich die beliebten Schriftsteller Max Kruse und Janosch zu dieser Weltanschauung. Die neue religionskritische Bewegung trägt nach Einschätzung des Kulturwissenschaftlers selbst religiöse Züge. Das werde nicht zuletzt darin deutlich, dass Richard Dawkins auf seiner Internetseite eine sogenannte „Bekehrtenecke“ eingerichtet hat, wo Menschen bekennen, wie sie von der Religion zum Atheismus gefunden haben.

weiterlesen

We hebben de nieuwe Reebok FREESTYLE BRIGHTS Pack binnen in de volgende kleuren: geel, oranje, neon groen, neon blauw & roze. Nu te koop bij UNKNOWN (Alkmaar) en online via onze webshop www.ilovesneakerz.nl !

The officer left a handcuffed suspect in the back seat of his patrol car, and while he was busy, the suspect climbed into the front seat and drove away.

Unusual and funny, right? Well, not as unusual as we think.

I didn't find the Akron story, but a quick Google news search unearthed many others along the same line.

You can see the list here. Or read the beginning of a bright on the same topic here.

Want to read an example of a roundup story? Here's one from the UK's Telegraph that is aptly named: April Fool's Day story roundup.

Add any links to brights, roundups, follow-ups and sidebars that you found in the comments section below.

Richard Dawkins (*1941) Evolutionsbiologe und wohl der bekannteste Bright

"The noun bright was initiated as a generic term that could refer to a host of independent individuals who declare “a naturalistic worldview.”"

"The movement draws together people, not organizations. It is solely an Internet constituency of autonomous individuals, all of whom hold naturalistic worldviews. Its aggregate of persons has no "party line" to follow. "

"The overall aim is civic fairness for all, which necessitates there being a place in politics and society for persons who hold a naturalistic outlook."

I'm considering being a Bright, & registering on the site.

What follows is a straightforward, 4-step refutation of the theory of evolution. They're easy to remember, and make a nice little cadence when spoken with a little rhythm: First Law, Second Law, Fossils and Genes. Armed with this truth, go forth and conquer.

Not even an encouragement to read a book or two? Just memorize these 4 things and regurgatate them at anyone who accepts evolution? Sadly, there's more:

[E]volution teaches that everything that exists is the product of the random collision of atoms, this logically includes the thoughts I am thinking about evolution.

Ah. The ubiquitous "evolution is random argument", reduced now to the atomic level. Does Fischer even know the difference between biology and physics? Now Fischer's 4 steps in brief:

First Law of Thermodynamics.This law (note: not a theory but a scientific law) teaches us that matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed.... What this means, then, is that science simply has no explanation for the most basic question that could possibly be asked: why is there something rather than nothing? Intelligent Design advocates have an answer to this question; evolutionists do not.

Second Law of Thermodynamics. This law (note: not a theory but a law) teaches us that in every chemical or heat reaction, there is a loss of energy that never again is available for another heat reaction... This law teaches us, then, that the universe is headed toward increasing randomness and decay... But what does the theory of evolution teach us? The exact opposite, that the universe is headed toward increasing complexity and order. You put up a theory against my law, I'm going to settle for the law, thank you very much.

Fossils. What the fossil record teaches us, in contrast to the theory of evolution, is that increasingly complex life forms appear fully formed in the fossil record, just as if they were put there by a Creator.... Evolutionists are at a total loss to explain the Pre-Cambrian Explosion... Thus the fossil record is a powerful argument for the existence of an Intelligent Designer while at the same time being fatal for the theory of evolution.... Intelligent Design theory has an explanation for the fossil record; evolution does not.

Genes. The only mechanism — don't miss this — the only mechanism evolutionists have to explain the development of increasingly complex life forms is genetic mutation... The problem: naturally occurring genetic mutations are invariably harmful if not fatal to the organism.

Bryan Fischer repeatedly makes a distinction between a "law" and a "theory", as he sees it. He thinks a law is somehow superior. He then contradicts himself by proclaiming the power of "Intelligent Design theory". ID isn't even worthy of the title of theory. If it is, then every marijuana induced epiphany is a law.

