John Dolva

Kenny Rogers - The Gambler edit add this is a better version.(audio)

Drat, I wrote a reply not logged in. I can't do it again for now in detail. It's about ideas like the M3 had been taken by RFK to behind the Iron Curtain aand other now whimsical notions that encoraged survivalism. This partly why I say that the Civil War has really never ended. The same dogma is there just as much today except now it's on a slow burn.

Good, Dan. Yeah I remember. Searchuing for it I got hold of the HU unamerican whatsit volumes from 1965 and got stuck in that. At the time I kept trying to cross reference with your info. Interesting. I got sidetracked by a Elizabeth DeWitt and co. Quite an interesting story there. Montreal is an interesting one. It's fascist history is interesting. Grey shirts or something. Anyway in amongst all that I'm sure there is stuff of interest. ''ideology that was best exemplified in the Ronald Reagan idolatry; in real terms that only meant that they were deceptive bigots, as opposed to the Klan whose members were more comfortable with being straightforward bigots.'' - amen.

Raising it by a couple of bucks by 2014 which says nothing of when or any default clauses and then an inflation paced rise is silly. Prices are rising now. These are promises. The purpose of such is to mollify to some extent. It assuages the better off and confuses the working poor. iow ' not worth the paper it's printed on '. Except to, not employers, but the masters of finance. I agree, they are the ones who should have a wage cap. These wage structures makes beggars of people, whether it's playing for tips, keeping a job, dependent on handouts, criminal desperation, whatever. It makes the strugglers beholden and therefore controllable. The best strategy for workers is to divest all debt. Now. Downsize life style, form co-operative ventures. stop watching tv, take up meditation, read up on nutrition.

I don't know what to say Don. Have you read the whole book? After that one I stumbled on a parallel story which , in the beginning provides an atmosphere of these impoverished areas that Sickert and The Ripper prowled. : The story of the creation of The Great Oxford Dictionary, which has some interesting parallel events. Could DR Minor (US Army Surgeon ret), locked up in Broadmoor for life over the sensational shooting of an innocent, haave somehow have been an 'inspiration'?. He carried a long knife at his back when collared. His later mentor, the second editor of the huge production 'The Dicyionary', had solid artistic connections as well as them both being extremely well educated. Minor never received his full due but he did live a life of much leisure at the Queens Pleasure. An intriguing cast of characters that if nothing else helps to fix the atmosphere under which the Ripper did his 'work'.

Any mention of a piece of metal with odd perforations?

I perceive some inconsistancies. The KKK is not well documented. True, in a sense. They embraced what became attributed to U.B. Amos : independent units. When put on the stand (1965 report 5vols+index) with endless fifth amendment pleas and fairly confused testimonies, where there is any. Elizabeth De Witt stands out as one of the most slippery and also one who seems to have been at the center of a plot. Yet one can read between the lines and perceive a well thought out structure. This is the Militant Right. Anyway the point is that the paucity of documentation and statements definite about various persons KKK involvement is one matter to deal with.

Interesting, I agree, but suggest something that I've mentioned before but it's too out there afaik. There was shot from an opening in the curved wall behind Newman and one from about the south end of the triple underpass.

Create a narrative that counters that permits alternatives. Provide an alternative whenever needed. As long as you see a solution coming from the creators of iniquity then, yes,it will always be something 'best that one can hope for'. I don't subscribe to that point of view.

John, would you please post links to any Louisiana Sovereignty Commission documents that name ex-General Edwin Walker, Guy Banister, Robert Allen Surrey, Sergio Arcacha-Smith or Colonel Thomas Birdsong? Best regards, --Paul Trejo sorry>The reason I think that NO can be the HQ is through a gradual study of the MSC files and getting the feel of them, then the documents from the MSC files shows that the Louisiana Sovereignty Commission and its leaders was the hub of an extensive network and in looking at the MSC files inevitably coming up with POI's like Walker, Banister, Arcacha Smith, Surrey, Zack Van Landringham, Birdsong, and I always feel I wouldn't be at all surprised to find a Brian Jones-Alabama-SOF editor connection that connects to the very groups that were most militant like the White Camellias.etc. In a way NO was the head office, Mississippi the work space and Alabama the supply room. (With possibly Oklahoma,Kansas and Florida with particularly significant resources.). (Dallas was a good place because it wasn't any of those.)< edittypo

The reason I think that NO can be the HQ is through a gradual study of the MSC files and getting the feel and then the documents that shows that the Louisiana Sovereignty Commission and its leaders was the hub of an extensive network and in looking at it inevitably coming up with POI's like Walker, Banister, Arcacha Smith, Surrey, Zack Van Landringham, Birdsong, and I always feel I wouldn't be at all surprised to find a Brian Jones-Alabama-SOF editor connection that connects to the very groups that were most militant like the White Camellias.etc. In a way NO was the head office, Mississippi the work space and Alabama the supply room. (With possibly Oklahoma,Kansas and Florida with particularly significant resources.). (Dallas was a good place because it wasn't any of those.)

