Will Blog for Food

San Diego: A Tale of Two Cities Part 1 - the Strippergate scandal

Everything is going well in San Diego. Look at all the cranes, all the developments, all the new condos, parks, restaurants, the new ball park. Everything is going poorly in San Diego. The city's broke. The new library probably won't get built. Three former councilmen were convicted in the so-called "strippergate" scandal. San Diego can't get its audits for the last few years certified, and, therefore, can't borrow money in the bond market. There is a pension crisis. Members of the pension board are under inditement. There is a notorious DROP program whereby city employees can line their pockets at taxpayers' expense. The Chargers were given a ticket guarantee whereby the city (taxpayers) would pay for any unsold tickets. That was renegotiated finally, but now the city can't afford to keep the Chargers and is shopping them around to other cities within the county. The list goes on and on.

How can this be in "America's Finest City?" Simple. All the amazing development and redevelopment is overseen by the Center City Development Corporation (CCDC). They have plenty of money since they get a percentage of the increased taxes due to redevelopment. For instance, if an old rundown warehouse is replaced by a 30 story condo, the value of that property increases and hence the inflow of property taxes increases, a percentage of which goes to the CCDC. All the problems mentioned above are overseen by the traditional city government presided over by the mayor and city council made up of councilmen representing several city districts. City government oversees the police, the fire department, parks and recreation, transportation etc., a bureaucracy made up of municipal employees all of which have benefits such as a traditional pension plan.

In this first of a series, we'll explore the "strippergate" scandal which resulted in the Federal criminal inditements of 3 city councilmen. Two were convicted. One died before trial thus escaping conviction. One was eventually exonerated in a surprising event because a judge overturned the jury verdict. Michael Zucchet was elected to the city council in November of 2002. Zucchet represented the downtown district of the city of San Diego and was a hard worker and a policy wonk, a personable young man on the way up and helping to shape the new, transformed San Diego, making sure developers lived up to their promises such as the Park in the Park at the San Diego Padres baseball stadium. Elected to city council in February of 2001 representing District 8 was Ralph Inzunza from a prominent south bay political family. Councilman Charles Lewis from District 4 was also indited as part of the conspiracy

It all started when the city council passed the no-touch rule in 2000 which outlawed lap dancing and cut into club profits. Michael Galardi, owner of Cheetah's in both San Diego and Las Vegas, was determined to get it repealed. Enlisting the aid of lobbyist Lance Malone, they started contacting city councilmen Lewis, Inzunza and Zucchet. Meanwhile, the Feds had started investigating Galardi in Las Vegas and continued their investigation into San Diego. Tony Montagna, a paid FBI informant who worked as a bouncer at Cheetah's, wore a wire, and the Feds ended up with 100,000 wiretaps recording conversations among the principal players. Anther character in the saga was John D'Intino who had worked his way up to manager at Cheetah's.

At trial, the  prosecution argued that Inzunza and Zucchet accepted money from club owner Galardi (through his bagman, Malone) in a scheme to repeal the no-touch law at his Kearny Mesa club. Galardi wanted to return to the old standard, in which police vice officers had to decide what constituted "lewd and lascivious" behavior on the part of dancers. That standard was more difficult to define and enforce according to the police. At trial San Diego police Capt. Robert Kanaski, who was a lieutenant in the vice department during part of the corruption investigation, testified that the no-touch law was an effective tool for the vice squad.

Also working for the FBI was San Diego police officer Russ Bristol who was being paid off by Galardi for informing him about vice inspections so he could go into "no-touch" mode. Montagna had ingratiated himself to Galardi and D'Intino by telling them that he had a friend on the police force who was willing to inform them when a vice raid was being planned - in return for a pay-off, of course. So Galardi was paying both Montagna and Bristol who in reality were both working for the FBI, and, of course, Bristol was there to tell the councilmen that the police didn't like the no-touch rule. This seems a bit duplicitous on the Feds' part like they're setting up Inzunza and Zucchet who had to believe Bristol was for real. They didn't know him as the corrupt cop that Galardi and D'Intino knew him as.

On May 16, 2003 the FBI raided San Diego City Hall and three strip clubs owned by Michael Galardi in San Diego and Las Vegas, including Cheetahs in Kearny Mesa. On August 28 Inzunza, Lewis, Zucchet, Galardi, Malone and D'Intino are charged with wire fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud. Galardi, Malone and D'Intino are charged with interstate travel in aid of racketeering. Galardi pleads guilty to wire fraud conspiracy and admits he paid officials so they would vote in his favor. He agrees to testify against the other defendants and remains free on $250,000 bond, although he faces a five-year sentence. D'Intino also worked out a plea agreement and was incarcerated in the downtown jail.

Zucchet and Inzunza said that any monies received from Galardi were legitimate campaign contributions, and there seems to be no evidence to the contrary.  As for being lobbied by the adult entertainment industry, it's presumably a legal business with the right to lobby. Presumably politicians have a right to be lobbied even if it's by sleazy characters like Galardi and Malone. Oftentimes politicians who are lobbied receive campaign contributions from those who are lobbying them. Business as usual. But did any of them receive cash under the table or other favors such as free tickets in Vegas or, God forbid, free lap dances? There were taped statements to the effect that Lewis did. In fact Lewis solicited Malone on tape. Had he lived, he would have been found guilty as sin.

Zucchet was the only one who had a legitimate interest in the no-touch rule as a policy issue since he represented a district that was "blighted" by such establishments. In Zucchet's mind he might have considered working out some kind of deal to exchange repealing no-touch in return for moving certain clubs out of the Sports Arena area which Zucchet would have liked to see cleaned up. Zucchet comes across on the tapes as somewhat skeptical of the whole business and tells them he is going to interview the police to see if they really would like to have no-touch repealed as Malone and Galardi maintain. Of course, Galardi and Malone try to steer him to the (in their mind) corrupt cop who will support their story, but Zucchet goes to someone else who tells him this is nonsense. After that Zucchet seems to lose interest in the issue.

