Monday, 2 May 2011


Marc Ambinder
Extremely unusual and sudden notice from the White House to the pool to stand by for a 1030 POTUS speech. Something major is afoot.

Art Bites

Brooklyn Street Art's Jaime Rojo and Steven Harrington report that artist Eddie Colla put up this piece on a billboard in Los Angeles in response to their Huffington Post article last week on the institutional response to MOCA's "Art in the Streets" show.
Via

The Secret Is Out!

(Thanx Stan!)

Tackhead
Adrian Sherwood vs The Mad Professor in London, Saturday May 7th.

The Libyan War, American Power and the Decline of the Petrodollar System

The present NATO campaign against Gaddafi in Libya has given rise to great confusion, both among those waging this ineffective campaign, and among those observing it. Many whose opinions I normally respect see this as a necessary war against a villain – though some choose to see Gaddafi as the villain, and others point to Obama.
My own take on this war, on the other hand, is that it is both ill-conceived and dangerous -- a threat to the interests of Libyans, Americans, the Middle East and conceivably the entire world. Beneath the professed concern about the safety of Libyan civilians lies a deeper concern that is barely acknowledged: the West’s defense of the present global petrodollar economy, now in decline..
The confusion in Washington, matched by the absence of discussion of an overriding strategic motive for American involvement, is symptomatic of the fact that the American century is ending, and ending in a way that is both predictable in the long run, and simultaneously erratic and out of control in its details.
Confusion in Washington and in NATO
With respect to Libya’s upheaval itself, opinions in Washington range from that of John McCain, who has allegedly called on NATO to provide “every apparent means of assistance, minus ground troops,” in overthrowing Gaddafi,1 to Republican Congressman Mike Rogers, who has expressed deep concern about even passing out arms to a group of fighters we do not know well.2
We have seen the same confusion throughout the Middle East. In Egypt a coalition of non-governmental elements helped prepare for the nonviolent revolution in that country, while former US Ambassador Frank Wisner, Jr., flew to Egypt to persuade Mubarak to cling to power. Meanwhile in countries that used to be of major interest to the US, like Jordan and Yemen, it is hard to discern any coherent American policy at all.
In NATO too there is confusion that occasionally threatens to break into open discord. Of the 28 NATO members, only 14 are involved at all in the Libyan campaign, and only six are involved in the air war. Of these only three countries –the U.S., Britain, and France, are offering tactical air support to the rebels on the ground. When many NATO countries froze the bank accounts of Gaddafi and his immediate supporters, the US, in an unpublicized and dubious move, froze the entire $30 billion of Libyan government funds to which it has access. (Of this, more later.) Germany, the most powerful NATO nation after America, abstained on the UN Security Council resolution; and its foreign minister, Guido Westerwelle, has since said, “We will not see a military solution, but a political solution.”3
Such chaos would have been unthinkable in the high period of US dominance. Obama appears paralyzed by the gap between his declared objective – the removal of Gaddafi from power – and the means available to him, given the nation’s costly involvement in two wars, and his domestic priorities...
 Continue reading
Peter Dale Scott @'Japan Focus'

Confusion in Washington and in NATO

Such chaos would have been unthinkable in the high period of US dominance. Obama appears paralyzed by the gap between his declared objective – the removal of Gaddafi from power – and the means available to him, given the nation’s costly involvement in two wars, and his domestic priorities.
The present NATO campaign against Gaddafi in Libya has given rise to great confusion, both among those waging this ineffective campaign, and among those observing it. Many whose opinions I normally respect see this as a necessary war against a villain – though some choose to see Gaddafi as the villain, and others point to Obama.
My own take on this war, on the other hand, is that it is both ill-conceived and dangerous -- a threat to the interests of Libyans, Americans, the Middle East and conceivably the entire world. Beneath the professed concern about the safety of Libyan civilians lies a deeper concern that is barely acknowledged: the West’s defense of the present global petrodollar economy, now in decline..
The confusion in Washington, matched by the absence of discussion of an overriding strategic motive for American involvement, is symptomatic of the fact that the American century is ending, and ending in a way that is both predictable in the long run, and simultaneously erratic and out of control in its details.

Confusion in Washington and in NATO

With respect to Libya’s upheaval itself, opinions in Washington range from that of John McCain, who has allegedly called on NATO to provide “every apparent means of assistance, minus ground troops,” in overthrowing Gaddafi,1 to Republican Congressman Mike Rogers, who has expressed deep concern about even passing out arms to a group of fighters we do not know well.2
We have seen the same confusion throughout the Middle East. In Egypt a coalition of non-governmental elements helped prepare for the nonviolent revolution in that country, while former US Ambassador Frank Wisner, Jr., flew to Egypt to persuade Mubarak to cling to power. Meanwhile in countries that used to be of major interest to the US, like Jordan and Yemen, it is hard to discern any coherent American policy at all.
The present NATO campaign against Gaddafi in Libya has given rise to great confusion, both among those waging this ineffective campaign, and among those observing it. Many whose opinions I normally respect see this as a necessary war against a villain – though some choose to see Gaddafi as the villain, and others point to Obama.
My own take on this war, on the other hand, is that it is both ill-conceived and dangerous -- a threat to the interests of Libyans, Americans, the Middle East and conceivably the entire world. Beneath the professed concern about the safety of Libyan civilians lies a deeper concern that is barely acknowledged: the West’s defense of the present global petrodollar economy, now in decline..
The confusion in Washington, matched by the absence of discussion of an overriding strategic motive for American involvement, is symptomatic of the fact that the American century is ending, and ending in a way that is both predictable in the long run, and simultaneously erratic and out of control in its details.