I agree. I'd say the same with the contemporary terminology that Holmes was a Postal Inspector who worked in then USPO's Postal Inspection Department which was responsible for the carrying out of directions that came directly from the Heads of the CIA. The Post Master General presided over, and was a Cabinet minister, the USPO. J. E, Day was visited and received his instruction in a couple of weeks after taking office. (he was later moved on as a result of a Civil Rights infraction mid '63 and replaced by Gronowski who refused this request , and by 'Nixon the USPO no longer existed and PI's had moved on.). Who the head of the PI Dep of the USPO was I don't know. I don't know of anyone who has looked in to it. Anyway, not only was Holmes an FBI informant with every right to inspect any mail he was separated, if not less, by two persons from the 'Top'. I think here it is important to consider the USPO-PI history paying particular attention to the head of the Confederate PO, and even look back to Benjamin's establishment of the PI Department he had created and how the PMG became not only patronaged but also an automatic Cabinet member. (till Nixon that is)

You gotta sit through 42 minutes of a remarkable performance to get to the really good bits.

I agree with Tosh. I never saw Marley, but I did see Tosh once in a very poor auditorium that bands always seemed to have difficulties with. Tosh on the other hand, hung mats all over, hemming the audience in and considering they had a day after flying in to set it up, mixing re the acoustics, the sound was perfect, which meant he could get his message across (which is what he and the early rastas were all about. Marley of course is untouchable but like Jimi can be eclipsed) which was much along the line of this: Peter Tosh - Captured Live http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCsPREccwSI So, there is great skill there is effectiveness and of course there is a progressive activism So, if one defines art and therefore great art, irrespective of a possible 'I know what I like' tainted judgment, as fulfilling this, I think that is sufficient to say Tosh was a Great Artist. edittypo

Just to elaborate a bit on this. : Harry Holmes checked the key out from the evidence room that eve. Not only how, but why? Certainly not to gain access to the box.Are there any clear photos of both sides of the key? I know of the DPD ones, but they're crap. Good catch, John. Priscilla Johnson-McMillan once insisted that Lee Oswald always rented post office boxes every time he moved so that he could receive Communist newspapers without alarming his landladies. It makes absolutely no sense to me that a brazen exhibitionist like Lee Oswald would be so polite and proper for his landlords. He wanted to be in the newspapers, on the radio and on TV, but he didn't want his landladies to know? No way. Are you sure it was irrelevant whether his landlords knew he was publicly a 'pariah'? Anyway, that's irrelevant. He said it was his way of managing his mail without having to inform whoever by using redirects (was the Time mag subscribed to after he rented the box). This also leaves a trail in the System via the USPO. On the contrary, it's common knowledge that spies (even junior spies) used post office boxes to receive orders, secret messages and payments. (Oswald was known to regularly cash checks other than payroll or unemployment checks at local businesses.) Oswald possessed a miniature Minolta camera, which was quite expensive in 1963. He was probably an amateur spy who had money problems because his employers gave him low marks for his work. Notice, too, that the Warren Commission's first conclusion was that Oswald did not receive "messages" in these post office boxes. That was to support their opening deception -- that Oswald was never paid by the FBI for information. Because, if the FBI had been paying Oswald for spy work, it would have been accomplished using post office boxes -- the standard method. HDH was FBI informant DA-T7. He didn't need a key to check the box. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/2012/jul/02/rift-valley-pastoralists-arms-treaty ''...there is a small block of 20 or so other nations beginning to agitate openly and hustle privately, for a diplomatic fudge that would allow these countries, and their politically powerful arms manufacturers, more wriggle room. They include the unlikely coalition of the US, Russia and China. The foot-draggers will be pressed hard by the countries most affected by the illegal sale of arms, with the vast majority of countries in Africa, including Kenya. Kenya has special significance in this process. It was in Nairobi in 2002 that 100 of the world's NGOs agreed to co-ordinate an international push for an ATT, and Nairobi will send one of the biggest delegations to New York this month. It has suffered greatly over the past 20 years, as small arms and ammunition have been smuggled into the country across its porous border. At first the weapons came in from Uganda; now it is through South Sudan and Somalia...''

