|
http://www.audaud.com/article.php?ArticleID=2391
incredable http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/JFK/ALT_ANNOT.jpg
http://www.discourse.net/archives/sufficiently_advanced_technology/index.html
http://www.discourse.net/archives/sufficiently_advanced_technology/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/23/books/chapters/0923-1st-chait.html?_r=2&ref=books&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
?The Big Con?
I have this problem. Whenever I try to explain what's happening in American politics-I mean,
what's really happening-I wind up sounding a bit like an unhinged conspiracy theorist. But
honestly, I'm not. My politics are actually quite moderate. (Most real lefties, in fact,
think I'm a Washington establishment sellout.) So please give let me a chance to explain myself
when I tell you the following: American politics has been hijacked by a tiny coterie of right-
wing economic extremists, some of them ideological zealots, others merely greedy, a few of them
possibly insane. (Stay with me.)
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/23/books/chapters/0923-1st-chait.html?_r=2&ref=books&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
September 23, 2007
First Chapter
‘The Big Con’
By JONATHAN CHAIT
I have this problem. Whenever I try to explain what's happening in American politics-I mean, what's really happening-I wind up sounding a bit like an unhinged conspiracy theorist. But honestly, I'm not. My politics are actually quite moderate. (Most real lefties, in fact, think I'm a Washington establishment sellout.) So please give let me a chance to explain myself when I tell you the following: American politics has been hijacked by a tiny coterie of right-wing economic extremists, some of them ideological zealots, others merely greedy, a few of them possibly insane. (Stay with me.)
The scope of their triumph is breathtaking. Over the course of the last three decades, they have moved from the right-wing fringe to the commanding heights of the national agenda. Notions that would have been laughed at a generation ago-that cutting taxes for the very rich is the best response to any and every economic circumstance, or that it is perfectly appropriate to turn the most rapacious and self-interested elements of the business lobby into essentially an arm of the federal government-are now so pervasive, they barely attract any notice.
The result has been a slow-motion disaster. Income inequality has approached levels normally associated with Third World oligarchies, not healthy Western democracies. The federal government has grown so encrusted with business lobbyists that it can no longer meet the great public challenges of our time. Not even many conservative voters or intellectuals find the result congenial. Government is no smaller-it is simply more debt-ridden and more beholden to wealthy elites.
And yet the right-wing ascendancy has continued inexorably despite continual public repudiation. The 2006 elections were only the latest electoral setback. The right has suffered deeper setbacks before, and all of them have proven temporary. In 1982, after the country had entered the deepest recession since the 1930s, Republicans were slaughtered in the midterm congressional races, losing twenty-seven seats in the House of Representatives. Ronald Reagan, whose election two years earlier had seemed to augur a new conservative era, trailed his likely 1984 Democratic challengers by double digits in the polls and seemed destined to be a lame duck. "What we are witnessing this January," wrote the esteemed Washington Post reporter David Broder in the first month of 1983, "is not the midpoint in the Reagan presidency, but its phase-out. 'Reaganism,' it is becoming increasingly clear, was a one-year phenomenon." We know what happened the next year.
And the conservative revolution has had its obituary written many times since. In 1986, Republicans lost the Senate, and shortly thereafter Reagan saw his approval ratings sink as he became embroiled in the Iran-Contra scandal. In 1992, Democrats won back the White House along with both chambers of Congress, and there was widespread talk of "a conservative crackup." It happened again after the public turned on the Republicans following their 1995 government shutdown, and once more after the public rebelled against the Clinton impeachment. By the late 1990s, the Republican revolution had again been written off.
And yet the Republican right keeps coming back, and back, and back. Their fortunes rise and then dip, but each peak is higher than the last peak, and each dip is higher than the last dip. Consider the present situation. Things have gone about as badly as they could have in George W. Bush's second term. A Republican administration started and lost a major war in Iraq; presided over an economy that has failed to deliver higher wages for most Americans; contributed in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina to the near-wipeout of a major American city; launched a failed assault on Social Security, the most popular social program in the history of the United States; and saw its members suffer an almost unprecedented string of sexual and financial scandals. Still, Democrats find themselves holding only the slimmest of majorities in the House and Senate. Even if they hold their majorities in Congress and win the White House in 2008, the structural forces in Washington will make it nearly impossible to roll back any significant chunks of the Bush tax cuts, let alone take on crises like global warming or the forty-five million Americans lacking health insurance.
Global warming, come to think of it, may offer the best metaphor for understanding the conservative ascent. If you look at the temperature of the earth from month to month, it bounces up and down as seasons change and heat spells or cold snaps come and go. If you look at it over the course of many years, however, it is clear that it is moving inexorably in one direction. The arrival of winter does not mean the end of global warming. To confuse the short term blips with the long-term trend is to mistake the weather for the climate. The 2006 elections are one of those blips, a pause in the right's three-decade ascent.
Permanent partisan majorities are not possible in American politics. Power changes hands regularly. Sometimes the other party's president will preside over an economic boom or win a war. Sometimes yours will preside over a recession or sleep with an intern. Short-term fluctuations, often driven by events beyond the control of the party in power, are inevitable. So the way to win is not to win every election but to control the terms of the debate. The conservative movement's signal triumph is to have done just this, reshaping what is possible in American politics over the long term. This is not, therefore, a book about the political weather. It is a book about the political climate.