Meanwhile Inzunza is acting like a cheerleader for the project. His enthusiasm for repealing no-touch is curious since, according to the players and clubs involved, it didn't even have anything to do with his own district. He suggests sending the other councilmen some phony emails to try to drum up interest in putting the issue on the council agenda. At one point they even bring in a plant to the council meeting to bring up the issue in a sort of roundabout way by suggesting that the law actually be strengthened. Tom Waddell, a Galardi strip club employee in Las Vegas, posed as a "concerned citizen" from San Diego and asked members of a City Council committee to consider tightening restrictions on adult entertainment clubs. The proposed crackdown was a ruse meant to distract from the real goal: abolishing the no-touch law. So Waddell's whole purpose was just to bring the subject up. Later, supposedly, some sort of a compromise would be worked out in which the adult entertainment industry would have to give up something or appear to give up something in return for repealing no-touch. The whole scenario has hints of the Keystone cops. Zucchet's involvement at this point could just as well have been motivated by his desire to rid his district of some of the clubs he considered unsavory. If repealing no-touch was the price of it, so be it. His goal was urban redevelopment. However, at trial, it is in Galardi's interest to testify that Zucchet and Inzunza accepted cash under the table in order to save his own skin since that is District Attorney Carol Lam's case, and he has to demonstrate cooperation with the Federal authorities as part of his plea bargain.

Continued here.

Illegal Immigration

I have a lot of respect for Ted Kennedy, the old "lion in winter" of the US Senate, but I think he is dead wrong on illegal immigration. As much as I respect him, I think he has let his bleeding heart tendencies get the better of him. The Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act (S. 1033) introduced by Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Edward Kennedy (D-MA) is not the right approach to solving the problem. First of all what is the problem? Is it the 10 to 20 illegal immigrants that are already here or is it the millions more that are likely to flood across the border in the months or years to come? If you have a hole in the dike and water is pouring in, is your highest priority plugging the hole in the dike or do you first start bailing? The answer should be obvious. Kennedy's approach is to put the cart before the horse to introduce yet another metaphor.

The first order of business should be to stop the torrent that is flooding across our southern border. Once that's accomplished, the problem of what to do with the illegals that are already here can be addressed. Talking about giving them a path to citizenship at this point will only give more of them an incentive to illegally immigrate. We don't have to do a guest worker program now. The ones that are already here are already filling the low-skilled, low wage jobs that big agribusiness seems to so desperately need them for. They're causing no problems so why is it so urgent that a guest worker program needs to be worked out now? They're already here! That situation is stable, not causing any immediate problems. The urgency is the millions who still want to come and are going to be coming across our border today, tomorrow, next week, next month and next year.

A hasty approach to dealing with the illegals who are already here is not the answer. Instead a more carefully thought out approach to that problem needs to be implemented. The urgency is with plugging the hole in the dike to prevent the torrent that is flooding in. There are numerous reasons for securing the border. 1) It's illegal to cross the border without permission. Rather than punish those who do this illegally, it is better to take a preemptive approach and prevent them from committing this illegal act in the first place. 2) If a million illegal immigrants, who only want to work hard, come across the border in an uncontrolled manner, one terrorist who only wants to do us harm can also cross the border. The argument that all those crossing the border only want to do jobs Americans don't want to do is a canard. The borders needs to be controlled to prevent that one person who wants to do us harm from crossing. 3) The flood of illegal drugs and other contraband can be stopped only if we are serious about controlling our borders.

What the President won't tell you is that the War on Terrorism is primarily a defensive war. Defensive wars are not as glamorous as offensive wars. Instead of engaging our troops in military adventurism abroad in order to project American geo-political power in the world and gain access to Iraqi oil fields, he should be focusing on domestic , defensive measures at home. Instead he leaves the borders and ports unprotected, leaves chemical and nuclear plants unprotected, leaves local emergency services unfunded, leaves local disaster plans unthought out. The list of things undone goes on and on while the list of things done unnecessarily overseas goes on and on.

The Democrats have made a big, big political mistake here in addition to taking the wrong approach to the illegal immigration problem. All the seats in Congress that are up for grabs this November that the Democrats should win are being fought by Republicans on the wedge issue of illegal immigration. And what do the Democrats do? They let the Republicans get to the right of them on the issue when they had a big chance to get to the right of the Republicans when the Republicans were divided on the issue and fighting among themselves. Now the issue is being painted by the Republican candidates as being tough on illegal immigration (them) versus amnesty (the Democrats.) The Democrats should get to the right of the Republicans on every issue they can without being disingenuous, and here was a chance and they blew it! They could have stood for securing the borders and painted the Republicans as wanting amnesty, but instead they let the Republicans run on securing the borders and let themselves be painted as wanting amnesty. How dumb can they get?!

Being tough (on anything) is what has won Republicans elections regardless of how they've performed once they've gotten into office. Now what will probably happen is the Democrats will not pick up as many Congressional seats as they might have; the Republicans will vote in a block (although they run as individuals) and it will be business as usual - the same old sorry business! What needs to be done is that military assets need to be withdrawn from Iraq and positioned at the border. Military expenditures need to be redirected to providing high tech satellite and drone surveillance of the border. Terrorism needs to be fought primarily with special forces not standing armies and by means of intelligence gathering and infiltration of terrorist organizations at home and abroad. This is how you get tough on terrorism - by doing the intelligent thing. The tough thing and the intelligent thing is one and the same thing in this case. Why can't the Democrats see this? The Bush administration's policy is to primarily gain access to Iraqi oil fields and to secondarily fight terrorism or to use terrorism as an excuse to gain access to Iraqi oil fields. They're not serious about protecting the homeland!

The Real Reason for War in Iraq: Oil

Long before the war in Iraq actually started, the Bush administration had plans for getting rid of Saddam and gaining access to Iraq's rich oil fields, the second largest proven reserves in the world. Bush I had hoped that the Iraqi people would rise up and depose Saddam after the first Gulf War, but no such luck. After that Saddam started making oil deals with France, China and Russia to develop the immense untapped reserves effectively isolating the US as far as any oil dealings in Iraq were concerned.

With American oil reserves dwindling, American oil companies wanted access to Iraqi oil, and started to campaign through proxies at right wing think tanks for the overthrow of Saddam.

When the Bush team of former oil company executives came to power in 2000, they immediately started planning to get rid of Saddam Hussein and take over Iraq's oil.

This is from an article by Greg Palast entitled "Secret US Plans for Iraq's Oil,":

The Bush administration made plans for war and for Iraq's oil before the 9/11 attacks sparking a policy battle between neo-cons and Big Oil, BBC's Newsnight has revealed. Two years ago today - when President George Bush announced US, British and Allied forces would begin to bomb Baghdad - protesters claimed the US had a secret plan for Iraq's oil once Saddam had been conquered. In fact there were two conflicting plans, setting off a hidden policy war between neo-conservatives at the Pentagon, on one side, versus a combination of "Big Oil" executives and US State Department "pragmatists." "Big Oil" appears to have won. The latest plan, obtained by Newsnight from the US State Department was, we learned, drafted with the help of American oil industry consultants. Insiders told Newsnight that planning began "within weeks" of Bush's first taking office in 2001, long before the September 11th attack on the US. An Iraqi-born oil industry consultant Falah Aljibury says he took part in the secret meetings in California, Washington and the Middle East. He described a State Department plan for a forced coup d'etat. Mr. Aljibury himself told Newsnight that he interviewed potential successors to Saddam Hussein on behalf of the Bush administration.

