This set begins with the lovely air and two jigs I first learned on the whistle from Brighid Malone.
An raibh tu ag an gCarrig, continues with jigs, Morrisons, and Trip to Sligo, which then launches into some original composition and exploration in modulatory lightly dissonant space  (yeah, that's what it is...) before returning to an ancient lullaby...

Performed on the mahogany 1956 Martin 0-15, recording with Abletron Live 5  on  Mac Powerbook G4 and Digidesign mBox, Shure SM57 microphone. A bit of post-processing to separate channels and add a tiny bit of reverb.

The mp3 file is hosted here (download for iTunes)

Morrisons Set-23feb08.mp3

You should be able to play it right there on the page, or download it, either way.

Kindly forgive the rough spots, as this was a one-take test...
Indeed, the music.fraterdeus.com site is not ready for prime time, either, but it's a quick Plone 2.5 site which has the Plone4Artists Audio product installed, allowing for the cool features...

What I want is your gentle voice in my ear

What I want is a fine friend at my side

What I have is a heart full of love

and loss and longing.

To wander the roads of you...

With my fiddle and your stories

to the quays and mohrs and lachs

along the byways colored with autumn...

Is what I want.

(for someone special)

(23 Nov 2007)

http://3quarksdaily.blogs.com/3quarksdaily/2007/03/lunar_refractio.html#comment-63688172

Non-overlapping magisteria, eh? This was Stephen Jay Gould's lukewarm suggestion for how religion and science could co-exist. Not sure I believe it in his case, but regarding the eternal dichotomy of time vs space, I don't believe it at all. As the line moves through a new dimension it defines the plane... If it refuses to move, it doesn't negate the reality of the new dimension...

Yes, poetry is sequential, as is all language, spoken or written, and painting is planar and spatial, as is all depiction in the higher dimensions. That a picture is worth 10K words is an interesting observation of the attempt of the one dimension to become the next. (Fractal space is the result of course)

What, at the root of it really, is 'thought', or more generally, consciousness? Is it sequential, a stream of thoughts with constant reference to memory creating an illusion of continuity through time? or Spatial? More likely transcendental, when we let go the reins and the sequence, and allow awareness of the vast interconnectedness of events and things and discrete actors and cosmic trends to flood the mind in an instant.... Yet, remaining is the sequential narration of the observer. Clearly the dichotomy is a convenient illusion. Nature knows no such hard and fast boundaries, she prefers the subtle gradation of fields to the illusion of separateness.

Strangely, the very questions regarding painting and poetry can be asked about typography VS graphic design. Typography is fundamentally linear (and in essence quite nearly monochrome), as it is fundamentally a representation of sequential language. I would argue that this is also, in the classical sense, Apollonian and of the nature of reason. Graphic design is fundamentally planar and spatial, simultaneous rather than sequential. Indeed, the rise of dramatic color and imagery appeals to the primary visual cortex and thence directly to the 'gut' reaction. I argued ( AIGA Journal 1996) [1] that the great appeal of grunge typography to advertisers is that it triggered the subconscious fear of being run over by a truck, thus assuring rapt attention and thus subliminal messaging becomes more effective.

There are many facets to this idea, but of course, I'm much more the useless philosopher, producing neither painting nor poetry ;-)

Thanks for the very interesting reading on this crisp March morn I hope your Equinox is lovely, and the same for the rest of the seasons! ciao! p

[1] http://www.fraterdeus.com/typeontheedge/ Some comments from students here http://www.advancedtypography.blogspot.com/ (thanks to Google!)

Hallo, fans ;-)

It's a photo of me with renowned Irish Piper Paddy Keenan, down in Hanover (15 miles SE of Galena) a couple of weeks back.

I'd just finished playing a set of jigs on stage with Paddy, his guitarist John Walsh and Maurie Grafton (our host, also an excellent guitarist!)

After two great sets on his Uilleann Pipes or on the Low Whistle, Paddy had said, well, that's all we've got, but if anyone's brought their instruments, bring them out!
I said, well, I might have my fiddle in the car!
"Go get it!"

