Toles on National Geographic under Murdoch

Horsey on Amazon

His editorial on the NYT piece here: http://www.latimes.com/opinion/topoftheticket/la-na-tt-amazon-brutal-workplace-20150818-story.html*

Meanwhile, Ted Rall's book on Snowden is coming out this month: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2489393,00.asp


* Would it make a difference writing about that subject if he still worked for a paper in Seattle I wonder.

Occam's Razor

A few words on ole' Donnie Boy.  Earlier on this blog, I alluded to certain conspiracy-theories about Trump's candidacy.

But, the more I see and hear Mister Trump, something I have hitherto studiously avoided, since, oh, the 'eighties or so, the more I'm convinced that Trump is not just appealing to your crazy older relatives & in-laws, who marinate their brains in a steady intake of Fox News, Drudge, and AM talk-radio...Rather, he is them.  He is that crazy uncle who will start ranting on at the dinnertable about Saul Alinsky & Rules for Radicals, and then get angry and frustrated that everyone else is 'pretending' not to have a clue what the fuck he's talking about.

The difference is that your crazy uncle will likely end up in a mental institution, homeless, shooting up a movie-theatre, or, more likely, dead of an aneurysm, after angrily shouting at the 'Muslim interloper' on the teevee-set one time too many.  He doesn't have the self-confidence, the hubris, or, more importantly, the money and contacts to run for president.  Trump does.

Think about it.  An eccentric nearly seventy-year-old white man, who, never mind the right-wing media-bubble, factor as that is, has spent his whole life in a bubble of his own making, hobnobbing with only the richest*, the most famous, coming otherwise into contact only with the most expertly craven bootlickers and yes-men.  A man who stamps his name in massive capital letters on every property he touches, who refers to himself in the third person, who exaggerates his own wealth and accomplishments.  And who stokes publicly for years a fantasy about his running for president.  Only to end up here at the tail-end of 'the worst presidency ever', with apparently apocalyptic consequences if good decent-minded white folk can't take back the White House from the perverts and communists who have infiltrated it...to, er, make America great again, as it were.

If you were naïve enough to believe the ridiculous hyperbolic crap that come out of the likes of Fox News, if you heard the Republican base crying out for a messiah, and if you were Donald Trump, why wouldn't you run for president ?  He can afford it.  His ego is seemingly untouchable, and allows him to easily spin any loss as a victory, even to himself.  And if there were ever a time in a man's life, assuming Trump considers himself mortal, for a true legacy-moment, going on threescore years and ten is about it.  The man has nothing to lose.

Nothing.  Trump goes bankrupt, he wins.  Trump helps elect Hillary Clinton, he wins.  Trump destroys the GOP for generations, he wins.  Trump brings on the coming of the Antichrist, he wins.  Trump invites an alien invasion of Earth, he wins.  Trump always wins...even when he loses.

And the man would seem to be as utterly deluded as the right-wing Tea Partiers whose votes he would court.  Outside of the conspiracy-theories, it's the only thing that makes sense.  He just is that crazy.  Which, if he takes this all the way, could just be America's salvation.


For a reminder of Trump's background, pre-Apprentice, do yourself a favour and go watch Trump: What's the Deal?** (Don't be put off by the cheesy music by Queen in the opening credits.).  It's a pretty good window into the origins of and the person that is one Donald J Trump.


* In case you were wondering whether there were consequences to living in such a bubble generally: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/07/28/rich-people-surrounded-by-other-rich-people-think-america-is-richer-than-it-really-is/

** Also on YT, here.

In Case It Wasn't Obvious

How to get rich by running for president

The year 2008 was great for Mike Huckabee—but not as a politician. The former Arkansas governor bailed out of the presidential race in March of that year after losing steam in the early primary elections. But simply running for president elevated Huckabee to the status of celebrity, while helping him build a devoted following among southern and Midwestern evangelicals. Huckabee has since converted the renown that comes with running for national office into a business enterprise that has made him wealthy, with a palatial beachfront home, access to private jets and other perks of the 1%.

