Friday, November 28, 2014
Elvis Presley - Heartbreak Hotel
When this first came out -- it was revolutionary. Not doo-wop, not R&B, not even the usual rock and roll, or the Blues -- it was a new sound from Elvis. I will always love these early songs, even after he became a parody of himself.
Tuesday, November 25, 2014
Islamic State militants stone two 'gay men' to death in Syria
More from "The Religion of Peace" -- the same one that has been attacking Israel since 1948, the same one that wants "peace" --- but, refuses to accept Israel as a nation. Ths "Religion of Peace" preaches death to Jews -- all Jews. Kills gay folks, folks who refuse to convert, and truly HATES women. ALL women.
Follow link to original.
-------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/islamic-state-militants-stone-two-gay-men-to-death-in-syria/ar-BBfO9zE?ocid=LENDHP
The Islamic State group stoned two men to death in Syria Tuesday after claiming they were gay, a monitor said, in the jihadist organisation's first executions for alleged homosexuality.
"The IS today stoned to death a man that it said was gay," the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said, adding that the victim was around 20 years old.
He was killed in Mayadeen in the eastern province of Deir Ezzor, near the border with Iraq.
The Britain-based Observatory said IS claimed it found videos on his mobile phone showing him "practising indecent acts with males".
In a separate incident on Tuesday, an 18-year-old was also stoned to death in Deir Ezzor city after the group said he was gay, the Observatory said.
Activists on social media said that the dead men were opponents of IS and that the group had used the allegation as a pretext to kill them.
The United Nations said this month the IS had carried out several executions by stoning of women in Syria it accused of adultery.
The jihadists proclaimed a "caliphate" in June after seizing swathes of Iraq and Syria.
Activists say IS carries out regular public executions -- often beheadings -- in areas it controls.
----------------------------------------------------------------
It really does not matter if those stoned were actually "gay" -- that it can be used as a "legitimate" excuse is the horrible thing. All "progressives" wholove Islam and oppose Jews are nothing more than traditional anti-Semites.
Follow link to original.
-------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/islamic-state-militants-stone-two-gay-men-to-death-in-syria/ar-BBfO9zE?ocid=LENDHP
The Islamic State group stoned two men to death in Syria Tuesday after claiming they were gay, a monitor said, in the jihadist organisation's first executions for alleged homosexuality.
"The IS today stoned to death a man that it said was gay," the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said, adding that the victim was around 20 years old.
He was killed in Mayadeen in the eastern province of Deir Ezzor, near the border with Iraq.
The Britain-based Observatory said IS claimed it found videos on his mobile phone showing him "practising indecent acts with males".
In a separate incident on Tuesday, an 18-year-old was also stoned to death in Deir Ezzor city after the group said he was gay, the Observatory said.
Activists on social media said that the dead men were opponents of IS and that the group had used the allegation as a pretext to kill them.
The United Nations said this month the IS had carried out several executions by stoning of women in Syria it accused of adultery.
The jihadists proclaimed a "caliphate" in June after seizing swathes of Iraq and Syria.
Activists say IS carries out regular public executions -- often beheadings -- in areas it controls.
----------------------------------------------------------------
It really does not matter if those stoned were actually "gay" -- that it can be used as a "legitimate" excuse is the horrible thing. All "progressives" wholove Islam and oppose Jews are nothing more than traditional anti-Semites.
Friday, November 21, 2014
LEE MORGAN, Midtown Blues (McLean)
Lee Morgan (trumpet); Jackie McClean (alto saxophone); Bobby Timmons (piano); Paul Chambers (bass); Art Blakey (drums).
Thursday, November 20, 2014
Gabor Szabo - Gypsy Queen
Gabor Szabo - Guitar
Ron Carter - Bass
Chico Hamilton - Drums
Victor Pantoja, Willie Bobo - Percussion
Lee Ritenour - 2005 - Overtime - 08 - Papa Was a Rolling Stone
Chris Botti - Trumpet
Kenya Hathaway - Vocals
Grady Harrell - Vocals
Oscar Seaton - Drums
Melvin Davis - Electric Bass
Barnaby Finch - Keyboards
Lee Ritenour - Electric Guitar
Wednesday, November 19, 2014
Tuesday, November 18, 2014
And Now the Richest .01 Percent
The latest from Robert Reich. Please follow link to original.
------------------------------------------------
http://robertreich.org/
------------------------------------------------
http://robertreich.org/
The richest Americans hold more of the nation’s
wealth than they have in almost a century. What do they spend it on? As
you might expect, personal jets, giant yachts, works of art, and luxury
penthouses.
