White Gardenias In Your Eyes
1 hour ago
Tuesday, 5 April 2011
Dread_Lightning_Kelly: Podcast 40 - Big Happies Lyricalirrilly
1. Los Fabulocos; If You Know; Los Fabulocos
2. Charlie Hunter, Chinna Smith, Ernest Ranglin; What I Am; Earth Tones(Bread Fruit)
3. Amnesty; Mr. President; Free Your Mind
4. Miles Davis; Recollections; Big Fun
5. Luis Vecchio; Chabati; Afro-Rock
6. Laba Sosseh; Sayni Kay Fonema; el Sonero De Africa Vol 1
7. Lou Bond; Come On Snob; Lou Bond
8. Kurt Elling; Endless; The Message
9. Bad Brains; Ghetto; I and I Survived
10. Kurt Elling; It's Just A Thing; The Messenger
11. Le Grand Kalle,Don Gonzalo & Manu Dibango; Disiplini na K.D.L.; L'African Team
12. The Mar-Keys; Grab This Thing (Part 2); Funk Soul Brother Series Vol 3
13. Baay Sooly, Carlou D., Country Man; Wouty Zion; African Rebel Music
14. Chairmen of The Board; Skin I'm In; Skin I'm In
15. Pablove Black & Sound Dimension; Consumer (Version); Coxsone 7"
16. Max Tannone; Ms. Vampire Booty; Mos Dub
Usual Mixed bag here, shifting and shaping the sounds, starts pretty mellow but picks up along the way, WARNING 17 minute Miles track with John MacLaughlin on guitar, and a special shoutout to Kurt S. for introducing me to the choons of Kurt Elling. Hope you like the mix..........
1. http://www.deltagrooveproductions.com/music/artists/losfabulocos/main.html
3. http://amnestytheband.com/review_20070213_stopsmilingonline.html
4. http://www.milesdavis.com/au/home
6. http://www.descarga.com/cgi-bin/db/archives/Profile88
7. http://staxrecords.free.fr/lbond.htm
8. http://kurtelling.com/index.php
9. http://www.badbrains.com/
10. http://kurtelling.com/index.php
12. http://www.history-of-rock.com/markeys.htm
13. http://www.thisisafrica.me/artists/detail/463/Baay-Sooley
14. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chairmen_of_the_Board_%28band%29
16. http://www.maxtannone.com/
Download episode
Beeden who is a contributor to 'Exile' also does these brilliant podcasts.
Check previous episodes HERE
Eric Cantona - Football is not for rich people
“What I think is a shame is that people from lower backgrounds can’t afford to go to the stadium anymore,” Cantona told ESPN. “These are the real fans of football. The game is in their blood. Football is not for rich people. Sure, rich people love football, but it is not such a big part of their life like it is for the working class. I think clubs should make a quarter or half of the stadium where the tickets are not expensive, where these people don’t have to make a big sacrifice to go to the game. It’s their children who will grow up to be the great professional players, not the children of rich people.”
via
Joy Division - Under Review [Documentary]
This 70-minute documentary covers the entire career of Joy Division, one of Manchester and Post-Punks most respected bands. It charts the entire short lifespan of the group, from their origins in their days as Warsaw to the more well known incarnation of Joy Division. Features include rare musical performances, obscure footage of rare interviews and rarely seen photographs. Plus review, comment, criticism and insight from; Mick Middles, co-author of Torn Apart, The Life Of Ian Curtis, former NME and Melody Maker journalist, Barney Hoskyns, Ex-Mojo Magazine editor, Pat Gilbert, Manchester punk musician and author, John Robb, music journalist and author David Stubbs and more.
