Update [2005-8-8 4:6:44 by deano]: A few sentences reworded for clarification. It sounded a little off!

I believe there is a disconnect between certain practices in contemporary art and most of the public’s idea of what constitutes art. Part of the problem, in my humble opinion, is a lack of the proliferation of recent art history. While art is nebulas, art history can function as an important tool in exposing us to new ideas and helping us understand art.

This may be an outcome of the idea that it is common for people to reject what they don’t understand. What follows is a general attachment to received opinion about what art is, and what art should be.

If culture is important, as an influence in our society as well as our political climate, and we believe art is a fundamental cornerstone of our culture, than it follows that our culture will not progress until artistic trends of the last century are, at the least, investigated.

::More (Worth a read, I pinky swear!)::

Rami  Khouri's, From Belfast to Beirut: Good news at last, tackles the idea of being inclusive in bringing various conflicting factions to the negotiating table as well as the idea that the factions must feel some sense of ownership of the ideas that are being brought to the table.

Khouri begins his piece by investigating the implications of the Irish Republican Army's decision to halt violent resistance against the UK and explaining how this could serve as a model for establishing a peaceful Middle East "which in turn would help reduce the global terror problem".

Essentially the point of the bloggesphere is to improve the world. Most places have their own goals, their own mission, and work with others who are willing to help.. whether its exposing the calculated lies of the Bush administration or helping raise money for progressive candidates, these are all important avenues and as most people here would agree these acts can be viewed as helping other people or at the least preventing harm.

Well I don't have anything insightful for you today, sorry!  I just wanted to remind people that...

Under normal circumstances, every two seconds someone in America will need a blood transfusion. Blood transfusions are used for trauma victims - due to accidents and burns - heart surgery, organ transplants, women with complications during childbirth, newborns and premature babies, and patients receiving treatment for leukemia, cancer or other diseases, such as sickle cell disease and thalassemia. (source)

::More::

One difference I have noticed between myself and friends of mine on the wrong side of the political spectrum is that I have heard policies justified in terms of its importance in regards to tradition.

I believe that tradition alone is not enough to justify anything.

The nature of evil is a topic which has been investigated by many thinkers far brighter than myself throughout time; Nietzsche has outlined in The Genealogy of Morals how he believed the term arrived. I am not presenting an answer, but more of an inquiry.

What I am interested in here is the idea of intent versus outcome. Whether there is really a time when labeling someone or something as evil is actually appropriate. It seems to me that often times the term evil is thrown around and it is assumed that this means that the intent of the person who is called evil is actually the case. Is George Bush's opposition to funding abortion rights and contraception education programs a moral decision, or is it evil because it leads to unnecessary suffering? Is George Bush evil?

Please Turn to Page B4, Column 3