Demo2010 ('Wish my boyfriend was as dirty as your policy')

"We stand against the cuts, in solidarity with all the poor, elderly, disabled and working people affected. We are against all cuts and the marketisation of education. We are occupying the rood of Tory HQ to show we are against the Tory system of attacking the poor and helping the rich. This is only the beginning." 
Live coverage

@'The Guardian'

Due to UK libel laws you can't read this in Britain...

Not the case this time but...

We must speak out to defend free speech. Please sign the petition for libel reform! 

HERE

Government abandons lie detector tests for catching benefit cheats

A benefits office in London uses VRA lie detector software to catch benefit cheats. Photograph: Sophia Evans/Observer 

The government has dropped plans to introduce controversial lie detector tests to catch benefit fraudsters after trials found that the technology is not sufficiently reliable.

The Department for Work and Pensions has given up on "voice risk analysis" (VRA) software after spending £2.16m on trials to assess whether the technology can identify people who are trying to fiddle the system when it eavesdrops on their telephone calls to benefit offices.

Plans to install lie detectors were hailed as a vote-winning move to get tough on benefit cheats when they were unveiled by the former prime minister, Gordon Brown, on the eve of the Queen's speech in December 2008. Ministers hoped the technology would make the benefits system more efficient and less costly.

VRA is meant to detect signs of stress in a caller's voice by analysing short snippets of speech, but critics say the system is not powerful enough to distinguish cheats from honest callers.

In 23 pilot studies, local authorities used the lie detector system to analyse phone calls from people applying for, or updating existing claims for housing benefit, council tax, income support and jobseeker's allowance. The technology was judged a success in only five of the trials.

A spokeswoman for the Department for Work and Pensions confirmed that the technology was being dropped now the trials had ended. "We have got the analysis back and have been going through whether it works when applied to the benefits system. This is the first time it has been used in the benefits system and the decision is that it is not very good value for money," she said.

The department organised two groups of trials. The first, in 2008, cost £460,000 and involved six local authorities and the department's executive agency, Jobcentre Plus. The second phase trial was expanded to 24 local authorities at a cost of £1.7m. Information from 45,000 calls was included in the evaluation, the department said.

Nine local authorities trialled the lie detector on calls about new benefit claims. Of these, only three said it worked well enough to highlight risky callers without raising too many false alarms. Of 12 local authorities who used VRA to spot cheats during benefit reviews, only one judged the trial to have been a success. Two local authorities tested VRA on callers who were reporting changes in their personal circumstances, with one reporting the trial as successful.

Voice risk analysis has been mired in controversy since scientists raised doubts over the technology soon after it reached the market. In 2007, two Swedish researchers, Anders Eriksson and Francisco Lacerda, published their own analysis of VRA in the International Journal of Speech Language and Law. They found no scientific evidence to support claims for the device made by the manufacturer, an Israeli company called Nemesysco.

Eriksson and Lacerda went on to say the software was "at the astrology end of the validity spectrum". Following complaints from Nemesysco's founder, the article was withdrawn from the website of the journal's publisher, Equinox Publishing and the authors were threatened with legal action by the company.

Professor Lacerda, who is head of phonetics at Stockholm University, told the Guardian he welcomed the government's decision to drop the technology.

"I praise the Department of Work and Pensions for the serious investigation they have done, which reinforces the strength of their decision. My only surprise is that it didn't come earlier. There is no basis for the device at all, so I would be surprised if they had reached another conclusion," he said.

"The problem with this device is that it is not even plausible to begin with. Had the department asked scientists in the UK they would probably have been advised not to bet on it, so this is a very expensive way of reaching an obvious conclusion," Lacerda added.

Under the "one strike and you're out" proposals put forward by Gordon Brown in 2008, people stood to lose their benefits for a month if caught out by lie detector tests. In a letter to Tracey Brown, director of Sense about Science, the minister for welfare reform, Lord Freud, confirmed that the department "has now discontinued interest in VRA".

Milan Vjestica, a consultant speaking for DigiLog, a Buckinghamshire-based company licensed to sell VRA in the UK, said: "The Department for Work and Pensions have not said that it doesn't work. They have said that local authorities can, as part of their own fraud and error strategies, use VRA amongst other tools.