DJ Chicken George - Peddlin' 45s for Paris Mix
"DJ Chicken George lives in Austin, Texas, and was introduced to us by his friend Martin Perna (aka Ocote Soul Sounds, founder of Antibalas and co-founder of the Dap-Kings). He plays Jazztronica, a unique style incorporating and fusing diverse genres of music. He's released 2 EPs, DJ Chicken George Presents: The Swed.u.s.h Connection 1 & 2, on the world renowned, Stockholm-based label, Swedish Brandy, and felt quite honored to have his Brownout Mix featured on Paris DJs, since he had been a fan of Djouls' stellar work for quite some time… We're proud to welcome him aboard with this classy 45-only mix, and hope to have him back asap!!" (Paris DJs)
Tracklisting :
01. Tyrone & Carr - Take Me With You
(from 'Love Me Love You' 7 inch, 1973 / Jam)
02. James Brown - The Chicken
(from 'The Popcorn' 7 inch, 1969 / King)
03. Sharon Jones & The Dap-Kings - Better Things
(from 'Better Things' 7 inch, 2010 / Daptone)
04. Little Brother - Mr. Dream Merchant
(from 'Mr. Dream Merchant' 7 inch, 2002 / ABB)
05. M64 (Ragen Fykes & Ohmega Watts) - In The Pocket
(from 'Rhythm Of The Drum' 7 inch, 2009 / Record Breakin' Music)
06. Dudley Perkins & Georgia Anne Muldrow - Mama's Place
(from 'A Friend' 7 inch, 2010 / (iN)Sect Records)
07. Spinnerty feat. Miles Bonny - Time To Cut
(from 'Foundation Part 2' 7 inch, 2008 / Record Breakin' Music)
08. Instant Funk - Funky Africa
(from 'Philly Jump' 7 inch, 1976 / TSOP)
09. Roy Ayers - Destination Motherland
(from 'Destination Motherland' 7 inch, 1981 / Polydor)
Note : ALL VINYL 45s Jazztronica! Mix
DOWNLOAD
Bad Seeds Mt Buller ATP January 2009
(Video I shot found in one of the deepest darkest corners of my computer!)
Skream vs. Benga feat. Youngman MC (Tempa Rec.) @ Fabric - London (26.12.2010)
Via
(For the Happyyman!)
(For the Happyyman!)
Why Do We Still Attack Women for Having Sex?
On January 26, Loren Feldman wrote an open letter to media personality Julia Allison’s father, alleging to her expertise at oral sex and her promiscuity. The post, which has since been removed, is a prime example of the ease with which the accusation of being a slut is still hurled at women as a way to shame and degrade them.
Allison has plenty of company. To name a few, sex bloggers Kendra Halliday, aka The Beautiful Kind, who lost her job when a technical glitch outed her real name, and Lena Chen, who found herself paired with the Gawker headline “Worst Overshare Anywhere Ever” after posting a photo of herself after her boyfriend had ejaculated on her face. The Today Show’s Kathie Lee Gifford inspired a Change.org petition after she told Jersey Shore reality star Snooki that she should “value herself more. Don’t give yourself away to just any jerk, okay?” Slut-shaming can happen to anyone - well any woman. Maybe you've just been bold enough to express the fact that you don’t want to have kids. Maybe you wore a revealing outfit on a red carpet (see January Jones’ Golden Globes dress) or Tweeted a cleavage photo (Meghan McCain).
Lilit Macus, editor of Crushable.com, wrote an essay for the New York Post about why she didn’t want to have children and was told, basically, that she’s a big ol' slut too. “In the past, most of the comments directed at me had been about selfishness or not doing my ‘duty’ as a woman by having kids, and I think this is because I grew up in a conservative part of the country where most of my peers married and had kids young,” says Marcus. “But the responses to the Post article claimed I was a loose woman or that my desire not to have kids meant that I was sleeping around.” The assumption that women “owe” our bodies for procreation and that if we use them for pleasure instead (or in addition), we are somehow going against nature is part of the backdrop that encourages this type of thinking.
Author Kerry Cohen is an example of a woman who’s explicitly embraced her sexuality in her memoir Loose Girl: A Memoir of Promiscuity, only to be told that she “wasn’t slutty enough” to truly call herself a slut, proudly or otherwise. After Marie Claire ran a piece on her calling her a “sex addict” (a term she didn’t use to describe herself), Jezebel asked, “Is ‘Sex Addict’ Memoirist Kerry Cohen Even Actually a Slut?” The lesson Cohen took away is that there are nuances to who’s allowed to use the term. “It's interesting because slut-shaming has morphed lately and now you can either get shamed for being a slut, or you can get shamed for not being the right kind of slut (meaning, you aren't proud enough of your slutdom).”...