The 1st law of thermodynamics seems to contradict a creator. If matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, then how did a creator create them? How does ID answer this question? Magic? Anyway, it has nothing at all to do with Darwinian Evolution. But in Fischer's mind there seems to be a connection.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics is an old creationist argument, easily disposed of. Basically, the earth is not a closed system. It receives energy from the sun. And no biologist ever said that the universe is becoming more complex. Fischer is just pulling arguments out of his ass, or someone else's ass.

What Fischer doesn't know about the fossil record wouldn't fit in the Grand Canyon. Creationists never actually discuss the fossil record, they only discuss what they think the fossil record is. The two are light-years apart. Their fossil record is a caricature. Enough said.

Finally, most mutations are completely neutral, not harmful. Except for the ones Fischer's mother accumulated prior to his birth.

I really do believe that creationist nutbars like Bryan Fischer are deeply afraid of science. It's the only explanation for their complete ignorance. They stay so far away from it that not even a kernel of truth rubs off on them.

www.TheDarwinReport.com

Diese sind:

Dr. Horst Groschopp:
Begrüßung und Einführung ins Programm

Prof. Dr. Frieder Otto Wolf: Was war der „alte Atheismus“?

Andreas Müller: Wer sind die „Brights“ und was wollen sie?

Dr. Fiona Lorenz: Wozu brauche ich Gott? Gespräche mit Ungläubigen und Abtrünnigen

Man findet sie hier:

http://humanistische-akademie.de/archiv.html

Für 10 Euro kann man sich eine CD mit allen Vorträgen besorgen, darunter der Vortrag über den "Neuen Humanismus" von Michael Schmidt-Salomon.

All these swatches are 3 coats of color. I tried to get bottle color in 2 coats, it's really impossible. These colors aren't jellies, but they are very translucent. Which is strange because they look really pigmented in the bottle. All these colors are extremely glossy even without top coat. The application was great on all of them, my only complaint is that there is something seriously wrong with the quality control of OPI's brushes. Several people complained about the brushes from the Indian collection having loose, cracked, and uneven bristles. My bottle of The "It" Color had a slanted brush - What's going on OPI?

The "It" Color is really unique, not exactly mustard but dirtier than true yellow. This color is special. It seems so high fashion to me, I feel it isn't meant for day to day wear.

I didn't love Green-wich Village when I first tried it, but it grew on me after wearing it for a few days. It might be dupish to Carolyn New York Greenwich Avenue, I'll do a comparison soon.

Dating A Royal is my favorite from this collection. Seriously beautiful - if you love blues you *need* this color.

Belief without proof is no virtue. 

Insisting on proof is no vice.

Richard Dawkins seems to be promoting a new form of public discussion with minimum moderation. This gets away from the adversary type of public debate which often provides more heat than light. At the same time it can allow for presentation of different viewpoints in a non-antagonistic way. The video on my post Richard Dawkins in Inverness is an example of how effective this can be.

Richarddawkins.net has now put up another inspiring example of this form of discussion. They are videos taken when Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss sat down for a public discussion at Stanford University on Sunday, March 9th 2008. The focus was on Science education, but the discussion also covered religion, physics, evolution and more.

Issues discussed include:

• the question of utility or knowledge of scientific research;
• Darwins place in science history;
• quantum mechanics;
• the issue of evolution teaching schools;
• "teaching the controversy" propaganda;
• the "seduction" apporoach of Krauss vs the "abrasiveness" of Dawkins;
• incorporation of science into culture, TV and films, and
• the intimidation of teachers into downplaying evolution education.

Two quotes I liked:

Dawkins' response to "teach the controversy" ploy- "The purpose of education is not to validate ignorance but to overcome it."

Krauss' belief that in science education all students should have "an experience where a firmly or profoundly held belief is proved to be wrong."