A great and unexpected pleasure and an honor to share the stage with such a renowned player.
Of course, you can tell by looking at him that he's a refined and gentle soul, most happy in a quiet hall, I think, although he's played to stadiums filled with thousands!

I thanked him for the honor, of course, but he insisted that the pleasure was his, that "It's just great to play some of those good old tunes...haven't thought of some of those in years..."  No rock star attitude there!

You can probably also tell that we'd had a few beers at the bank across the street at intermission :-)
(The bar in Hanover is the converted bank... I asked what they had used the bar for when it was a bank?)

Paddy's maybe a bit worn from being on the road, he and his guitarist had arrived from St Paul, en route to St Louis (and Hanover/Galena are almost exactly half way, right along the Mississippi!).

Thanks to Maurie Grafton and Patricia at the Artful Lodger B&B in Hanover  IL for making the concert possible.
A great treat for maybe three or four dozen people in an intimate, homely setting at the Hanover VIllage Hall.

Inspired me to finally pick up a low D whistle when I was in Seattle, at the Lark in the Morning shop at Pike St Market.

By the way, be sure to get out and vote Democratic while you can! (If you're in the US, that is)! It may be the last chance we get.

I've been on this issue for decades. It's a serious deficiency when the stars are lost to us. Not to mention the ugly repercussions of light pollution and trespass.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4794249.stm

This article from the BBC is a good reference, and makes some of the points I've been arguing for years, ie, that brighter lights don't make the streets or yards more secure. They merely make the shadows darker, and improve the surveillance opportunities for malefactors.

A good slogan for this ongoing concern:

"Light Pollution: It's a Glaring Problem"

By the way, in the US, this Tuesday is Election Day, as most of my readers will already have known :-)

Please get out and VOTE, that is, only if you vote Democratic! We desperately need to clean House and Senate both. The current Republican Congress is a rubber-stamp complicit in the criminal abuse of the Constitution being perpetrated by the current cabal in DC.

Progress for a brighter tomorrow... during the daytime, please!

p

February 7, 2006.

Mr. President, last week the President of the United States gave his State of the Union address, where he spoke of America's leadership in the world, and called on all of us to "lead this world toward freedom." Again and again, he invoked the principle of freedom, and how it can transform nations, and empower people around the world.

But, almost in the same breath, the President openly acknowledged that he has ordered the government to spy on Americans, on American soil, without the warrants required by law.

The President issued a call to spread freedom throughout the world, and then he admitted that he has deprived Americans of one of their most basic freedoms under the Fourth Amendment -- to be free from unjustified government intrusion.

The President was blunt. He said that he had authorized the NSA's domestic spying program, and he made a number of misleading arguments to defend himself. His words got rousing applause from Republicans, and even some Democrats.

The President was blunt, so I will be blunt: This program is breaking the law, and this President is breaking the law. Not only that, he is misleading the American people in his efforts to justify this program.

How is that worthy of applause? Since when do we celebrate our commander in chief for violating our most basic freedoms, and misleading the American people in the process? When did we start to stand up and cheer for breaking the law? In that moment at the State of the Union, I felt ashamed.

Congress has lost its way if we don't hold this President accountable for his actions.

The President suggests that anyone who criticizes his illegal wiretapping program doesn't understand the threat we face. But we do. Every single one of us is committed to stopping the terrorists who threaten us and our families.

Defeating the terrorists should be our top national priority, and we all agree that we need to wiretap them to do it. In fact, it would be irresponsible not to wiretap terrorists. But we have yet to see any reason why we have to trample the laws of the United States to do it. The President 's decision that he can break the law says far more about his attitude toward the rule of law than it does about the laws themselves.

This goes way beyond party, and way beyond politics. What the President has done here is to break faith with the American people. In the State of the Union, he also said that "we must always be clear in our principles" to get support from friends and allies that we need to fight terrorism. So let's be clear about a basic American principle: When someone breaks the law, when someone misleads the public in an attempt to justify his actions, he needs to be held accountable. The President of the United States has broken the law. The President of the United States is trying to mislead the American people. And he needs to be held accountable.