Most people under forty fail to grasp how different American politics looked three decades ago. For me, there is no better evidence of the rightward lurch than recalling that my father used to be a Republican. A liberal Republican, to be sure, but a Republican. By the time I was old enough to understand anything about politics, he had long since abandoned the GOP, and at first his former affiliation puzzled me. In the political world in which I came of age -Ronald Reagan left the White House during my junior year of high school-it seemed inconceivable that someone like my dad, who today resides well within the center of the Democratic Party, could identify in any way with the Republicans.
But, of course, as someone my age could not have guessed, the parties of a generation ago bore only a faint resemblance to their modern versions. After World War II, the Republicans accepted the new role of government in American life ushered in by Franklin Roosevelt. The decades after the war saw a great American consensus. Democrats were a bit looser with the purse strings, Republicans a bit tighter, but their general vision of the country was the same. This vision was expressed by the Republican president Dwight Eisenhower just before his inauguration when he declared, "There is, in our affairs at home, a middle way between untrammeled freedom of the individual and the demands for the welfare of the whole nation. This way must avoid government by bureaucracy as carefully as it avoids neglect of the helpless." This credo was the credo of the Republican Party my dad could identify with. He looked up to GOP moderates like Nelson Rockefeller and William Milliken, the long-time governor of our home state of Michigan-men born to privilege who used their power for the benefit of all, not just their own class.
Eisenhower left the top tax rate at a staggering 91 percent, and he repeatedly preached the virtues of budget balance. (When a colleague complained about this confiscatory rate, his treasury secretary, a wealthy former steel executive, replied acidly, "I pay 91 percent, and yet I don't complain and you do all the time." His line reflects a sense of social obligation totally alien to today's GOP.) This tradition of moderate Republicanism remained strong well into the 1970s. A Republican president, Gerald Ford, actually vetoed tax cuts proposed by Democrats as fiscally irresponsible.
There were, of course, Republicans of a more conservative bent in those days as well, but conservatism meant something altogether different from what it does today. Indeed, the whole face of American politics has changed. Opposition to deficits, which once made up the right wing of the partisan debate, is now closer to the left wing. ("I hope you're all aware we're all Eisenhower Republicans," Bill Clinton once noted wryly in a Cabinet meeting. "We stand for lower deficits and free trade and the bond market.") Today's rightwing position-upper-bracket tax cuts wherever and whenever possible-was off the right edge of the political spectrum three decades ago.
The ground has shifted very far under our feet, and its manifestations are everywhere. In 1979, the highest-earning one-tenth of 1 percent of all taxpayers-the richest of the rich-took home only 3 percent of the national income. Today they take home 10 percent. And over that same span, their average tax rate has dropped from 32 to 23 percent. The minimum wage has lost nearly half its purchasing power. The health care plan proposed by Richard Nixon in 1974, if introduced in Congress today, would be considered radically liberal and probably could not gain the support of any but a handful of the most left-wing Democrats.
American politics has been transformed, yet in this change lies the deeper mystery. The public has not clamored for it. While it is true that, starting around the late 1960s, polls showed a growing backlash against the welfare state, that backlash petered out during the 1980s and actually began to reverse itself a few years later. Which is to say, the public has actually grown less receptive to conservatism in general, let alone the particular upper-class variety practiced by today's GOP.
How do I know this? Here's one example. The National Election Survey has been asking voters for many years whether they would prefer a larger government with more services or a smaller government with fewer services. In 1982, the first year of the poll, 32 percent favored smaller government, and 24 percent preferred larger government (with the remainder right in the middle or expressing no opinion). By 2004, it had completely flipped, with 43 percent preferring bigger government and just 20 percent wanting a smaller one. Other polls have showed that the public has turned away from its antigovernment mood of the 1970s and favored a more active government and more progressive taxes. The public has been moving steadily left for twenty years, while Washington has lurched rapidly in the opposite direction.
This isn't supposed to happen. Abraham Lincoln once said, "Public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail. Without it, nothing can succeed." This is the core of the American civic religion. But over the last thirty years, something has happened that strikes at that core. The underpinnings of American democracy have slowly frayed, and in the place of the great moderate consensus that once prevailed we have seen the rise of an American plutocracy.
One popular explanation for the triumph of right-wing economics, familiar to readers of Thomas Frank's What's the Matter with Kansas?, is that cultural issues have obscured pocketbook ones. Conservatives have tricked the masses into voting on the basis of social issues, thus ignoring their economic self-interest. It is certainly true that tens of millions of potential Democratic voters support the Republican Party on the basis of its opposition to abortion, gays, and the like. But the phenomenon of conservative elites using culture and patriotism to win support from the masses is an old one. Left-wing populism of the kind that Frank and others favor may have failed to take root because of working-class social conservatism. This does not, however, explain a slightly different question: how and why the economic right has gained so much strength over the last three decades. After all, by nearly any measure, the American public has grown more socially liberal over this span. Since 1977, the proportion of Americans believing gays should be allowed to teach in elementary school has doubled, from 27 to 54 percent. Those favoring gay adoption has risen from 14 to 49 percent. Since 1976, the proportion of Americans who believe women deserve an equal role in business and political life has nearly doubled, from 30 to 57 percent. The proportion who believe that a woman's place is in the home has collapsed from 10 to 2 percent.