And there is more:

It was a prize that the first oil presidency -- the president, vice president and national security adviser are all former oil execs -- lusted after long before the attacks of 9/11. The Washington Post reported that even as the Bush transition team prepared to take power in 2001, changing Iraq's regime and seizing its oil were already on the table: Early discussions among the administration's national security "principals" -- Cheney, Powell, Tenet and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice -- and their deputies focused on how to weaken Hussein diplomatically. But Deputy Defense Secretary Wolfowitz proposed sending in the military to seize Iraq's southern oil fields and establish the area as a foothold from which opposition groups could overthrow Hussein. Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill told author Ron Suskind that Dick Cheney also supported an invasion of Iraq before Sept. 11, and the New Yorker's Jane Mayer reported on a top secret National Security Council document dating back seven months before the terror attacks that gave some insight into the vice president's thinking: It directed the N.S.C. staff to cooperate fully with [Cheney's secretive] Energy Task Force as it considered the "melding" of two seemingly unrelated areas of policy: "the review of operational policies towards rogue states," such as Iraq, and "actions regarding the capture of new and existing oil and gas fields." In her new book, “The Bush Agenda,” Antonia Juhasz detailed how, six months before the invasion, the administration brought in a group of oil executives to advise them on Iraqi oil policy (this occurred as President Bush was telling the American people that he had no intention of going to war). The State Department also set up a consulting group under the "Future of Iraq Project" called the "Oil and Energy Working Group." After some back and forth among the various consultants, a consensus was reached that Iraq's oil "should be opened to international oil companies as quickly as possible after the war."

In fact plans to remove Saddam went back to 1992, the last year of the Bush I administration when it became obvious that the Iraqi people were not going to remove Saddam by themselves.

According to the  "Defense Planning Guidance" (DPG) written by Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Zalamy Khalizad, Scooter Libby, Eric Edelman and Colin Powell - six men who served Bush I and II, most worked in the Reagan administration as well - the objective of the United States in the Middle East is "to remain the predominant outside power in the region and preserve U.S. and Western access to the region's oil." Many of this group reunited in 1997 to form the Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

Saddam had displeased American oil interests by keeping the US out of Iraqi oil dealings after the Gulf war of 1991 under Bush I. Instead he had cut deals with France, Russia and China. This incensed American oil executives who through proxies began calling for the removal of Saddam. With three former oil executives in place after the 2000 election - Bush, a former executive of Harken oil, Cheney of Halliburton and Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice, a former executive of ChevronTexaco - a team was in place to carry out these demands. The prize: proven oil reserves of over 112 billion barrels second only to Saudi Arabia; potential reserves of over 100 billion barrels more. By way of comparison, US reserves totaled only 22 billion barrels.

While most of Iraq's enterprises were privatized after the US took over in Iraq, the oil industry wasn't. This is so that the plans for the oil industry could fly under the radar and not raise any alarms. While 19th and 20th century colonialism involved direct take-overs of foreign assets, the plans for Iraq are that Iraqi oil will continue to be "owned" by the Iraqi people. In sum it looks like this: we'll respect your sovereignty and abide by your domestic laws -- as long as we can help you write those laws to guarantee our firms' profits. In fact that is exactly what has happened. Wording that gives tremendous profit making opportunities to those best positioned to "help" the Iraqi oil industry (which just happen to be big foreign oil corporations) has been written right into the Iraqi constitution in the same way that lobbyists write US laws and senators and congressmen put earmarks in at the last minute so that nobody gets to review them.

In her new book, “The Bush Agenda,” Antonia Juhasz explained the details:

The United States crafted a new oil law for Iraq that provided for production sharing agreements (PSAs), which are contractual terms between a government and a foreign corporation to explore for, produce and market oil. Production sharing agreements are not used by any country in the Middle East or, in fact, by any country that's truly wealthy in oil. They're used to entice investors into an area where the oil is expensive to produce or there isn't a lot of oil. But Iraq's oil reserves are very easy and cheap to get to. You essentially just stick a pipe in the ground and you get oil. There's absolutely no reason for Iraq to enter into PSAs, but there's every reason for Western oil companies to want them -- they provide the best terms short of full privatization of the oil. [It's estimated that] Iraq has 80 oil fields. Seventeen of them have been discovered. Under the new oil law -- written into the constitution -- those 17 will be under the control of the Iraqi national oil company. All undiscovered oil fields are now open to the PSAs. That means, depending on how much oil there is in Iraq, foreign companies will have control over at least 64 percent of Iraq's oil and as much as 84 percent. PSAs are the worst possible deals for countries; in Latin America some of the worst PSAs gave domestic governments royalties of just one percent of their natural gas revenues. Iraq's permanent oil law is being written with the help of Bearingpoint Inc. under a contract from USAID. The Virginia-based company (which was KPMG until it changed its name after being embroiled in the Arthur Anderson accounting scandal) prepared a report for the Bush administration in 2003 that concluded "foreign participation [is] the most efficient way of developing the sector," according to Dow Jones. A USAID spokesman said the company "will be providing legal and regulatory advice in drafting the framework of petroleum and other energy-related legislation, including foreign investment." The principles embedded in the transitional oil law can't be dismissed down the road by Iraq's legislature with a simple vote; they were built into the country's Constitution, a document that Iraqis approved without having a firm grip on its details. (Read more of the interview with Juhasz for some insight into how that happened.) Chapter 4, Article 109, specifies that all new oil fields will be developed "relying on the most modern techniques of market principles and encouraging investment." While the constitutions of other energy-rich countries lay out principles regarding their resources, Iraq's is unique in specifying that future governments must develop the country's most valuable commodity in tandem with foreign multinationals. Contrast that with other oil producers; Saudi Arabia's state oil company, Saudi Aramco, has a monopoly on oil production, and it enters into agreements with foreign companies for specific parts of the process. The Saudi government imposes a special tax on foreign energy companies' revenues from those processes and invests the windfall from high oil prices in education and infrastructure. Under Iraq's new laws, those kinds of policies -- common among oil-producing countries -- are prohibited.