Huckabee is running for president again, of course, which makes him one of perhaps 12 or 15 candidates likely to enjoy free media attention and additional publicity funded by donors—even though polls show they have virtually no chance of winning. The presence of so many obscure candidates in the 2016 race—Jim Gilmore, Lincoln Chafee, James Webb, George Pataki, and so on—prompts an obvious question: Why are they running? Huckabee’s experience suggests one answer: Because running for president can be a highly lucrative form of work.

No serious candidate* will admit to running for president purely as a self-promotional stunt. Some may be trying to gain exposure for a more serious run for office in the future. Others may be using a run to promote their companies or personal brands, like Steve Forbes in 1996 and 2000 and Donald Trump now. And many candidates no doubt feel they have a serious message to convey to voters, while perhaps also angling for a Cabinet position, ambassadorship, or other plum job if their party’s nominee ends up winning the White House. “You can emerge from the campaign as a power broker, as somebody influential with the media and with lobbyists,” says Julian Zelizer of Princeton University’s Center for the Study of Democratic Politics. “I’m sure that’s on the mind of some of these candidates.”

Still, savvy candidates can nonetheless parlay the fame that comes from televised debates, a decent showing in a couple of early primaries, and wall-to-wall media coverage into a juicy 7- or 8-figure income. Huckabee serves as a good case study of the business of running for president because his financial disclosures represent an instructive before-and-after story. Huckabee was Arkansas governor for 12 years, from 1996 to 2007, living for most of that time on a modest salary of around $70,000. He announced his first run for president almost immediately after leaving the governor’s office, in January 2007, when he also started giving paid speeches and accepting other business offers fitting an ex-governor.

At the time, Huckabee was comfortable but far from rich. On the 2007 disclosure form he filed (required for all presidential candidates), Huckabee listed business income of about $325,000, including his governor’s salary, book royalties and a one-time consulting fee of $40,000. He also earned speaking fees of nearly $140,000 during the 15 months prior to filing the 2007 disclosure form, most of it in the first quarter of 2007. Overall, his annual income back then was close to  $400,000.

That was pretty good, but life was about to get much better for "Huck," as he's known. After dropping out of the 2008 race, he scored a Fox News TV show and a national radio program. Huckabee had written several books before running for president, but the books he’s written since then have sold much better, including his 2015 bestseller "God, Guns, Grits & Gravy."Huckabee now earns two to three times as much for giving a speech -- and he gives a lot more of them. He also runs a group of companies called Blue Diamond that handle his travel, publishing ventures and other lines of business, with his wife Janet on the payroll of at least one of them....

I just love how Yahoo! states that Huckabee was 'far from rich' whilst earning $400,000 a year.  Which is about 1400% more than the US' individual median.  But evidently...still...not enough.

There’s nothing inherently wrong with cashing in on fame, as countless other Americans have done in just about every industry. Huckabee, for his part, is an entrepreneurial character with a folksy personality that makes him popular in broad patches of middle America. Santorum has gravitated away from a traditional revolving-door career and found a way to make a living that's more in line with the conservative social values he espouses as a candidate. Both are capitalizing on opportunity in ways many other Americans would if they could.

Besides, Huckabee and Santorum are serfs compared with some other prominent candidates. Democrat Hillary Clinton typically earns at least $225,000 per paid speech, and she pulled in nearly $12 million in speaking fees in the 15 months ended March 31 of this year. Her husband Bill, the former president, earns even more....

The best thing about the business of running for president is that other people typically pay for it. A few superrich candidates fund their own campaigns—as Donald Trump is doing, and Steve Forbes and Ross Perot did before him—but most candidates spend only what they’re able to raise from donors. Huckabee raised about $16 million when he ran in 2008. All of it came from donors, meaning none of his campaign spending was self-financed. But Huckabee’s haul was a tiny fraction of what party nominees John McCain and Barack Obama raised, which limited his staying power in the primary races.

...