And also on politics. In fact, their political spending has been growing faster than their spending on anything else. It’s been growing even faster than their wealth.
According to new research by Emmanuel Saez of the University of California at Berkeley and Gabriel Zucman of the London School of Economics, the richest one-hundredth of one percent of Americans now hold over 11 percent of the nation’s total wealth. That’s a higher share than the top .01 percent held in 1929, before the Great Crash.
We’re talking about 16,000 people, each worth at least $110 million.
One way to get your mind around this is to compare their wealth to that of the average family. In 1978, the typical wealth holder in the top .01 percent was 220 times richer than the average American. By 2012, he or she was 1,120 times richer.
It’s hard to spend this kind of money.
The uber rich are lining up for the new Aerion AS2 private jet, priced at $100 million, that seats eleven and includes a deluxe dining room and shower facilities, and will be able to cross the Atlantic in just four hours.
And for duplexes high in the air. The one atop Manhattan’s newest “needle” tower, the 90-story One57, just went for $90 million.
Why should we care?
Because this explosion of wealth at the top has been accompanied by an erosion of the wealth of the middle class and the poor. In the mid-1980s, the bottom 90 percent of Americans together held 36 percent of the nation’s wealth. Now, they hold less than 23 percent.
Despite larger pensions and homes, the debts of the bottom 90 percent – mortgage, consumer credit, and student loan – have grown even faster.
Some might think the bottom 90 percent should pull in their belts and stop living beyond their means. After all, capitalism is a tough sport. If those at the top are winning big while the bottom 90 percent is losing, too bad. That’s the way the game is played.
But the top .01 percent have also been investing their money in politics. And these investments have been changing the game.
In the 2012 election cycle (the last for which we have good data) donations from the top .01 accounted for over 40 percent of all campaign contributions, according to a study by Professors Adam Bonica, Nolan McCarty, Keith Poole, and Howard Rosenthal.
This is a huge increase from 1980, when the top .01 accounted for ten percent of total campaign contributions.
In 2012, as you may recall, two largest donors were Sheldon and Miriam Adelson, who gave $56.8 million and $46.6 million, respectively.
But the Adelsons were only the tip of an iceberg of contributions from the uber wealthy. Of the other members of the Forbes list of 400 richest Americans, fully 388 made political contributions. They accounted for forty of the 155 contributions of $1 million or more.
Of the 4,493 board members and CEOs of Fortune 500 corporations, more than four out of five contributed (many of the non-contributors were foreign nationals who were prohibited from giving).
All this money has flowed to Democrats as well as Republicans.
In fact, Democrats have increasingly relied on it. In the 2012 election cycle, the top .01 percent’s donations to Democrats were more than four times larger than all labor union donations to Democrats put together.
The richest .01 percent haven’t been donating out of the goodness of their hearts. They’ve donated out of goodness to their wallets.
Their political investments have paid off in the form of lower taxes on themselves and their businesses, subsidies for their corporations, government bailouts, federal prosecutions that end in settlements where companies don’t affirm or deny the facts and where executives don’t go to jail, watered-down regulations, and non-enforcement of antitrust laws.
Since the top .01 began investing big time in politics, corporate profits and the stock market have risen to record levels. That’s enlarged the wealth of the richest .01 percent by an average of 7.8 percent a year since the mid-1980s.
But the bottom 90 percent don’t own many shares of stock. They rely on wages, which have been trending downward. And for some reason, politicians don’t seem particularly intent on reversing this trend.
If you want to know what’s happened to the American economy, follow the money. That will lead you to the richest .01 percent.
And if you want to know what’s happened to our democracy, follow the richest .01 percent. They’ll lead you to the politicians who have been selling our democracy.
And also on politics. In fact, their political spending has been growing faster than their spending on anything else. It’s been growing even faster than their wealth.
According to new research by Emmanuel Saez of the University of California at Berkeley and Gabriel Zucman of the London School of Economics, the richest one-hundredth of one percent of Americans now hold over 11 percent of the nation’s total wealth. That’s a higher share than the top .01 percent held in 1929, before the Great Crash.
We’re talking about 16,000 people, each worth at least $110 million.
One way to get your mind around this is to compare their wealth to that of the average family. In 1978, the typical wealth holder in the top .01 percent was 220 times richer than the average American. By 2012, he or she was 1,120 times richer.
It’s hard to spend this kind of money.
The uber rich are lining up for the new Aerion AS2 private jet, priced at $100 million, that seats eleven and includes a deluxe dining room and shower facilities, and will be able to cross the Atlantic in just four hours.