Unfortunately, the President refuses to provide any details about this domestic spying program. Not even the full Intelligence committees know the details, and they were specifically set up to review classified information and oversee the intelligence activities of our government. Instead, the President says - "Trust me."

This is not the first time we've heard that. In the lead-up to the Iraq war, the Administration went on an offensive to get the American public, the Congress, and the international community to believe its theory that Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction, and even that he had ties to Al Qaeda. The President painted a dire - and inaccurate - picture of Saddam Hussein's capability and intent, and we invaded Iraq on that basis. To make matters worse, the Administration misled the country about what it would take to stabilize and reconstruct Iraq after the conflict. We were led to believe that this was going to be a short endeavor, and that our troops would be home soon.

We all recall the President's "Mission Accomplished" banner on the aircraft carrier on May 1, 2003. In fact, the mission was not even close to being complete. More than 2100 total deaths have occurred after the President declared an end to major combat operations in May of 2003, and over 16,600 American troops have been wounded in Iraq. The President misled the American people and grossly miscalculated the true challenge of stabilizing and rebuilding Iraq.

In December, we found out that the President has authorized wiretaps of Americans without the court orders required by law. He says he is only wiretapping people with links to terrorists, but how do we know? We don't. The President is unwilling to let a neutral judge make sure that is the case. He will not submit this program to an independent branch of government to make sure he's not violating the rights of law-abiding Americans.

So I don't want to hear again that this Administration has shown it can be trusted. It hasn't. And that is exactly why the law requires a judge to review these wiretaps.

It is up to Congress to hold the President to account. We held a hearing on the domestic spying program in the Judiciary Committee yesterday, where Attorney General Gonzales was a witness. We expect there will be other hearings. That is a start, but it will take more than just hearings to get the job done.

We know that in part because the President's Attorney General has already shown a willingness to mislead the Congress.

At the hearing yesterday, I reminded the Attorney General about his testimony during his confirmation hearings in January 2005, when I asked him whether the President had the power to authorize warrantless wiretaps in violation of the criminal law. We didn't know it then, but the President had authorized the NSA program three years before, when the Attorney General was White House Counsel. At his confirmation hearing, the Attorney General first tried to dismiss my question as "hypothetical." He then testified that "it's not the policy or the agenda of this President to authorize actions that would be in contravention of our criminal statutes."

Well, Mr. President, wiretapping American citizens on American soil without the required warrant is in direct contravention of our criminal statutes. The Attorney General knew that, and he knew about the NSA program when he sought the Senate's approval for his nomination to be Attorney General. He wanted the Senate and the American people to think that the President had not acted on the extreme legal theory that the President has the power as Commander in Chief to disobey the criminal laws of this country. But he had. The Attorney General had some explaining to do, and he didn't do it yesterday. Instead he parsed words, arguing that what he said was truthful because he didn't believe that the President's actions violated the law.

But he knew what I was asking, and he knew he was misleading the Committee in his response. If he had been straightforward, he would have told the committee that in his opinion, the President has the authority to authorize warrantless wiretaps. My question wasn't about whether such illegal wiretapping was going on - like almost everyone in Congress, I didn't know about the program then. It was a question about how the nominee to be Attorney General viewed the law. This nominee wanted to be confirmed, and so he let a misleading statement about one of the central issues of his confirmation - his view of executive power - stay on the record until the New York Times revealed the program.

The rest of the Attorney General's performance at yesterday's hearing certainly did not give me any comfort, either. He continued to push the Administration's weak legal arguments, continued to insinuate that anyone who questions this program doesn't want to fight terrorism, and refused to answer basic questions about what powers this Administration is claiming. We still need a lot of answers from this Administration.

But let's put aside the Attorney General for now. The burden is not just on him to come clean -- the President has some explaining to do. The President' s defense of his actions is deeply cynical, deeply misleading, and deeply troubling.

