Weve installed ChessBase 15 (in part one), and weve activated and updated it (in part two). You may not believe me, but thats the tricky part over with. Now youre ready to use ChessBase 15.

Off you go then, lets meet back here when youre a Grandmaster

No seriously, what next? Well that is a very good question, and genuinely the only daunting part of using ChessBase 15. When you have a piece of software so sophisticatedthat top Grandmasters use it every day, where do beginners and improving players start?

This week well look at the layout of ChessBase 15, and how you navigate to the features you want.

First look

When you first load up Chessbase after installation and activation, you should get a prompt asking you to login to your ChessBase account

While its not necessary (you can click on no thanks), it is useful to log in with your ChessBase account. This allows you to access playchess.com, the database update service, the database cloud, the engine cloud and even Fritz-Online. If you dont yet have a ChessBase account, you can click create new account.

[Depending on how you bought your copy of ChessBase 15, it will include at least three months Premium membership for your ChessBase account. A ChessBase Premium Account means access to the entire ChessBase ecosystem]

Main screen

Your main ChessBase screen should look something like this (your databases will be different of course!)

If youre familiar with recent versions of Chessbase, you should be able to navigate pretty easily. The design is the familiar ribbon design that has been standard with ChessBase programs for over a decade now. And standard in programs like Microsoft Office since 2007.

The ribbon groups related functions, and uses icons and descriptive text to make locating those functions and features a whole lot more intuitive than the old cascading menu system used in the early days!

If you hold your mouse cursor over any of these function icons, youll get a text popup (called a tooltip) that will give you more detail about that feature.

Along the ribbon, each bunch of features are arranged into tabs: Home; Report; Maintenance; Cloud; View; and Help. Clicking on any of these tabs will open up new sections of the ribbon, with related functions and features.

To the left of the tabs is the File menu.

This menu is used to change the program options and start important program functions (like the program activation and updates that we looked at previously).

The folder window on the left shows a selection of folders and locations on your computers which are important for the management of your databases and chess information.

Most of the time, youll probably want to select My databases, as this is the main screen that shows all of the chess databases on your computer together in one place. [It is important to note that your databases are not actually stored in My Databases, but they do appear here as shortcuts it is essentially your database homepage]

You can click on the plus symbol (to the left of the folders) to reveal the contents of that drive or folder.

If you click on the drive or folder itself, the databases it contains are shown in the window on the right.

The window on the right is called the database window. Here youll see all the different chess databases that ChessBase 15 is aware of on your computer.

You can change how these databases appear by using any of the buttons at the bottom of that window (Details; Tile; Small Icons etc)

When you click on any of those databases, you will get a sneak peak of the contents of that database in the Database Preview Window.

And clicking on any of the games in that list will bring it up in the board preview window.

Finally, bottom left, youll have buttons that will allow you to access the online features of playchess.com and the online game update service.

You can activate or deactivate any of these individual elements by checking or unchecking the boxes in the View! tab

You can also reposition or resize any of these windows by moving your mouse cursor onto a horizontal or vertical separation bar. It will turn into a resize cursor.

You can now press and hold down the left mouse button to resize the window. ChessBase will adjust the other elements correspondingly.

You can alter the layout by clicking on the title bar of a window, and move it by moving the mouse while holding down the mouse button.

There are several arrow buttons in the window which are displayed every time you move the window and want to dock it (lock it into place). You can use these buttons to position a window exactly.

To dock a window, move the mouse over the coloured area of an arrow button while holding down the mouse button. This gives you a preview of the new window position.

The preview shows the exact position the window will be placed in blue. When you release the mouse button the window will be docked there.A window can also be dropped anywhere on the screen without docking it.

Conclusion

The more you work with ChessBase 15, the easier and more uncomplicated you will find it. It can appear daunting at first, but in reality, the functions and features of ChessBase 15 are simple and easy to access and use. It will soon become second nature. And though we cant guarantee that ChessBase will ACTUALLY make you a grandmaster, theres a reason its the go to chess program for beginners and Grandmasters alike!

Until next time, stay safe, and have fun.

Continue reading here:

Getting the most out of ChessBase 15: a step-by-step guide #3 Layout - Chessbase News

I recently watched No Safe Spaces, a 2019 documentary about the controversies of free speech on todays college campuses.

One can view it, for a fee, at NoSafeSpaces.com, or order the DVD. The film features conservative talk show host Dennis Prager and comedian Adam Carolla, former co-host of the nationally syndicated radio program Loveline. Carolla is now a successful podcaster. The film also features many other commentators on both sides of the political aisle, such as political analyst Van Jones, professor Jordan Peterson, and YouTube interviewer Dave Rubin.

The film does a great job of revealing how free speech is increasingly under assault at colleges across the country, showing conservative speakers being shouted down, or even riots taking place when a college invites a speaker which the left finds offensive.

One thing that stood out for me was the fact that so many of the young people who attend college see themselves as victims. Whether they are women, people of color, transgender or anything other than a straight, white, male, the left has convinced them they are a victim of some kind of oppression. Once you view yourself as a victim it can be a horrible obstacle, but also a powerful weapon.

In the film Prager states hes convinced that a certain percentage of unhappy people are addicted to being unhappy. Talk show host Dave Rubin agreed with Prager, stating, Think about how empowering it is to say, your problems are not because of you . . . the system is against me. Rubin is a former liberal who no longer identifies with the left, due to what he calls their close-mindedness and hostility toward anyone who does not follow the liberal orthodoxy.