And for duplexes high in the air. The one atop Manhattan’s newest “needle” tower, the 90-story One57, just went for $90 million.
Why should we care?
Because this explosion of wealth at the top has been accompanied by an erosion of the wealth of the middle class and the poor. In the mid-1980s, the bottom 90 percent of Americans together held 36 percent of the nation’s wealth. Now, they hold less than 23 percent.
Despite larger pensions and homes, the debts of the bottom 90 percent – mortgage, consumer credit, and student loan – have grown even faster.
Some might think the bottom 90 percent should pull in their belts and stop living beyond their means. After all, capitalism is a tough sport. If those at the top are winning big while the bottom 90 percent is losing, too bad. That’s the way the game is played.
But the top .01 percent have also been investing their money in politics. And these investments have been changing the game.
In the 2012 election cycle (the last for which we have good data) donations from the top .01 accounted for over 40 percent of all campaign contributions, according to a study by Professors Adam Bonica, Nolan McCarty, Keith Poole, and Howard Rosenthal.
This is a huge increase from 1980, when the top .01 accounted for ten percent of total campaign contributions.
In 2012, as you may recall, two largest donors were Sheldon and Miriam Adelson, who gave $56.8 million and $46.6 million, respectively.
But the Adelsons were only the tip of an iceberg of contributions from the uber wealthy. Of the other members of the Forbes list of 400 richest Americans, fully 388 made political contributions. They accounted for forty of the 155 contributions of $1 million or more.
Of the 4,493 board members and CEOs of Fortune 500 corporations, more than four out of five contributed (many of the non-contributors were foreign nationals who were prohibited from giving).
All this money has flowed to Democrats as well as Republicans.
In fact, Democrats have increasingly relied on it. In the 2012 election cycle, the top .01 percent’s donations to Democrats were more than four times larger than all labor union donations to Democrats put together.
The richest .01 percent haven’t been donating out of the goodness of their hearts. They’ve donated out of goodness to their wallets.
Their political investments have paid off in the form of lower taxes on themselves and their businesses, subsidies for their corporations, government bailouts, federal prosecutions that end in settlements where companies don’t affirm or deny the facts and where executives don’t go to jail, watered-down regulations, and non-enforcement of antitrust laws.
Since the top .01 began investing big time in politics, corporate profits and the stock market have risen to record levels. That’s enlarged the wealth of the richest .01 percent by an average of 7.8 percent a year since the mid-1980s.
But the bottom 90 percent don’t own many shares of stock. They rely on wages, which have been trending downward. And for some reason, politicians don’t seem particularly intent on reversing this trend.
If you want to know what’s happened to the American economy, follow the money. That will lead you to the richest .01 percent.
And if you want to know what’s happened to our democracy, follow the richest .01 percent. They’ll lead you to the politicians who have been selling our democracy.
Monday, November 17, 2014
When Government Succeeds
The latest column from Dr. Krugman: (follow link to original)
------------------------------------------------------
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/17/opinion/paul-krugman-when-government-succeeds.html
------------------------------------------------------
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/17/opinion/paul-krugman-when-government-succeeds.html
The
great American Ebola freakout of 2014 seems to be over. The disease is
still ravaging Africa, and as with any epidemic, there’s always a risk
of a renewed outbreak. But there haven’t been any new U.S. cases for a
while, and popular anxiety is fading fast.
Before we move on, however, let’s try to learn something from the panic.
When the freakout was at its peak, Ebola wasn’t just a disease — it was a political metaphor. It was, specifically, held up by America’s right wing
as a symbol of government failure. The usual suspects claimed that the
Obama administration was falling down on the job, but more than that,
they insisted that conventional policy was incapable of dealing with the
situation. Leading Republicans suggested ignoring everything we know
about disease control and resorting to extreme measures like travel
bans, while mocking claims that health officials knew what they were
doing.
Guess
what: Those officials actually did know what they were doing. The real
lesson of the Ebola story is that sometimes public policy is succeeding
even while partisans are screaming about failure. And it’s not the only
recent story along those lines.
Here’s
another: Remember Solyndra? It was a renewable-energy firm that
borrowed money using Department of Energy guarantees, then went bust,
costing the Treasury $528 million. And conservatives have pounded on
that loss relentlessly, turning it into a symbol of what they claim is
rampant crony capitalism and a huge waste of taxpayer money.