"The concerns that some scientists have raised have been strongly contested by Nemesysco. This was one example of scientists saying in their opinion it didn't work. It's not like there is a whole host of people saying it doesn't work."

Ian Sample @'The Guardian'

George Bush's torture admission is a dismal moment for democracy

♪♫ David Lee Roth - Jump (Leno)

(For Yotte -Thanx SJX!)

Peverelist - FWD Mix

Tom Ford is at the forefront of the post-dubstep breed of UK bass music. Combining influences from DnB, Jungle, Dubstep, House and Techno, Peverelist's productions are characterized by their innovative, challenging percussive layers and funky bass grooves. Peverelist's seminal Punch Drunk label has helped define the current underground dubstep scene, fiercely distancing themselves from the Rusko-focused mainstream.

1. Ekoplekz 'Stalag Zero' (Punch Drunk)

2. Elgato 'Blue' (Hessle Audio)

3. A Made Up Sound 'Demons' (A Made Up Sound)

4. Wax10001 (Wax)

5. Peverelist 'The Grind' (Punch Drunk)

6. Bernard Badie 'Time Reveals' (Night Club)

7. Peverelist 'Better Ways of Living' (Punch Drunk)

8. Peverelist 'Bluez' (Punch Drunk)

9. Pinch 'Elements' (Swamp81)

10. Peverelist & Hyetal 'rrrr' (Punch Drunk)

11. Bass Clef 'Promises' (Peverelist & Appleblim remix) (Blank Tapes)

12. Joe 'Rut' (Hessle Audio)

13. Jeremy Sylvester 'Mesmorise' (Urban Dubz Mix) (Quench)

14. Peverelist & Hyetal 'The Hum' (Punch Drunk)

@'FWD>>'

‘Fela!’ Is Sued for Copyright Infringement

The author of a biography of the Afrobeat musician Fela Anikulapo Kuti has filed suit against the producers and creative team of the Broadway musical “Fela!”, saying the stage production infringes on the copyright to his book and seeking an injunction against the show.

In his complaint, filed on Monday in federal district court in Manhattan, lawyers for Carlos Moore, the author of a biography called “Fela: This Bitch of a Life,” say the musical “copies portions of Moore’s book verbatim,” adding, “Entire portions were simply copied from Moore’s book and inserted into the script of the musical.”

The complaint names production companies involved with “Fela!” as defendants, as well as Bill T. Jones, its director, choreographer and co-author of its book; Jim Lewis, the other co-author; and Stephen Hendel, a producer.

Mr. Moore says in the suit that he worked closely with Mr. Kuti to write his biography, which was first published in French and English in 1982. On at least two occasions, Mr. Moore says, he was approached by producers of “Fela!”: once in 2007, when he says producers sought to obtain some rights to his book but “adequate compensation was never proposed”; and in 2009 when, Mr. Moore says, he was asked to consult on the show and believed that he would be compensated for this work.

Among the similarities between his book and the show that the lawsuit cites is their use of a character called Afa Ojo (or “She Who Commands the Rain”), a ghost that Mr. Moore says he created to provide the voice of Mr. Kuti’s dead mother, Funmilayo Ransome-Kuti. The complaint says, “the musical introduces Moore’s character in virtually the same way the character is introduced in the book.”

In a telephone interview on Tuesday, Mr. Hendel said he had not yet seen Mr. Moore’s suit, adding: “Carlos has been incredibly supportive of the show. Several years ago, he saw the Off Broadway show. He was willing to sit and be interviewed by our people, to talk about Fela and Fela’s legacy, and that interview has been on YouTube for a long time, and at his request we have been selling his book in the theater since we opened and at our Web site. We’re disappointed and somewhat perplexed, and hope at some point we can get this resolved.”

Dave Itzkoff @'NY Times'

What Was the Hipster?

Cuba in Revolution

 HERE

WTF???

Mystery missile launch reported off California coast

Lamebook Sues Facebook Over Trademark Infringement. Wait, What?

(Still) so relevant...

US oil inquiry chief slams BP "culture of complacency"

BP and the other companies involved in the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster were operating under a "culture of complacency" and need top-to-bottom reform, the head of the presidential investigation into the oil spill said today.

