W. Niederhut

Yes, Sandy. I was playing around with my classical guitar the year I recorded these polyphonic versions of some old Gregorian hymns, and I decided to use the guitar as an accompaniment for the chants. Of course, traditional Gregorian chants are monophonic, but composers since the time of Palestrina have composed polyphonic variations on the traditional chants. The American composer, Gerald Near, sang in our Gregorian schola here in Denver for a year or two in the early 90s. Some of his compositions have been performed at Cambridge.

Good voices, Tommy, but their Latin pronunciation needs work. I used to sing Latin Gregorian chants in a schola here in Denver, and I posted some of my own Latin Christmas recordings at Soundclick.com earlier this month. I arranged and recorded these for guitar and two-part vocal harmony. These are two of the oldest Christmas "carols" in Western Christendom. Creator Alme Siderum by Guillermo Ambrose | SoundClick Corde Natus by Guillermo Ambrose | SoundClick

Well done, Denny! Any friend of doggerel verse is a friend of mine. As for Christmas music, I like everything from Medieval chant to Palestrina, Bach, and Handel to Ella Fitzgerald, Satchmo, and Sting. My ultimate favorites are probably John Eliot Gardiner's ethereal recording of Handel's Messiah, with the English Baroque Soloists, and Anglican carols by Sir David Willcocks and the King's College Choir at Cambridge. Here's King's College Choir performing a Medieval English Christmas carol, Myn Lyking, with a melody by the late English composer, Sir Richard Runciman Terry. It's what Bruce Springsteen would call, "a little bit of heaven here on Earth."

Steve, Yesterday was the second coldest day in the recorded history of Denver-- a low of -24 F and a high of -6 F. Mercifully, we had very little wind. Chicago is reportedly experiencing 40 to 50 mph winds with wind chill temps of -35 to -40 F today.

The Devastating New History of the Insurrection December 23, 2022 at 11:43 am EST By Taegan Goddard David Remnick: “In his career as a New York real-estate shyster and tabloid denizen, then as the forty-fifth President of the United States, Trump has been the most transparent of public figures. He does little to conceal his most distinctive characteristics: his racism, misogyny, dishonesty, narcissism, incompetence, cruelty, instability, and corruption.” “And yet what has kept Trump afloat for so long, what has helped him evade ruin and prosecution, is perhaps his most salient quality: he is shameless. That is the never-apologize-never-explain core of him. Trump is hardly the first dishonest President, the first incurious President, the first xxxx. But he is the most shameless. His contrition is impossible to conceive. He is insensible to disgrace…” “Experience makes it plain that Trump will just keep going on like this, deflecting, denying, lashing out at his accusers, even if it means that he will end his days howling in a bare and echoing room. It matters little that the report shows that even members of his innermost circle, from his Attorney General to his daughter, know the depths of his vainglorious delusions. He will not repent. He will not change.” “But the importance of the committee’s report has far less to do with the spectacle of Trump’s unravelling. Its importance resides in the establishment of a historical record, the depth of its evidence, the story it tells of a deliberate, coordinated assault on American democracy that could easily have ended with the kidnapping or assassination of senior elected officials, the emboldenment of extremist groups and militias, and, above all, a stolen election, a coup.”

More Mockingbird bunk from our Warren Commission Report salesman, Lance Payette. First of all, conspiracy theories are not monolithic, so generalizations about them are misguided. Some conspiracy theories are kooky. Others are accurate explanations of black ops. Secondly, who actually believes that military and intelligence agencies don't conspire to conduct black ops? Why do the CIA and Pentagon appoint Directors of Plans?

That's a lot of ifs, Lance, considering your original assertion that Tucker Carlson is making up the story about his alleged CIA source. Among other things, you're over generalizing-- assuming that everything Carlson says is fictitious.

Nonsense. I'm the furthest thing from a Tucker Carlson/Fox fan, but, as I said last week, his recent commentary about JFK and the CIA was unprecedented and historic. I'll number you with those of my fellow liberals who are, apparently, too blinded by their contempt for Tucker Carlson to appreciate his take down of the 59 year CIA/Mockingbird/M$M cover up of JFK's assassination.