Discussion part 1 (23 min)

[googlevideo=http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6697390753170958006]

Discussion part 2 (30 min)

[googlevideo=http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7678705168667874529]

Questions & Answers (with subtitled questions because of audio quality): Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6

Similar articles:
Richard Dawkins in Inverness
Debating science and religion
Can science enrich faith?
Most ideas in science are wrong!
Dealing with Dawkins
Changing your mind

Schmutzige "Aufklärung":

Ein gewisser Colin Goldner hat bei der Zeitung “Junge Welt” (einer marxistischen Zeitung) ein wirklich abstoßendes und offen suggestives Pamphlet gegen den Dalai Lama (und für die chinesische Regierung) veröffentlicht. Der Inhalt ist dermaßen lächerlich, dass es jedem gesunden Menschen sofort auffallen muss.

Bei dem Rest des Artikels frage ich mich, woher die “Fakten” eigentlich stammen? Ich mutmaße mal direkt aus China.

Im Zusammenhang mit China dem Dalai Lama mangelndes Demokratieverständnis vorzuwerfen ist auch harter Tobak.

Es heißt der Dalai Lama “behauptete er wahrheitswidrig” Menschenrechtsverbrechen. Where’s the beef? Kein Beleg, keine weitere Untermauerung, stattdessen der Verweis auf die Unruhen “am selben Tag”.

“Die Polizei ging konsequent gegen den Rotkuttenmob vor und nahm zahlreiche Verhaftungen vor.” Das ist so ziemlich der einzige Satz, der sich mit den Handlungen der Chinesen befasst. Etwas mehr werden sie schon gemacht haben.

Selbst wenn die Vorwürfe in dem Artikel von Goldner die ausgemachte Richtigkeit hätten, bliebe die Art und Weise ihrer Äußerung gleich empörend und verabscheuenswürdig.

inspiration for "untitled"

I wasn't originally going to take the "Curve Play" workshop our quilters' guild was doing, but then I thought why not!

I must admit that working with curves was a wee bit intimidating. But I'm glad I took the workshop. Each of us bought the Curve Play pattern by Fun Easy Designed.

The basic premise is you take a number of squares. Take the template, and cut. Then mix them two sections, so each fabric is with another. Stitch. The neat thing, there is no real setting in... the pattern is designed to have some "extra" bits left over. They remain until you square up your block. Once you have your curves stitched in... you take up to 5 of these pieces, and with the template... cut again. Switch them all up, piece together, and now you have your block. Then arrange your blocks to make a pleasing design with the fabrics.

I was able to produce 9 blocks during the workshop. For a small quilt, I need 15 more.

I have seen this quilt pattern primarily made with oriental style fabrics. I wanted to do something different. I chose a purple fabric that had some circles and lines which were bright colours. I coordinated with some other bright colours.

These are my blocks randomly placed to get a feel for how this quilt is going to be.

Another quilt to be finished...

Sehr unaufgeregt und differenziert stellt Dr. Sikandar Siddiqui das Thema dar und kommt zu, wie ich finde, nachvollziehbaren Schlüssen.

[...]Zugleich stellt sich aber die Frage, ob sich hinter dem Gleichklang der Formulierungen nicht doch sehr unterschiedliche Vorstellungen darüber verbergen, anhand welcher die Leitlinien für das Zusammen­leben innerhalb einer Gesellschaft geregelt werden soll, und auf welchen Gebieten überhaupt ein solcher Regelungsbedarf besteht.

Die Berechtigung dieser Frage wird durch die Art und Weise unterstrichen, wie der Wertebegriff in der Alltagssprache gebraucht wird: Ethische Werte sind – pragmatisch gesprochen - Eigenschaften, die eine Handlung, Auffassung oder Verhaltensregel besitzen oder zum Ausdruck bringen muss, um als gut gelten zu können. Doch bei dem Versuch, diesen Begriff näher zu konkretisieren, können verschiedene Personen zu sehr unterschiedlichen Aussagen kommen: Darüber, ob beispielsweise Vaterlandsliebe, familiärer Zusammenhalt, Disziplin und ökonomische Effizienz - oder internationale Solidarität, Selbstverwirk­lichung, Zivilcourage und sozialer Ausgleich - als Werte anerkannt werden sollten, dürfte auch in Zukunft noch intensiv nachgedacht und kontrovers gestritten werden.