Defenders
of the energy program tried in vain to point out that anyone who makes a
lot of investments, whether it’s the government or a private venture
capitalist, is going to see some of those investments go bad. For
example, Warren Buffett is an investing legend, with good reason — but
even he has had his share of lemons, like the $873 million loss
he announced earlier this year on his investment in a Texas energy
company. Yes, that’s half again as big as the federal loss on Solyndra.
The
question is not whether the Department of Energy has made some bad
loans — if it hasn’t, it’s not taking enough risks. It’s whether it has a
pattern of bad loans. And the answer, it turns out, is no. Last week
the department revealed that the program that included Solyndra is, in
fact, on track to return profits of $5 billion or more.
Then there’s health reform. As usual, much of the national dialogue over the Affordable Care Act is being dominated by fake scandals
drummed up by the enemies of reform. But if you look at the actual
results so far, they’re remarkably good. The number of Americans without
health insurance has dropped sharply, with around 10 million of the previously uninsured now covered; the program’s costs remain below expectations, with average premium rises for next year well below historical rates of increase; and a new Gallup survey
finds that the newly insured are very satisfied with their coverage. By
any normal standards, this is a dramatic example of policy success,
verging on policy triumph.
One
last item: Remember all the mockery of Obama administration assertions
that budget deficits, which soared during the financial crisis, would
come down as the economy recovered? Surely the exploding costs of
Obamacare, combined with a stimulus program that would become a
perpetual boondoggle, would lead to vast amounts of red ink, right?
Well, no — the deficit has indeed come down rapidly, and as a share of G.D.P. it’s back down to pre-crisis levels.
The
moral of these stories is not that the government is always right and
always succeeds. Of course there are bad decisions and bad programs. But
modern American political discourse is dominated by cheap cynicism
about public policy, a free-floating contempt for any and all efforts to
improve our lives. And this cheap cynicism is completely unjustified.
It’s true that government-hating politicians can sometimes turn their
predictions of failure into self-fulfilling prophecies, but when leaders
want to make government work, they can.
And
let’s be clear: The government policies we’re talking about here are
hugely important. We need serious public health policy, not
fear-mongering, to contain infectious disease. We need government action
to promote renewable energy and fight climate change. Government
programs are the only realistic answer for tens of millions of Americans
who would otherwise be denied essential health care.
Conservatives
want you to believe that while the goals of public programs on health,
energy and more may be laudable, experience shows that such programs are
doomed to failure. Don’t believe them. Yes, sometimes government
officials, being human, get things wrong. But we’re actually surrounded
by examples of government success, which they don’t want you to notice.
Thursday, November 13, 2014
Audacious Oligarchy
This from "Jesse's Cafe Americain" - follow link to original.
------------------------------------
http://jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com/2014/11/gold-daily-and-silver-weekly-charts_10.html
------------------------------------
http://jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com/2014/11/gold-daily-and-silver-weekly-charts_10.html
"The problem of the last three decades is not the 'vicissitudes of the marketplace,' but rather deliberate actions by the government to redistribute income from the rest of us to the one percent. This pattern of government action shows up in all areas of government policy."Dean Baker"Most of them became wealthy by being well connected and crooked. And they are creating a society in which they can commit hugely damaging economic crimes with impunity, and in which only children of the wealthy have the opportunity to become successful. That’s what I have a problem with. And I think most people agree with me."Charles Ferguson, Predator Nation"No lie can live forever."Thomas Carlyle
There is a currency war ongoing. It's objective is the subjugation of
whole peoples, including the domestic public. In a very real sense it
is nationless.
There is an 'audacious oligarchy' of self-defined rulers who move freely
between private industry and government, whose primary objective is
preserving and furthering their own power and self-interest.
Sheldon Wolin called this 'inverted totalitarianism.' Economist Robert
Johnson has called it an 'audacious oligarchy.' And so have many other
responsible economists from Simon Johnson to Jeffrey Sachs.
I do not think that warnings or lessons from history will be sufficient
to provoke change. Hubris makes people deaf and blind to consequences.
They will not learn, nor be informed by anything outside their own
small circles.
This implies that there will be another financial crisis, a 'hard stop'
in the Western markets. How and when that will occur I do not yet
know.
Have a pleasant evening.