Shelby Steele, a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, also is featured in the film. He condemned the victimization culture, which is especially embraced by his fellow blacks.

At some point down the road, he said, we as blacks, are going to realize the degree to which we identify our aspirations, in victimization. The degree to which we rely on it, not just as an excuse, but as self-definition.

Steele does not deny the existence of racism in America but is concerned that far too many young blacks use racism as an excuse for failure. Or they use it as a reason to act out in an aggressive manner, such as shouting down speakers they disagree with, which is common on college campuses.

The film also features a clip from a speech by conservative talk show host Ben Shapiro, given at the University of California, Berkeley. This was a presentation that was greatly protested by the left, and required $800,000 in security, because Shapiro made controversial comments, such as, America is the greatest country in human history. You are not a victim. If you are a victim of something, you need to show me what you are a victim of and I will stand beside you. But do not blame the freest, most civil society in the history of planet Earth for your failures, because thats on you.

But, why do so many young people at our colleges view themselves as victims, and then act out in an aggressive manner? There are many reasons, but perhaps the main thing is it is easier to attack someone rather than take responsibility for your own failures. A persons grief at being a victim becomes a grievance. An IOU becomes a you owe me, according to the magazine Psychology Today.

In one of his books, conservative black author Larry Elder writes of a time when he was ready to take an academic test with a group of people, among them another young black man. After they took the test and were waiting for the results, the other black man told Elder there was no way either of them was going to pass the test, because the system was stacked against them. When the results came in and the other person failed, he told Elder, See, I told you so, and then walked out. Elder, however, passed the test and ended up completing the course. For Elder, it was one of his first realizations that far too many of his fellow blacks use their skin color as an excuse for their own failings. We used to advise young people to get a thick skin, such as sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me. Now, we seem to be intolerant of insults, even if unintentional. For example, on some college campuses it is considered offensive if you ask a student, Where are you from? I even came across a diversity seminar where the presenter advocated that words are just as harmful as bullets!

If you view yourself as a victim of oppression or stand up for others who are perceived as victims, you are going to view yourself as holding the moral high ground. You are going to tend to divide people into good and bad, or victims and oppressors. The problem is that when you view the other side as bad people, then you feel justified in your aggression. And that is why many young people advocate restricting speech. But they are not against all speech, just hate speech. And they will be the ones who define what hate speech is, which means they have the power.

Unfortunately, this power does not translate into resilience, as some colleges have established safe spaces: areas where students can get away from anything that may be causing them stress. Sadly, as the documentary No Safe Spaces shows, it is the entire college that a conservative speaker is not allowed, not just a safe space. Thus, freedom of speech is the actual victim of oppression. And this is one victim we should all be concerned about.

Tom Kuiper lives in Sibley. He may be reached at thomaskuiper85@gmail.com.

Read more:

Kuiper: Stop playing the victim | Opinion | nwestiowa.com - nwestiowa.com

Three years ago, an esteemed Canadian magazine published a fine essay titled, What Happens When Authors Are Afraid to Stand Alone?, in which author Jason Guriel noted that, The idea of the writer as an individualistic outsider has acquired a layer of dust. We used to be OK with literary types asserting independent, fortified egos. Poets and novelists were almost expected to be aloof, even anti-social. But today, were too savvy to indulge such a romantic myth. The aloof rebel is nothing more than an affectation.

Anyone who has tried to produce art, or even write a half-decent essay, will recognize the almost tautological truth of Guriels argument. It is absolutely correct that there are plenty of people who write important tracts dedicated to the interests of this or that community. Those tracts are laws, press releases, pamphlets and tweets. If youre trying to write something fresh and original while also bending the knee to this or that community, on the other hand, youre certain to fail at the former, and likely the latter as well.

Long before it was co-opted by the likes of Ayn Rand, this truth was anchored within the foundations of the hell-raising Jacobin left. Jean-Jacques Rousseau himself famously announced his scandalous La Nouvelle Hlose by warning that, This book is not made to circulate in society and is suitable for very few readers. As Nicole Fermon commented, Rousseau despised the society of Paris, which he judged to be almost completely vitiated by never-ending demands of self-interest or amour propre. And in adapted form, his bold individualistic spirit came to infuse every countercultural movement tilting at establishment conventions, from beat poetry to postmodern literary subcultures.

But now that the central fixation of salon society is an insistence on salon societys own irredeemable bigotry, Rousseaus countercultural postures have turned in on themselves like an ouroboros. And so the highest calling in literature and art now is imagined to be a retelling of the same stencil-set messages about privilege and victimhood, dogmas that have come to be enforced by a salon establishment that still masquerades as a Rousseauvian insurgency. Which is why What Happens When Authors Are Afraid to Stand Alone? attracted so much controversy, by suggesting that people should simply write what they want. In a rebuttal published in the same magazine, English Prof. Paul Barrett argued that Guriels putative lone genius is but the unknowing heir to an invisible community of privilege, since the history of Canadian literature is the forgery of a white Canadian definition of literary excellence. By contrast, non-white writers simply dont have the luxury of believing that there is a voice outside of community; community participation and esthetic excellence are not merely related they are politically and culturally inextricable.

Now the central fixation of salon society is an insistence on salon societys own irredeemable bigotry

Ive met Guriel, and can attest that hes almost as white as me. And based on his university web page photo, Paul Barrett seems to have us both beat. And so I dont really expect many Indigenous and black writers and artists to be particularly interested in this lily-white forge-o-rama three-way. But for what its worth, Id say that Barrett might have things backwards: as the recent furor surrounding Cree artist Kent Monkman attests, the strictures imposed by community can, in some instances, be even more stifling when theyre applied to minority artists.