If the public is not moving right on economics, and if it is not even moving right on social issues, then we cannot explain the rise of right-wing economics by looking at the voters. We can only understand it by examining Washington.
This book has two parts. The first half explains how the Republican Party my father admired, the party of social and fiscal responsibility, was transformed into the party of class warfare. It is an astonishing tale, and it begins in the mid-1970s with the rise of a sect of pseudo-economists known as the supply-siders. This small cult of fanatical tax-cutters managed, despite having been proven decisively wrong time after time, to get an iron grip on the ideological machinery of the conservative movement. The supply-siders were not maverick conservative economists, as you might assume; they were amateurs and cranks, convinced that their outsider status enabled them to reach conclusions that had escaped the scrutiny of professional economists. The most prominent among them spent their lives advocating a number of patently ludicrous ideas. (One supply-side guru compared Slobodan Milosevic to Abraham Lincoln. Another said that American upper-class women "are averse to science and technology and baffled by it.") While their other preposterous ideas went nowhere, the equally preposterous notion of supply-side economics took the political system by storm. Why? Because it attracted a powerful constituency: the rich.
An almost theological opposition to taxation quickly took hold within the GOP, opening up the opportunity for business lobbyists to hijack the party's agenda. And so they did, as described in chapter 2. Far from being ideological fanatics, these were the most coolly calculating men. Their distinguishing quality was cynicism. Some of them were flamboyant crooks, like the gangster wannabe Jack Abramoff. But most were crooks of a more respectable variety- the kind with seven-figure salaries and offices at prestigious law firms. All of them understood that the destruction of the old Republican ethos of restraint opened up the public coffers to them, and they have availed themselves and their clients of a massive looting of the Treasury.
Their takeover of the Republican Party took years to complete. The supply-siders and the business lobbyists had two internal obstacles to overcome before they could take full control: the Republican rank-and-file voting base, and the old Republican Washington establishment, both of which still clung to the old ethos of fiscal responsibility and public-mindedness. To deal with them there arose a new breed of ideological enforcer-propagandists, party organizers, lobbyists, or often (as in the case of prototypes like Grover Norquist and Ralph Reed) all of these things at once. They drove out the old party establishment and created a new party line that fused in a seamless web supply-side ideology with their own financial interests.
There is something distinctly cultlike about their thinking. Their canon is presumptively infallible, and any apparent failure must instead be seen as an impetus to recommit themselves to doctrinal purity. Last spring, in an example typical of this thinking, the Wall Street Journal columnist Kimberly Strassel diagnosed the Republican Party's ailments thusly: "The base is in the dumps, disenchanted with a party that has lost sight of its economic moorings." The solution? Tax cuts, and lots of them. Strassel ran through how all the leading Republican presidential candidates had pledged their fealty to the governing supply-side faith. Each of them promised to make permanent all of Bush's tax cuts, but of course this was a given. The competition was between which candidate would promise even deeper cuts in upper-bracket rates.
As a diagnosis of what ails the Republicans today, this was, of course, insane. Bush signed a major tax cut each of the first six years of his presidency. Whatever the GOP's political liabilities may be, an insufficient commitment to tax-cutting is obviously not among them. To propose that the road to victory lies in recommitting the party to even more upper-bracket tax cuts requires a detachment from reality that would have been the envy of the Manson gang. But this is the sort of thinking that now predominates in conservative and Republican circles, and the obeisance of all the leading GOP presidential hopefuls shows just how deeply it has sunk in.
Excerpted from The Big Con by Jonathan Chait Copyright © 2007 by Jonathan Chait. Excerpted by permission. All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher. Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.
Home
World U.S. N.Y. / Region Business Technology Science Health Sports Opinion Arts Style Travel Jobs Real Estate Automobiles Back to Top
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/23/books/chapters/0923-1st-chait.html?_r=2&ref=books&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
Discussion of "Cruise Missle Built in Garage from
'Parts Bought Off the Internet'"
Why 7am News Moved Offshore in 1997
http://www.circle4.com/allblack/7am.html
On the fringes of the public sphere
http://www.discourse.net/archives/sufficiently_advanced_technology/index.html
September 13, 2006
Lauren Weinstein Can't Believe His Eyes
Air Force chief: Test weapons on testy U.S. mobs,
Nonlethal weapons such as high-power microwave devices should be used on American citizens
in crowd-control situations before being used on the battlefield, the Air Force secretary
said Tuesday.
The object is basically public relations. Domestic use would make it easier to avoid questions
from others about possible safety considerations, said Secretary Michael Wynne.
Lauren Weinstein posted his reaction to Dave Farber's Interesting People mailing list,
I kept hoping that I was getting it wrong.
But no, it means what it says. Our own Secretary of the Air Force is concerned that new
"non-lethal" weapons systems might injure foreigners on the battlefield, with devastating
negative PR as a result. His suggested solution? Test the stuff on U.S. citizens first!
You know the type -- unruly crowds, protesters, perhaps folks trying to crash large Bush
rallies (are there still large Bush rallies?)