BILL MOYERS: And you say that these this oligarchy consists of six megabanks. What are the six banks?JAMES KWAK: They are Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo.BILL MOYERS: And you write that they control 60 percent of our gross national product?JAMES KWAK: They have assets equivalent to 60 percent of our gross national product. And to put this in perspective, in the mid-1990s, these six banks or their predecessors, since there have been a lot of mergers, had less than 20 percent. Their assets were less than 20 percent of the gross national product.BILL MOYERS: And what's the threat from an oligarchy of this size and scale?SIMON JOHNSON: They can distort the system, Bill. They can change the rules of the game to favor themselves. And unfortunately, the way it works in modern finance is when the rules favor you, you go out and you take a lot of risk. And you blow up from time to time, because it's not your problem. When it blows up, it's the taxpayer and it's the government that has to sort it out.BILL MOYERS: So, you're not kidding when you say it's an oligarchy?JAMES KWAK: Exactly. I think that in particular, we can see how the oligarchy has actually become more powerful in the last since the financial crisis. If we look at the way they've behaved in Washington. For example, they've been spending more than $1 million per day lobbying Congress and fighting financial reform. I think that's for some time, the financial sector got its way in Washington through the power of ideology, through the power of persuasion. And in the last year and a half, we've seen the gloves come off. They are fighting as hard as they can to stop reform.
The Financial Oligarcy in the US - Bill Moyer's Journal
Art Pepper－You'd Be So Nice to Come Home To
Art Pepper (alto saxophone) , with Red Garland (piano) Paul Chambers (bass) and Philly Joe Jones(drums)
Tuesday, November 11, 2014
Monday, November 10, 2014
Baffled Canadian Writes To U.S. Voters After Midterm: ‘You Don’t Know How Good You Have It With Obama’
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/11/09/baffled-canadian-writes-to-u-s-voters-after-midterm-you-dont-know-how-good-you-have-it-with-obama/
As an American, I’ve found myself dizzied by the hypocrisy of the midterm election: a majority of people reported that the economy was their number one concern, and yet they overwhelmingly voted against the president who has been bringing the economy back on track and instead gave the reins back to a political party which was almost entirely responsible for derailing it in the first place. So if I was confused, imagine how it must look to the outside observer. Americans must look nuts.
To get a sense of just how baffled the rest of the world is at how Americans voted this year, we find a Letter to the Editor of a Detroit newspaper, written by a Canadian who just doesn’t get it. First noticed by Rick Strandlof who tweeted a picture of it, the piece, published by the Detroit Free Press, is devastating. Titled “You Americans have no idea just how good you have it with Obama,” the author, Victoria, British Columbia resident Richard Brunt, goes on to list an impressive array of accomplishments under Obama – none of which the American voter seemed the least bit interested in.
The letter reads:
Many of us Canadians are confused by the U.S. midterm elections. Consider, right now in America, corporate profits are at record highs, the country’s adding 200,000 jobs per month, unemployment is below 6%, U.S. gross national product growth is the best of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries. The dollar is at its strongest levels in years, the stock market is near record highs, gasoline prices are falling, there’s no inflation, interest rates are the lowest in 30 years, U.S. oil imports are declining, U.S. oil production is rapidly increasing, the deficit is rapidly declining, and the wealthy are still making astonishing amounts of money.
America is leading the world once again and respected internationally — in sharp contrast to the Bush years. Obama brought soldiers home from Iraq and killed Osama bin Laden.
So, Americans vote for the party that got you into the mess that Obama just dug you out of? This defies reason.
When you are done with Obama, could you send him our way?
The letter is on point in a number of ways, but for my money the most salient point is when it mentions the repaired image Obama has given to the United States after Bush killed the country’s credibility over the last decade. It may not be expressed often from within the right-wing echo chamber that dominates the American news media, but Obama is viewed very favorably on the international stage and his presidency has been a soothing touch to a very bad reputation. In one of Dick Cheney’s monthly “criticize the president” national tours, he remarked that he thought America’s image around the world was “increasingly negative.” The Atlantic decided to fact check that idea and found… well… you’ll see:
As an American, I’ve found myself dizzied by the hypocrisy of the midterm election: a majority of people reported that the economy was their number one concern, and yet they overwhelmingly voted against the president who has been bringing the economy back on track and instead gave the reins back to a political party which was almost entirely responsible for derailing it in the first place. So if I was confused, imagine how it must look to the outside observer. Americans must look nuts.
To get a sense of just how baffled the rest of the world is at how Americans voted this year, we find a Letter to the Editor of a Detroit newspaper, written by a Canadian who just doesn’t get it. First noticed by Rick Strandlof who tweeted a picture of it, the piece, published by the Detroit Free Press, is devastating. Titled “You Americans have no idea just how good you have it with Obama,” the author, Victoria, British Columbia resident Richard Brunt, goes on to list an impressive array of accomplishments under Obama – none of which the American voter seemed the least bit interested in.