As some of my regular readers know, I often like having a bash at the government-subsidized amateurs who populate the field of Canadian arts and letters. (Its not their fault: when the government pays for something, you often get too much of it.) But Kent Monkman is very, very much not in that category. He produces big, colourful epics that dramatically mash up the visual idioms of Judeo-Christian historical tradition with Indigenous characters and narratives. He often inserts an alter ego he names Miss Chief Eagle Testickle to (as he puts it) reverse the colonial gaze to challenge received notions of history and Indigenous peoples. This all sounds rather pretentious, I realize, but art either works or it doesnt. And Monkmans works well enough that he can charge $175,000 a pop, which is approximately $175,000 more than your average art-school grad. Whats more, he is a living, breathing advertisement for the value of diversity in art by which I dont mean diversity of bloodline, which is meaningless, but diversity of perspective. No white person could have produced his masterpieces any more than Mordecai Richler could have written The Handmaids Tale.

No white person could have produced his masterpieces any more than Mordecai Richler could have written The Handmaid's Tale

Great art often is produced by outsiders as, either by choice or necessity, they are the ones who can stand back from a societys accepted conventions, and who assign themselves the most moral latitude in defining or satirizing them. This not only explains how my people took over Hollywood, but also why Rosedale hedge-fund managers are climbing over each other to plunk down the cost of an Audi R8 so that dinner-party guests can enjoy the image of if you will forgive my lapse into sophisticated gallerist parlance Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on all fours after taking it hard and bloody.

What I am describing here is Monkmans new painting Hanky Panky, an image of which, I am hoping, accompanies this column. (For reasons described below, certain other media outlets are treating it like those 2005-era Muhammad cartoons that were originally published in Jyllands-Posten. But I give my own National Post editors marginally more credit.) The thing is classic Monkman: violent, shocking, subversive and brutally original. It also fulfills that trite but true definition of art as that which makes you think. And much will be thunk by those who gaze upon dozens of Indigenous women laughing hysterically as sallow white patriarchs from out of Canadas past look on at the #MeToo-ing of a none-too-pleased-looking Justin Trudeau.

Over time, we have become numb to the endless calls for solemnity and contrition over the legacy of residential schools, MMIWG and the rest of the horrors that whites have visited upon Indigenous people. Its all become predictable and performatively morose, which is why every new commission or inquiry has to keep ramping up the genocide rhetoric to keep our attention. It takes a true artist to find new ways to shock the conscience, to elevate our focus from the tragedy of each brutalized life to the dark comedy of a confused Canadian nation that remains caught between proud old fables of John A. Macdonald and Wilfrid Laurier and lacerating self-loathing. Like every country on earth, Canada is a bolted-together gag-ball of hypocrisy and myth. And the women in the picture are absolutely right to laugh at us insofar as we are metaphorically represented by the humiliated prime minister and the passed-out victim in red serge. (Oh right, forgot to mention: an RCMP dude also gets the #MeToo treatment.)

But of course, the first rule of social justice is: thats not funny. And on Canadian Twitter, fury predictably erupted. Not among progressive white Canadians alarmed at seeing their prime minister sexually humiliated on canvas. Rather, the hue and cry was raised in the rarified cancel-culture circles presided over by the likes of Indigenous author Alicia Elliott, the unofficial church lady of Canadian arts and letters. Before retiring in a state of claimed emotional exhaustion, Elliott declared on Twitter last weekend that Monkman took Indigenous womens laughter, which is one of the most healing sounds in the world, into a weapon he could utilize to titillate and shock white folks. I dont care if he claims the Trudeau lookalike was consenting.

She then went on, in all-caps, like some CanLit version of Donald Trump, HE USED A MMIWG2S SYMBOL THAT IS ABOUT GIVING WOMEN A VOICE AS A BUTT PLUG, THEN DISMISSED INDIGENOUS WOMEN AND 2SQ FOLKS WHO COMPLAINED. AKA SILENCED THEM. AND DOESNT UNDERSTAND THE IRONY. (Yeah, this is definitely someone we want deciding what art gets produced.)

Like every country on Earth, Canada is a bolted-together gag-ball of hypocrisy and myth

In my ideal world, Monkman would have dashed off a new painting, indicating to Elliott exactly where she could stick her complaints. But Monkman is in a tough place, as he is not only a successful artist but also a much-admired member of the Indigenous community, a community that, as he is constantly told, he must listen to and support. And so he walks a fine line.

The Globe and Mail headlined its coverage, Provocateur Artist Kent Monkman Apologizes for Painting Depicting Sex Assault. But thats actually not true. In a statement posted to Facebook on May 18, he did say he deeply regret(s) any harm that was caused by the work, and acknowledge(s) that the elements I had included to indicate consent are not prominent enough. But he isnt destroying or renouncing the work. I know this for a fact because I inquired about buying it, figuring that the controversy surrounding the piece might lower its price and provide me with a singular opportunity to get a real Monkman at a big discount, this being the way of my people. But this hope proved to be very much misguided. So the Hang in There! poster with the cat on the tree branch wont be coming down anytime soon.