To find out that the President of the United States has violated the basic rights of the American people is chilling. And then to see him publicly embrace his actions - and to see so many Members of Congress cheer him on - is appalling.

The President has broken the law, and he has made it clear that he will continue to do so. But the President is not a king. And the Congress is not a king's court. Our job is not to stand up and cheer when the President breaks the law. Our job is to stand up and demand accountability, to stand up and check the power of an out-of-control executive branch.

That is one of the reasons that the framers put us here - to ensure balance between the branches of government, not to act as a professional cheering section.

We need answers. Because no one, not the President, not the Attorney General, and not any of their defenders in this body, has been able to explain why it is necessary to break the law to defend against terrorism. And I think that's because they can't explain it.

Instead, this administration reacts to anyone who questions this illegal program by saying that those of us who demand the truth and stand up for our rights and freedoms have a pre-9/11 view of the world.

In fact, the President has a pre-1776 view of the world.

Our Founders lived in dangerous times, and they risked everything for freedom. Patrick Henry said, "Give me liberty or give me death." The President's pre-1776 mentality is hurting America. It is fracturing the foundation on which our country has stood for 230 years. The President can't just bypass two branches of government, and obey only those laws he wants to obey. Deciding unilaterally which of our freedoms still apply in the fight against terrorism is unacceptable and needs to be stopped immediately.

Let's examine for a moment some of the President's attempts to defend his actions. His arguments have changed over time, of course. They have to - none of them hold up under even casual scrutiny, so he can't rely on one single explanation. As each argument crumbles beneath him, he moves on to a new one, until that, too, is debunked, and on and on he goes.

In the State of the Union, the President referred to Presidents in American history who cited executive authority to order warrantless surveillance. But of course those past presidents - like Wilson and Roosevelt - were acting before the Supreme Court decided in 1967 that our communications are protected by the Fourth Amendment, and before Congress decided in 1978 that the executive branch can no longer unilaterally decide which Americans to wiretap. The Attorney General yesterday was unable to give me one example of a President who, since 1978 when FISA was passed, has authorized warrantless wiretaps outside of FISA.

So that argument is baseless, and it's deeply troubling that the President of the United States would so obviously mislead the Congress and American public. That hardly honors the founders' idea that the President should address the Congress on the state of our union.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was passed in 1978 to create a secret court, made up of judges who develop national security expertise, to issue warrants for surveillance of terrorists and spies. These are the judges from whom the Bush Administration has obtained thousands of warrants since 9/11. The Administration has almost never had a warrant request rejected by those judges. They have used the FISA Court thousands of times, but at the same time they assert that FISA is an "old law" or "out of date" and they can't comply with it. Clearly they can and do comply with it - except when they don't. Then they just arbitrarily decide to go around these judges, and around the law.

The Administration has said that it ignored FISA because it takes too long to get a warrant under that law. But we know that in an emergency, where the Attorney General believes that surveillance must begin before a court order can be obtained, FISA permits the wiretap to be executed immediately as long as the government goes to the court within 72 hours. The Attorney General has complained that the emergency provision does not give him enough flexibility, he has complained that getting a FISA application together or getting the necessary approvals takes too long. But the problems he has cited are bureaucratic barriers that the executive branch put in place, and could easily remove if it wanted.

FISA also permits the Attorney General to authorize unlimited warrantless electronic surveillance in the United States during the 15 days following a declaration of war, to allow time to consider any amendments to FISA required by a wartime emergency. That is the time period that Congress specified. Yet the President thinks that he can do this indefinitely.

In the State of the Union, the President also argued that federal courts had approved the use of presidential authority that he was invoking. But that turned out to be misleading as well. When I asked the Attorney General about this, he could point me to no court - not the Supreme Court or any other court - that has considered whether, after FISA was enacted, the President nonetheless had the authority to bypass it and authorize warrantless wiretaps. Not one court. The Administration's effort to find support for what it has done in snippets of other court decisions would be laughable if this issue were not so serious.