Continue reading
Rachel Kramer Bussel @'AlterNet'
Monday, 4 April 2011
HA!
PC Harwood said he used "pins and clasps" to secure his badge numbers to a yellow jacket during the G20 protests
Raphael Saadiq - Stone Rollin' (2011 - Albumstream)
Heart Attack
Go To Hell
Radio
Over you
Stone Rollin'
Daydreams
Movin' Down The Line
Just Don't
Good Man
The Answer
The Perfect Storm
Albumstream
Out of the mouths of babes...
SDMumford Stephen Mumford
From William (12): calling atheism a religion is like saying off is a TV channel.
Sunday, 3 April 2011
Why Is It Rocket Science That Laws Should Apply Online Too?
One of the primary demands of the Pirate Party has been that the same laws that apply offline should also apply online. I think it’s an entirely reasonable thing to demand; the Internet is not a special case, but part of reality. The problems appear when an obsolete but powerful industry realizes that this just and equal application of laws means they can’t enforce a distribution monopoly any longer.
To understand the absurdity of the copyright industry’s demands, we must pause and consider which rights we take for absolute granted in the analog world. These are rights that already apply in the digital part of reality as well, but are somehow hidden in a legal game of hide-and-seek.
Let’s look at what rights I have when I communicate through analog channels with somebody — using paper, a pen, an envelope and a stamp. The same rights should apply when using a digital communications channel instead, at least theoretically, since the law doesn’t differentiate between methods of communication. Unfortunately for the copyright industry, the enforcement of these our rights online would mean that the copyright monopoly becomes utterly unenforceable, so the copyright industry is now attacking these fundamental rights on every level. But that doesn’t mean our rights aren’t there.
When I write a letter to somebody, I and I alone choose whether I identify myself in the letter inside the envelope, on the outside of the envelope, both, or neither. It is my prerogative completely whether I choose to communicate anonymously or not. This is a right we have in analog communications and in law; it is perfectly reasonable to demand that the law applies online as well.
When I write a letter to somebody, nobody has the right to intercept the letter in transit, break its seal and examine its contents unless I am under formal, individual and prior suspicion of a specific crime. In that case, law enforcement (and only them) may do this. Of course, I am never under any obligation to help anybody open and interpret my letters. It is perfectly reasonable to demand that this applies online as well.
When I write a letter to somebody, no third party has the right to alter the contents of the letter in transit or deny its delivery entirely. Shouldn’t it be perfectly reasonable to demand that this applies online as well?
When I write a letter to somebody, nobody has the right to stand at the mailbox and demand that they be able to log all my communications: who I am communicating with, when, and for how long. Again, to demand that this applies online as well would only be logical.
When I write a letter to somebody, the mailman carrying that letter to its recipient is never responsible for what I choose to write about (the messenger immunity). And yes, it is perfectly reasonable to demand that this applies online as well.
All of these are under systematic attack by the copyright industry. They are suing ISPs and demanding that they install wiretapping and censoring equipment in the middle of their switching racks; they are constantly gnawing at the messenger immunity (mere conduit and common carrier principle), they are demanding the authority to identify people who communicate, they want the authority to deny us our right to exercise fundamental rights at all, and they have the balls to suggest censorship to safeguard the distribution monopoly.
All of the above stems from the fact that any digital communications channel that can be used for private correspondence, can also always be used to transfer digitizations of copyrighted works — and you can’t tell which is which without giving the copyright industry the right to break the seal of private correspondence, which is a right I’m never prepared to surrender.
These are civil liberties that our forefathers fought, bled, and died to give us. It is beyond obscene that an obsolete middleman industry is demanding that we give them up to preserve an entertainment monopoly, all while demanding more powers than we are even giving the police to catch real criminals. Then again, this is nothing new.
When photocopiers arrived in the 1960s, book publishers tried to have them banned on the grounds that they could be used to copy books which would then be sent in the mail. Everybody told the publishers tough luck: while the copyright monopoly still is valid, that gives them no right to break the seal on communications just to look for copyright infringements, so they can’t do anything about it. That still applies offline. It is perfectly reasonable to demand that it applies online as well.