Perhaps the surest sign that Monkman sits at the absolute pinnacle of Canadian artistic excellence is that he is now being treated to the same tall-poppy-cutting treatment as the few non-Indigenous Canadians who have risen to his level of fame and influence. In its old-stock national soul, Canada embraces a cult of mediocrity when it comes to artists and writers. Having worked (as a fraud) in the boiler room of one particular CanLit institution, I can attest that the most venerated figures among the toiling acolytes often are righteous obscurities who subsist on grants and church-basement vernissages. Once someone shows true skill and gets feted in New York and London, Canadas great and good worry that hell overshadow everyone else (take up too much space, in the Twitter parlance), and, possessing the financial means necessary to shake off the constraints imposed by funding councils, go ideologically rogue.

And so it is no coincidence that almost every Canadian whose work is culturally influential outside Canadas borders Margaret Atwood, Steven Galloway, Jordan Peterson, Joseph Boyden has at one time or another attracted a mob of pious nobodies seeking to take them down. Until now, Monkmans Indigenous identity had protected him somewhat. But no longer. Indeed, his perceived obligations to community make things more complicated, as all it takes is one slip-up to get smeared as a two-spirited Judas. According to one Indigenous poet on Twitter: Its become disturbing clear that (Monkmans) work was never for us. It was never intended to keep us safe, nor empower us. In fact, it trivializes many of our experiences with sexual assault.

Canada embraces a cult of mediocrity when it comes to artists and writers

Such critiques, widely retweeted over social media in recent days, show how a fixation on community can be just one more burden on non-white artists and writers: despite all the dumb things Ive written over my career, never once did a white guy ever respond by tweeting that Jonathan Kays work was never for us.

Three weeks ago, well before the controversy over Hanky Panky began, Canadian Art magazine ran a scathing attack on Monkman, bitterly denouncing the installation of two of his paintings in the central interior entrance area of New Yorks Metropolitan Museum of Art. When it comes to identity politics, Canadian Art is well known to exist in a land beyond parody. But this article particularly stood out because of the absurd jaccuse question embedded in the headline: Who is the Audience for These Works?

After dispensing with the pro forma bafflegab about Monkmans failure to question art-historical inequalities between settlers and Indigenous peoples, the author proceeded on a tedious brushstroke-by-brushstroke hunt for neo-colonial esthetic heresies, like an old Papist inquisitor rifling through a Portuguese merchants ledger-book for a doodled penis or boob. Only at the end did we get to the main indictment that these paintings are made for a predominantly white audience, presented in an institution historically composed of white cultural workers and displayed in harmony with, rather than in contradiction of, a colonial institution. Oh, how much more pure the world would be if Monkman had instead burned these masterpieces and focused on putting on culturally authentic Cree-language puppet shows outside his home in Tyendinaga Mohawk Territory. Hey, maybe hed even get a grant for it.

For those whove never been to the Met, I can attest that its full of white people. A lot of museums are even, horror of horrors, right here in Canada. If you tell an Indigenous artist that he shouldnt be pitching his work to this audience, youre basically telling him to go live off charity for the rest of his life, just like all those downwardly mobile white kids churning out triptychs about their pronouns from the rec-room space over their parents Woodbridge garage.

I, too, belong to a community. Its the community of white cultural workers that Canadian Art dislikes so much (even if most of the magazines own staff resemble the standing-room section at a David Sedaris book reading). And if I may presume to speak on behalf of this community, Id like to say that Hanky Panky suits our colonial white gaze just fine. By which I mean that it makes us think about our country in a different and more honest way, and that it challenges a lot of what we think we know. These are the things that a great artist does, notwithstanding the spirit of self-interest and amour propre that suffuse the hectoring of lesser talents.

Email: jonkay@gmail.com | Twitter:

See the original post:

Jonathan Kay: It takes a true artist to find new ways to shock the conscience. Kent Monkman has done that - National Post

You have run out of free articles. You can support our newsroom by joining at our lowest rate!

Please call 866-735-5631 to upgrade your subscription.

Keep reading for FREE!

Enjoy more articles by signing up or logging in. No credit card required.

Members of the Westby Area High School Class of 2020 include (front, from left) Chloe Stellner, Jordan Gettelman, Bree Hatlan, Liza Jackson; Row 2: Kaydan Jothen, Karley Anderson, Estelle Fisher-Fortney, Eva Lee, Haley Nelson; Row 3: Dakota Bakkestuen, Robbie Purvis, Tyler Lasky, Bobby Frydenlund, Izaak McCauley, Finn Trautsch Row 4: Devin Nelson, Mitchell McKittrick, Logan Turben, Zach Harris, Evan Peterson, Manuel Chavez, Josh Gunderson; Row 5: Karolyn Jaeger, Logan Paduano, Evan Hendrickson,, Kaili Swanson, Jaden Cronn, Austin Mowery, Tyler Christianson; Row 6: Payten Nelson, Faith Gardner, Sedona Radke, Katie Wollman, Melody Berg, Rebecca Buckles, Linda Schmitz, Savana Radke; Row 7: Gabe Engh, Claire Griffin, Molly Stenslien, McKenna Manske, Alayna Winterfield, Alexis Ellefson, Haley Hagen, Anna Ofte, Theresa Wintersdorf; Row 8: Ty Milutinovich, Cooper Lipski, Carlos Gastelum, Lucas Wieczorek,, Noah Benish, Jake Krause, Davontae Spears, Adam Teadt, Austin Hall; Row 9: Mason Mageland, Andrew Bechtel, Brendan Griffin, Noah Nelson, Andy Role, Dominic DelMedico, Conor Vatland, Zeke Santiago and Haley Kittle.Not pictured: Joe Armbruster, Josi Bishop, Luke Bjorkund, Jackson Bunch, Kyle Falkers, Gabriella Felten, Cohner Fish, Riley Hagen, Ashton Hill, Abbie Larrington, Tyler Madison, Amanda Marshall, Cody Meyer, Jullian Nagle, Gavin Olson, Cora Ostrem-Hanson, Cole Peterson, Benjamin Schmidt, Kassandra Sherpe and Dylan Songer.