The "100 laws" established by L. Paul Bremer head of the Coalition Provisional Authority have been written right into the Iraqi Constitution - such laws as those that allow foreign corporations to take 100% of their profits out of the country, establishing ridiculously low taxes on corporations of 15%, not allowing cases to be brought against foreign contractors in Iraqi courts, making them effectively above the law, not requiring the hiring of Iraqi citizens for the rebuilding of Iraq etc. etc.

The same company that's helping draft Iraq's permanent oil law, BearingPoint Inc., planned Iraq's entire economy under a previous contract. All of the Bremer rules worked their way into the Iraqi Constitution as well; Chapter 6, Article 126, specifies that although the rest of the orders issued by the Transitional Authority are canceled, the "100 orders" remain on the books.

Bremer had considerable authority in Iraq to write laws that were "foreign corporation friendly."

"Order No. 39 allows for: (1) privatization of Iraq's 200 state-owned enterprises; (2) 100% foreign ownership of Iraqi businesses; (3) "national treatment" — which means no preferences for local over foreign businesses; (4) unrestricted, tax-free remittance of all profits and other funds; and (5) 40-year ownership licenses. "Thus, it forbids Iraqis from receiving preference in the reconstruction while allowing foreign corporations — Halliburton and Bechtel, for example — to buy up Iraqi businesses, do all of the work and send all of their money home. They cannot be required to hire Iraqis or to reinvest their money in the Iraqi economy. They can take out their investments at any time and in any amount. "Orders No. 57 and No. 77 ensure the implementation of the orders by placing U.S.-appointed auditors and inspector generals in every government ministry, with five-year terms and with sweeping authority over contracts, programs, employees and regulations. "Order No. 17 grants foreign contractors, including private security firms, full immunity from Iraq's laws. Even if they, say, kill someone or cause an environmental disaster, the injured party cannot turn to the Iraqi legal system. Rather, the charges must be brought to U.S. courts. "Order No. 40 allows foreign banks to purchase up to 50% of Iraqi banks. "Order No. 49 drops the tax rate on corporations from a high of 40% to a flat 15%. The income tax rate is also capped at 15%. "Order No. 12 (renewed on Feb. 24) suspends "all tariffs, customs duties, import taxes, licensing fees and similar surcharges for goods entering or leaving Iraq." This led to an immediate and dramatic inflow of cheap foreign consumer products — devastating local producers and sellers who were thoroughly unprepared to meet the challenge of their mammoth global competitors."

Juhasz describes the impact of U.S. policies on the Iraqi economy:

"The new economic laws have fundamentally transformed Iraq's economy, applying some of the most radical, sought-after corporate globalization policies in the world and overturning existing laws on trade, public services, banking, taxes, agriculture, investment, foreign ownership, media, and oil, among others. The new laws lock in sweeping advantages to U.S. corporations including greater U.S. access to, and corporate control of, Iraq's oil. And the benefits have already begun to flow. Between 2003 and 2004 alone, the value of U.S. imports of Iraqi oil increased by 86 percent and then increased again in the first three quarters of 2005."

With the PSAs the Iraqi government is obliged by law to turn over the entire exploration, drilling and infrastructure-building process to private companies in contracts that last twenty-five to forty years. Instead of just contracting out the rebuilding of Iraqi oil infrastructure, something the large oil companies would not be interested in, they are instead required to share the content of the production meaning the oil itself as part of the deal. The law states that the Iraqi government will control the developed oil fields of which there are presently only 17. However, all undeveloped oil fields numbering 63 at this time are to be developed by foreign corporations in accordance with the PSAs. And this is written right into the Iraqi constitution!

Thus, the goal is about to be realized which is control of Iraq's oil and the Iraqi economy. Iraq will be dominated by U.S. corporations, supported by the U.S. military. Ending the economic occupation of Iraq may be more difficult than ending the military occupation. The embedding of laws favoring foreign investment through the Bremer Orders and the Iraq Constitution will make it difficult to give Iraq back to the Iraqis.

In 1998, well before the Bush administration took power, Chevron's CEO said: "Iraq possesses huge reserves of oil and gas - reserves I'd love Chevron to have access to." It looks like his love for oil will soon be requited.

Meanwhile the Bushes and the Saudis have a relationship that goes way back.

Never before in history has a president of the United States had such a close relationship with another foreign power as President Bush and his father have had with the Saudi royal family, the House of Saud. I have traced more than $1.4 billion in investments and contracts that went from the House of Saud over the past 20 years to companies in which the Bushes and their allies have had prominent positions -- Harken Energy, Halliburton, and the Carlyle Group among them.

Although the Saudis are Wahhabis, a Muslim sect that teaches their children from Day 1 to hate the west, the House of Bush and the House of Saud have much in common. Both are dancing on a tightrope, the Bushes to make you think that their main purpose is fighting terrorism while masking their real motive of controlling Iraqi oil, the Saudi Royal Family deflecting the anger of their impoverished citizenry away from themselves and against the west by giving them red meat Wahhabism and supporting terrorist organizations while their main interest is keeping all the oil profits for themselves and not sharing them with the riff raff.

This from Right Truth:

I have a sample of what text books in their home country teach about Americans, from Red State, "The Saudi Mask Slips": So when an Islamic textbook, one that is widely distributed throughout the world thanks to the good offices of the House of Saud, says: "As cited in Ibn Abbas: The apes are Jews, the people of the Sabbath; while the swine are the Christians, the infidels of the communion of Jesus."… "Some of the people of the Sabbath were punished by being turned into apes and swine. Some of them were made to worship the devil, and not God, through consecration, sacrifice, prayer, appeals for help, and other types of worship. Some of the Jews worship the devil. Likewise, some members of this nation worship the devil, and not God." These are just a few of the nuggets of wisdom contained in Saudi textbooks. ... We’ve been told that they are a “fringe” element, yet what is referred to as wahhabism...is not fringe. It is the state religion of Saudi Arabia and, thanks to generous funding from our friends, the Saudis, it is the fastest growing sect in Islam. When viewed with its offshoots, salafism and qutbism it is also the most politically potent sect. I don’t propose to tell Muslims how to run their religion. ...I take at face value the instructional material used to teach their fifth graders: "Whoever obeys the Prophet and accepts the oneness of God cannot maintain a loyal friendship with those who oppose God and His Prophet, even if they are his closest relatives."

Isn't it ironic - the ruling classes collaboratively going for the black gold while misleading their peoples either by pretending to fight against or support terrorism. It seems that terrorism is just a tool for both countries' ruling cliques.

Help Support Our Peace Corps!