A day after releasing preliminary findings on the causes of the fatal explosion on the Deepwater Horizon – the first of multiple inquiries – William Reilly, co-chair of the commission, was scathing about the safety regime on board the Deepwater Horizon.

Reilly said there was "emphatically not a culture of safety on that rig". He added: "I referred to a culture of complacency and speaking for myself, all these companies we heard from displayed it."

Bob Graham, the commission's other co-chair and a former senator, said: "There were a series of almost incredible failures in the days and hours leading up to the disaster."

On Monday, the commission's chief investigator, Fred Bartlit, uncovered a string of bad judgments by all three companies, BP, Transocean and Halliburton, during the last days of the rig.

Eleven men were killed in the 20 April explosion, which sent nearly 5m barrels of oil spewing into the Gulf.

The bad calls on the rig included: going ahead despite a faulty cement seal at the bottom of the well;

overlooking a failed pressure test; replacing heavy drilling mud (compounds used to lubricate and cool wells during drilling) with seawater; and failing to notice monitors, on board and onshore, showing a strong kick of gas. These were warning signs that the well was about to blow.

Much of the scrutiny focused on the company's plan to temporarily plug the well, which investigators with the presidential commission say added to the risk of a blowout. Plugging the well is a procedure used to seal it off until the company comes back to produce oil and gas.

Experts questioned BP's use of a single plug in the process. Charlie Williams, a chief scientist with Shell Energy Resources, said his company used a minimum of three plugs in its deepwater wells.

Reilly described the narrative, developed by Bartlit in a courtroom style that drew on sophisticated graphics and questioning of executives from the three companies, as "ghastly".

Bartlit said he found no concrete evidence that any of those mistakes were motivated by cost – a conclusion that drew angry criticism from Democrats in Congress. But he also noted that time and money were always factors because of the huge costs associated with offshore drilling. "Any time you are talking about $1.5m [£935,000] a day, money enters into it."

Panel members also said that BP was hurried and made confusing, last-minute changes to plans that were unusual in the complex environment of deep-water drilling. They said BP could have operated more safely if it had taken the time to get the necessary equipment and materials.

"We are aware of what appeared to be a rush to completion," Reilly said. What is unclear, he added, was what drove people to determine that they could not wait for equipment and materials to perform operations more safely.

Today's proceedings are devoted to developing a safety culture of offshore drilling, with two other oil companies, Exxon and Shell, talking about their safety protocols.

But Reilly put BP in a category of its own. "BP has been notoriously challenged on matters of process safety," Reilly said. "Other companies may not be so challenged."

The panel is due to release its final report on 11 January, but it has been pressing hard for the Senate to grant Bartlit powers to issue subpoenas for more rigorous questioning of the oil companies. A number of those who were on the rig have refused to talk to the investigators.

Suzanne Goldenberg @'The Guardian'

Swans - Live

American "Sports"

Mad (NOT Mad!)

Eno - Seven Sessions on a Milk Sea (Videos)

HERE

Dutch sniff cards to help find cannabis plantations

How to Tour in a Band or Whatever by Thor Harris

1-Don’t Complain. Bitching, moaning, whining is tour cancer. If something is wrong fix it or shut the fuck up you fucking dick. goddamn.

2-If you fart, claim it.

3-Don’t Lose shit. Everybody loses shit. Don’t fucking do it. Asshole.

4-Don’t fuck anyone in the band. There are tons of people to fuck who are not in this band. Dumbass.

5-If you feel like shit all the time, drink less beer at the gig. You will play better & feel better. What are you… a child? Some have the endurance for self abuse. Most don’t.

6-Remember the soundman’s name. He will do a better job.

7- Eat oranges. Cures constipation & prevents colds.

8-Masturbate. Duh… Where & when? Be creative. You’re an artist right?

9-If YOU can’t carry your suitcase 3 blocks, it’s too goddamn big.

10-Respect public space in the van. Don’t clutter, you Fuck.

11-If you borrow something, return it. Not Fucked Up.

12-Do not let the promoter dick you or talk you out of the guarantee. If there were not enuf people there, it’s their fault.

13- Driver picks the music.

14-One navigator only (usually sitting shotgun). Everyone else shut the fuck up.