Due to restrictions related to COVID-19, the graduation ceremony will be postponed to a date to be determined in July.

Valedictorian: Joseph Armbruster. Salutatorian: McKenna Manske.

The class motto is 2020: A class with a vision. The class flower is a white rose with red tips. The class colors are red, black and silver.

Class of 2020 officers: President Conor Vatland, Vice president Bree Hatlan, Secretary Claire Griffin, Treasurer Josi Bishop.

Candidates for graduation: Karly Anderson, Joseph Armbruster, Andrew Bechtel, Noah Benish, Melody Berg, Josi Bishop, Luke Bjorklund, Rebecca Buckles, Jackson Bunch, Manuel Chavez, Tyler Christianson, Jaden Cronn, Dominic DelMedico, Alexis Ellefson, Gabriel Engh, Kyle Falkers, Gabriella Felten, Estelle Fischer-Fortney, Cohner Fish, Robert Frydenlund, Faith Gardner, Carlos Gastelum, Jordan Gettelman, Brenden Griffin, Claire Griffin, Joshua Gunderson, Haley Hagen, Riley Hagen, Austin Hall, Zachary Harris, Bree Hatlan, Evan Hendrickson, Ashton Hill, Liza Jackson, Karalyn Jaeger, Kaydan Jothen, Hailey Kittle, Jake Krause, Abigail Larrington, Tyler Lasky, Eva Lee, Cooper Lipski, Mason Mageland, McKenna Manske, Amanda Marshall, Izaak McCauley, Mitchell McKittrick, Cody Meyer, Ty Milutinovich, Austin Mowery, Jullian Nagle, Devin Nelson, Haley Nelson, Noah Nelson, Payten Nelson, Anna Ofte, Gavin Olson, Cora Ostrem-Hanson, Logan Paduano, Cole Peterson, Evan Peterson, Robert Purvis, Savana Radke, Sedona Radke, Andy Role, Ezequiel Santiago, Benjamin Schmidt, Linda Schmitz, Kassandra Sherpe, Dylan Songer, Davontae Spears, Chloe Stellner, Molly Stenslien, Kaili Swanson, Adam Teadt, Finnegan Trautsch, Logan Turben, Conor Vatland, Lucas Wieczorek, Alayna Winterfield, Theresa Wintersdorf, Katherine Wollman

Get local news delivered to your inbox!

See the rest here:

Graduation 2020: Westby Area High School - The Westby Times

9:25

Prop Bets: Will Lamar lead NFL in rushing yards?

9:53

July 15th deadline is what matters for Dallas, Dak

11:19

Competition Committee votes on officiating advisor

6:56

Is Belichick or Brady more likely to get a statue?

Posted by Mike Florio on May 23, 2020, 11:41 AM EDT

Getty Images

Free-agent defensive end Everson Griffen remains in a holding pattern. The 32-year-old has been linked to Seattle but not many other teams has he looks for a new NFL home.

The Cardinals reportedly have interest in Griffen, according to Jeremy Fowler of ESPN.com.

Arizona is trying to boost a defense that needs plenty of help. Given all the attention devoted to Chandler Jones, Griffen would likely see some favorable matchups and, at a minimum, one-on-one opportunities.

Chad Graff of TheAthletic.com recently explained that Griffens status has been influenced in part by the inability to make visits to teams. As Vikings G.M. Rick Spielman told #PFTPM in the aftermath of the draft, the door isnt closed on a return to Minnesota; however, the Vikings lack the cap space to give Griffen the kind of deal he may expect.

Griffen has 74.5 sacks in 147 career games. He had a career-high 13.0 sacks in 2017.

See the article here:

Cardinals reportedly have interest in Everson Griffen - NBCSports.com

Bill Kilfoil muses on missing his and his buddies Irish Poker club. - J. R. Roy

BILL KILFOIL

During Scotlands 18th century, when the Scots were busy inventing the modern world, several social/intellectual societies were at the heart of the Scottish Enlightenment. In 1762 in Edinburgh, the remnants of The Select Society formed a group called The Poker Club, whose commission it was to meet weekly, sit civilly, drink all the available claret and exchange ideas in a cordial atmosphere. Their stated mission was to improve themselves in reasoning and eloquence and by free debate discover the most effective ways of promoting the common good. Membership, which included the likes of Adam Smith and David Hume, met weekly at Thomas Nicholsons Tavern in the Old Town of Edinburgh. Their Poker Club had nothing to do with card games. It was so named to encourage members to stir up the controversies of the day as a fireplace poker stirs hot coals to flame.

In our neighbourhood, back in pre-covid days, a bunch of us had a poker club of our own. We met every Thursday from 7 until 10 (facially unmasked, digitally unwashed and socially un-distanced) to play Irish Poker and tell lies. At these card games, during those carefree days before the plague, the principles of hygiene were routinely violated. We dealt the same cards with greasy hands, passed around the same stale potato chip bowl, circulated slabs of cheese and pepperoni sticks and breathed the same stale hoppy air.