The 45th anniversary of the Peace Corps passed quietly in March because no major news media even took notice. The Peace Corps? Does it still exist, I asked myself? You never hear about it. Has President Bush even mentioned it once in the past 6 years? I don't think so. Why? Because we live in a military culture. Does anyone wrap a yellow ribbon around the old oak tree for the Peace Corps troops? Hell, no! Somebody's making a fortune with those little magnetic yellow ribbons you see attached to every other car. The Peace Corps is entirely forgotten about. They're probably a bunch of tree huggers, liberals and do-gooders. Semper Fi, Peace Corps volunteers!

All this emotinalism that's attached to the military. Honor! Patriotism! Heroes! Purple Hearts! Do they give Purple Hearts to Peace Corps troops who get murdered or die from some godforsaken disease they catch in equatorial Africa? No. You never hear about them. The Rockets Red Glare! The Bombs Bursting in Air! All our patriotic paraphernalia is concerned with war. From the Halls of Montezuma! To the Shores of Tripoli! Over Hill, Over Dale. We have hit the dusty trail. Over there! Over there!

No emotionalism about the Peace Corps! That's why there's a poor prognosis that the human race will even survive. Human beings are war lovers, not peace lovers. Look at how much is spent on the military budget compared to what is spent on the Peace Budget:

U.S. Military Spending The United States, being the most formidable military power, it is worth looking at their spending. The U.S. military budget request by the Bush Administration for Fiscal Year 2007 is $462.7 billion. (This includes the Defense Department budget, funding for the Department of Energy (which includes nuclear weapons) and “other” which the source does not define. It does not include other items such as money for the Afghan and Iraq wars—$50 billion for Fiscal Year 2007 and an extra $70 billion for FY 2006, on top of the $50 billion approved by Congress.) For Fiscal Year 2006 it was $441.6 billion For Fiscal Year 2005 it was $420.7 billion For Fiscal Year 2004 it was $399.1 billion. For Fiscal Year 2003 it was $396.1 billion. For Fiscal Year 2002 it was $343.2 billion. For Fiscal Year 2001 it was $305 billion. And Congress had increased that budget request to $310 billion. This was up from approximately $288.8 billion, in 2000. These figures typically do not include combat figures, so 2001 onwards, the Afghan war, and 2003 onwards, the Iraq war costs are not in this budget. As of early 2006, Congress had already approved an additional funding total of $300 billion for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Now what is the budget for the Peace Corps - a paltry $318.8 million for FY 2006 - a drop in the bucket! We value war a thousand times more than we value peace! Does one in a milllion Americans know who the Director of the Peace Corps is? Why not? He's in the news all the time, isn't he? We all know Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defense. (It should be changed to Secretary of War because that's what he really is. Isn't there supposed to be Truth in Marketing here?) The Peace Corps Director's name is Gaddi H. Vasquez. Ever heard of him?

Well,  how many people are there in the Peace Corps compared to the Armed Forces. 7810 in the Peace Corps. Over 2.6 million in the armed forces. On the order of a thousand times more people! Both budget and manpower for the military are on the order of a thousand times more than the budget and manpower for the Peace Corps. Well, who mainly joins? Young people right out of college and senior citizens. Up to 80% of Peace Corps volunteers are between the ages of 22 and 25. But then the Peace Corps is hard to get into. According to AdventureDivas, three times as many applications are received annually as there are positions available. America puts it's money where it's mouth is: war, not peace! Is there a cabinet level position for Secretary of Peace? Give me a break!

Since the Peace Corps was created by President Kennedy in 1961, 182,000 people have served in it to date. How many people have served in the military since that date? Probably about a thousand times that many according to the above ratios.

Three simple goals comprise the Peace Corps' mission: 1. Helping the people of interested countries in meeting their needs for trained men and women. 2. Helping promote a better understanding of Americans on the part of the peoples served. 3. Helping promote a better understanding of other peoples on the part of all Americans.

Hmmm. It doesn't say anything here about providing the basic necessities for the poverty-stricken of the world such as clean water, health care, agriculture, housing, education etc. Must have been the language Kennedy had to use to sell it to Congress who probably saw it as a big propagandistic device for the US to combat the impressions rendered in The Ugly American.

It is fitting that the Project for the New American Century says nothing about eradicating poverty and disease for the majority of the world's people who live on less than a dollar a day. It's all about exercising American power in the world: American military power. Honor! Country! Patriotism! Semper Fi! The Destruction of the Human Race: coming shortly to a world near you. When peace culture becomes as fashionable and as emotionally dear to our hearts as military culture, then maybe there might be a positive outcome for homo sapiens. Until then I'm betting on the Neanderthals who lasted 250,000 years on the planet. We've got 100,000 to go to beat their record. Think we'll make it? Don't bet on it.

Book Review: The World is Flat by Thomas L Friedman

This book is worth reading because it is an exhaustive account about what's happening in the world due to globalization. Thomas L. Friedman identifies the main forces and technological innovations that made globalization possible, chief among them being the thousands of miles of fiber optic cable that were laid down before the dot com bust of 2000 that make a telephone call to India easier, faster and better than a call across town. This makes it possible to outsource back office and call center work, help desks, credit card inquiries etc to Bangalore where there is a large well-educated work force eager to handle this kind of work for about one sixth the cost of an American worker.

He goes into great detail about how Wal-Mart, Dell and others make use of cheap foreign labor and modern computers and communications including the internet, a process called supply-chaining, so that new customer orders or replacement inventory can be automatically generated at the cheapest source in the world and then transported by means of a global parcel distribution system pioneered by UPS and FedEx. This makes every business, large or small, a global business from its inception. Storefronts started by housewives on Ebay are global by default. The world is flat because labor can be accessed anywhere in the world, but especially in India, China and Russia where there are large, well-educated populations. By the same token, markets can be accessed anywhere in the world. Routine tasks and even such tasks as accounting can be done anywhere there is a computer terminal hooked up to the internet. Globalization has done a lot for countries like India and China where fairly large segments of the population are moving into the middle class thanks to outsourcing and offshoring. However, as Friedman points out, this is still a drop in the bucket compared to the large overall populations in these countries. So even though a middle class is developing, the bulk of the populations are still poor.

Since manufacturing facilities and labor can be located anywhere in the world, it makes sense to seek these items out where they can be provided for the least cost. Then the products must either be  transported to markets in other parts of the world or sold in the countries of origin. As middle classes develop in other parts of the world, consumers there have purchasing power which creates markets for consumer goods in the developing world as well as the more established consumer markets in America, Europe and other developed nations.