Do you think Bob Marley was a Great Artist?

I recently read an article that makes this point (topic). It is on the Fourth International web site. It's about a current event many are probably aware of. Here's a different way to look at it. Published by the International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI) New York Times lauds Supreme Court’s “exquisite delicacy” in health care decision By Joseph Kishore 30 June 2012 For anyone seeking to follow American politics, there is a certain professional obligation to read the New York Times, the “newspaper of record.” This obligation has less to do with the information that can be gleaned from its pages than the insight its commentaries and articles provide into the thinking of the Democratic Party milieu for which the Times speaks. The Times specializes in serving up the lying hypocrisy of the liberal bourgeois establishment, which is then echoed by the various “left” defenders of the Democratic Party. As such, one of the newspaper’s primary tasks is to lend a progressive veneer to the right-wing policies of the Obama administration. The response of the Times to Thursday’s Supreme Court ruling on Obama’s health care program is a typical, although particularly disgusting and absurd, example of its propaganda in support of the administration. A few articles are worth singling out. In “Roberts Shows Deft Hand as Swing Vote on Health Care,” which appeared under the category of “news analysis,” the newspaper’sSupreme Court correspondentAdam Liptak heaps praise on Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote the deciding opinion of the Court on the most significant element of Obama’s bill, the individual mandate to purchase insurance from private corporations. Referring to the statement of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. that determining the constitutionality of a law is “the gravest and most delicate duty” of the Supreme Court, Liptak declares: “In finding a way to uphold President Obama’s health care overhaul law on Thursday, Chief Justice Roberts performed the task with exquisite delicacy.” Liptak repeated a few paragraphs down that “the chief justice’s defining and delicate role in upholding the health care law will always be associated with his tenure.” What is the content of Roberts’ “exquisitely delicate” ruling? It is in fact politically motivated hack work, a classic example of deciding the desired outcome first and constructing a somewhat tortured legal argument to support it. In this case, Roberts sought to uphold the health care reform law, which the predominant faction of the ruling class wants to maintain, while at the same time advancing right-wing interpretations of the Constitution that can be used to undermine existing corporate regulations. It is this that accounts for the “verbal wizardry,” in the words of Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissent, of Roberts’ ruling. Roberts sided with Scalia and the other extreme right-wing justices in declaring that the individual mandate—which penalizes individuals for not purchasing private insurance—was not valid under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. There has been a longstanding right-wing campaign against the Commerce Clause, which has been used as the constitutional basis for much of the New Deal and post-war corporate regulations and social reform measures. Roberts’ ruling introduces a number of specious arguments to call into question its broader legal interpretation. While establishing this thoroughly right-wing precedent, Roberts was nevertheless determined to uphold the law itself. The “reform” is part of a coordinated effort to cut health care costs for governments and corporations, and shift these costs onto the backs of individuals. Thus we have the conclusion that the law is constitutional on the basis of the government’s ability to tax. Roberts practically pulled this argument out of thin air, as the Obama administration has insisted, and indeed continues to insist after the ruling, that the penalty for not buying health insurance is not a tax. In fact, to argue that the penalty is a tax, Roberts had to contradict his own ruling. In order to justify hearing the case, Roberts had to rule that the penalty is not a tax, since according to the Anti-Injunction Act, an individual cannot bring suit against a tax until after it has been paid—and the health care mandate does not go into effect until 2014. So the mandate is a tax and is not a tax in the same ruling. If Roberts is exquisitely delicate, Obama is “historic,” also according to the Times. The passage and upholding of Obama’s health care reform leaves intact Obama’s “hopes of joining the ranks of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Lyndon B. Johnson and Ronald Reagan as presidents who fundamentally altered the course of the country,” writes Mark Landler under the headline, “A Vindication, With a Legacy Still Unwritten.” The Supreme Court decision preserves “Mr. Obama’s status as the president who did more to expand the nation’s safety net than any since Johnson. It preserves a bill intended to push back against rapidly rising income inequality.” A number of historians are brought in to argue this case, including Douglas G. Brinkley, who asserts that the health care overhaul is “the cornerstone of what could turn out to be one of the most extraordinary two-term presidencies in American history.” Obama’s presidency has been about establishing “a view of government as a force for good, a great leveler and a protector of the middle class,” Landler continues. As for the challenge to the health care law, this is likened to the court challenges to Roosevelt’s New Deal in the early 1930s. “The lesson for this president, said David M. Kennedy, a historian at Stanford, is to forge a coalition robust enough to change the political landscape. Roosevelt was elected to a second term in a landslide in 1936, cementing the New Deal.” Reality and history are placed on their heads. Obama’s health care law has nothing in common with the social reforms of the 1930s (including Social Security and major public works programs), or the Great Society reforms of the 1960s (including Medicare and Medicaid). In fact, it is part of a campaign to undermine and eliminate these social programs. Led by Obama, the ruling class has responded to the economic crisis by slashing hundreds of billions from health care programs at the state and federal level—including a $500 billion cut in Medicare included in the health care law. To the extent that federal health care programs exist, they will provide the most minimal care. To this end, the Democratic administration, in close cooperation with the Times, has launched a campaign against “unnecessary” tests and procedures. This campaign will escalate now that the law has been upheld. At the same time, corporations are cutting or eliminating their own health care programs, as part of a general attack on wages and benefits. Again, this has been encouraged by the Obama administration—including through the forced bankruptcy of the auto companies. The health care bill includes a special tax on health care plans that provide better coverage (disparaged as “Cadillac” plans), explicitly intended to encourage companies to eliminate them. The American people—or at least all those who can’t afford to pay for the best coverage—will be left to the mercy of private insurance companies. The entire content of the health care “reform” bill is to encourage this process. It is not a significant reform, but part of a giant step backwards in health care. Again, it is telling that in the same decision, Chief Justice Roberts both upholds Obama’s law and calls into question the constitutional basis of much of the New Deal—the expansive reading of the Commerce Clause. The Times—and the wealthy liberal milieu for which it speaks—is entirely in favor of this attack on the working class. This, combined with their increasingly desperate efforts to maintain the political stranglehold of the Democratic Party, accounts for the nauseating mendacity of its coverage.