Confusion in Washington and in NATO

With respect to Libya’s upheaval itself, opinions in Washington range from that of John McCain, who has allegedly called on NATO to provide “every apparent means of assistance, minus ground troops,” in overthrowing Gaddafi,1 to Republican Congressman Mike Rogers, who has expressed deep concern about even passing out arms to a group of fighters we do not know well.2
We have seen the same confusion throughout the Middle East. In Egypt a coalition of non-governmental elements helped prepare for the nonviolent revolution in that country, while former US Ambassador Frank Wisner, Jr., flew to Egypt to persuade Mubarak to cling to power. Meanwhile in countries that used to be of major interest to the US, like Jordan and Yemen, it is hard to discern any coherent American policy at all.

Sunday, 1 May 2011

Death Zone (Graphic)


The clip presented here is excerpted from 'Death Zone,' a chilling video collected and shared by members of the “kill team” of U.S. soldiers who murdered civilians in Afghanistan and mutilated the corpses. Shot through thermal imaging, the grainy footage shows two Afghans suspected of planting an IED being blown up by an airstrike. While the deaths may have resulted from a legitimate combat engagement, the video itself represents a clear violation of Army standards. Scenes of the attack have been edited into a 15-minute music video, complete with a rock soundtrack and a title card. This clip from the video picks up shortly before the airstrike begins, accompanied by the song “En Vie” by Apocalyptica, a cello rock band from Helsinki. The video ends with grisly still images of the casualties, followed by closing credits. It was passed from soldier to soldier on thumb drives and hard drives, the gruesome video filed alongside clips of TV shows, UFC fights and films such as Iron Man 2.
@'Rolling Stone'

Bruce Sterling: Wikileaks and Bollywood

♪♫ The Nightwatchman - Union Town


                     

Neat + Submerse - Close / FaltyDL remix / Jack Dixon remix

Glenn Greenwald on Why He Strongly Supports WikiLeaks, Bradley Manning

Why America Loves Serial Killers

Modcast #72: Toro y Moi

This week's Modcast comes from Toro y Moi. It's a whimsical, reflective, sometimes a bit sassy, sometimes a bit sad, dreamy ride.
Apparently he made this in bed, just for you. Dude is smooth.

Hailing from South Carolina, Chazwick Bundick as he's known to his family, is a multi-instrumentalist and quite prolific musician. He's released a stack of EPs and two full-length albums. His debut long player, Causers of This came out early last year and he followed that up with the fantastic Underneath the Pine earlier this year.
We've been listening to his records on repeat and we're thrilled he's taken put together the Modcast this week. It's a mellow ride but one worth getting on.
He's about to head across Europe for a bunch of shows in May, all the details are over here.
Track-list:
A First Class Dub - King Tubby
Come Live With Me - Dorothy Ashby
Part Version 8 - Piero Piccioni
Pealed Tomato - Chorafas
It's Choade My Dear - Connan Mockasin
Mariangela e la Seduzione - Ennio Morricone
Show Me To The Window- Robert Lester Folsom
Chi Mi Cerchera - Enrico Simonetti with Goblin
Was It All In Vain - Bixio Frizzi Tempura
Rainbow Ride - Kathy McCord
O Sabia - Les Wanted
Clay Horses - Julian Lynch

Download
Via

The Social Media Buzz Behind the Royal Wedding

Handwriting Is a 21st-Century Skill

Is preserving and reviving cursive handwriting retro sentimentality or neo-Luddism? No, it's good teaching and good neuroscience. (I see this as one whose own notes would be the ultimate test of character recognition software.) The New York Times doesn't go far enough on this. The close connections between hand and brain, whether in music or in writing, have strong support in research, as summarized here:
Neurologist Frank Wilson, author of The Hand: How its Use Shapes the Brain, Language and Human Culture, says, "Although the repetitive drills that accompany handwwriting lessons seem outdated, such physical instruction will help students to succeed.  He says these activities stimulate brain activity, lead to increased language fluency, and aid in the development of important knowledge."  He describes in detail the pivotal role of hand movements, in particular  the development of thinking and language capacities, and in "developing deep feelings of confidence and interest in the world-all-together, the essential prerequistes for the emergence of the capable and caring individual."
Handwriting has also been surprisingly relevant technologically. What has Steve Jobs always cited as a formative experience? A course in calligraphy at Reed College. Many of the most popular fonts for Mac and PC alike were created by designers with calligraphic training. Many people hate the soft keyboards of many smartphones and all tablets; using a stylus quickly and legibly can be the best alternative, especially when voice recording isn't possible.
The real challenge is developing 21st-century teaching methods for cursive. In her excellent Handwriting in America, Tamara Thornton showed how regimented 19th-century instruction could be. It could literally be a pain in the neck. Yet the growing paperwork empire desperately needed commonly recognizable documents. When I wrote the chapter on typewriter and computer keyboards in Our Own Devices, I found evidence that the real attraction of the earliest typewriters was not so much speed as uniformity in large organizations. Magazines, with dozens or hundreds of contributors, started to insist on typewritten copy by the 1890s to speed composition. That's why for decades there were so few typewriter fonts.
In the 19th century, handwriting was a fetish, excessively drilled in the schools. Now it's equally dismissed. We are truly "Immoderation Nation." Instead of dismissing cursive reflexively, administrators should take advantage of many innovative cursive programs (like this) that can bring the benefits of this skill to new (and older) generations.
Edward Tenner @'the Atlantic'