So, in anticipation of the Kennedy Center awards ceremony that will be telecast next Wednesday night, (December 28th) here's a poignant U2 anecdote that I recently read in Bono's new memoir, Surrender. In early 1985, the young Dubliners were scheduled to perform in Phoenix, Arizona on their Unforgettable Fire Tour. Their top single from the 1984 Unforgettable Fire album was their MLK tribute song, Pride-- in the Name of Love, and they wanted to perform the song in their Phoenix show, partly because Arizona Republicans were refusing to establish MLK Day as a holiday at the time. Unfortunately, before the show, Bono received some death threats, warning that he would be assassinated if he sang Pride on stage. He decided to sing it anyway, but he was frightened, and was crouching down on the stage as he began to sing the song. Then, as he tells it, he looked up and saw that his band mate/best man, bass player Adam Clayton, was standing up in front of him, waiting to take a bullet.

Well, I'm shocked, shocked to hear our itinerant Warren Commission Report salesman, Lance Payette, claim that Tucker Carlson is just making stuff up about having a CIA source for his claims about the JFK assassination. Yo, Lance, what about former CIA Director Mike Pompeo? Isn't Mike Pompeo in the habit of "taking things" to Tucker Carlson and Fox News? Do you doubt that Pompeo was involved in reviewing the classified CIA documents that Trump declined to de-classify in October of 2017 and April of 2018?

Charles, I made the mistake several years ago of buying and reading Roger Stone's book, Nixon's Secrets. It is probably the worst book I've read in the past decade-- badly in need of editing, among other problems -- and I ended up giving it away as a gag, white elephant Christmas gift. One of the few interesting lines in the entire book was, "Lyndon and I both wanted very much to be President," spoken in response to Stone's question about who killed John F. Kennedy. Stone also claimed that Nixon and LBJ met for three hours in Dallas on November 21, 1963, but I was never able to find any corroborating evidence about that interesting claim. I probably learned more about Nixon from watching Oliver Stone's film, Nixon, than from reading Nixon's Secrets. As for LBJ, I never read Stone's book about LBJ, but I did read both of Phillip Nelson's books about LBJ and the JFK assassination, which are fairly encyclopedic. I also read Joachim Joesten's 1968 book, The Dark Side of Lyndon Baines Johnson, which was, apparently, suppressed in the U.S. for a number of years after it was first published in the U.K. Our Education Forum member, Douglas Caddy, knows a lot about LBJ, because he knew Billy Sol Estis back in the day.

Joe, I have noticed that many people on the forum are going around and around on this issue without really hearing, or processing, what others have actually said. There is too much all-or-nothing thinking, and multiple threads and redundant arguments-- people talking past each other. As I have said, since last week, I have always despised Tucker Carlson and Fox News, but I was impressed, in this particular instance, by Tucker Carlson's shocking, historic take down of the CIA in the JFKA case-- including his accurate commentary about Dr. Jolyon West, Jack Ruby, and the CIA's longstanding propaganda ruse of disparaging "conspiracy theorists." And I'm still waiting for Kirk, and others, to tell us if they sincerely believe that Tucker Carlson does NOT have a credible CIA source, as he claimed. Do Tucker critics think he was just making that "CIA source" story up? Again, I don't know what his motives are-- e.g., embarrassing Biden, fomenting distrust of the "Deep State," etc.-- but his comments about the CIA and JFKA were historic, and valuable.

John, You forgot to say, "Simon says..." And, incidentally, what is our new member Simon's full name? Isn't the standard here on the Education Forum that members need to use their proper names, to prevent pseudonymous t-r-o-l-l-i-n-g?

Yo, Ron, speaking of Christmas, there's another deep freeze heading your way for the holiday weekend. My weather app notified me today about a wind chill warning of -50 F for Denver later this week. Santa will need to use a battery-powered gonad warmer this Christmas Eve.

C'mon, people. Does anyone around here seriously doubt that Tucker Carlson has a source familiar with the CIA documents supporting his recent shocking commentary? Does anyone think that he is just making this stuff up? Some of my fellow liberals around here seem to be blinded by their understandable contempt for Tucker Carlson and Fox News. As for the source, I still think it may be Mike Pompeo. Pompeo was, obviously, in the loop in reviewing the CIA documents that Trump opted to suppress in October of 2017 and April of 2018.