The copyright industry sometimes complains that the Internet is a lawless land and that the same laws and rights that apply offline should apply online as well. In this, I could not agree more.
To understand the absurdity of the copyright industry’s demands, we must pause and consider which rights we take for absolute granted in the analog world. These are rights that already apply in the digital part of reality as well, but are somehow hidden in a legal game of hide-and-seek.
Let’s look at what rights I have when I communicate through analog channels with somebody — using paper, a pen, an envelope and a stamp. The same rights should apply when using a digital communications channel instead, at least theoretically, since the law doesn’t differentiate between methods of communication. Unfortunately for the copyright industry, the enforcement of these our rights online would mean that the copyright monopoly becomes utterly unenforceable, so the copyright industry is now attacking these fundamental rights on every level. But that doesn’t mean our rights aren’t there.
When I write a letter to somebody, I and I alone choose whether I identify myself in the letter inside the envelope, on the outside of the envelope, both, or neither. It is my prerogative completely whether I choose to communicate anonymously or not. This is a right we have in analog communications and in law; it is perfectly reasonable to demand that the law applies online as well.
When I write a letter to somebody, nobody has the right to intercept the letter in transit, break its seal and examine its contents unless I am under formal, individual and prior suspicion of a specific crime. In that case, law enforcement (and only them) may do this. Of course, I am never under any obligation to help anybody open and interpret my letters. It is perfectly reasonable to demand that this applies online as well.
When I write a letter to somebody, no third party has the right to alter the contents of the letter in transit or deny its delivery entirely. Shouldn’t it be perfectly reasonable to demand that this applies online as well?
When I write a letter to somebody, nobody has the right to stand at the mailbox and demand that they be able to log all my communications: who I am communicating with, when, and for how long. Again, to demand that this applies online as well would only be logical.
When I write a letter to somebody, the mailman carrying that letter to its recipient is never responsible for what I choose to write about (the messenger immunity). And yes, it is perfectly reasonable to demand that this applies online as well.
All of these are under systematic attack by the copyright industry. They are suing ISPs and demanding that they install wiretapping and censoring equipment in the middle of their switching racks; they are constantly gnawing at the messenger immunity (mere conduit and common carrier principle), they are demanding the authority to identify people who communicate, they want the authority to deny us our right to exercise fundamental rights at all, and they have the balls to suggest censorship to safeguard the distribution monopoly.
All of the above stems from the fact that any digital communications channel that can be used for private correspondence, can also always be used to transfer digitizations of copyrighted works — and you can’t tell which is which without giving the copyright industry the right to break the seal of private correspondence, which is a right I’m never prepared to surrender.
These are civil liberties that our forefathers fought, bled, and died to give us. It is beyond obscene that an obsolete middleman industry is demanding that we give them up to preserve an entertainment monopoly, all while demanding more powers than we are even giving the police to catch real criminals. Then again, this is nothing new.
When photocopiers arrived in the 1960s, book publishers tried to have them banned on the grounds that they could be used to copy books which would then be sent in the mail. Everybody told the publishers tough luck: while the copyright monopoly still is valid, that gives them no right to break the seal on communications just to look for copyright infringements, so they can’t do anything about it. That still applies offline. It is perfectly reasonable to demand that it applies online as well.
The copyright industry sometimes complains that the Internet is a lawless land and that the same laws and rights that apply offline should apply online as well. In this, I could not agree more.
Rick Falkvinge is a regular columnist on TorrentFreak, sharing his thoughts every other weekend. He is the founder of the Swedish Pirate Party, a whisky aficionado, and a low-altitude motorcycle pilot. His blog at http://falkvinge.net focuses on information policy.
Follow Rick Falkvinge on Twitter as @Falkvinge and on Facebook as /rickfalkvinge.
@'Torrent Freak'
Afghanistan: Koran protests in Kandahar and Jalalabad
US President Barack Obama described the killings as "outrageous" and the Koran burning as "intolerance and bigotry".