The President knows that FISA makes it a crime to wiretap Americans in the United States without a warrant or a court order. Why else would he have assured the public, over and over again, that he was getting warrants before engaging in domestic surveillance?

Here's what the President said on April 20, 2004: "Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires - a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so."

And again, on July 14, 2004: "The government can't move on wiretaps or roving wiretaps without getting a court order."

The President was understandably eager in these speeches to make it clear that under his administration, law enforcement was using the FISA Court to obtain warrants before wiretapping. That is understandable, since wiretapping Americans on American soil without a warrant is against the law.

And listen to what the President said on June 9, 2005: "Law enforcement officers need a federal judge's permission to wiretap a foreign terrorist's phone, a federal judge's permission to track his calls, or a federal judge's permission to search his property. Officers must meet strict standards to use any of these tools. And these standards are fully consistent with the Constitution of the U.S."

Now that the public knows about the domestic spying program, he has had to change course. He has looked around for arguments to cloak his actions. And all of them are completely threadbare.

The President has argued that Congress gave him authority to wiretap Americans on U.S. soil without a warrant when it passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force after September 11, 2001. Mr. President, that is ridiculous. Members of Congress did not think this resolution gave the President blanket authority to order these warrantless wiretaps. We all know that. Anyone in this body who would tell you otherwise either wasn't here at the time or isn't telling the truth. We authorized the President to use military force in Afghanistan, a necessary and justified response to September 11. We did not authorize him to wiretap American citizens on American soil without going through the process that was set up nearly three decades ago precisely to facilitate the domestic surveillance of terrorists - with the approval of a judge. That is why both Republicans and Democrats have questioned this theory.

This particular claim is further undermined by congressional approval of the Patriot Act just a few weeks after we passed the Authorization for the Use of Military Force. The Patriot Act made it easier for law enforcement to conduct surveillance on suspected terrorists and spies, while maintaining FISA's baseline requirement of judicial approval for wiretaps of Americans in the U.S. It is ridiculous to think that Congress would have negotiated and enacted all the changes to FISA in the Patriot Act if it thought it had just authorized the President to ignore FISA in the AUMF.

In addition, in the intelligence authorization bill passed in December 2001, we extended the emergency authority in FISA, at the Administration's request, from 24 to 72 hours. Why do that if the President has the power to ignore FISA? That makes no sense at all.

The President has also said that his inherent executive power gives him the power to approve this program. But here the President is acting in direct violation of a criminal statute. That means his power is, as Justice Jackson said in the steel seizure cases half a century ago, "at its lowest ebb." A recent letter from a group of law professors and former executive branch officials points out that "every time the Supreme Court has confronted a statute limiting the Commander-in-Chief's authority, it has upheld the statute." The Senate reports issued when FISA was enacted confirm the understanding that FISA overrode any pre-existing inherent authority of the President. As the 1978 Senate Judiciary Committee report stated, FISA "recognizes no inherent power of the president in this area." And "Congress has declared that this statute, not any claimed presidential power, controls." Contrary to what the President told the country in the State of the Union, no court has ever approved warrantless surveillance in violation of FISA.

The President's claims of inherent executive authority, and his assertions that the courts have approved this type of activity, are baseless.

The President has argued that periodic internal executive branch review provides an adequate check on the program. He has even characterized this periodic review as a safeguard for civil liberties. But we don't know what this check involves. And we do know that Congress explicitly rejected this idea of unilateral executive decision-making in this area when it passed FISA.

Finally, the president has tried to claim that informing a handful of congressional leaders, the so-called Gang of Eight, somehow excuses breaking the law. Of course, several of these members said they weren't given the full story. And all of them were prohibited from discussing what they were told. So the fact that they were informed under these extraordinary circumstances does not constitute congressional oversight, and it most certainly does not constitute congressional approval of the program. Indeed, it doesn't even comply with the National Security Act, which requires the entire memberships of the House and Senate Intelligence Committee to be "fully and currently informed of the intelligence activities of the United States."