What do these developments portend for America? Friedman makes no bones about the fact that American jobs are being lost to other countries where the work can be done more cheaply. If transportation costs are cheap (in the case of call center work there are no transportation costs), work will be done elsewhere. Friedman's solution for American workers is the same old starry-eyed fol de rol that we've heard before. American workers have to work harder, be better educated, more clever, more creative, work harder etc. This is the mentality of the rat race. Instead of calling his different phases Globalization 1.0 and Globalization 2.0, he might just as well have called them Rat Race 1.0 and Rat Race 2.0. Rat Race 1.0 is when Americans just had to compete with other Americans for jobs. They had to study hard, get into the best colleges, work hard and compete to get ahead working long hours to impress the boss.

Corporations wanted workers who were docile and compliant and spent their leisure hours consuming and buying stuff - cars, houses, fast food, beer and prescription drugs especially. Now Rat Race 2.0 is when a door opens and about a billion other rats enter the arena. Now you have to race faster, run harder, study more, work harder, be more docile and compliant to get ahead in the competitive struggle. More and more jobs that aren't worthy of American citizens or are jobs Americans aren't willing to do, according to this scenario, are being farmed out, while we Americans will do the real creative, value added work. Guess what? It's bullshit. Other countries are increasingly taking over the creative work as well. Top level research is being done decreasingly by Americans and increasingly by Chinese and East Indians. Friedman's solution for the American worker, to constantly retrain, change jobs, get more education, work harder, work longer, is in the end a prescription for a heart attack and a nervous breakdown, much to the drug companies' delight.

Instead here's an alternative scenario for the American worker. Start your own business. Then your job cannot be outsourced. Why leave your fate up to corporations who have no loyalty to workers but will seek the cheapest labor wherever they can find it in the world? Become a capitalist yourself! Train yourself for a line of work over which you have complete control, and a line of work that can't be outsourced. Examples: medicine, law, plumbing, electrician, handyman, barber and beauty shops, franchises such as Starbucks, real estate. Whatever you do, don't go into high tech, cutting edge fields. These are the primary candidates for outsourcing. Take the money you would have spent on college and instead invest it in real estate. Your goal should be not to just be a worker living from paycheck to paycheck with the American dream of a mortgage and a couple of cars. Your goal should be to increase your net assets, your net worth, to the point that you can live off of a return from capital and not just the sweat of your brow. This is what they don't teach you in school where they teach the new American Dream which Friedman totally endorses which is to get better educated, work harder and run faster in the rat race. A moderately successful business man (and I include handymen, gardeners and plumbers in this category) doesn't have to do this. More importantly, a moderately successful businessman does not have to beg a corporation for a job.

If you're in business for yourself, whether you're a big time or small time operator, you have control over what you do, how you do it and when you do it. You don't have to enculturate yourself in some corporate culture. You can be your own person. You can speak your own mind. You might, by so doing, lose a customer here and there, but you won't lose your job as you would if you got into an argument with your boss. You can set your own working conditions, workweek (quantity and quality of hours), holiday and vacation schedule and benefits. You're not in the position of being a beggar or having to ingratiate yourself to your boss. In other words you're free, something which all Americans supposedly cherish, but in reality most of them only think they're free because they're basically just free to consume and vote for the party which has the most money for smear ads.

To be fair to Friedman, he doesn't think the whole globalization scenario is completely rosy for everyone. He acknowledges that there are many parts of the world which are not flat, where there is misery, disease, unemployment, disempowerment. He rightfully understands the role that humiliation plays in the gestation of anger and resentment among the classes and societies that are left out of the increasing prosperity for the lucky ones. In India, for example, the outcasts are the lowest of the low, live in squalor and aren't even seen as fit to associate with non-outcasts who consider them dirty. So you have the two extremes in one country. The outcasts of the world need something to hope for or they will turn to anger, resentment and destruction, in a word - terrorism. Globalization is not the solution for everyone although it's Friedman's solution - more globalization to include the disenfranchised, that is.

But there's a disconnect here. Corporations who are in the business of cherry picking the best and cheapest labor in the world in order to maximize profits for their shareholders (and for management too, incidentally) have no interest in being social workers. In fact their interests are diametrically opposed. Their interests are in paying out the least amount of money for labor and taking in the greatest amount of money in sales, that is for their shareholders, not for humanity in general.

Of course, not everyone agrees with Friedman's view of the world. His book, however, will be much discussed and chewed over. Nevertheless, this is a good book for those not familiar with how the process of globalization has changed and is changing the world bringing at least some prosperity to some who haven't had it before.

Concert Review: Peter Sprague at Dizzy's featuring Leonard Patton

Last night Peter Sprague, guitar, performed at Dizzy's Club in San Diego in a group featuring the vocals of Leonard Patton in a Tribute to Stevie Wonder. A biographical note about Leonard Patton taken off Peter Sprague's website can be found here. All the music was Stevie Wonder's, and Peter did all the arrangements, a herculean task. Stevie is a pop music phenomenon having churned out hit after hit such as "Boogie on Reggae Woman," "I Was Made to Love Her," "Living for the City," "You Are the Sunshine of my Life," "I Wish," "Sir Duke," and my favorite, "Isn't She Lovely" in honor of Stevie's baby daughter.  More importantly, Stevie's music is loved by jazz aficionados as his music has a meaning and depth not always found in pop music. It's music that will last the test of time, for sure.

The key to this night's performances were the arrangements by Peter Sprague. Whether it was a written out, improvised line played in unison by saxophone and guitar or an interjected, snake charmerish, promordial theme from John Coltrane's "Resolution,"  this was excellent music with great arrangements and popular appeal, as evidenced by the enthusiastic reception by young people from Bishop's School who were much in attendance, and it flowed effortlessly from these top-notch performers. Leonard's voice carried much of the vocal chores, and he was in fine form more than doing justice to Stevie's fine compositions. The back-up singers, Rebecca Jade and Eric Lige added a harmonic depth and visual appeal that gave this music an immediacy and direct human connection. Tripp Sprague honked, screamed and wailed on tenor saxophone and, when called for, executed ensemble parts with precision. Pianist Josh Nelson soloed well while bassist Bob Magnusson and drummer Dave Anderson immersed themselves in solid ensemble work.

I've never heard Peter sound better on guitar. His solo work was full-bodied and powerful. I could clearly hear every note, and every note certainly deserved to be heard. Peter had his amp up where it belonged, and, as the leader, kept the group grounded. The duet with just Leonard's voice and Peter's guitar was exquisite!

Peter is the epitome of versatility. Last week he was playing for Bob Magnusson's CD release party. Last night he did a Stevie Wonder tribute gig. But Peter is not only a great guitar player. As mentioned earlier, he did all the arrangements and this is a prodigious amount of work.

