Articles and Interviews Books

Image, a book about a famous artist, will all kinds of information, but ZERO pictures of either him or his paintings. Other Pollock books are better. If you must have every book about this artist, ok, get it, but put it at the bottom of your wish list.

This book is the type of art book that is the exception to the picture rule. The fact that there are no pictures doesn't detract a bit from the abundant amount of information it contains. I suspect greatly that this is the type of book that only those initiated into the Pollock milieu (and his work) would want to read anyhow. A fantastic source of nostalgia and information that allows the informed reader the opportunity to fill in some blanks on his own.

The intended and proper audience for this terrific book is the deeply engaged Pollock student (or acolyte). Further, the volume has no artwork or pictures at all; if you're looking for a good edition of his paintings, try the wonderful MOMA exhibition catalogue, edited by Kirk Varnedoe. What this volume offers is a rich and engaging range of Pollock statements, interviews, art reviews, criticism, analysis, and aesthetic speculation. Together with a good book of his paintings, this book would give you a sort of "Norton Critical Edition" of Pollock's work--you'd have the paintings and then this record of decades of analysis.
Now, in a few cases the lack of pictures does actually hinder one's ability to follow all of the comparisons and insights these essays offer. This is especially true in this book's generous reprint of William Rubin's seminal "Jackson Pollock and the Modern Tradition", originally serialized with copious illustrations. Nonetheless this book presents, chronologically, a tremendous overview of the 20th century's evolving reception and understanding of Pollock's art, from his own published or radio-broadcast commentary to Life magazine's ambiguous (but myth-making) "Is He the Greatest Living Painter in America?" to Clement Greenberg to psychoanalytical writings to Elizabeth Langhorne's allusive and speculative examination of a single painting, "The Moon Woman Cuts the Circle." It's a great book to just pick at, what with its variety and scope, and each page poses something for consideration or debate--to the person who really knows Pollock's work and its underpinnings well. I wish this book had included something from John Berger; what the book "Such Desperate Joy" includes from him is really provocative and efficient. But I suppose that's a petty criticism in light of what this book does assemble, making availiable in one place all of this critical investigation into one of the 20th century's great artists.

I have heard from a colleague that he has a version on CD that is 3 to 4 times longer than the paperback I received. A paperback which stops just prior to the arrival of the last two Bush appointees to the bench. Therefore, it (this book) falls way short of describing and/or exposing the extreme right-wing flavor of the court as it exists today. A court that is so blatantly political that it disgraces itself almost as much as the Bush Whitehouse does with alarming regularity. I expect Roe V. Wade to fall anytime now. How sad.

Excerpt from introduction: Our argument is organized in three parts. First, we examine the origin of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. Since the regressive turn in current Supreme Court jurisprudence is usually carried out in the name of the Framers' "original intent," we look for what must have been the thinking of the Framers of the Constitution as they set up a tripartite government of checks and balances. We look especially at the role of the judicial branch and conclude that the Framers would applaud the expanded notion of religious liberty that emerged in twentieth-century jurisprudence.
Second, we look at the record of the judicial system from 1789 through the 1930s. We learn that the narrow understanding of the First Amendment advocated by today's regressive justices does not reflect the thinking or intentions of the eighteenth-century Framers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights but rather reflects an understanding of church and state that emerged in the nineteenth century.
Third, we look closely at the last half century of U.S. Supreme Court decisions on church-state issues, seeing them as a critical battleground for progressives who would further expand religious liberty and for regressives who would subject that liberty to majority rule.
The resolution of these two issues in favor of an ever-expanding religious freedom-what Justice O'Connor calls "well-settled First Amendment jurisprudence"-is now under assault. Religious liberty or conscience is in jeopardy, threatened by those who in our view woefully misconstrue the course of religious freedom in America.

Incarceration rates for black males are commensurate w/ crime rates for the same (between 8 and 12 times the rate for whites for violent crimes). As a matter of fact,criminals in urban areas,where most crimes committed by blacks occur (the great majority w/ black victims) benefit from saturated legal systems and receive significantly LESS-harsh treatment than their rural counterparts. Incarceration is the method in which modern societies (humanely) deal with these threats. The image of the prisoner sent up the river for possessing a small amount of crack or "stealing a pizza" is largely a myth. Prosecuters use minimum sentancing laws to put away the really bad apples (for instance in NY, the AVERAGE person convicted under the so-called Rockefeller drug laws had 9.5 convictions including 3 felonies. How many crimes has this person committed for which they were never convicted? 30? 40?). Diversion is almost always used for first,second and minor offenses. If incarceration rates are too high then why are prisoners being paroled early due to overcrowding? High incarceration rates are almost certainly responsible for a large part of the decrease in crime in major cities over the last 20 years. This phenomena has helped to make livable the areas where many law abiding minorities live. Incarcertaion rates will be high enough when recidivist criminals are made to serve out their sentances.