In any case, I suppose that the Air Force chief's theory is that it would be so difficult
for U.S. citizens to successfully sue the government if their brains, eyes, or gonads are
fried by the latest microwave weapon, that our own populations are a less risky target --
rather than tempting global condemnation if something goes wrong outside the country.
You know how distracting global condemnation can be.
I'm all for appropriate and complete empirical testing of novel systems that are being
pushed into deployment -- be they computers, non-lethal weapons, or the "alternative"
interrogation techniques that we're told render the Geneva Conventions obsolete.
But perhaps a rule when it comes to the latter two categories should be that those persons
who propose these so-called "safe" technologies and techniques should be willing to test
them on themselves first, before placing other citizens into the crosshairs.
As for the Secretary of the Air Force -- Rumsfeld must love this guy.
--Lauren--
Lauren Weinstein
I suspect that what the Secretary really meant was that by using the weapons here, we
could demonstrate how fundamentally harmless they really were.
At least, I hope that's what he meant. Of course, the trouble is that "high-power
microwave devices" and other Active Denial Systems have not been demonstrated to be
all that harmless, especially if used outside laboratory conditions.
He did mean that, didn't he?
Posted by Michael at 12:00 AM Link Comments (7)
Why New Zealand's 7am News is moving offshoreEditor of 7am News Bruce Simpson explains
why his site moved offshore: ... local (NZ) sites and the 7am.com server to handle the rest -
but unfortunately it ...
www.circle4.com/allblack/7am.html -
\\
bruce simpson DIY Cruise Missile Designer
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&newwindow=1&safe=off&q=bruce+simpson+++DIY+Cruise+Missile+Designer++&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi
7am.com
7am.com bruce simpson
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&newwindow=1&safe=off&q=7am.com+bruce+simpson&btnG=Search
http://www.interestingprojects.com/cruisemissile/bruceonsunday.wmv
http://www.interestingprojects.com/cruisemissile/bruceonsunday.wmv
John Wooding's Blog on Zen Business Concepts7AM.COM was and possibly still is one of
the most innovative publishing ideas of ... Later when I met 7AM's founder Bruce Simpson
over coffee at his home, ...
www.straker.com.au/blog/john/index.cfm?mode=day&day=15&month=6&year=2005
Slashdot DIY Cruise Missile Designer Turns Freelancejs7a writes "Bruce Simpson of
New Zealand, the designer of a homebrew cruise ...... repaying loans and other costs
I'd incurred while building up 7am.com. ...
slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/07/09/1253201&mode=nested&tid=137&tid=98&tid=99
The Danger Of The Low-Cost Cruise MissileCruise Missile Cruise missiles such as the
Raytheon Tomahawk have proven .... more sophisticated design still requiring little
more than $10000 worth of ...
aardvark.co.nz/pjet/cruise.shtml -
The Danger Of The Low-Cost Cruise MissileCruise Missile Cruise missiles such as
the Raytheon Tomahawk have proven .... more sophisticated design still requiring
little more than $10000 worth of ...
aardvark.co.nz/pjet/cruise.shtml -
http://aardvark.co.nz/pjet/
http://aardvark.co.nz/pjet/
http://aardvark.co.nz/pjet/
http://rocketjones.mu.nu/archives/008302.html
December 12, 2003
DIY Cruise Missile
I'm kind of surprised that this hasn't generated more buzz than it has. Surprised
and relieved, actually.
A New Zealand man who built a cruise missile in his garage claims
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/3302763.stm)the New Zealand government forced
him to shut down his project after coming under pressure from the United States.
Bruce Simpson says he built the missile using parts bought off the internet to show how easily
it could be done.
There was some concern from the hobby rocketry community that this would reflect badly on us,
especially because common sense isn’t particularly common right now within the Department of
Homeland Security or the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE).
So let’s set it straight right up front. A cruise missile isn’t a rocket, it’s not even really
a missile, it’s an unmanned airplane. It flies like an airplane using a jet engine, and the
onboard guidance system steers it to its target exactly like you steer an airplane. A cruise
missile is nothing more than a faster one-shot version of the Predator or Global Hawk unmanned
aerial vehicles (UAV) now in use. The primary purpose is attack, unlike UAV’s where the first
job is surveillance.
In WWII, Germany developed a ‘glide bomb’ that was forerunner to modern cruise missiles.
It lacked only its own propulsion, being dropped from a carrier aircraft at high altitude and
gliding to the target.
Bruce Simpson (the developer in question) has since posted to the Rec.Models.Rockets newsgroup
to discuss his work. He makes this claim:
You'll note that tthe project deliberately avoided any use of rocket engines -- even for the
launch process. This was done deliberately because I didn't want any fallout on the model rocket
community. I was fully aware that even if I'd used a sold rocket booster for launching, there
was a very real risk that the knee-jerk reaction of politicians would have been to simply ban
the sale and unlicensed production of all rocket engines.
Likewise, although I could have gone out and purchased three or four turbojet engines designed
for model airplane use, i deliberately avoided the same reasons.
I didn't want any fallout from this project to affect legitimate users of similar technology.
Googling his name as author on all newsgroups, I found that he’s also been actively debating
his project on UK.Current-Events.Terrorism, Alt.Religion.Islam, Rec.Crafts.Metalworking, NZ.