15-Soundcheck is for checking sounds. Shut the fuck up while everyone else is checking.

16-Don’t wander off. Let someone know where you are.

17-Clean up after yourself. What are you… a goddamn toddler?

18-Touring makes everyone bi-polar. Ride the waves as best you can and remember, moods pass. So don’t make any snap decisions or declarations when you are drunk or insane.

19-Fast food is Poison.

20-The guestlist is for friends, family & people you might want to fuck. Everyone else can pay. They have day jobs.

21- Don’t evaluate your whole life while you’re sitting in a janitor closet waiting to go on. You think you’re above having shitty days at work? Shut up & do your goddamn job.

This list was written under the influence of lots of esspresso & anti-depressants while on tour w/ such greats as Shearwater, Swans, Smog, Lisa Germano, Angels of Light, Bill Callahan & many more. I hope this list will help you get along w/ your co-workers whatever your job is. Contributions to the list by Jordan Geiger, Kimberly Burke, Brian Orloff, Brian Phillips Celebrity Gang Bang, Kevin Schneider, Jonathan Meiburg, Michael Gira and some other folks.

Thanks for not being an asshole, Thor Harris

@'Looking For The Magic'

Houellebecq wins top French book prize

LOL!

My Favourite Miles Davis Album By Lydon, Nick Cave, Wayne Coyne, Iggy & More

Do the poor have a right to live in expensive areas?

Of course they fugn do! I hate gentrification...

Plutocracy

Americans live in a country where the vast majority of the middle and lower class have stagnant (if not declining) wages, while being expected to work longer and harder hours just to stay employed. In the meantime, the top 2% or so are raking in cash at an unprecedented level. When people (rightfully) point out the inequities and the unsustainable nature of this situation, they are called Communists, Marxists, etc. by those who have been spoon-fed well-crafted talking points. And when the cameras are off, they'll call you much worse things.

It is equally sad and amusing that the majority of the "class warfare" Reguritrons belong to that same group of people who are living with stagnant or declining wages. They're rallying against their own best interests, which seems to be a shameful departure from the "personal responsibility" mantra that they preach with equal fervor. They've been re-educated by a slick and extremely well funded machine, run by a relatively small slice of the American pie -- and these people are good at what they do. Frighteningly so.

That will do nicely!

Unemployed told to do 4 weeks of unpaid work or lose benefits

The unemployed will be ordered to do periods of compulsory full-time work in the community or be stripped of their benefits under controversial American-style plans to slash the number of people without jobs.

The proposals, in a white paper on welfare reform to be unveiled this week, are part of a radical government agenda aimed at cutting the £190bn-a-year welfare bill and breaking what the coalition now calls the "habit of worklessness".

The measures will be announced to parliament by the work and pensions secretary, Iain Duncan Smith, as part of what he will describe as a new "contract" with the 1.4 million people on jobseekers' allowance. The government's side of the bargain will be the promise of a new "universal credit", to replace all existing benefits, that will ensure it always pays to work rather than stay on welfare.

In return, where advisers believe a jobseeker would benefit from experiencing the "habits and routines" of working life, an unemployed person will be told to take up "mandatory work activity" of at least 30 hours a week for a four-week period. If they refuse or fail to complete the programme their jobseeker's allowance payments, currently £50.95 a week for those under 25 and £64.30 for those over 25, could be stopped for at least three months.

The Department for Work and Pensions plans to contract private providers to organise the placements with charities, voluntary organisations and companies. An insider close to the discussions said: "We know there are still some jobseekers who need an extra push to get them into the mindset of being in the working environment and an opportunity to experience that environment.

"This is all about getting them back into a working routine which, in turn, makes them a much more appealing prospect for an employer looking to fill a vacancy, and more confident when they enter the workplace. The goal is to break into the habit of worklessness."

Sanctions – including removal of benefit – currently exist if people refuse to go on training courses or fail to turn up to job interviews, but they are rarely used.

The plans stop short of systems used in the US since the 1990s under which benefits can be "time limited", meaning all payments end after a defined period. But they draw heavily on American attempts to change public attitudes to welfare and to change the perception that welfare is an option for life.