Not only that, but Peter is ubiquitous in his collaborations with different kinds of musicians in every configuration from solo guitar to symphony, playing every kind of music from Bach to Be-bop. Tonight rock and roll ala Stevie Wonder was on the menu. His very ubiquitousness though is made possible by Peter's behind the scenes arranging and producing efforts in order to bring these various projects to fruition. Each one is special and, therefore, each gig is special and unique. Too many jazz musicians approach a gig as a blowing session with a standard format. Play the head, improvised choruses all around, trade 8s with the drummer, play the head again and out. Not Peter! So you know you're always in for a treat because Peter has done his homework!

He has a little help though from his musical assistant: Finale. Peter was an early adapter of the Macintosh computer and music software that makes his prodigious output of different projects and arrangements possible. The tools that today's musicians have at their disposal also include Sibelius. I'm sure  that the various parts the musicians read from were produced with a little help from Finale or Sibelius. Melody and harmony can be played into the computer on guitar and the software can do the grunt work of the arrangement which then can be tweaked and finally multiple parts can be printed out with the push of a button. Peter also makes good use of the internet, having put together an excellent website, and uses email newsletters to inform his fans of upcoming concerts. So you see folks there's a lot more to it then simply learning to play an instrument well. Peter covers all the bases, and that's why his versatility leads to his ubiquitousness.

Note to Peter: Get your music played on Cox Cable channel 930, the jazz channel. Why? This is really the channel for Talent Deserving of Wider Recognition. I have heard some great musicians on there who I had never heard of before, and can instantly tell who they are because the information is displayed on screen as well as biographical backgrounds. I can then go to the computer and Google or Amazon them and put the album on my wish list. I've discovered some excellent musicians this way.

With FM radio, unfortunately, too many times after hearing a great piece of music, it's impossible to identify who performed it especially if the DJ doesn't come on and tell you or if an airplane happens to fly over when the DJ mentions the name. With digital media you have the artist's name available for the full length of the song. This applys to XM and Sirius satellite-based radio  as well. You only have to look down at your car radio to get the artist's name. This has done more to make lesser known artists known to wider audiences than any other recent development. In the old days record companies promoted artists. In the digital age, with jazz being such a small percentage of the overall market, each artist is responsible for his or her own promotion as you know, and the digital media like jazz-only TV channels and satellite radio are a help in this respect.

Arrow's R Notation Continued

We promised to do an examination of Arrow's R notation to resolve the differences between my friend, Ben at Oxford, and myself. Ben contended that R was only a "representation device." (See Comments.) After delving into this subject I would both agree and disagree. Arrow says on p. 12 of “Social Choice and Individual Values”: “Preference and indifference are relations between alternatives. Instead of working with two relations, it will be slightly more convenient to use a single relation. ‘preferred or indifferent.’ The statement ‘x is preferred or indifferent to y’ will be symbolized by xRy. The letter R, by itself, will be the name of the relation and will stand for a knowledge of all pairs such that xRy.” [emphasis added]

So R is both a representation device (when it stands alone) and a logical relation when it stands between two letters representing alternatives. A relation of the form aPbPcIdPf... (where a,b,c... stand for alternatives; P stands for preference and I stands for indifference) makes perfect sense since the logical relationships are clear. However, a relation of the form aRbRcRdRf... makes no sense since one must know the truth values of aRb and bRa, aRc and cRa, aRd and dRa etc. etc.

We have assumed that Arrow’s intent was to maintain a 1-1 relationship between P and I, on the one hand, and R on the other so that individual voters would submit their ballots in terms of P and I. These ballots could then be translated to terms of R as long as one knew both xRy and yRx. The dichotomy between the two notations is that one only need know xPy, yPx or xIy since they are all mutually exclusive. If you know that xPy is true, for example, you need not know the truth values of xIy or yPx. However, you do need to know the truth values for both xRy and yRx in order to maintain the 1-1 relationship between R and {P,I}.

We think that it is more transparent and less confusing to use the P and I notation instead of the R notation . Arrow’s use of the R notation because it is, according to him, “slightly more convenient,” turns out to be more cumbersome and more confusing. The same proofs could be done using P and I instead of  R. The in-depth analysis of this conumdrum continues here.

Sallie Mae Pauperizes Students

In a CBS news, 60 Minutes report last Sunday we learned about the plight of Alan Collinge who graduated with degrees (plural) in aerospace engineering in 1999. He took out a $45,000 student loan to get through school.Since that time, his loan has exploded to $103,000. The increase is due to interest, penalties and finally default. Now Mr. Collinge cannot get a job as an aerospace engineer because he has a bad credit rating.

When he finally defaulted, his loan was turned over to a guarantor. Collinge knew that sometimes credit card companies will reduce the debt. He hoped the guarantor would do the same. "And I was refused at every step in the way," Collinge says. Asked why, Collinge says: "I don't know why. They just refused. They said no. They said you will pay the penalty; you will pay the fees. You will pay the interest on the penalties and fees." For some borrowers, the system is unforgiving. But it has worked well for lenders like Sallie Mae, which has 10,000 employees in 19 states and manages $123 billion in student loans.

Sallie Mae used to be a quasi-governmental agency but was privatized in 1997. Since then it's stock has risen 2000%. It's presided over by Chairman Al Lord who has been generously compensated for his work while students are being squeezed to the gills to repay loans. According to Free Market News he is now a legitimate contender to buy the Washington Nationals baseball team and plans to build his own private golf course. Al is the one that persuaded the Federal government to sever its ties with Sallie Mae so that Sallie Mae could become a private company. Not that Al has severed his ties with Congressman John Boehner whom he has lobbied successfully for laws that are even more Draconian as far as the students are concerned and lucrative as far as Al Lord and Sallie Mae are concerned. Since 1999 Al has racked up over $200 million in stock options. Fortune magazine has named Sallie Mae America's second most profitable Fortune 400 company.

Al has been using the Sallie Mae corporate jet (yes, they have one) to ferry Congressman Boehner around on golfing vacations. Coincidentally, Boehner has recently passed on legislation before his Committee that would make it difficult and in some cases illegal for parents and students to shop around for and to consolidate student loans.

From Alan Collinge's website Student Loan Justice:

Since 1997, student loans have become the most profitable, uncompetitive, oppressive and predatory type of debt of any in the nation. This has occurred due to legislation that was paid for by the the lobbying machine of Sallie Mae, the largest student loan company in America. Vast personal fortunes are being made by both Sallie Mae executives, and others who paid for this legislation, at the expense of decent citizens who were not able to capitalize on their education. This has effectively crippled MILLIONS of decent citizens who want to repay their original debt, but are prevented from doing so by staggeringly higher amounts being demanded from them by both "non-profit", and for-profit student loan companies. This has truly created a swath of economic destruction across our land.