Politics, NZ.General, and Sci.Space.Tech, among others.
So what exactly did he build? There are more details here, some fairly troubling.
The government of New Zealand admitted that he broke no laws, and even told him that it was
ok to license his jet engine design to an Iranian aerospace company when he was approached
with an offer. In his words:
However, out of curiosity I contacted relevent arm of the NZ government to ask what would
be involved if someone wished to accept such a deal. I fully expected to be told that
technology exports to Iran were prohibited -- particularly since the USA has classified
that country as a sponsor of terrorism and has very strict bans on such technology transfers.
I was gobsmacked when the government came back to me and said there would be no problem
with selling jet engine technology to Iran. I even asked again -- empahsizing that this
technology had military application. They went away and came back with the same answer -
it doesn't matter if it does have military application.
Once I'd picked my jaw up off the floor, I immediately contacted the NZ Secret Service
(the SIS) and told them what had happened, handed over copies of the correspondence and
queried that surely the government had gotten it wrong.
To my surprise, they didn't say it would be illegal either -- but they did suggest that
such a transaction would not be recommended.
He goes on to say:
Even more incredible -- to this day, the advice given me in respect to such exports
has not been rescinded. As far as I know, I could still sell military technology to
Iran and not be in breach of the law.
It wasn’t until the United States publicly stated that his project was ‘unhelpful’
that the New Zealand government put the screws to Mr. Simpson. It appears that since
NZ had already stated that no laws had been broken, they needed to find some other way
to end his work. They then used the tried-and-true method of tax prosecution.
After reviewing his site and reading his various posts, I’ve come to the conclusion
that the man is what he claims to be, an ordinary guy with an extraordinary plan to
demonstrate the difficulties that we face trying to protect ourselves from modern
weapons in the hands of terrorists. Obviously not dumb, I think he may have surprised
some officials by actually succeeding where they saw no chance at all. ‘Too smart for
his own good’ is a phrase that comes to mind.
He leaves this website as the means of contacting him.
Posted by Ted at December 12, 2003 09:25 AM TrackBack
http://rocketjones.mu.nu/archives/008302.html
=========
http://www.interestingprojects.com./cruisemissile/
http://aardvark.co.nz/contact/
Contact Aardvark
I used to use imbedded mail addresses in my web pages to make it easy for
you to contact me however, an increasing number of junk-mailers are now
scanning this and other web-sites for the purpose of extracting such
addresses so as to create email lists for the sending of unsolicited commercial
email. For that reason I've had to move to this form-based contact system which
is less convenient for some users, for that I apologise.
(a)
While I do my best to answer all messages immediately, there are occasions when
it may take some time to respond, please be patient.
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&newwindow=1&safe=off&q=bruce+simpson+++DIY+Cruise+Missile+Designer++&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi
=========================================================================
http://www.midomi.com/index.php?action=main.artist&name=JohnHandy&from=artist_bio
http://www.midomi.com/index.php?action=main.artist&name=CharlesLloyd&from=artist_similar
http://www.jazztrumpetsolos.com/solos.htm
Charles Mingus 1922-1979
http://www.friendsreincarnated.com/images/mingus.jpg
http://www.friendsreincarnated.com/mno.htm
Charles Mingus 1922-1979
http://www.audaud.com/article.php?ArticleID=2391
Charles Mingus Presents Charles Mingus - Candid Records CJS 9005/ Pure Pleasure Records *****:
(Eric Dolphy, alto sax/bass clarinet; Ted Curson, trumpet; Dannie Richmond, drums; Charles Mingus, bass)
This 1960 session produced just as fine a Mingus statement as his better-known albums for Columbia and RCA.
It also provides an opportunity for those wary of Dolphy's usual cutting-edge free jazz to hear him in a
more traditional vein - at least on the first of the two sides. The first track turns into a New Orleans-
style funeral march, and the second - original Faubus Fables - may have a biting protest slant behind it,
but due to the Mingus and Richmond's outrageous vocals - similar to Dizzy's Salt Peanuts - one can only
smile broadly. The second side enters the free jazz area a bit more heavily, and talk about taking freedoms,
look at the title of the final track.
This is just one of the 180 gram vinyl reissues from Tony Hickmott of the UK's Pure Pleasure Records.
His pressings are excellent and moreover he's been digging up great jazz and pop from sources not mined
by others, such as Candid, Blue Horizon, Epic and Pacific Jazz.
TrackList: Folk Forms No. 1, Original Faubus Fables, What Love,
" All the Things You Could Be By Now If Siegmund Freud's Wife Was Your Mother."