Huckabee, who now resides in Florida, has reportedly developed a taste for the good life, prompting controversy over whether he’s duping donors into funding what is basically a private venture that principally benefits himself and his family. But Zelizer of Princeton says most donors know what they’re paying for when they help fund a low-probability candidate. “Some of these donors may be gullible, but I think they’re making other bets,” says Zelizer. “Maybe they’re able to walk into the room with a power broker.” There are worse ways to spend money, if you've got a lot to spend.

There's the problem, right there.  We're talking about someone making a high six-figure income as if he were working poor, and the same person making millions as a relative 'serf'.  And the billionaires above that level, well of course it's all monopoly-money, play-money if you will.  And inevitably, someone with that much spare cash, will play with it.  Why the fuck not ?  You could never spend it it in your lifetime, you've already got trusts set up for your children & grandchildren; What else are you going to do with the excess cash ?  Burn it in a giant bonfire for kicks & giggles ?

The best economic arguments for more progressive taxation are fiscal ones, but above and beyond that, closer and closer concentration of wealth, is inherently toxic to democracy.**  The US has at this point passed the boundary from 'nominal democracy' to outright plutocracy.  And the tone of this article suggests that the media at any rate, are still in total denial about that fact, so removed from ordinary economic realities as they would seem to be.  Eight decades ago, even the more radical right-wing American politicians saw the dangers of continuing inequality, the threat of outright revolution if they couldn't contain the rot.  Today, we're leaving the former gilded age behind, and entering uncharted territory.  Whatever happens next, like as not, won't be pretty.


* Huckabee is a serious candidate ?

** Especially when idiots in the Supreme Court decide, à la Citizens United, that somehow money and free speech are one and the same, and that there should be no upper limits or restrictions on expenditure to buy elections.

The Indy on the Madness that is TTIP

Not that it seems any amount of warning will interest or engage our citizenry over the outrageous extra-judicial anti-democractic monstrosities that are TTIP & TPP, and their related cohorts.  But, one can but try, futile as it may be.

Corporate vampires have tried to suck $4 billion out of Romania, and with TTIP the UK could be next

TTIP's opponents may be accused of speculation, but the impact of similar trade deals abroad is terrifyingly real

When it dared to halt the production of a gold mine, the government of Romania found itself facing a massive lawsuit from a corporate mining giant in a secret "court". There's nothing about the case that makes any sense – the corporation has said it may seek up to $4 billion in "compensation", which is half of Romania’s annual public healthcare budget.

How awful for Romania to be subject to such a corporate assault, you may think. However, under a controversial trade deal between the UK and America known as TTIP, such cases could become common in Britain. So why is our government one of the biggest cheerleaders of these "corporate courts"?*

What's happening in Romania is a terrifying sign of what could happen if TTIP is passed. The corporate vampires are out for blood, and won't rest until they've drained a sovereign state of its money, and destroyed large parts of its land. The mining giant Gabriel Resources originally wanted to develop an enormous gold mine that would involve flattening four mountain tops. There were fears that this would would leave behind a behind a toxic waste lake containing dammed water and cyanide. But in 2014 a critical environmental document that was required for the project to go-ahead was annulled in a Romanian court. In the face of mass protests inside and outside the country, Romania’s parliament decided not to push through a law that would have allowed the project to continue.

Gabriel Resources has recently admitted that they've lost hope of ever building their mine. But at the same time they submitted a request for arbitration at the World Bank, demanding compensation for all the gold and silver that they were unable to extract. The company is using a Jersey subsidiary to bring the case, so it can make use of a UK-Romania investment deal, even though it's based in Canada. The company claims they have spent nearly $500 million on the project, yet in an interview the company’s CEO claimed he was seeking up to $4 billion in "compensation".

This is exactly the kind of case which that TTIP would promote throughout Europe. Through something called the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanism, foreign corporations get access to a secret arbitration system to sue governments for "damaging" their profits. These cases are taking place with an alarming frequency using a variety of existing trade deals, but TTIP would massively expand the possibility of this taking place. It would do this by allowing all US corporations to sue EU member states and all EU corporations to sue the US government.

...