This article begins by explaining that there was an international conference in Toronto in October, 2005 called "A Call for Morally Responsible Investment in Israel." Well, I'm suspicious about all this. There is fighting in the Levant, but that's not Israel's fault. It's the fault of those who are attacking Israel. I think that putting pressure on Israel will not help solve the problem.

That's not the point of view of Ted Schmidt, the author of this article, nor is it how Jeff Halper thinks. They feel that Israel is becoming an "apartheid state." And Schmidt says that Desmond Tutu agrees. I think they have it backwards, and that Israel is looking more and more like a Bantustan.

Halper is quoted as saying that "an anti-Semite used to be somebody who hates Jews; these days an anti-Semite is anybody whom Jews hate." I'm suspicious of this as well. While it is true that all sorts of people are called all sorts of names, I think that some of the more merciless attackers of Israel and of Jewish rights in the Levant have probably earned a few of the names they've been called.

Halper has little sympathy for the Jewish residents of Gaza who were removed from their homes. Um, why not? Had Arabs been removed from their homes, Halper's reaction would have been quite different! And Halper continues by saying that "we should not have been in Gaza in the first place."

We?

Does Halper mean "we Zionists?" Or "we Jews?" Or "we Israelis?" Or "we humans?" Just who shouldn't be in Gaza? And why not? That region has been disputed territory, until Israel unilaterally withdrew from it. And the Israelis withdrew under fire, so as far as I'm concerned, the Arab rights to it are those of any thief. Had Israelis expelled the Arabs from Gaza, that would have been theft as well.

Halper then complains that more Arabs have been dying than Jews in the latest violence. But that violence is simply Arab aggression against Jews. There are more Arabs than Jews in the world. If the Arabs want to play a deadly game in which they kill off less numerous enemies, perhaps one day some highly populated countries such as China or India may try their luck. More German non-Jews died than did German Jews in World War Two, but that certainly does not prove that Germany was right to kill its Jews.

Israel has a reason for existing, namely to provide a refuge for Jews and to be a nation where Jews will be permitted to have human rights. Some Arabs claim that they ought to have the "right" to destroy Israel. Now, should these Arabs have an the same claim to Israel as do the Israelis? Not in my opinion. Halper and Schmidt appear to disagree.

Halper complains that the Levantine Arabs will not have a viable state. Well, that just might be true. Even if they get all of Israel, they probably won't have a viable state. But so what? If the Levantine Arabs really want a state, they'll get one, even if it means taking some land from other states, including states not named "Israel." After all, the Arabs have 5,500,000 square miles of land. That's quite a bit more than the less than 11,000 square miles of Israel, Gaza, the Golan, the West Bank, and Eastern Jerusalem! And if the Levantine Arabs don't want a state, why give them one?

Schmidt says that Halper's conclusions are difficult to refute. He's wrong.

This download does NOT contain the information cited in the review, even though it states that, "The expanded forms are presented in this article".
The forms are NOT in this download, and the remaining information
is of little use.

Since I specialize in the treatment of tinnitus, I will gladly share the forms with any therapist who wishes to contact me.
There is no cost, however, these forms are of use only to a therapist and not a tinnitus client or patient.

If you wish to seek relief for tinnitus, I suggest you first read Dr. Kevin Hogan's FAQ and then buy the book, "Turning The Volume Down."

Peace to all.
R.L. Bayliss
Nashville, TN

Everything in this article is in the book by Marti Laney. It is only one short page, definitely not worth $5.95.

In this interview, we get to see Richard Falk go unchallenged when he excuses the abduction of an Israeli soldier as not in itself a violation of international law. After all, he says, this act has to be viewed in the context of a war against Israel! And he wastes no time blaming Israel for that, saying that it "has not abided by international law" that it "has not followed the resolutions of the United Nations," and that "it has not abided by the Geneva conventions." Well, if Israel is guilty of all this just for being attacked by some racist thugs, then there is something seriously wrong with international law (if Israel is truly in violation of it), the United Nations, and the Geneva conventions. And there is something wrong with Falk and with Margot Patterson for failing to point this out.

Meanwhile, when Israel responds to attacks on it, there is a very different attitude. No longer is this part of a war! I guess only the Arabs get to fight a war according to international law; Israel is not allowed to do this! Yes, we see Falk call Israel's response "disproportionate" as well as "an international crime and a crime against humanity, as was specified initially in the Nuremberg trials in 1945."