Last night the shadow work and pensions secretary, Douglas Alexander, suggested government policy on job creation was reducing people's chances of finding work: "The Tories have just abolished the future jobs fund, which offered real work and real hope to young people. If you examine the spending review then changes such as cuts to working tax credit are actually removing incentives to get people into work. What they don't seem to get about their welfare agenda is that without work it won't work."

Anne Begg, Labour MP and chair of the Commons select committee for work and pensions, said that many unemployed people already had a work record and carrying out work experience would give them less time to search for a job. "The problem is finding a job," she added. "One of the reasons the last government moved away from work placements and towards things such as the Future Jobs Fund was that it actually acted as a hindrance to them looking for work."

The Observer has also learned that ministers have abolished the Social Exclusion Taskforce, which was based in the Cabinet Office and co-ordinated activity across departments to drive out marginalisation in society. Documents show that the unit has become a part of "Big Society, Policy and Analysis".

Jon Trickett, a shadow minister focusing on social exclusion, reacted angrily, saying that ministers should "hang their heads in shame". Whitehall sources insisted the work would carry on, but more of it would take place in the Department for Work and Pensions.

Naomi Eisenstadt, who was director of the taskforce until last year and is now an academic at Oxford University, said the shift was worrying. "I don't think it is significant in terms of the name – call it a banana – who cares? What does worry me is why they are not using the civil servants who were doing the work on deep disadvantage in the Cabinet Office and exploiting their expertise," she said.

Eisenstadt added that it would be a concern if the government believed the "big society" could take the place of government intervention. "If you speak to any minister I am sure they would agree that civil society is one part of the solution, but not the whole solution," she said.

The proposals come as the government prepares to unveil policy plans across a number of departments.

Tomorrow, the Ministry of Justice will reveal that thousands of criminals with serious mental illnesses or drug addictions will no longer be sent to prison but will instead be offered "voluntary" treatment in hospital. Documents will show that offenders will be free to walk away from NHS units because officials believe it would be pointless to create duplicate prisons in the community. "While treatment is voluntary, offenders in these programmes will be expected to engage, be motivated to change and to comply with the tough requirements of their community order," they will say.

Kenneth Clarke, the justice secretary, said: "Serious criminals who pose a threat to the public will always be kept locked up, but in every prison there are also people who ought to be receiving treatment for mental illness rather than housed with other criminals. The public would be better protected if they could receive that treatment in a more suitable setting."

Toby Helm and Anushka Asthana @'The Guardian'

Three Records from Sundown and Remembering Five Leaves Left

In two half-hour features exploring the short life and enduring music of Nick Drake, we hear from record producer Joe Boyd and from bassist Danny Thompson, whose playing is a key element of Nick Drake's classic first album.

Three Records from Sundown

Nick Drake was an English songwriter, singer and instrumentalist. At the time of his death, at the age of 26 in 1974, his three albums had sold poorly and he was little known. Nick Drake's darkly lyrical songs have since found their audience and he's now regarded as an influential musical figure. In Three Records from Sundown, Charles Maynes traces the Nick Drake tale through interviews with legendary producer Joe Boyd, who championed the young artist and produced his first two records.

Producer and narrator: Charles Maynes

AND

Remembering Five Leaves Left: Danny Thompson on Nick Drake

In 1968, Danny Thompson was an in-demand bassist on the London jazz scene when he got the call from producer Joe Boyd to play on the first album by the 20-year-old songwriter Nick Drake. In conversation with Robyn Johnston, Danny recalls the recording session for Five Leaves Left and tells of encounters with a fine and fragile young musician.

Producers: Robyn Johnston and David Le May

Sound engineer: David Le May

Originally broadcast on Radio National's Into The Music

23rd October 2010

HERE

♪♫ Soom T & Sakuray Kyo - What About Us?

Home beatboxing session, during the Jahtari Japan tour, Tokyo Feb 2010

HA!

Oklahoma voters may have accidentally outlawed the 10 Commandments

♪♫ Swans - I Crawled (Live @ Supersonic)

Saluti a...

Octopus Paul II

WTF???

Beck ‘fantasizes’ about Obama getting ‘beheaded’ in India

Gram Parsons interviewed by Michael Bates (Audio 1973)

HERE

Gram Parsons on Cosmic American Music, Keef, The Byrds, The Burritos and how Waylon Jennings had to walk around the block to smoke a joint when being produced by Chet Atkins amongst many other things...