Yet despite all of this, the British government is fully signed up to the corporate courts. Last year it signed a letter that made clear that the secret court system shouldn’t be removed from the trade deal under any circumstances.

Sovereignty, who needs it ?  Says a 'Conservative' government that rants and raves about the European Union, and, to a lesser degree, the UN, but is more than happy to put unaccountable multi-national corporations above the law or oversight of any government, itself very much included.  Are the UN-'New World Order' nuts paying attention ?


* As with the question of why Osborne is selling off the taxpayers' stake in RBS at a loss, the answer is simple.  Whether you are naïve enough to think otherwise, or even stupid enough to vote for the bastards (not that the same couldn't be said about many Labour-supporters), the fact is, they don't work for you.  If they ever did, they certainly haven't for the last few decades.  And the longer it takes for the general public to wake up to that fact, the less likely it is that our circumstances will ever change.

Brian Adcock on Osborne's RBS Giveaway

Got to put the taxpayers' money back into the hands of (bailed out) private banks and billionaires, where it rightfully belongs after all.  Meanwhile, about that allowance of yours...

Guardian: Can we reverse the ageing process by putting young blood into older people?

A series of experiments has produced incredible results by giving young blood to old mice. Now the findings are being tested on humans. Ian Sample meets the scientists whose research could transform our lives

On an August morning in 2008, Tony Wyss-Coray sat in a conference room at the Veterans Affairs hospital in Palo Alto, California, waiting for his lab’s weekly meeting to begin. Wyss-Coray, a professor of neurology at Stanford University, was leading a young group of researchers who studied ageing and neurodegeneration. As a rule, the gatherings were forgettable affairs – the incremental nature of scientific progress does not lend itself to big surprises. But a lab member scheduled to speak that day had taken on a radical project, and he had new results to share.

Saul Villeda, an ebullient PhD student with slick black hair and a goatee, had spent the past year engrossed in research that called to mind the speculative medical science of the middle ages. He was investigating whether the old and frail could be rejuvenated by infusions of blood from the young. The hypothesis was not as absurd as it might sound.

Villeda had conducted pilot studies with pairs of surgically conjoined mice that shared a blood supply for several weeks. Young mice received blood from older mice, and old mice received blood from younger ones. Villeda wanted to see the effect on their brains. Neurons in ageing brains lose their connections and start to die off; ultimately, the brain shrinks and becomes less effective. A region called the hippocampus, crucial for memory and learning, is one of the first to deteriorate with age, causing people’s memories and thought processes to falter.

...

Villeda got three hours’ sleep that night. The next morning, he stood up at the lab meeting and revealed to his colleagues what young blood did to the ageing brain. “There was a palpable electricity in the room,” Wyss-Coray recalled. “I remember seeing the images for the first time and saying, ‘Wow.’” Old mice that received young blood experienced a burst of brain cell growth in the hippocampus. They had three to four times as many newborn neurons as their counterparts. But that was not all: old blood had the opposite effect on the brains of young mice, stalling the birth of new neurons and leaving them looking old before their time.

The other scientists in the room were stunned. Some were sceptical. Could it be real? “This could be big,” said Wyss-Coray. “If an old mouse starts to make more neurons when you give it young blood? That is amazing.”

Since that meeting seven years ago, research on this topic has moved on dramatically. It has led some to speculate that in young blood might lie an antidote to the ravages of old age. But the apparent rejuvenating properties of young blood must be treated with healthy scepticism. The hopes they raise rest solely on mouse studies. No beneficial effects have ever been proven in humans. Then again, no one has ever looked.

That is about to change. In October 2014, Wyss-Coray launched the first human trial of young blood. At Stanford School of Medicine, infusions of blood plasma from young people are being given to older people with Alzheimer’s disease. The results are expected at the end of the year. It is the greatest test yet for the medical potential of young blood.

...

Scientists may never halt the process entirely: ageing is an opaque and complex mingle of molecular pathways. But they might learn how to stop changes that underpin the worst chronic diseases. They want to extend healthspan, not lifespan.