Ten people died following protests in Kandahar on Saturday. Dozens more were injured.
Protests spread On Sunday, demonstrators in Kandahar city - the birthplace of the Taliban - marched on the main UN office. There were also reports of smaller protests in two other districts of Kandahar province.
The protests have now spread to the eastern city of Jalalabad, where hundreds of protesters peacefully blocked a main road for three hours on Sunday.
The crowd shouted for US troops to leave Afghanistan and burnt an effigy of Mr Obama, according to an Associated Press photographer at the scene.
The UN's chief envoy to Afghanistan, Staffan de Mistura, blamed Friday's violence in the northern city of Mazar-e Sharif on the Florida pastor who burnt the Koran on 20 March. "I don't think we should be blaming any Afghan," Mr de Mistura said. "We should be blaming the person who produced the news - the one who burned the Koran. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from offending culture, religion, traditions."
The UN would temporarily re-deploy 11 staff members to Kabul while their office in Mazar-e Sharif was rebuilt, he said, but there would be no evacuation.
Mr de Mistura insisted that Friday's attack "should not deter the UN presence, activities in this country in this delicate and particularly crucial period".
In a statement published on Saturday evening, Mr Obama extended his condolences to the families of those killed by the protesters in Afghanistan.
"The desecration of any holy text, including the Koran, is an act of extreme intolerance and bigotry," he said. "However, to attack and kill innocent people in response is outrageous, and an affront to human decency and dignity.
Condemnation
The controversy began in Florida on 20 March, when Pastor Wayne Sapp soaked a Koran in kerosene, staged a "trial" during which the Islamic holy book was found guilty of "crimes against humanity", and then set it alight.
The incident took place under the supervision of Pastor Terry Jones, who last year drew condemnation over his aborted plan to burn copies of the Koran on the anniversary of the 11 September 2001 attacks on the US.
The authorities in both Kandahar and Mazar-e Sharif have blamed the Taliban for the violence. However, the Taliban has rejected the accusation.
Pastor Jones has said that the Dove World Outreach Center's congregation does not "feel responsible" for the attack.
Witnesses said the protest in Mazar-e Sharif, which began outside the central Blue Mosque after Friday prayers, began peacefully but suddenly turned violent.
The crowds moved to outside the UN compound, where a small group broke away.
Several demonstrators were killed by guards at the compound, who were then overpowered by the mob.
Munir Ahmad Farhad, a spokesman for the governor of Balkh province, said the group seized weapons from the guards and stormed the building. Four Nepalese guards, a Norwegian, a Romanian and a Swede were killed.
@'BBC'
LCD Soundsystem final show. What a gig!!!
Setlist: (via)
Dance Yrself Clean
(with “I’m Not In Love” by 10cc intro)
Drunk Girls
I Can Change
Time To Get Away
Get Innocuous!
Daft Punk Is Playing At My House
Too Much Love
All My Friends
Tired
(with “Heart of the Sunrise” by Yes snippet)
—
Set 2
45:33 Part One
45:33 Part Two (w/ Reggie Watts)
Sound of Silver
45:33 Part Four
45:33 Part Five (w/ Shit Robot)
45:33 Part Six
Freak Out/Starry Eyes
—
Set 3
Us v Them
North American Scum (w/ Arcade Fire)
Bye Bye Bayou (Alan Vega cover)
You Wanted A Hit
Tribulations
Movement
Yeah (Crass Version)
—
Set 4
Someone Great
Losing My Edge (With “Da Funk” by Daft Punk snippet)
Home
—
Set 5
All I Want
Jump Into the Fire (Harry Nilsson Cover)
New York, I Love You But You’re Bringing Me Down (with “Twin Peaks Theme” by Angelo Badalamenti intro)
@'CoS'
I can't think of anything that feels appropriate to listen to following #LCDMSG, except Screamadelica
JPBarlow John Perry Barlow
Prescription drugs account for almost 2x more deaths in the US than *all illicit drugs combined.* http://bit.ly/fw3GCS
Homosexuality is found in over 450 species. Homophobia is found in only one. Which one seems unnatural now?
Via
Via
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