The cards have not been dealt since Thursday, March 5. Our pious congregation is dispersed, our noble tradition deceased, one of the petty casualties of the pandemic. Interruptions such as these, in the grand scheme, are trivial and inconsequential. But as advanced thinkers have suggested, for our general well-being, even frivolous and gratuitous occupation should not be discounted. We miss the little things more than we thought we would. Something is lost.

Needless to say, our Thursday night poker club is nothing like the Scottish version (those guys in Edinburgh were smart); no deep thoughts for us, nothing high-minded about what we do, no extravagant talk, no highfalutin nonsense, no high-horses got on. We may debate the urgent questions of the day or express vigorous opinions, but the conversation was neither eloquent nor enlightened. We know that our views are not necessary for the survival of western civilization. From time to time, we used words that are not part of the Christian tradition.

Mostly retirees, we go through the entire evening and nobody checks their cellphone. A couple of guys who are still working claim to pay the pensions collected by the rest of us. They recommend we show a little gratitude. To this suggestion no attention was paid. We all understand that the purpose of our aging is to introduce us to a variety of mental and physical deficits.

At these gatherings, the prattle is sustained without effort most of the time it involves ridicule, whining, insulting, or commentary on political alliances and pulmonary disorders. Pearls of wisdom and erudition are rare. There is no place for delicacy of thought or feeling. Anyone taking things too seriously doesnt really belong at the table. All the card players know that sombre, humourless dialogue should be avoided if it goes on too long, someone might send for a doctor.

Most of us are beer drinkers except for the senior ex-military statesman among us who sips Protestant whiskey from a small flask Bushmills Black, from the North of Ireland. Moderate for the most part, we drink just a few beers over the three hours. And when the seal is broken, we get up every 10 minutes to pee. These bathroom visitations are frequent, flatulent and weak-streamed.

Although one among us (a Scottish immigrant) relentlessly attempts to enliven the conversation by poking and fanning the flames of argument, we are, for the most part, well behaved. A range of opinions hardly ever leads to violence, property damage or legal action.

Our game is a version of Liars Poker, renamed by members of our group as Irish Poker because some players believe (in an attempt to irritate me) that when Irish eyes are smiling, theyre usually lying as well, and the Irish (with their celebrated history of blarney) have an unfair advantage in a game whose outcome depends on the ability to persuade others that you might be telling the truth. Where some see prevarication, the Irish see creative genius. Its all part of the craic.

To be successful, each successive player doesnt have to be able to make the hand theyre claiming, they just have to convince the guy on the left that they might. A prudent player needs to be careful. Knowing that the next guy can challenge your claim, he can choose to tell the truth, perpetrate a previous lie or fabricate a shiny new one. Lies need to be told with the voice and intonation required for credulity. This behaviour is not distinguishable from that of a seasoned politician or car dealer.

When the clock strikes 10, one of the guys (the Scot, of course) discharges his fiduciary responsibilities, doling out the dividends of the evening. Little heed is paid to the redistribution of wealth; no fortunes are won or lost. The proceeds might buy a double-double and a donut. No one counts their money while sitting at the table, and when the dealings done, well have a wee deoch-an-doris and then go home. We all live within walking distance.

It has been a couple of months since we enjoyed the poker and the lies. We dont know when the prohibition will be lifted. We fear we are in danger of losing the requisite poker skills. Prevarication is an acquired talent if not practised and polished, it may be lost just ask any Republican.

Recently, Premier Stephen McNeils relentless chin has been wagging about easing restrictions on parks, fishing and golf, but there hasnt been a peep out of him about re-opening the Irish Poker economy. I guess its no big deal. Everyone has to play with the cards theyre dealt. For now, its solitaire.

Returning to 18th century Edinburgh, those learned Scots (busy conceiving capitalism and democracy) appreciated the sedentary and restorative nature of their Poker Club. Enlightenment philosopher David Hume (understandably depressed thinking about the powers of human reasoning) found his Poker Club a relief and a remedy, where he would ... be merry with my friends and after three or four hours amusement, return to my speculations.

See what I mean?

William J. Kilfoil lives in Mineville.

Read more:
BILL KILFOIL: The plague: Playing the cards youre dealt - TheChronicleHerald.ca

Adam Chodzko, O, you happy roots, branch and mediatrix (2020), screen 2, two-channel video, Hildegard von Bingens lingua ignotae, and image recognition algorithm (image courtesy the artist)

In the last few years, the humanities have seen a marked shift in interest towards nonhuman forms of intelligence. The recent vegetal turn in eco-philosophy and curatorial practice, for example, attempts to recognize the central but overlooked cultural and ecological presence of plants and to find imaginative ways of engaging with them. The upcoming exhibition The Botanical Mind: Art, Mysticism and the Cosmic Tree at Camden Art Centre, London, looks likely to be a high point on this trajectory towards using creativity and criticality to reveal and correct a modern tendency towards what scientist Monica Gagliano has called plant blindness.

The show was scheduled to open in mid-April, but when the ongoing coronavirus pandemic caused its postponement the Camden Art Centre team worked to create alternative ways of accessing the ideas and imagery touched on in the exhibition. The result is The Botanical Mind Online, a dedicated website exploring the key themes of the exhibition combined with new commissions by artists, writers, musicians, and philosophers.