http://www.audaud.com/article.php?ArticleID=2391
http://www.matuschka.net/
http://www.matuschka.net/matuschkaNEWSsplashPage.html
http://www.matuschka.net/AbstractGallerySplashPage.html
http://www.matuschka.net/PHILADELPHIAgalleryScroll.html
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.slippytown.com/gyatees3.jpg&imgrefurl=
http://www.slippytown.com/forsale5.htm&h=144&w=144&sz=12&hl=en&start=647&um=1&tbnid
=3Pm7-K1CyRcCVM:&tbnh=94&tbnw=94&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dcharles%2Bmingus%2BIII%26s
tart%3D630%26ndsp%3D18%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26newwindow%3D1%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DN
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://eventfeed.eventshop.com.au/items/3832/img_large.jpg&imgrefurl=
http://www.venuetix.com.au/FRINGEfestiv1.html&h=185&w=185&sz=27&hl=en&start=646&um
=1&tbnid=5pobIgvOlC9jWM:&tbnh=102&tbnw=102&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dcharles%2Bmingus%
2BIII%26start%3D630%26ndsp%3D18%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26newwindow%3D1%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DN
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://images.alibris.com/cover/c63381np576_t.jpg&imgr
efurl=http://www.alibris.co.uk/search/music/track/April%2520in%2520Paris%2520%255BDuke%2520Harburg%255D&h=74&w=75&sz=2&hl=en&start=637&um=1&tbnid=vSgtoj_m9q9YwM:&tbnh=70&tbnw=71&pre
v=/images%3Fq%3Dcharles%2Bmingus%2BIII%26start%3D630%26ndsp%3D18%26um%3D1%26hl%
3Den%26newwindow%3D1%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DN
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://images.alibris.com/cover/c63381np576_t.jpg&imgrefur
l=http://www.alibris.co.uk/search/music/track/April%2520in%2520Paris%2520%255BDuke%2520Harburg%255D&h=74&w=75&sz=2&hl=en&start=637&um=1&tbnid=vSgtoj_m9q9YwM:&tbnh=70&tbnw=71&pr
ev=/images%3Fq%3Dcharles%2Bmingus%2BIII%26start%3D630%26ndsp%3D18%26um%3D1%26
hl%3Den%26newwindow%3D1%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DN
http://mingus.charlesmingus3art.com/not-art-indexs-_131.html
http://www.interestingprojects.com/cruisemissile/objectives.shtml
http://www.interestingprojects.com/cruisemissile/objectives.shtml
http://www.interestingprojects.com/cruisemissile/objectives.shtml
http://images.google.com/images?q=charles+mingus+III&ndsp=18&um=1&hl=en&newwindow=1&safe=off&start=630&sa=N
http://www.interestingprojects.com/cruisemissile/objectives.shtml
http://web.archive.org/web/20030603211601/www.interestingprojects.com/cruisemissile/
http://www.interestingprojects.com/cruisemissile/objectives.shtml
http://www.avenuea.org/ev/tour/index.shtml
Our organization is dedicated to preserving our neighborhood's great history. Our staff is made up of
native and long-time East Villagers who are dedicated activists and historians. We are proud of our
neighborhood and eager to share it with you!
Native Americans, Dutch settlers, the "melting pot", immigration, tenement life, gangsters,
industrialization of the city, Yiddish Theater, Vaudeville, local architecture, labor movements,
protests, riots, anarchists, communists, jazz, poetry, the beat generation, abstract expressionists,
folk music, experimental and Off-Broadway theater, organized activism, punk rock, urban contemporary
art, squatting, Loisaida, community gardens, the changing landscape of the Lower East Side and SO MUCH
MORE http://www.avenuea.org/ev/tour/index.shtml
Folks Who Get It -Writer Alice Walker Breaks This Whole Obama Versus Hillary BS Down
I HAVE COME home from a long stay in Mexico to find – because of the presidential campaign, and
especially because of the Obama/Clinton race for the Democratic nomination - a new country existing
alongside the old. On any given day we, collectively, become the Goddess of the Three Directions and
can look back into the past, look at ourselves just where we are, and take a glance, as well, into
the future. It is a space with which I am familiar. When I was born in 1944 my parents lived on a
middle Georgia plantation that was owned by a white distant relative, Miss May Montgomery. (During my
childhood it was necessary to address all white girls as 'Miss' when they reached the age of twelve.)
She would never admit to this relationship, of course, except to mock it. Told by my parents that
several of their children would not eat chicken skin she responded that of course they would not.
No Montgomerys would.My parents and older siblings did everything imaginable for Miss May.
They planted and raised her cotton and corn, fed and killed and processed her cattle and hogs,
painted her house, patched her roof, ran her dairy, and, among countless other duties and
responsibilities my father was her chauffeur, taking her anywhere she wanted to go at any hour of
the day or night. She lived in a large white house with green shutters and a green, luxuriant
lawn: not quite as large as Tara of Gone With the Wind fame, but in the same style.We lived in a
shack without electricity or running water, under a rusty tin roof that let in wind and rain.
Miss May went to school as a girl. The school my parents and their neighbors built for us was
burned to the ground by local racists who wanted to keep ignorant their competitors in tenant farming.
During the Depression, desperate to feed his hardworking family, my father asked for a raise from
ten dollars a mo nth to twelve. Miss May responded that she would not pay that amount to a white man
and she certainly wouldn't pay it to a nigger. That before she'd pay a nigger that much money she'd
milk the dairy cows herself.When I look back, this is part of what I see. I see the school bus carrying
white children, boys and girls, right past me, and my brothers, as we trudge on foot five miles to school.