The letter reads:
Many of us Canadians are confused by the U.S. midterm elections. Consider, right now in America, corporate profits are at record highs, the country’s adding 200,000 jobs per month, unemployment is below 6%, U.S. gross national product growth is the best of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries. The dollar is at its strongest levels in years, the stock market is near record highs, gasoline prices are falling, there’s no inflation, interest rates are the lowest in 30 years, U.S. oil imports are declining, U.S. oil production is rapidly increasing, the deficit is rapidly declining, and the wealthy are still making astonishing amounts of money.
America is leading the world once again and respected internationally — in sharp contrast to the Bush years. Obama brought soldiers home from Iraq and killed Osama bin Laden.
So, Americans vote for the party that got you into the mess that Obama just dug you out of? This defies reason.
When you are done with Obama, could you send him our way?
The letter is on point in a number of ways, but for my money the most salient point is when it mentions the repaired image Obama has given to the United States after Bush killed the country’s credibility over the last decade. It may not be expressed often from within the right-wing echo chamber that dominates the American news media, but Obama is viewed very favorably on the international stage and his presidency has been a soothing touch to a very bad reputation. In one of Dick Cheney’s monthly “criticize the president” national tours, he remarked that he thought America’s image around the world was “increasingly negative.” The Atlantic decided to fact check that idea and found… well… you’ll see:
For more than a decade, the Pew Research Center has been asking people around the world about their opinion of the United States. The upshot: In every region of the globe except the Middle East (where the United States was wildly unpopular under George W. Bush and remains so), America’s favorability is way up since Obama took office. In Spain, approval of the United States is 29 percentage points higher than when Bush left office. In Italy, it’s up 23 points. In Germany and France, it’s 22. With the exception of China, where the numbers have remained flat, the trend is the same in Asia. The U.S. is 19 points more popular in Japan, 24 points more popular in Indonesia, and 28 points more popular in Malaysia.So given that popularity (especially compared to Republicans, which the world still equates with George W. Bush), it’s easy to see why other countries scratch their heads when America makes bashing Obama the major platform of the Republican Party and Democrats are seen actively trying to avoid him so as to not taint their campaigns. Richard Brunt clearly thinks that we are nuts. And, frankly, it’s hard to disagree with him.
Thursday, November 6, 2014
A visit to "Some Assembly Required"
Time for a visit to "Some Assembly Required" -- follow link, etc., etc., etc.
-----------------------------------------------------
http://ckm3.blogspot.com/
Scrap Goats: The Democrats have suffered “another electoral drubbing at the hands of the most cartoonishly evil, corrupt, inept gang of thugs politics has served up since” the last time the same bunch beat them about the head and shoulders. And they are shocked, shocked that the electorate – which is overwhelmingly liberal on most issues – rejected them, just because they no longer remember what they stand for. The reasons the Democrats were crushed and the lessons they'll draw from their defeats are not the same things. They're not even distantly related. “It's a basic truth in life that when everybody you meet is an asshole, it's time to look in the mirror.” The people need a party.
Good Neighbor Policy: The Canadian Mounties are planning a $92 million 700 kilometer fence along the US/Canadian border. To keep out the undesirables. They claim it has nothing to do with the outcome of the our elections.
Tidbit: Did you know that annulments in the Catholic church are sold? For thousands of dollars? The Pope, anti-capitalist Jesus lover that he is, wants to offer no-cost (and sin free?) annulments.
The Price of Oil: Europe’s bond yields are the lowest they've been since the15th century because of deflation in the EU. The EU itself has cut its Eurozone GDP forecast and Goldman Sacs flat calls it a recession. And the price of oil collapses due to overproduction...
------------------------------------------
There's a lot more -- go there.
-----------------------------------------------------
http://ckm3.blogspot.com/
Scrap Goats: The Democrats have suffered “another electoral drubbing at the hands of the most cartoonishly evil, corrupt, inept gang of thugs politics has served up since” the last time the same bunch beat them about the head and shoulders. And they are shocked, shocked that the electorate – which is overwhelmingly liberal on most issues – rejected them, just because they no longer remember what they stand for. The reasons the Democrats were crushed and the lessons they'll draw from their defeats are not the same things. They're not even distantly related. “It's a basic truth in life that when everybody you meet is an asshole, it's time to look in the mirror.” The people need a party.
Good Neighbor Policy: The Canadian Mounties are planning a $92 million 700 kilometer fence along the US/Canadian border. To keep out the undesirables. They claim it has nothing to do with the outcome of the our elections.