...

The study was published in Nature Medicine in 2014. Immediately, emails flooded in to Wyss-Coray’s inbox. Alzheimer’s patients wanted infusions of young blood. So did numerous aged billionaires. One, who flies around in a jet with his name emblazoned on the side, invited Wyss-Coray to an Oscars after-party this year. (He didn’t go.) Another correspondent wrote with a more disturbing offer: he said he could provide blood from children of whatever age the scientists required. Wyss-Coray was appalled. “That was creepy,” he said.

...

As a business proposition, the transfusion of young blood raises all kinds of fears. It raises the spectre of a macabre black market, where teenagers bleed for the highest bidder, and young children go missing from the streets. Then there is the danger of unscrupulous dealers selling fake plasma, or plasma unsafe for human infusion. The fears are not unfounded: health has become one of the most lucrative sectors for criminals and con artists.

Havocscope, an online database, tracks the latest prices of all manner of black market goods and services. For $600 you can buy an AK-47 in Europe. A rhino-horn dagger will cost you $14,000. The services of a group of former military snipers? That will be $800,000. The list includes human organs too, mostly lungs, kidneys and livers. Today, a healthy seller can expect about $5,000 for their kidney. The organ broker who handles the deal can make a hefty profit, selling it on for $150,000 to a wealthy patient who needs a transplant.

In some countries, there is already a legal market for blood plasma. In the wake of the BSE crisis of the 1990s, plasma donations are not used in the UK. But in the US, donors can make $200 a month (plus loyalty points) from plasma donations. The fresh plasma is separated from the blood, and the red blood cells returned to the bloodstream, in a sitting that lasts 90 minutes. The plasma is used in medical procedures, to treat coagulation disorders and immune deficiencies. The business is completely legitimate, but if young plasma is proved to have anti-ageing effects, the risk of backstreet operators setting up will soar. When I asked Wyss-Coray if the prospect worried him, he looked serious. “Absolutely,” he said. “There are always going to be nutcases.”

Now, if only, for the sake of the ageing billionaires of the world, we had a large and ever-growing population of poor people desperate to make money any way they could.  Including younger generations growing up knowing that they will never achieve the same level of (relative) prosperity as their parents.  Oh, right.

Fun fun times ahead.

Scott Walker, King of the Unfinished Cheesesteak*

Somehow, I doubt that this image of authoritarian sociopath fuck Scott Walker eating a sandwich will end up on the cover of many American tabloids.  Not that US outlets don't have their own ways of shaming candidates over their consumption of sandwiches, such as questioning their choice of cheese.

Walker said he was well aware of Kerry's faux pas.

"Oh, yeah, I heard about the Swiss cheese," Walker said. "I wouldn't be able to eat it if it wasn't with Cheez Whiz or American anyway. Maybe cheddar if they had it, but I'm not supporting Swiss cheese."

Because, Swiss surrender-monkeys ?

But apparently, that's not the real topic of discussion, regarding this picture.  No, it's...the bald spot.  Which, er, has its own page on Facebook and its own blog ?**  Might it have something to do with his bizarre claim that his bald spot was a result of an accident in the kitchen ?

As Gov. Scott Walker was wrapping up his visit Monday with the State Journal editorial board, he joked with cartoonist Phil Hands that Hands draws his ears too big — but said the cartoonist’s portrayal of his bald spot was accurate.

The governor continued.

The bald spot, he said, was the result of a repair incident in the kitchen when he banged his head on an open kitchen cabinet door while making repairs requested by his wife, Tonette.

She kept telling him to go to the doctor to get the scar on his head looked at, he said. When he finally did, the doctor said his hair would never grow back in that spot, the governor explained.

Tonette still points to the bald spot as a reminder that he should always listen to his wife, he said.