Noch komplizierter ist es erfahrungsgemäß, zwischen zwei oder mehr konkurrieren­den Werten zu entscheiden, deren Gültigkeit prinzipiell als gegeben unterstellt wird. Wie etwa ist in Situationen zu entscheiden, wo mehr ökonomische Effizienz im Betrieb nur zu Lasten des lieben Vaterlandes erreichbar ist, etwa weil ausländische Lieferanten besser und billiger produzieren als ihre inländischen Konkurrenten? Was ist zu tun, wenn ein höheres Maß an sozialem Ausgleich dauerhaft nur durch eine höhere Einkommensteuer­progression erreichbar ist, die von vielen Betroffe­nen als Beschränkung ihrer Selbstverwirk­lichungsmöglichkeiten empfunden wird? Der relativ abstrakte Charakter des Wertebegriffs sowie die Vieldeutigkeit und potenzielle Widersprüchlichkeit seiner konkreten Interpretationen lassen es wenig realistisch erscheinen, sich von allgemein gehaltenen Appellen an „unsere Werte“ entscheidende Impulse zur Lösung konkreter gesellschaftlicher Konflikte und Problemstellungen zu erhoffen. [...]

Das Original findet ihr hier bei Philosophia online.

Sequins look like you stayed out all night (in Vegas!),
Jumpsuits, forget it unless you have a camels' bladder. Never mind what you do with the top half when you do decide to use the bathroom. You surely wont leave it on the floor but you could tie it around your ankles or calves.
Jumpsuits may actually work if you are tall and reed thin but beware if you are short and curvy, you only resemble a poorly wrapped package.

Retro is great if you are not retro, as in maybe if you are 18ish to 20ish not 40ish.
This is why I like handbags and accessories, the designers don't make you go round in dizzying circles. They know you either like them or you dont! Simple.
I can't but imagine some little children in China, the Dominican, Mexico or Guatemala working as fast their little hands allow while some neurotic designer is yelling at the floor supervisor over the phone- No! no! no! Its Florals now! We wanted jumpsuits yesterday!!!!

Suddenly you start to yearn for animal prints, and I am sure those will be back soon. As soon as the designers completely run out of creative juices, OMG:) animal prints are back! Wait and see, you heard it here first.
So here's what I'm going to do. I am going to completely ignore them until fall or until they come to their senses.
Please write and tell us what your favorite "must have" items of the season are.

Na und? könnte man fragen, doch dieser Artikel hat es in sich. In ihm wird gegen die Tibeter im allgemeinen und den Dalai Lama im besonderen gehetzt, was das Zeug hält. Tenor des Artikels: Es handelt sich um Terroristen, die die gerechte Ordnung umstürzen und eine theokratische Diktatur errichten wollen. Was man in Blogs, im Fernsehen und in Zeitungen Gegenteiliges lesen kann, ist tibetische Propaganda, mit der China geschadet werden soll.

Entsprechend ist die Wortwahl, der sich der Autor, Colin Goldner, befleißigt: „Mit Schlagstöcken bewaffnete Mönchstrupps“ zogen, schreibt er, „marodierend“ durch die Straßen, wurden aber zum Glück von den friedliebenden Ordnungskräften gestoppt: „Die Polizei ging konsequent gegen den Rotkuttenmob vor und nahm zahlreiche Verhaftungen vor.“ Aber es kam bald noch schlimmer: „Außer Rand und Band geratene Mönchshorden brachen blutige Straßenkämpfe vom Zaun, an denen sich zunehmend auch entsprechend aufgepeitschte Jugendliche beteiligten.“ Leider merkte davon die Weltpresse nichts, denn: „Der Dalai Lama und seine Verlautbarungsorgane setzten ihre Lügenpropaganda systematisch fort.“ Etc. pp.