Tidbit: Did you know that annulments in the Catholic church are sold? For thousands of dollars? The Pope, anti-capitalist Jesus lover that he is, wants to offer no-cost (and sin free?) annulments.
The Price of Oil: Europe’s bond yields are the lowest they've been since the15th century because of deflation in the EU. The EU itself has cut its Eurozone GDP forecast and Goldman Sacs flat calls it a recession. And the price of oil collapses due to overproduction...
------------------------------------------
There's a lot more -- go there.
let's watch
The election is over. I suspect the Fox News Ebola Threat is also over. Now, it's time for the Republicans to GOVERN. I think it will be fun to watch --- don't you?
Wednesday, November 5, 2014
Alone Together - Australian Jazz Quintet
The Australian Jazz Quartet was
modeled on the Modern Jazz Quartet. The quartet featured Bryce Rohde
(pianist), Dick Healy (saxphonist/flautist/bassist), Errol Buddle
(bassoonist/saxophonist), and Jack Brokensha (vibraphonist).
Red Mitchell Quintet - Ornithology
Personnel: Conte Candoli (trumpet), Joe Maini (alto sax), Hampton Hawes (piano), Red Mitchell (bass), Chuck Thompson (drums)
Conte Candoli Quartet - On the Alamo
Personnel: Conte Candoli (trumpet), Claude Williamson (piano), Max Bennett (bass), Stan Levey (drums)
Howard McGhee Septet - Dusty Blue
Personnel: Howard McGhee (trumpet), Bennie Green (trombone), Roland Alexander (tenor sax, flute), Pepper Adams (baritone sax), Tommy Flanagan (piano), Ron Carter (bass), Walter Bolden (drums)
Tuesday, November 4, 2014
Sam Harris: It’s not about politics — ‘Islam was spread by the sword for 1,000 years’
This from "Raw Story" -- follow link to original. It's about time someone spoke the obvious truth, something every student of history knows.
-------------------------------------------------------
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/11/sam-harris-its-not-about-politics-islam-was-spread-by-the-sword-for-1000-years/
On Sunday, Fareed Zakaria spoke to Sam Harris, the CEO of Project Reason, about recent claims of his concerning Islam.
“On Bill Maher’s HBO show,” Zakaria began, Harris said that “‘Islam at the moment is the mother lode of bad ideas.’ He went on to say that more than 20 percent of Muslims are either jihadists or Islamists who want to foist their religion on the rest of humanity,” which amounts to approximately 300 million people.
What struck Zakaria about that number is that Harris “sort of pulled [it] out of a hat.”
“So there were 10,000 terrorist events last year,” Zakaria said. “Let’s assume that 100 people — let’s assume all of those were Muslim. Let’s assume each event was planned by 100 people…That comes to about a million people who are jihadists. So that still leaves us with 299 million missing Muslim terrorists.”
“Right,” Harris replied, ” there are a few distinctions, I think, we have to make. One is there’s a difference between a jihadist and an Islamist. And there I was talking about Islamists and jihadists together. And so Islamists are people who want to foist their interpretation of Islam on the rest of society and sometimes they have a revolutionary bent, sometimes they have more of a normal political bent.”
“But the fact that somebody may believe that, for example, Sharia should obtain and women’s testimony should be worth half a man’s in court,” Zakaria responded, “doesn’t mean that they want to kill people. Being conservative and religious…is different from wanting to kill people.”
“I believe,” Harris said, “nudging that up to something around 20 percent is still a conservative estimate of the percentage of Muslims worldwide who have values relating to human rights and free speech that are really in zero sum contest with our own. And I just think we have to speak honestly about that.”
Zakaria noted that Islam was once a vanguard of modernity, preserving the works of Aristotle and making advancements in mathematics and science. “In other words,” he said, “that would suggest that it is the social and political conditions within Muslim societies or — you know, the people — in other words clearly Islam has been compatible with peace and progress and it is compatible with violence I would argue just like all religions.”
“Up to a point,” Harris replied. “I would say that specific ideas have specific consequences, and the idea of jihad is not a new one. It’s not an invention of the 20th century…Islam has been spread by the sword for over 1,000 years, and there’s been an intensification for obvious political reasons of intolerance in the 20th century, but the idea that life for Christians and Jews as Dhimmi under Muslim rulers for 1,000 years was good doesn’t make any sense.”
The two then clashed about the definition of “jihad,” about which Harris insisted that the West must “convince the Muslim world or get the Muslim world to convince itself that jihad really just means an inner spiritual struggle. But that is the end game for civilization but the reality is an honest reading of the text and an honest reading of Muslim history makes jihad look very much like holy wars.”