Later, I see my parents struggling to build a school out of discarded army barracks while white students,
girls and boys, enjoy a building made of brick. We had no books; we inherited the cast off books that
'Jane' and 'Dick' had previously used in the all-white school that we were not, as black children,
permitted to enter.The year I turned fifty, one of my relatives told me she had started reading my books
for children in the library in my home town. I had no idea – so kept from black people it had been –
that such a place existed. To this day knowing my presence was not wanted in the public library when
I was a child I am highly uncomfortable in libraries and will rarely, unless I am there to help build,
repair, refurbish or raise money to keep them open, enter their doors.When I joined the freedom movement
in Mississippi in my early twenties it was to come to the aid of sharecroppers, like my parents, who
had been thrown off the land they'd always known, the plantations, because they attempted to exercise
their 'democratic' right to vote. I wish I could say white women treated me and other black people a
lot better than the men did, but I cannot. It seemed to me then and it seems to me now that white women
have copied, all too often, the behavior of their fathers and their brothers, and in the South,
especially in Mississippi, and before that, when I worked to register voters in Georgia, the broken
bottles thrown at my head were gender free.I made my first white women friends in college; they were
women who loved me and were loyal to our friendship, but I understood, as they did, that they were white
women and that whiteness mattered. That, for instance, at Sarah Lawrence, where I was speedily inducted
into the Board of Trustees practically as soon as I graduated, I made my way to the campus for meetings
by train, subway and foot, while the other trustees, women and men, all white, made their way by limo.
Because, in our country, with its painful history of unspeakable inequality, this is part of what
whiteness means. I loved my school for trying to make me feel I mattered to it, but because of my
relative poverty I knew I could not.I am a supporter of Obama because I believe he is the right person
to lead the country at this time. He offers a rare opportunity for the country and the world to start over,
and to do better. It is a deep sadness to me that many of my feminist white women friends cannot see him.
Cannot see what he carries in his being. Cannot hear the fresh choices toward Movement he offers. That
they can believe that millions of Americans –black, white, yellow, red and brown - choose Obama over
Clinton only because he is a man, and black, feels tragic to me.When I have supported white people, men
and women, it was because I thought them the best possible people to do whatever the job required. Nothing
else would have occurred to me. If Obama were in any sense mediocre, he would be forgotten by now. He
is, in fact, a remarkable human being, not perfect but humanly stunning, like King was and like Mandela
is. We look at him, as we looked at them, and are glad to be of our species. He is the change America has
been trying desperately and for centuries to hide, ignore, kill. The change America must have if we are
to convince the rest of the world that we care about people other than our (white) selves.True to my
inner Goddess of the Three Directions however, this does not mean I agree with everything Obama stands
for. We differ on important points probably because I am older than he is, I am a woman and person of
three colors, (African, Native American, European), I was born and raised in the American South, and
when I look at the earth's people, after sixty-four years of life, there is not one person I wish to
see suffer, no matter what they have done to me or to anyone else; though I understand quite well the
place of suffering, often, in human growth.I want a grown-up attitude toward Cuba, for instance, a
country and a people I love; I want an end to the embargo that has harmed my friends and their children,
children who, when I visit Cuba, trustingly turn their faces up for me to kiss. I agree with a teacher
of mine, Howard Zinn, that war is as objectionable as cannibalism and slavery; it is beyond obsolete
as a means of improving life. I want an end to the on-going war immediately and I want the soldiers to
be encouraged to destroy their weapons and to drive themselves out of Iraq.I want the Israeli government
to be made accountable for its behavior towards the Palestinians, and I want the people of the United
States to cease acting like they don't understand what is going on. All colonization, all occupation,
all repression basically looks the same, whoever is doing it. Here our heads cannot remain stuck in
the sand; our future depends of our ability to study, to learn, to understand what is in the records
and what is before our eyes. But most of all I want someone with the self-confidence to talk to anyone,
'enemy' or 'friend,' and this Obama has shown he can do. It is difficult to understand how one could
vote for a person who is afraid to sit and talk to another human being. When you vote you are making
someone a proxy for yourself; they are to speak when, and in places, you cannot. But if they find
talking to someone else, who looks just like them, human, impossible, then what good is your vote?
It is hard to relate what it feels like to see Mrs. Clinton (I wish she felt self-assured enough to
use her own name) referred to as 'a woman' while Barack Obama is always referred to as 'a black man.'
One would think she is just any woman, colorless, race-less, past-less, but she is not. She carries
all the history of white womanhood in America in her person; it would be a miracle if we, and the world,
did not react to this fact. How dishonest it is, to attempt to make her innocent of her racial
inheritance. [The Root]
Life is Good! Ray
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/2007_09.html
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/2007_09.html
United Nations Reveals that Israel Has Been Lying
It took the UN long enough to realise that Israel does nothing but lie to cover up the crimes
they commit. They lie to the United States, they lie to the European Union, to the UN itself
and even to their 'self proclaimed partner in peace,' Kapo Abbas.... just how long did they
think they could get away with this?
And in this instance, it's only about increasing roadblocks, rather than removing them....
makes one wonder what else they might be lying about... But, read the following from HaAretz
regarding the roadblocks...
Israeli military attacks on the Gaza Strip will come "sooner or later", Israeli transport minister
says
Israeli transport minister, Shaul Mofaz announced on Friday that expected Israeli military attacks
on the Gaza Strip "will come sooner or later."
It appears as though the Israeli government has decided that once they have starved and dehydrated
the Gazans enough through the shutdown of water, food, and electricity, they'll be really easy to
massacre.
