April 15, 2014

Trailer for Shakespeare’s The Tempest (circa 2010)

I’ve not been able to see much of this movie yet. (I’m tending to baby Preston’s cold.) What I have been able to view has made a fan of me.

Director Julie Taymor (of Frida fame) takes a risk in changing the sex of the lead character from male to female. The change is not just a gimick. Prospera plays more forcefully and more naturally than Prospero because the usurping plot hatched by Uncle Antonio and King Alonso seems more plausible. CGI comes to Stratford-upon-Avon with delightful results!

April 15, 2014
Spacetime Rambling

Albert Einstein noticed odd things about our universe as he thought about physics. One odd thing that he noticed is that acceleration is indistinguishable from gravity. If you were in a spacecraft that was accelerating at a constant rate of one-g, then the gravitational conditions in that craft would be identical to conditions in your living room.

I’m no physics guy, but as I looked at the sky last night a similar physical equivalency crossed my mind. Astronomers assure us that the universe is expanding. I thought to myself that we would have no way to know if the universe is indeed expanding, or if the spacetime in which we live is condensing. From our frame of reference the effects of either an expanding universe or a condensing spacetime would mimic each other so precisely as to make one indistinguishable from the other.

Further fanciful phantoms presented themselves. Perhaps entangled quantum particles remain entangled across superluminal distances because they never separated. The energy that our experimenters used to “separate” such particles actually spent itself in a focused spacetime condensation along a tight vector. Such a deep spacetime cut might “lens” a single quantum particle into two moving images.

These fantasies were so odd that they gave me a moment of vertigo as if I might fall into the sky. I’m so glad I never seriously studied physics. If I had, then I’d be certifiably mad by now.

April 13, 2014
http://imall4frogs.tumblr.com/post/82559253037/thecallus-squashed-thecallus-either-you

thecallus:

thecallus:

squashed:

thecallus:

Either you accept Leviticus, state the bible is selectively flawed, or discard the bible. If the bible is selectively flawed you are absolutely no more or less justified than some gay-bashing idiot in rooting your faith in any aspect of the bible.

The only responses I have ever received to this line of reasoning have been nine-paragraph circuitous garbage fires.

Remember that time the bible was revised, you twee creature? The wonderful thing about evolution is that it is a flexible, responsive system.

All the bible does is age, consistently growing less useful and reasonable over time.

The most profound revision of the Bible is the New Testament. Believers will tell you that the events documented in those books fulfill the inflexible Law and allow the living spirit of Christ to guide our understanding. So for believers the latest revision of the Bible occurred today. Guided by the Holy Spirit, modern disciples are free to follow not the dead letter but the living spirit of the Law. The jewel in the crown of Law is the single new commandment of the New Testament—”Love one another.”

My present path is different, but not far removed from that of a true disciple of Christ. I have no quarrel with Love. How could I? The wonderful thing about Love is that it is a flexible, responsive, living thing.

Neighbor, you are probably a simple internet troll who is out for a few laughs. Still, your tagline disturbs me. You admonish us, “Believe in me,” yet when I scan your page I detect not a whiff, not the faintest trace of Love. I can’t get behind that. And I can’t write another word on this tired thread. I concede. Your page is the sole garrison of wisdom in a sea of soft-hearted, soft-headed foolishness. You win the internet. I suppose I must console myself with simply living well.

April 13, 2014

thecallus:

squashed:

thecallus:

Either you accept Leviticus, state the bible is selectively flawed, or discard the bible. If the bible is selectively flawed you are absolutely no more or less justified than some gay-bashing idiot in rooting your faith in any aspect of the bible.

The only responses I have ever received to this line of reasoning have been nine-paragraph circuitous garbage fires.

It needn’t take nine paragraphs.

The Bible is collections of texts. Some are poetry. Some are histories. Some are letters. The texts were written a long time ago. The texts were collected a long time ago. The texts were written for various purposes. The texts were selected for various reasons. Things changed. The texts were translated.

Insisting that the Bible should be read in the same way as Harry Potter is juvenile. So, chucking the whole thing because a few parts of one book seem to have some tension with other parts. Also it’s weird to call people hypocritical for learning things. “You used to believe electrons orbited the atom like planets and now you believe they hang out in a probability cloud. Hypocritical waffling!”

It’s just reading practices for grownups.

Your statement, then, is that the bible is flawed.  Y/N?

My callus neighbor, if biology were perfect then organisms would have exhibited the correct adaptations at the first go-round—yes? Because organisms change over time I must assume evolution is flawed. So is evolution flawed? Y/N? No waffling, you! (*laughing behind my hand*)

Trust me when I tell you that the holy writ of any enduring religious tradition involves complexities rivaling those of biological adaptation. Dear Callus, either you have no tolerance for complexity, or you are trolling. Either way, you are not funny, and you fail to amuse me.

April 11, 2014
3wings:

Country Road, Lancaster, PA, 1961
George Tice

3wings:

Country Road, Lancaster, PA, 1961

George Tice

April 11, 2014
nedhepburn:

What I want. 

nedhepburn:

What I want

April 8, 2014
"Basically we are all looking for someone who knows who we are and will break it to us gently."

— Robert Brault (via aestheticintrovert)

(Source: larmoyante, via nutopiancitizen)

April 8, 2014
chersvoisins:

Merci @LeoR

chersvoisins:

Merci @LeoR

(via piccolipezzi)

April 5, 2014

onestonedcrow:

2CELLOS - Thunderstruck

April 5, 2014
"I spent 20 years as a foreign correspondent, 15 of them with The New York Times. I interviewed numerous individuals deemed by the U.S. government to be terrorists and traveled with armed groups, including units of al-Qaida, labeled as terrorist organizations. When I reported the statements and activities of these individuals and groups, U.S. officialdom often made little distinction between them and me. This was true during the wars in Central America. It was true in the Middle East. And it was true when I covered global terrorism. There was no law at the time that permitted the government, because of my work as a reporter, to order the military to seize and detain me. Now there is. This law, if it is not struck down, will essentially replace our civilian judiciary with a military one. Those targeted under this law will not be warned beforehand that they will be arrested. They will not have a chance to get a lawyer. They will not see the inside of a courtroom. They will simply vanish."

Chris Hedges (via azspot)

(via apoplecticskeptic)

Liked posts on Tumblr: More liked posts »