Kirk, I'm a progressive Democrat who has always despised Tucker Carlson and Fox News, but I do believe that he has a legitimate CIA source, as he claims, and I also believe that his recent commentary about the CIA and the JFK assassination is historic, and valuable. No M$M talking head in history has been willing to say on national television what Carlson just said. (Dan Rather must be sh*tting in his shorts-- after spending his career at CBS deliberately repeating lies about what happened in Dealey Plaza.) Do you think Carlson is lying about his alleged CIA source? I don't know what Tucker Carlson's motives are for this rather shocking outburst of M$M honesty about the CIA's involvement in murdering JFK and covering up the evidence for 59 years, but I'm grateful for it. There's too much all-or-nothing thinking around here--i.e., a notion that everything Tucker Carlson says is either horse manure or gospel.

Speaking of horses' mouths, Kirk, never look a gift horse in the mouth. Tucker Carlson's take down of the CIA last night was a historic gift to JFKA Truthers. I hope he doesn't end up walking it back, or "committing suicide" with a shotgun, like George De Mohrenschildt.

Unless Pompeo was Tucker's source and he wanted the public to hear it from the horse's mouth. The last thing Tucker said was that he hoped Pompeo would reconsider his refusal to be interviewed on the subject.

Perhaps their motive is to embarrass the Biden administration for colluding in the 59-year CIA cover up. But, nevertheless, I'm thrilled to see the truth being told by people in the mainstream media. Biden should be embarrassed. James DiEugenio didn't overplay his hand-- simply calling attention to the blank pages, etc. My question. Did Watters edit out more extensive footage of DiEugenio discussing the CIA's involvement in the assassination?

Any votes for Mike Pompeo being Tucker Carlson's inside source about the CIA documents? Pompeo was, obviously, in the loop, as CIA Director, when Trump "got rolled by the Deep State" in October of 2017. As for Tucker Carlson, I salute him for his outstanding take down of the CIA last night. I have always despised the guy, but I truly respect him today for finally telling the American public the truth about the CIA's role in JFK's assassination. It's bound to embarrass Joe Biden, and it should. I'm deeply disappointed with Biden for copping out on releasing the documents.

I thought James DiEugenio did a great job of not over playing his hand in the Watters World interview. Obviously, there is a lot that DiEugenio could have said about the CIA's role in the assassination, but he left it to the viewers to connect the dots about the blank documents. (I wonder if this was partly a result of Watters editing DiEugenio's commentary.)

Unbelievable!! I have been a critic of Tucker Carlson and Fox News for years, so I could hardly believe my eyes and ears when I listened to Tucker Carlson's takedown of the CIA and their long-hidden role in JFK's assassination this morning!Carlson hits on all cylinders here -- even discussing CIA psychiatrist Jolyon West's contacts with Jack Ruby, and his involvement in MK-ULTRA.Carlson also explains how the CIA and their mainstream media propagandists started using the term "conspiracy theorists" after 1964 to discredit researchers who were debunking the fraudulent Warren Commission Report. I agree with Ben and Mathew Koch on this one. This is the most important, accurate mainstream media commentary on the JFK assassination in history!

Geez, Ben, after all of this time you still haven't figured out that Russiagate was no hoax? Or that Brett Stephens is a Neocon shill? And, obviously, you still haven't read the Mueller Report, the Senate Intelligence Committee Report, or the Atlantic article I posted for you on this specific subject. Russiagate Was Not a Hoax - The Atlantic Franky, it's a complete waste of time to engage in conversations and post references for you-- rather like trying to reason with a television set tuned to Fox News. As for your theory that Biden declined to declassify the JFK records because he's a blackmailed grifter, it makes about as much sense as all of your other debunked theories. You must be confusing Biden with the biggest grifter in American history, Donald J. Trump. The truth is that Biden has been enmeshed with the U.S. intelligence establishment for decades, and he has never been one to pick a fight with the powers that be.