LINK FIXED - M. R.
Making a killing: how private armies became a $120bn global industry
In Nigeria, corporate commandos exchange fire with local rebels attacking an oil platform.
In Afghanistan, private bodyguards help to foil yet another assassination attempt on President
Hamid Karzai. In Colombia, a contracted pilot comes under fire from guerrillas while spraying
coca fields with pesticides. On the border between Iraq and Iran, privately owned Apache
helicopters deliver US special forces to a covert operation.
This is a snapshot of a working day in the burgeoning world of private military companies,
arguably the fastest-growing industry in the global economy. The sector is now worth up to
$120bn annually with operations in at least 50 countries, according to Peter Singer, a security
analyst with the Brookings Institution in Washington.
Arrested For Reading the Constitution
Arrested For Reading the Constitution...
Reading the Constitution? That makes you a TERROR SUSPECT! - M. R.
Mr. Bush's Next World Order
Even the most cursory look at the paper trail of the infamous neoconservative think tank Project for
the New American Century clearly reveals that the Iraq invasion's purpose was to establish a military
base of operations in the center of the Middle East from which America could control the region's oil
flow--and ultimately the global energy industry--for virtual perpetuity. That things didn't quite go
as planned gave our old Cold War nemeses, Russia and China, the table stake they needed get back in
the power politics game. By now, Russia and China have taken on junior partners like Iran and Venezuela
to form an ad hoc "axis of energy," one that can present serious competition to the U.S. for the role
of world power broker. And make no mistake--the coin of political power in the post-modern world is
the kind of power that lights and heats homes and runs industry and moves things from place to place.
US resumes Blackwater convoys in Iraq
American convoys under the protection of Blackwater USA resumed on Friday, four days after the U.S.
Embassy suspended all land travel by its diplomats and other civilian officials in response to the
alleged killing of civilians by the security firm.
U.S. says Blackwater still under contract in Iraq
Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said on Wednesday that the embassy could use another security
firm for protection and vowed not to allow Iraqis to be killed again in 'cold blood'.
Al-Maliki, the US puppet, is absolutely helpless in requesting that Blackwater be replaced.
The heads of Blackwater, and the people in the US government who awarded this contract, are just
too cozy to let a little thing like the massacre of innocent people get in the way of all that money.
- M. R.
Israel on high alert
Israel shut off the Palestinian territories for the holy Jewish day of atonement and went on alert
for possible attack, 34 years after Syria and Egypt launched a surprise assault that sparked war.
The New Military Frontier: Africa
Amid the commemorations, tributes, and critiques that cluster around the September 11 anniversary,
we should not lose sight of how the war on terrorism is militarizing Africa. With under-tapped oil
reserves, vast stretches of ungoverned space, impoverished populations and pandemics of AIDS/HIV
and other diseases, Africa is now on Washington's radar screen. The National Security Strategy for
the United States, 2006 says: "Africa holds growing geostrategic importance and is a high priority
of this administration." But the most significant way that high priority status is being expressed
is through commitments of military aid, training, troops and equipment.
Translation: they've got oil. - M. R.
Greenspan Admits Fed Is Not Beholden To Any Government Agency
Greenspan Admits Fed Is Not Beholden To Any Government Agency...
Army weighs 'complete' Gaza pullout
A day after the cabinet defined the Gaza Strip as "hostile territory," The Jerusalem Post learned
Thursday that the IDF is working on a proposal that calls for a "complete disengagement" from the
Gaza Strip - involving the closure of all border crossings with Israel and the transfer of all
responsibility over the Palestinian territory to Egypt.
I am sure Egypt is eager to take over care of Gaza now that Israel has pounded the place into dust
and totally impoverished its people.
This is a typical Israeli behavior, to create a huge mess and then dump it on someone else to
clean up. - M. R.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/2007_09.html
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/2007_09.html
http://www.harlemlovesart.net/
Anne de Chabaneix artiste — peintre
39 Quai de Bosc
34200 Sète, France
Tel: 06 - 8222- 3693
adc@harlemlovesart.net
Alfie Wade, Jr.
Odyssey 21st Century Communications
39 Quai de Bosc
34200 Sète, France
Tel: 33-(0)-4-6753-7993
alfiewade@email.com
info@harlemlovesart.net
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://earth.uni-muenster.de/~eicksch/GMT-Help/msg02144.html
Untitled Document http://earth.uni-muenster.de/
not it
http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendID=165750
http://www.oddmusic.com/gallery/om19600.html
http://www.oddmusic.com/gallery/om19600.html
http://blog.beliefnet.com/flowermandalas/?source=GOOGLE&campaign=038&medium=CPC&nopop=
1&WT.mc_id=GFMB038&WT.srch=1&gclid=CPH18NzKzJICFQkvgwoduSocbQ
Art & the Art of Managing Pain: Billy Bob
http://www.oddmusic.com/gallery/
http://avenuea.org/ev/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=148&Itemid=33
Follow the fifteen billion year long chain of events from the birth of the universe at the big bang
http://images.google.com/images?q=Follow+the+fifteen+billion+year+long+chain+of+events+from+
the+birth+of+the+universe+at+the+big+bang&hl=en&newwindow=1&safe=off&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi
|