In addition, we now know that some of these members expressed concern about the program. The Administration ignored their protests. Just last week, one of the eight members of Congress who has been briefed about the program, Congresswoman Jane Harman, ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, said she sees no reason why the Administration cannot accomplish its goals within the law as currently written.

None of the President's arguments explains or excuses his conduct, or the NSA's domestic spying program. Not one. It is hard to believe that the President has the audacity to claim that they do. It is a strategy that really hinges on the credibility of the office of the Presidency itself. If you just insist that you didn't break the law, you haven't broken the law. It reminds me of what Richard Nixon said after he had left office: "Well, when the president does it that means that it is not illegal." But that is not how our constitutional democracy works. Making those kinds of arguments is damaging the credibility of the Presidency.

And what's particularly disturbing is how many members of Congress have responded. They stood up and cheered. They stood up and cheered.

Justice Louis Brandeis once wrote: "Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."

The President's actions are indefensible. Freedom is an enduring principle. It is not something to celebrate in one breath, and ignore the next. Freedom is at the heart of who we are as a nation, and as a people. We cannot be a beacon of freedom for the world unless we protect our own freedoms here at home.

The President was right about one thing. In his address, he said "We love our freedom, and we will fight to keep it."

Yes, Mr. President. We do love our freedom, and we will fight to keep it. We will fight to defeat the terrorists who threaten the safety and security of our families and loved ones. And we will fight to protect the rights of law-abiding Americans against intrusive government power.

As the President said, we must always be clear in our principles. So let us be clear: We cherish the great and noble principle of freedom, we will fight to keep it, and we will hold this President - and anyone who violates those freedoms - accountable for their actions. In a nation built on freedom, the President is not a king, and no one is above the law.

I yield the floor.

Photo Album (25 images)

Great high energy music, warrior step dancing and fiddle acrobatics from this band of gorgeous sisters and Maestro Mike Searson!

See their website www.searson.org

http://plone.org/events/regional/nola05/

'Le bon temps' is starting to 'rollez'!

See some Photos from the French Quarter...

The band in the Dragon Den at the Siam Cafe is "Improvisational Arts Council"

This note about IAC from "resodance.com"

The Improvisational Arts Council, led by festival organizer Janna Saslaw on flute, played an amazingly tight set of improvisation, some sections even having a composed feel. Over a plate of food at Ashe, someone asked incredulously if the group had ever played together before, feeling that the music was sheer chaos, but I disagreed. A piece might evolve out of a three way set of conversations between pairs of instruments, but will snap suddenly into a groove. Sometimes it just takes a little listening to discern the coherences of even the strangest combinations of sounds.

It's easy to forget that Coltrane's mid-Sixties music, for instance, the monumental "Ascension," or Ornette Coleman's "Free Jazz" could once, and still do, drive some listeners out of the room. Poet Diane di Prima recalls in her memoir Recollections of My Life as a Woman that, during a brief period of retreat to her family's house in the early Sixties, she often cleared the living room in order to write by putting on Ornette's music and waiting a few minutes.

New movements in art-and here we're talking about a "new" music that's already 40 years old-needs a curious audience, one that is willing to listen and think, and not simply receive the familiar song structures of popular music or conventional jazz. People who berated Eric Dolphy, Coleman, and Coltrane for their departures might still feel this music doesn't swing or lacks a grounding in the blues and therefore isn't jazz.

There are those who believed (and maybe still do) that Sun Ra was a charlatan. But to put a cap on the imagination is to close off invention and squash change in art. And without change there just isn't any art, only reproduction of expected standards of behavior, musical conformism, and commodity exchange.

After the first set, I walked a couple of blocks back toward the hotel to "Molly's on the Market" on Decatur St. and some great wide-ranging discussions with Rob and Joel...

Everything from the Phase of the Moon to fractal dimensions and David Hilbert's infinite-dimensional space, Terence McKenna and Rudy Rucker

I'm trying to pace myself.

One gorgeous black-haired tattooed bartender enough material for six volumes on the virtual history of the US if only the French had arrived at Provincetown instead of the Puritans...

http://www.salon.com/books/int/2005/07/15/pyle/index.html

My theory about why museums are exhausting...