This sounds like a very serious double standard to me, in which the thugs are allowed to literally get away with murder while those they attack are not allowed to fight back.

Could one guess from all this that Israel is the party that refuses to attack terrorist leaders when "civilians" rush to put themselves in the way? That sort of use of human shields may not be in keeping with international law, but it seems to be regarded as heroic by the Arab thugs. Of course, if Israeli civilians tried to defend their soldiers, does anyone doubt that the thugs would happily murder them?

To my surprise, the question of double standards did come up, as well as the question of whether or not the system is broken. I think it is. And incredibly, Falk agrees that the system is "in severe trouble." But he blames this all on the United States and Israel! I think it is rather strange to blame the victims for the aggression against them.

I think there are consequences for such denial of reality. We humans have to figure out how to survive and prosper on this planet. And when we're gone, our children and grandchildren will have to figure out how to survive and prosper. None of us will do very well if we make a mockery of laws in order to support racist attacks on minorities. Such attacks on truth, justice, and human rights will make us all unsafe and less prosperous. The infrastructures of society can't be maintained if thugs are supported against the civilians they attack.

Hopefully, people in future generations will do a far better job of addressing such issues than this. I know that this interview is simply one rather outlandish viewpoint. But the United Nations is supposed to represent serious thought, not just pro-terrorist propaganda. And while international laws and conventions are, for the most part, still rather reasonable, if those who make them are anything like the UN, those laws will not be reasonable for very long. That means that a big change is needed if we want our laws to continue to support human society.

I do not recommend this article. I think its advice is to make matters worse.

This article is a dialogue between Ann Helmke and Arun Gandhi.

Helmke's initial question is how to "responsibly use the words `nonviolence' and `war on terror' in the same sentence. Gandhi's suggestion is to look "at the roots of terrorism and how we feed it by our own actions." At the end, Helmke asks "How do we strive for and nurture such faithful integrity in this violent world." And Gandhi says that "there needs to be greater understanding between people if we wish to live in peace."

Well, that's nice.

Of course, he's talking about religious views here. And I'm a Pagan. Maybe I'm not the same kind of Pagan as Gandhi. I happen to believe that we are our deeds. Let's look at Gandhi's to see a little of what he actually preaches.

Here is what Gandhi wrote about the Jews in January, 2008 in the Washington Post:

"Jewish identity in the past has been locked into the holocaust experience -- a German burden that the Jews have not been able to shed. It is a very good example of a community can overplay a historic experience to the point that it begins to repulse friends. The holocaust was the result of the warped mind of an individual who was able to influence his followers into doing something dreadful. But, it seems to me the Jews today not only want the Germans to feel guilty but the whole world must regret what happened to the Jews. The world did feel sorry for the episode but when an individual or a nation refuses to forgive and move on the regret turns into anger.

"The Jewish identity in the future appears bleak. Any nation that remains anchored to the past is unable to move ahead and, especially a nation that believes its survival can only be ensured by weapons and bombs. In Tel Aviv in 2004 I had the opportunity to speak to some Members of Parliament and Peace activists all of whom argued that the wall and the military build-up was necessary to protect the nation and the people. In other words, I asked, you believe that you can create a snake pit -- with many deadly snakes in it -- and expect to live in the pit secure and alive? What do you mean? they countered. Well, with your superior weapons and armaments and your attitude towards your neighbors would it not be right to say that you are creating a snake pit? How can anyone live peacefully in such an atmosphere? Would it not be better to befriend those who hate you? Can you not reach out and share your technological advancement with your neighbors and build a relationship?

"Apparently, in the modern world, so determined to live by the bomb, this is an alien concept. You don't befriend anyone, you dominate them. We have created a culture of violence (Israel and the Jews are the biggest players) and that Culture of Violence is eventually going to destroy humanity."

Wow.

Does this outrageous article show any understanding of Arabs or Jews? Well, I don't think so. Is Gandhi feeding terrorism by his own actions? I think he is. Am I going to listen to Arun Gandhi's advice? Of course not.

We do indeed need to understand other people, and we need to recognize that not all actions are justified. We need to value truth, and we definitely need to distinguish between aggressors and their victims. Gandhi hasn't done any of this. My advice is for us to start by getting some basic facts right and then using them logically to decide what goals to pursue and how to pursue them.

I would rate this a negative number if I could. It is useless.

These two, along with Ken Sully started iSold It, the eBay drop-off store franchise chain that is now imploding. After selling hundreds of franchises for an unproven concept they show little concern for all the lives they have ruined.

To get the full story go to [...].