The Botanical Mind Online opens with an introductory video narrated by curators Gina Buenfeld and Martin Clark, offering an impressively succinct summary of the projects journey through a series of complexly interconnected topics including plant intelligence, patterns and geometry, music and harmony, psychedelia, and the notion of the tree as an axis mundi. Together, they suggest, these aspects point to an encoded intelligence in the patterns of nature a botanical mind.

The online platform draws on perspectives that offer alternatives to Western rationalism: outsider artists and philosophers, Indigenous cultures from the Amazon rainforest, and recent investigations into plant sentience. As such, it hints that an understanding of the vegetal can help to challenge the destructive dualistic divides that characterize much Western post-Enlightenment thought.

Moreover, The Botanical Mind is a laudable attempt to achieve what eco-philosopher Michael Marder describes as encountering plants on their own terms while maintaining a recognition of their radical alterity. This can be seen in Adam Chodzkos new digital commission O, you happy roots, branch and mediatrix (2020). The film uses an algorithm to scan footage of a forest for ciphers visual traces of a secret language created by the 12th Century Christian mystic Hildegard von Bingen. Chodzko has assigned the ciphers a sound from Hildegards choral compositions and uses them to spell out the names of plants both real and imagined. The website features a clip from the work which, in the curators words, attempts to become an idea of botanical transformation at once both a process and its experience.

Elsewhere on the site, ideas and imagery are collected under a range of tantalizing headings, such as Sacred Geometry, The Cosmic Tree, and Astrological Botany. The chapter on Indigenous Cosmologies explains how the patterns found in nature are the basis of sacred geometries found in the visual cultures and music of Indigenous Amazonian communities, many of whom believe these patterns weave the universe together. There is a particular focus on the Yawanaw people, a group of whom Camden Art Centre had been working with to develop a new artwork for The Botanical Mind in collaboration with Delfina Muoz de Toro, an indigenist, visual artist, and musician from Argentina. As the Yawanaw collaborators are currently self-isolating in their village (Indigenous communities are particularly vulnerable to foreign diseases), The Botanical Mind Online presents artworks related to their community. These include two experimental ethnographic films and a series of atmospheric sound recordings by Priscilla Telmon & Vincent Moon, which are presented alongside photographs and musical compositions by Muoz de Toro.

Meanwhile, the chapter on Vegetal Ontology picks up on the theme of patterning and applies it to the biological functions of plants. Gemma Andersons Relational process drawings, for example, are made in collaboration with a cellular biologist and a philosopher of science. They re-imagine the dynamic patterns of plant life by expressing the relationships between processes on molecular, cellular and organismal levels as musical compositions or dance choreographies.

Much has been made of recent research which shows that plants send each other electrical signals and nutrients through strands of symbiotic fungi, dubbed the wood wide web. The Botanical Mind Online effectively makes use of this parallel between plant communication and the internet, using the branching nonlinear structure of a hyperlinked website to subtly hint at plant forms and create a resource rich in multidirectional thought. During this period of enforced stillness, the curators argue, our behavior might be seen to resonate with plants: like them we are now fixed in one place, subject to new rhythms of time, contemplation, personal growth and transformation.

The Botanical Mind Online continues at http://www.botanicalmind.online/. The online platform and related upcoming exhibition at Camden Art Center, London, are curated by Gina Buenfeld and Martin Clark.

Read the original:
Artists, Writers, Musicians, and More Explore the Intersections of Art and Ecology - Hyperallergic

Share

Share

Share

Email

Spencer Critchley, managing partner for Boots Road Group, is hosting a discussionthe fourth in an ongoing seriesthat seeks to improve communication across political divides, but the true goal of the discussion is more profound, as evidenced by its title, Saving Democracy.

Its finding the people wherever they sit on the ideological spectrum who believe in civil debate, says Critchley. The members of this partythe party of democracyhave to find each other.

The next Saving Democracy installment is Tuesday, May 26 from 6:30-8pm, streaming on Facebook Live.

Past Saving Democracy events have spanned ideologies, with voices from both the right and the left. Critchley says Tuesdays event will focus on the conservative perspectives and on political moderates. It will be titled What Would Lincoln Do. Guests will include former California Republican leader Kristin Olsen and Dan Schnur, who once served as media chief for Senator John McCains 2000 presidential campaign and who now teaches at both USC and UC Berkeley. Another guest will be Mike Madrid, co-founder of the Lincoln Project, a conservative group aiming to defeat President Trump and Trumpism at the ballot box, according to the organizations website. None of the guests are fans of President Donald J. Trump.

Critchley will moderate the talk.

He says the thing that makes Trump so dangerous is his corruption. That includes the presidents self-dealing, his firing of anyone who gets in his way, his efforts to solicit help from foreign governments, and his persistent lies, which are intoxicating in and of themselves, Critchley elaborates.

The point is not to get away with the lie. The point is to do away with the concept of truth, Critchley says.

He says Americans should not give in to their differences, or else those who are driving divisions will get their way by making groups of people hate each other more. Critchley says many of those who pursue a divisive brand of civil discourse are Trump supporters, but not all of them.

Theres a brand of liberal intolerance. Its a different brand. It takes a different shapeif you disagree with me, then youre corrupt, he explains.

Critchley, author of the new book Patriots of Two Nations: Why Trump Was Inevitable and What Happens Next, traces the central schism in American political discourse back to the founding days of United States. There was a group that supported the ideals of the enlightenment and another, which he calls the counter-enlightenment, that did not.