Just to elaborate a bit on this. : Harry Holmes checked the key out from the evidence room that eve. Not only how, but why? Certainly not to gain access to the box.Are there any clear photos of both sides of the key? I know of the DPD ones, but they're crap.

RFK flew to Medgar's brother Charles side and they became and stayed friends. Charles was with RFK when he was shot. Stick that in the mix and you gotta see things more as a Civil Rights thing. Of course you should expect to find Communists there. That's what Communism is all about. So let's assume you get that, a whole new, imo more objective, way. Medgar spent the night watching JFK's Civil Rights speech that night. Friends described him as unusually disturbed at a point of the night. I think he had received some worrisome, not friendly, message. The bit about comparative study was really about the legal process reported in a lot of detail by news articles of the time at the MSC site. Very similar. Telescopic Rifle ditched at the scene. et.c. except this one survived to go to trial. That in itself is telling I suppose. Anyway, the FBI etc were very involved and there was nothing the prosecution could do to avoid the obvious outcome even though his guilt and that of numerous accomplices stretching right up to the top was just as obvious (ditto the later M3).(Mi Lai, ... etc ad infinitum)

????? what?

The Barclays scandal is not 'wholly inappropriate'. It's a crime If the authorities were consistent, they would punish the banks just as severely as they reacted to last year's rioters Share Tweet this Email Jonathan Freedland guardian.co.uk, Friday 29 June 2012 21.00 BST Comments (…) Two men pass a closed Barclays Bank branch in the City of London. But 'make no mistake, it is banks plural … not just Barclays' who are involved. Photograph: Chris Helgren/Reuters Even if he hasn't yet debased the coinage, Bob Diamond has certainly done his bit to debase further the language of British public life. Confronted with a clear ruling that Barclays traders had lied and cheated in seeking to rig a key interest rate used to determine everything from mortgages to credit card bills, Diamond put his hands up and conceded that the traders' action had been "wholly inappropriate". Inappropriate? Inappropriate is wearing a tie to a barbecue. Wholly inappropriate is burping during the wedding vows. Distorting for personal gain a rate that underpins contracts worth $350 trillion worldwide is rather more than "inappropriate". ..

Go and Art - Kawabata's Master of Go if you full screen it and look at the top right you can see a type of viewing the game that can be very helpful. There are other 'pattern' videos to watch too. It all goes to help the penny drop.

Here's a funny one having lived through the orange invasion in freo: images of The Big B, Bhagawan, aka ...Fred, OSHO... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bsV7uQHAAI&feature=bf_next&list=AL94UKMTqg-9BlGTNTJIITFCoFa0cj45xS http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bsV7uQHAAI&feature=bf_next&list=AL94UKMTqg-9BlGTNTJIITFCoFa0cj45xS

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/29/australia-murdochracy-rupert-part-problem Australia may be a Murdochracy, but Rupert is only part of the problem Rupert Murdoch controls most of Australia's media. But even the so-called free press serves only profit and PR Share Tweet this Email John Pilger