Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Wynton Swing Quote
Sunday, August 15, 2010
Cultural Studies - Crafting Fictional Personas With the Language of Facebook - NYTimes.com
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Friday, May 28, 2010
YouTube - Live Performance on "U-Tunes"
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Thursday, December 25, 2008
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Huge Drumspot: My Top Five
Jojo Mayer with Depart:
Ari Hoenig - The Painter (in two parts):
Tony Williams with Miles:
Elvin Jones tearin' it up:
Danny Carey hittin' it hard:
Seriously?
This just makes me angry - complaining that we shouldn't be spending money on education but rather should be spending it on the military? Are you fucking kidding me?
Also the article seems to suggest that small government is an ideal we should give up just because it's not politically expedient for people running for office. In other words, we shouldn't work towards it because it's hard. I can't believe what I'm reading.
I may sound a little hypocritical in this post, but let me explain. I disagree that we need to pour money into the military and not into schools and infrastructure. Overall, I wish the size of government would decrease but at any size I think government money should be spent on the right things - this is why I voted for Obama even though in principle I am an economic conservative. In further response to Kristol's complaint about the state of military bases, I say eliminate some of the one's we unneccesarily keep over seas and use the money saved to improve the conditions in the ones we need; because do we honestly need to have troops in Germany still? No. Probably the only statement in Kristol's article that I agree with is the parenthetical suggestion that government probably wouldn't shrink with either party anyways, another reason I feel justified in voting Obama. If Ron Paul had had a chance, I would have voted for him in a second but such is not the case.
Here's the whole article.
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Saturday, December 6, 2008
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Homosexuality/gay marriage/prop. 8 and the Black Community
Cheers!
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Farm Subsidies
Obama Goes After Farm Subsidies
In a speech just concluded announcing two more economy appointees -- CBO chief Peter Orszag to the Office of Management and Budget and Robert Nabors (House Approp. Comm.) to be his deputy -- President-elect Obama gave an example of one piece of wasteful government spending: farm subsidies.
Obama cited a GAO report out yesterday that said from 2003 to 2006, "millionaire farmers" got $49 million in farm subsidies despite earning more than the $2.5 million cutoff in annual income.
"If it's true," Obama said, "it's a prime example of waste."
With the announcement, Obama joins a long and largely defeated line of presidents and officials who've tried to kill farm subsidies, a perk as deeply ingrained in a nation built on the Jeffersonian Agricultural Ideal as any other.
Subsidies have been constructed and preserved by powerful Midwest lawmakers and are very difficult to pry loose.
To the president-elect, we say: Good luck with that. Let us know how it works out for you.
Orszag, Obama said, "doesn't need a map to tell him where the bodies are buried in the federal budget."
One place to start digging is the Nation's Breadbasket. The president-elect may be wise to be on the lookout for a Combine Army motoring to Washington to preserve the subsidies.
The Post's Dan Morgan, Gilbert Gaul and Sarah Cohen did a terrific series on farm subsidies in 2006. Here's where you can read it.
Good and Godspeed I say!
Cheers
Great Web Find
Cheers!