In order to win elections in the 21st century, Critchley says, Democrats will need to learn to better communicate with those they disagree with.

The problem is not Trump, he says. The problem is that someone like Trump could become president.

Saving Democracy: What Would Lincoln Do will air on Facebook Live on Tuesday, May 26, from 6:30-8pm. Attendants may register in advance, to get a reminder when the event goes live. Visit bootsroad.com/democracy for more information.

UPDATE May 22 7:50pm: A previous version of this headline misspelled Spencer Critchleys last name.

Jacob, the news editor for Good Times, is an award-winning journalist, whose news interests include housing, water, transportation, and county politics. A onetime connoisseur of dive bars and taquerias, he has evolved into an aspiring health food nut. Favorite yoga pose: shavasana.

Originally posted here:
Spencer Critchely, Never-Trumpers Look to Save Democracy - Good Times Weekly

A note from the British Marxist literary critic Terry Eagletons 2008 Terry Lectures at Yale University, published as Reason, Faith, and Revolution: Reflections on the God Debate (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2009):

Dawkins falsely considers that Christianity offers a rival view of the universe to science. Like the philosopher Daniel C. Dennett in Breaking the Spell, he thinks it is a kind of bogus theory or pseudo-explanation of the world. In this sense, he is rather like someone who thinks that a novel is a botched piece of sociology, and who therefore cant see the point of it at all. Why bother with Robert Musil when you can read Max Weber? . . .

Dawkins makes an error of genre, or category mistake, about the kind of thing Christian belief is. He imagines that it is either some kind of pseudo-science, or that, if it is not that, then it conveniently dispenses itself from the need for evidence altogether. He also has an old-fashioned scientistic notion of what constitutes evidence. Life for Dawkins would seem to divide neatly down the middle between things you can prove beyond all doubt, and blind faith. He fails to see that all the most interesting stuff goes on in neither of these places. Christopher Hitchens makes much the same crass error, claiming in God Is Not Great that thanks to the telescope and the microscope, [religion] no longer offers an explanation of anything important. But Christianity was never meant to be an explanation of anything in the first place. It is rather like saying that thanks to the electric toaster we can forget about Chekhov. (6-7)

One can hardly fail to be reminded in this context of an exchange in C. S. Lewiss early novel The Pilgrims Regress a book that seems to me more prescient with each passing year. The conversation revolves around the Landlord, who, in Lewiss allegory, represents God:

But how do you know there is no Landlord?

Christopher Columbus, Galileo, the earth is round, invention of printing, gunpowder!! exclaimed Mr. Enlightenment in such a loud voice that the pony shied.

I beg your pardon, said John.

Eh? said Mr. Enlightenment.

I didnt quite understand, said John.

Why, its plain as a pikestaff, said the other.

Your people in Puritania believe in the Landlord because they have not had the benefits of a scientific training. For example, I dare say it would be news to you to hear that the earth was round round as an orange, my lad!

Well, I dont know that it would, said John. feeling a little disappointed. My father always said it was round.

No, no, my dear boy, said Mr. Enlightenment, you must have misunderstood him. It is well known that everyone in Puritania thinks the earth flat. It is not likely that I should be mistaken on such a point. Indeed, it is out of the question.

(C. S. Lewis,The Pilgrims Regress: An Allegorical Apology for Christianity, Reason, and Romanticism[Grand Rapids, MI.: Ecrdmans. 1992], 20-21 .)

See the original post:
Scientism versus Scientism's Caricature of Christian Theism - Patheos

Should you follow your instinct or follow the rules and guidance set in place by the government? That is the assessment we were invited to make by the PM at the daily press conference on Sunday in the case of Dominic Cummings and his trip to Durham with his family.

Our lockdown has been comparatively relaxed compared to those imposed in France, Spain and Italy. We have been able to exercise once a day and we do not need papers to leave our houses. By contrast, the slogans have been highly aggressive: stay home and save lives; or to put it another way, leave home and risk lives.

We have been invited, again and again, to follow the rules and the guidance and to ignore conclusions derived from common sense, both before the legal lockdown was instituted and throughout its most intense period. For some of us, thankfully, those dilemmas have presented in trivial ways; for others, those dilemmas have been deeply, deeply painful.

Common sense has a great place in the history of ideas. It is the guiding spirit of the Enlightenment and the animating force of the most significant liberal ideals. The maxim We hold these truths to be self-evident cannot make any sense to men who do not share in reason. But we were asked by the UK government to put our common sense aside for several months. Indeed, that it was in our best interests to do so.

We were invited to take part in a national effort, to protect the NHS and save lives. We were asked to direct all our behaviours in light of that effort our contact with family, friends and loved ones, our exercise habits, even the number of times we shop and what we buy in the supermarket.

This was a project that the vast majority of the British public participated in, however grudgingly. If a fundamental question of politics is who has the right to tell me what to do? in normal times; then in a national crisis, this question has a far more potent and urgent set of associations: Who do I trust with my freedoms? Who do I trust to take care of my security?.

And while the public may have held with the government on these questions in the first phase of this crisis, the Cummings argument sets the scene for the next act mass unemployment on a scale that many have not seen in their working lifetimes, a destitute hospitality sector and the potential for a deflationary death spiral.

It is vital for the survival of his administration that Boris Johnson comes up with a far more assured response to this central question: Who has the right to tell me what to do? He may find that in future he has far fewer voters prepared to give him a fair hearing.

Read more from the original source:
Boris is taking the public for fools - Reaction - Reaction