Uh huh.  So, you hit your head, a part of your head (that part of your head itself quite round, note) that just so happens to correspond exactly with traditional patterns of male pattern baldness on a somehow perfectly round and absurdly wide section of a cabinet-door, and were left with a massive bald spot ?  Or maybe you got a scar at the very centre of the part of your head that just so happens to correspond exactly with traditional patterns of male pattern baldness, and the surrounding hairs all died off out of sympathy for their lost colleagues ?  That the way it works now ?  Well, gee, I'm not a scientist, so wha' the hell do I know ?

I don't want to know, don't want to even imagine what this combination of utter lunacy and limitless vanity says about Scott Walker.  Everything I already know about the man and his billionaire backers scares me quite enough already, thank you very much.


* This makes me sad: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CLBT18pXAAAX27H.jpg:large***

** What, you say those are fake sites created by Walker's political opponents ?  Nooooo, surely, not.

*** Was wondering why the two images didn't match, and almost doubting my sanity.  But then: 'Walker ordered one each from Geno's and rival Pat's King of Steaks, across the street, during a brief campaign swing through the City of Brotherly Love. He's one of 16 Republicans vying for the party's presidential nomination and, true to political form, wouldn't say which cheesesteak was better.'  Okay, so I'm not mad.  Good.

David Cameron: We Need More Invisible Unaccountable Wealth

Britain should not shy away from doing business with countries where corruption is a problem, according to David Cameron.

Writing in The Daily Mail ahead of a trade mission to South East Asia, the Prime Minister said the “wind of economic change is blowing east – and not just to China and India”.

He argued that Britain had concentrated too much on trading with Europe, rather than countries in Asia.

He wrote that people were wrong to argue that “we should avoid doing business with countries with barriers to trade including corruption”.

“Many in South East Asia have led the battle against corruption, which costs the global economy billions of pounds a year,” Mr Cameron said.

“Britain is joining them in that fight – I’ve put the issue at the top of the global agenda.

“Given a level playing field, British businesses can out-compete anyone in the world.” *

Sigh. This is an obvious candidate for 'posted without comment', but I will say this:

1. Cameron is interested in certain groups/individuals profiting here.
2. Those groups/individuals are mostly not in Asia.
3. Those groups/individuals are inherently corrupt.
4. Those groups/individuals are Cameron's friends or friends of friends.
5. Those groups/individuals are not you or anyone you are ever likely to know.
6. That offshored 'wealth' is never coming back.

* 'Level playing field' !  Classic !

So Punchable

Aw, this guy...!

You want to punch that face, don't you ?  Even if you don't know why yet.

Is this would-be Bieber also known for his YouTube videos ?  Well, yes...

RICH kid Grisha Mamurin has provoked a storm of protest by paying girls to flash their boobs in public and then to kiss him.

The controversial 16-year-old, grandson of Russian billionaire Igor Nekludov, is making a series of videos about people’s humiliation and what they would be prepared to do for money.

In his latest video, he gets smashed to the ground when he tries to bribe someone to drink a jar of his urine.

The intended victim was so angry he punched the cocky teenager so hard he knocked him off his feet.

Earlier in the video a man takes him up on his offer and Mamurin can be seen peeing into a glass before handing it over.

Towards the end of the video he picks on safer targets, luring young women to kiss him and expose their breasts.

His videos have been watched more than 850,000 times with mixed reactions.
At the beginning of his new video he says: “Today, we will check what crazy things girls can do to earn some money.”

Then he goes and annoys girls who are walking alone asking them: “Can you show me your breasts for cash?

And then he moves on to a bunch of homeless guys, and further hilarity ensues...

Thanks news.com.au !  I'd remained blissfuly ignorant of the existence of this asshole until now, despite his having apparently made the news elsewhere back in May.

His video sparked a wave of online criticism, but Grigory defended his decision saying the video showed what society 'is ready to do for the sake of money'.

Speaking through a personal press officer, he said:  'I don't understand why people are so negative about me. We have seen similar shows on MTV, various practical jokes.

'I can say that every fourth person agreed to do something crazy like this. The video is genuine. I should have been at least Spielberg to stage something like this.

...Grigory said he did not tell his parents about the project as he was not spending their money.

He said: 'Of course, originally this is their money but this is also my savings. I got the money from my parents for my birthdays and saved quite a lot.