'Doodleflute' and other pervy little stories made entirely from children's book titles

@'Once Upon A Title'

Ethical Reporters Against Faux News ‎

"The Edge... there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over." - Hunter S. Thompson
HERE
(Thanx Bodhi!) 

The only person connected with Manchester Utd. that I will listen to...

(Thanx A North Country Bhoy!)

♪♫ William Shatner - Fuck You

'Big society' must be rooted in altruism

There could be no better example of the coalition government's contradictory ambitions than news that councils, desperate to deliver David Cameron's "big society", are planning to offer supermarket-style reward points to goad people into being good citizens. But, why is that so bad?
Behaviour expressive of certain values tends to form a self-reinforcing loop. Hence, appealing to self-seeking, materialistic gain, makes people less likely to be communally and altruistically motivated. Conversely, being involved in a collective enterprise tends to make us less self-absorbed and more likely to be positively inclined to take part in a "big society". For example, it was the experience of "national unity" during war time, writes the historian Paul Addison, that laid the cultural and political foundations to build a more caring society fit for returning heroes after 1945.
In short, appeal to self-interested individualism and you will get self-interested individuals. Emphasise the intrinsic and mutual benefits of common endeavour and you will begin to grow a nation where people are more inclined to look out for each other.
Effectively paying people to be good citizens can also directly backfire. A classic study looked at the results of different approaches to blood donation in the UK, where people volunteer and in the United States where they got paid. In the US, research by the rightwing Institute of Economic Affairs theorised that paying donors was the way to increase supply. Subsequent analysis by Richard Titmuss found the opposite. Not only did more people give blood when it was unpaid, but that voluntarily donated blood was of a higher quality.
The financial incentive increased dishonesty among donors who lied more often about their health conditions. Titmuss concluded: "Commercialisation of blood and donor relationships represses the expression of altruism." It was a classic and common error. Think of how you feel when good friend invites you to dinner. Now imagine how you would feel if the same friend offered to pay you to go to dinner with them? Relationships nurtured by open gift giving and reciprocity differ from commercial ones. It's the difference between a loving relationship and prostitution.
Economics, too, often boils human relationships down to a caricature of self-interest and competition. In justification, it invokes misappropriated Darwinian notions of "survival of the fittest". But, this misses the equally successful evolutionary strategies of collaboration, symbiosis and co-evolution. Co-operative companies, tellingly, weathered the recession better than others.
The proposed hook-up with commercial, supermarket-based reward cards also appears self-defeating. The point of a big society is an active, engaged citizenry. But research on the impact of big stores on communities shows that their dominant presence can reduce voter turnout. They do so by unweaving the tighter social fabric that grows in more diverse economies. As more of every pound spent by shoppers stays locally if the shops are locally owned and operated, encouraging the opposite will drain not invigorate a big society. It gets more personal, too. Because of their socially alienating store formats, large chain stores even reduce the number of conversations people have while shopping, further dissolving the social glue.
Yet, a further worry might be the disturbing potential for data convergence that would occur once the enormous power of commercial store cards are combined with the personal and other information that government authorities hold on people.
I think it is far more likely that people don't vote with their feet to build the big society due to a lack of time, rather than financial or material incentive.
Recession and chronic public spending cuts are set to hugely stress social cohesion. And, there will be large numbers of people in structural unemployment (probably blamed for their fate) and many, many others working ever longer to stay afloat.
The big society needs more time banks where people swap time and skills, and a shorter working week, underpinned by sufficient safety nets, to create the conditions for a big society. Engaging vastly more people in helping communities to function will not only radically reduce costs (although that is not the reason to do it), it will enormously improve the quality of neighbourhood life, raising individual and communal wellbeing simultaneously. Getting involved ticks all the boxes that the literature tells us really improves life satisfaction: giving, being active, connecting, taking notice and learning. Papers are currently full of politicians and business people encouraging us to shop Britain back to its feet. But if we want the nation to stand up and be a truly big society, it's time that we need to spend with each other, not reward points in supermarkets.

Andrew Simms @'The Guardian"