By calling Islam “the mother lode of bad ideas,” Zakaria said, “do you think you’re helping [Muslims] or making it [easier] for them to adopt the Osama bin Laden interpretation [of jihad]?”
“I’ll tell you who’s making it harder for them. Liberals who deny the problem,” Harris replied.
-------------------------------------------------------
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/11/sam-harris-its-not-about-politics-islam-was-spread-by-the-sword-for-1000-years/
On Sunday, Fareed Zakaria spoke to Sam Harris, the CEO of Project Reason, about recent claims of his concerning Islam.
“On Bill Maher’s HBO show,” Zakaria began, Harris said that “‘Islam at the moment is the mother lode of bad ideas.’ He went on to say that more than 20 percent of Muslims are either jihadists or Islamists who want to foist their religion on the rest of humanity,” which amounts to approximately 300 million people.
What struck Zakaria about that number is that Harris “sort of pulled [it] out of a hat.”
“So there were 10,000 terrorist events last year,” Zakaria said. “Let’s assume that 100 people — let’s assume all of those were Muslim. Let’s assume each event was planned by 100 people…That comes to about a million people who are jihadists. So that still leaves us with 299 million missing Muslim terrorists.”
“Right,” Harris replied, ” there are a few distinctions, I think, we have to make. One is there’s a difference between a jihadist and an Islamist. And there I was talking about Islamists and jihadists together. And so Islamists are people who want to foist their interpretation of Islam on the rest of society and sometimes they have a revolutionary bent, sometimes they have more of a normal political bent.”
“But the fact that somebody may believe that, for example, Sharia should obtain and women’s testimony should be worth half a man’s in court,” Zakaria responded, “doesn’t mean that they want to kill people. Being conservative and religious…is different from wanting to kill people.”
“I believe,” Harris said, “nudging that up to something around 20 percent is still a conservative estimate of the percentage of Muslims worldwide who have values relating to human rights and free speech that are really in zero sum contest with our own. And I just think we have to speak honestly about that.”
Zakaria noted that Islam was once a vanguard of modernity, preserving the works of Aristotle and making advancements in mathematics and science. “In other words,” he said, “that would suggest that it is the social and political conditions within Muslim societies or — you know, the people — in other words clearly Islam has been compatible with peace and progress and it is compatible with violence I would argue just like all religions.”
“Up to a point,” Harris replied. “I would say that specific ideas have specific consequences, and the idea of jihad is not a new one. It’s not an invention of the 20th century…Islam has been spread by the sword for over 1,000 years, and there’s been an intensification for obvious political reasons of intolerance in the 20th century, but the idea that life for Christians and Jews as Dhimmi under Muslim rulers for 1,000 years was good doesn’t make any sense.”
The two then clashed about the definition of “jihad,” about which Harris insisted that the West must “convince the Muslim world or get the Muslim world to convince itself that jihad really just means an inner spiritual struggle. But that is the end game for civilization but the reality is an honest reading of the text and an honest reading of Muslim history makes jihad look very much like holy wars.”
By calling Islam “the mother lode of bad ideas,” Zakaria said, “do you think you’re helping [Muslims] or making it [easier] for them to adopt the Osama bin Laden interpretation [of jihad]?”
“I’ll tell you who’s making it harder for them. Liberals who deny the problem,” Harris replied.
Monday, November 3, 2014
Cannonball Adderley Quintet - "Mercy, Mercy, Mercy" (1966)
Cannonball Adderley Quintet: Cannonball Adderley (alto saxophone); Nat Adderley (cornet); Joe Zawinul (acoustic & electric pianos); Victor Gaskin (bass); Roy McCurdy (drums).
Cannonball Adderley and Milt Jackson - Things Are Getting Better
Cannonball Adderley -- alto saxophone
Milt Jackson -- vibes
Wynton Kelly -- piano
Percy Heath -- bass
Art Blakey -- drums
Woody Shaw - What Is This Thing Called Love
Woody Shaw - tp
Gary Bartz -as
Steve Turre - tb
Mulgrew Miller - p
Stafford James -b
Tony Reedus - ds
There Will Never Be Another You - Woody Shaw - leader and trumpet
Kenny Garret
Kenny Barron
Victor Jones
Peter Leitch
Neil Swainson
Passion Dance
Jackie McLean + McCoy Tyner + Jack DeJohnette + Cecil McBee + Woodie Shaw. "Passion Dance"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