'It is also a joint project, the money of my friends is here too. It is not like "Granddad, give me 100,000 roubles and I will make people drink urine".

He promised a follow-up in which 'a girl who agreed to lick the bottom of his boot from one end to the other for 10,000 roubles'.

He added: 'I do not criticize these people. I think each of them has problems which makes them do this.

'We don't know what we would have done if we had had the same problems. If to talk about me - I don't think I was ever in a situation when I would drink urine.' 

Unearned wealth (and most vast accumulations of wealth tend IMO to be largely if not mostly unearned, relying more on the exploitation of others and corruption than personal effort or ability) does tend to breed sociopathy, whether in Russia, America, or anywhere in the world.

Still, this particular embarrassment belongs to Russia, and Putin's Russia at that, son of an oligarch may he be.  And as long as he has wealth and avoids criticising the government, he can probably ride this particular game of exploiting the desperate for fleeting fame on YouTube a good while yet.

And after all, he's doing a public service, right ?  Exposing the cruel realities of modern capitalistic existence for...journalism...for...art...for..for.  No, he's just an asshole.

Amazon MP3

Tried downloading some new music from Amazon for the first time in a while; Oh G-d, what a mistake.  Experience as painful and complicated as I've ever experienced it, prices way up, the new resource-intensive downloader rife with examples of everything that is wrong with that trendy evil of  'flat design', and then, this crap with the Prime Library, wherein Amazon will gracefully give subscribers access to oh so many tracks, so long as they now and till the end of eternity maintain their payments to Amazon in order to access what they quaintly may have once seen as 'their library.'  Da fuck ?

Like people can't use Pandora and their ilk ?  Like most music isn't available for free on YouTube these days ?  What's this shit about having to install & run special apps. to play Prime tracks ?  Free is worth what you pay for it and all that, but the idea that people should pay you a premium to create a library, that is held in thrall to the temporal products of a company that could just as well choose to close up shop (or individual service -- like that's never happened in recent memory) tomorrow ?  When they could get the same for free elsewhere ?  Or buy and own* from other services ?

After iTunes held back the market for years on .mp3 sales with their over-priced DRM'd garbage, the introduction of relatively cheap DRM-free .mp3 tracks on Amazon, was the reason I finally took to seriously buying music by the track for the first time, having previously relied largely on CD's and on DRM-free subscription services like eMusic.  Seems likes we're moonwalking backwards here.  Fuck the cloud, fuck flat design, and fuck Amazon.

*(Oh hell, not going to get into the legalistics here of how the corporations will simply determine that they own content from now until the end of eternity, and that you are simply renting it from them.  Cough.  Microsoft.  Cough.)

Sleater-Kinney: Jumpers

Four seconds was the longest wait...

For my money, one of the most compelling songs ever to come out of SF.  As for its relevance to the current gentrified environ. and house prices in SF, well that's ground rather too well-trodden and too-depressing for my tastes.  Another glorious city shat all over by the insatiable appetites of our billionaire overlords.  I guess Portland is still relatively cheap.

David Bowie: Panic in Detroit

Historically, geographically, the wholesale abandonment of Detroit by non- 'African-American' populations makes no sense.  And what other similar territory in the US would not, decades later, have been gentrified by now ?  What is it about this particular piece of real estate, with wealthy white suburbs ringing it all about, with nearby Arab-heavy suburban communities, and with so many auto factories relocated just north of the border into Canada ?  Where else in the US is the line between populations so explicitly marked along stark white and black lines ?  For what reason, and to what end ?  By rights, Detroit could have been/should be one of the jewels of America's crown.  Instead, it's a perpetual embarrassment, and a racial case-history upon which no race seems hugely inclined to dwell.  I could go into the current right-wing 'emergency measures' being put forward for the 'reform' of Detroit, but I don't think my heart could stand it.  Detroit deserved/deserves better.

Of course Detroit is merely practice.  YourTown, USA is next on the Billionaire agenda.  Your time will come, and sooner than you think...