After walking for hours on end in the old cities and old buildings of Europe, still alert and full of energy, I would step into a museum or gallery and within minutes feel exhausted. The only obvious difference is the utter flatness of the gallery floors. The body is designed to move over uneven surfaces. The subtle microadjustements in balance and centering keep the system alert and aware. This article confirms the importance of uneven surfaces, and shows future gallery designers the way to keeping audiences alert!

for the complete article http://www.salon.com/wire/ap/archive.html?wire=D8B9D7DG0.html

Excerpts below:

By WILLIAM McCALL Associated Press Writer

July 11,2005 | PORTLAND, Ore. -- The path to better health and lower blood pressure may be paved with cobblestones. When people over 60 walked on smooth, rounded cobblestones for just a half-hour a day over four months, they significantly lowered their blood pressure and improved their balance, a study showed.

Behavioral researchers from the Oregon Research Institute investigated the health effects of cobblestones after observing people exercising and walking back and forth over traditional stone paths in China.

"We noticed in several cities we visited that people were walking on cobblestone paths, and people were standing on them, and sometimes dancing on them, doing weight-shifting," said John Fisher, who led the study at the institute in Eugene.

"We thought if we could scientifically measure it, we could see if there were health benefits," he said.

...

Nearly all the 108 volunteers in the study said they felt better after the exercise. But only the half who walked the cobblestones showed significant improvement in balance, measures of mobility and blood pressure, Fisher said.

He said the cobblestone walking paths are common in China, where traditional medicine teaches that the uneven surface of the stones stimulate "acupoints" on the soles of the feet. The theory is much like acupuncture, suggesting that distant and unrelated areas of the body are linked together at certain points and can be stimulated to improve physical and mental health.

Although cobblestone-walking is rooted in centuries of Chinese tradition, no controlled scientific studies had been done to evaluate its potential benefits and effectiveness until recently, Fisher noted.

Fay Horak, an Oregon Health & Science University neurophysiologist who specializes in balance, said the study is evidence that finding ways to maintain mobility and balance can delay and even prevent the effects of aging.

"I'm not surprised that working on balance improved balance," Horak said. "There's a lot of evidence that shows no matter who you are, it improves if you challenge it."

...

Ellison, the hypertension expert, said he would like to see a larger study to compare results but called the initial findings were promising.

"It certainly suggests there is something real about the cobblestones," Ellison said.

--

On the Net:

Oregon Research Institute: http://www.ori.org

In the logo, the Otz Chi'im -- Tree of Life -- rendered as interpenetrating energy fields.

The traditional rendering is very similar to the old 'ball and stick' model of atoms. As Bucky Fuller might have said, there's no such thing in Universe!!!

This ancient rational model of the process of creative will manifesting through the interactions of the ten Sephiroth (are they Chakras? Perhaps. These are all related!)

My model also shows the path of a quantum potential. The path is one of the infinite possible paths which a 'particle' might take in the process of becoming and then dissolving again.

The "animated" version (requires QuickTime)

Modelled and Rendered in Bryce 5.1 for OS X.

"Why I Am Marching"

I am joining the hundreds of thousands who shall be marching in this virtual march to demonstrate the concern that we all hold for the future of our planet and all the living things -- flora, fauna, human and animal -- that exist upon it. The governments of the world have tarried long enough, and the United States is scarcely without doubt the greatest culprit among them.

We the people have the strength to bring our country from our weak-kneed stumbling gait in the last ranks of reason to the leadership of the great march to environmental victory.

I want to be in that parade and if there is a place up front I'd wish to lead the band or at least be assigned a big bass drum to help pound out the rhythm of glorious success. -- Walter Cronkite

"Why I Am Marching"

...for freedom and peace and for the four legs and the winged, the six and eight legs and the finned. (not to forget the 1000 leggers!!) -- Peter Fraterdeus

Looks good!
The wiki will still be there, but it's very much not a blog!