Derartige Ergüsse sind bei der jW eigentlich nichts neues. Man ist gegen Kapitalismus, zeigt immer viel Verständnis für „Befreiungsorganisationen“ und fühlt sich ganz allgemein einer Ideologie verpflichtet (es handelt sich vermutlich um orthodoxen Marxismus), die jeden eigenen Gedanken, jede Kreativität bereits im Keim erstickt. Im Verfassungsschutzbericht 2006 ist über die Zeitung zu lesen: „Wiederholt ist festzustellen, dass in Beiträgen der jW Gewalt als Mittel im Kampf gegen Kapitalismus und Imperialismus anerkannt wird ... Kritik an oder Distanzierung von deren Gewalttaten erfolgt nicht. “

Der Artikel in der jW ist nicht empörend, denn von der jW kann man nichts anderes erwarten als Desinformation und Propaganda. Bemerkenswerter ist, dass die Brights ihn in ihrem Blog veröffentlichen. Das heißt zwar nicht unbedingt, dass sie sich seinen Tenor zu eigen machen. Schließlich kann man auch solche Meinungen zur Diskussion stellen, die man nicht selber vertritt. Und wie die lebhafte Diskussion zeigt, ist die Veröffentlichung auch unter der Leserschaft umstritten.

Und dennoch bleibt ein ungutes Gefühl. Sowohl die jW als auch die Brights sind bekannt für ihren rüden Ton gegenüber Theisten und andere erklärte und nichterklärte Gesinnungsfeinde. Ob es um den Dalai Lama geht oder um Ajatollah Chomeini – sie scheren alle über einen Kamm, ohne sich um die Unterschiede zu kümmern. Dass beispielsweise der Dalai Lama seit Jahren Gewaltlosigkeit predigt und sich um einen Ausgleich zwischen chinesischen und tibetischen Interessen bemüht, ist in ihren Augen irrelevant. Bei so viel Einäugigkeit wird man den Verdacht nicht los, dass viele Naturalisten in ihrem Kampf gegen Religion jeden menschenrechtlichen Maßstab verloren haben.

If that's the case, then I must be downright boring.

I've got a closetful of blacks, whites, dark blues and greys. That's basically it. I think for the past year or so, I just went overboard with the whole jeans-and-tee look because I got too lazy to care, but now its come to the point that my personality and love for color just got washed out. So now I'm scouring the web for inspiration to spruce up my wardrobe with some brights and a few unique pieces.

I love yellow, so I am absolutely all over Sonia Rykiel's ads for her new collection. Read more about it on FabSugar [Fab Ad: Sonia Rykiel Spring 2008].
But here's a sneak peek--

Eye Candy Bazaar also features 'wearable art' in delicious green: [Wear Your Art: Spring's Painterly Prints].

Purple and aqua also rank high on my Get Happy Color List. And they make for a super classy but striking number on Gossip Girl's Leighton Meester (who, I may add, looks like a cross between Alexis Bledel and Rachel Bilson).

This got me searching for more info and pictures on the fashionable Miss Meester because---whew, I may top the Uncool College Girls List for saying this---but no, I haven't watched a single episode of Gossip Girl yet. Snippets, yes, but very short and very few.

But now that I've seen these pictures, I'm making sure I'll be getting my own copy of Season 1 tomorrow!

Leighton Meester a.k.a 'Blair Waldorf'

Blake Lively a.k.a. 'Serena Van Der Woodsen'

The Stylish Duo of the Upper East Side

Not surprisingly, there have been a lot of features and even whole sites devoted to Gossip Girl style. Here are the best ones:
Gossip Girl Fashion
People.com's Gossip Girl Style: On and Off Set
Gossip Girl Style: Dress Like Us, Be Like Us (Livejournal community)
10 Gossip Girl Style Essentials (LA Times)
Shop Style: Gossip Girl
Abigail Lorick Designs for Gossip Girl (Stylelist)
InStyle's Get the Look: Gossip Girl

Well, theirs is a bank-breaking wardrobe, while my wallet is a space vaccuum. Besides, with the unforgiving tropical climate here, I would die from heatstroke if I wore most of what they wear on set.

But if anything else, I got some sort of vision about what I want to add to my blacks, whites, dark blues and greys. I can even envision outfits here on Polyvore (a must-try for any clothehorse) so I know exactly what I'll be looking for when I hit the mall. When I'll get money for shopping---that remains a big question.

XOXO