According to Alan's website, since 1997, Sallie Mae has set aside $3,639,981,913. in stock bonuses for its employees over and above their regular salaries. This is an average of $639,212. per employee. Guess it's a great place to work, eh? I wonder if Al Lord will share his personal golf course with his employees or maybe with Congressman Boehner. Most of Sallie Mae's profits, by the way, are made by extracting penalties on defaulted student loans.

From 60 Minutes:

Since 2002, the company and its employees have doled out more than $2.7 million to congressmen and their political action committees, including more than $200,000 to House Majority Leader John Boehner and his PAC. Over the years, Congress has written laws that give the student loan industry special advantages.

Sallie Mae works both sides of the street. Because it's a "guaranteed student loan program," they are guaranteed payment by the government. This does not prevent them from piling on excessive penalties and interest and doing all they can to collect from the students.

From 60 Minutes:

On top of that, Sallie Mae also owns some of the biggest collection agencies in the country. Once a student borrower goes into default, the government pays Sallie Mae all the principle and compounded interest that have accrued. The loan then passes into the collection phase. If Sallie Mae is the collector, it gets to keep up to 25 percent of whatever is recovered. In 2005, nearly a fifth of its revenue came from its collection business. "Sallie Mae makes money if you pay back on time. And Sallie Mae makes money if you don't pay back on time," says Elizabeth Warren, a professor of bankruptcy law at Harvard Law School.

So in essence the students are not guaranteed anything (especially a job that would enable them to pay back their loans), but Sallie Mae has nothing to lose. The colleges and universities are happy since they're getting paid and filling all their seats. In fact they can even raise tuitions and steer student toward Sallie Mae Loans in order to pay them. They also get kickbacks from Sallie Mae. Sallie Mae can garnish wages, even social security checks. Bankruptcy protection is non-existent for a Sallie Mae student loan. Meanwhile, Congress is tightening the noose on student debtors.

From Free Market News:

But under new laws effective this July, the vast majority of students and parents who have consolidated will be legally barred from ever refinancing again, no matter what other lender later offers them a better deal. Borrowers whose loans are owned by a single lender have always been prohibited from shopping around for the best deal when it came time to consolidate. Congress has been promising to repeal that anti-competitive law, known as the Single Holder Rule, but the proposal was mysteriously dropped from the Budget Deficit Act at the very last minute.

"It's a market in which the protection goes to the lender. And the students get served up like turkeys at the Thanksgiving dinner." Elizabeth Warren

Now student loans rates are set to climb again July 1, 2006. from the Seattle Times:

If you've got college loans, the magic date is July 1 — when the interest rates are set to rise significantly. Experts advise students and parents to consolidate their loans before then to lock in the current low rates. "The era of historically low interest rates on student loans has ended, and families are extremely unlikely to see rates this low ever again," says Mark Kantrowitz, publisher of FinAid.org, a college-financing information Web site. The variable interest rate on existing federal student loans will be recalculated by the U.S. Department of Education on May 30, and the new rates will go into effect July 1. Mark Brenner, vice chairman of College Loan, a student loan lender, says the rise will be the "biggest increase in the history of the [student-loan] program." Rising rates Rates are expected to rise at least 1.5.percentage points "and maybe as much as 2 percentage points," says Pat Scherschel, vice president of loan consolidation for Sallie Mae, the largest college-loan finance company. In addition, interest rates on new loans issued after July 1 will have substantially higher fixed rates instead of variable rates. The rates on the cheapest money students can borrow — subsidized Stafford loans — will jump to a 6.8 percent fixed rate July 1 from variable rates that currently are as low as 4.7 percent. Rates for the Parent Loans for Undergraduate Students, or PLUS loans, will rise to a fixed 8.5 percent from the current 6.1 percent.

Why Even Bother Going To College?

The question must be asked? In 5 Reasons to Skip College Forbes.com argues that, if you invested your $100,000. expense for going to college and then went to work right out of high school you'd be better off. Also many billionaires never graduated college.

For example:Bill Gates, Larry Ellison, Quentin Tarantino, David Geffen, and Thomas Edison, among others, never graduated from college. Peter Jennings and John D. Rockefeller never finished high school.

You can learn whatever you want without going to college from libraries and especially the internet. Your job, especially your high tech job, can be outsourced to India where they have 10 high tech IIT's (India Institute of Technology) churning out hundreds of thousans of engineers and computer scientists every year. These schools far exceed most American colleges and universities in terms of the rigor of their academic regimen. Why become the 21st century equivalent of an indentured servant?

I recommend getting credentialed in something that you can do yourself as an independent, self-employed contractor. A credential that allows you to practice some skill or some profession is far superior to a college degree that only allows you to beg in the marketplace for a job. Young, highly qualified Indians are willing to work 12 hour days for a couple of bucks an hour. Are you? Then don't get a college degree except in certain professions like medicine, law or architecture - professions which allow you to go into business for yourself. Better yet become an electrician or a plumber and don't acquire a student loan debt, go into business for yourself and earn $50 - $100 an hour. Have complete control over your life. Students are being led down the garden path because of a myth that in order to be anybody and have a good life you have to graduate from college. That's nonsense. Larry Ellison, CEO of Oracle, one of the richest people in the world flunked out of two colleges.

America's youth are being led down the primrose path. Many of those with student loans will be debtors the rest of their lives. Most people would have been better off to take the money they spent on college and invested it in real estate and then started their own business. The only advice I have for people for whom it's too late like Alan Collinge is to emigrate. The one thing you have going for you is that it's not a criminal or civil offense to be in debt even for a student loan, but that might change in the future. There are no debtors' prisons. I doubt if they would extradite you from another country because of student loan debt. In Sweden, for example, they have a national job data bank. They will hook you up with a job you're qualified for anywhere in the country. They also have generous social benefits, unlike America. In fact they'll do anything to get you a job just because their benefits are so generous. Makes sense, doesn't it? The best way to become a Swedish citizen or the citizen of any other civilized country is to marry a person who's already a citizen. Now I'm not saying that you should do this insincerely. But if you're single, why not meet foreigners over the internet? It's as easy to fall in love with someone who's a citizen of some other country as it is to fall in love with a citizen of your own country. The internet facilitates all kinds of dating. Why confine yourself just to the USA where you'll be hounded to the grave by Sallie Mae, the harlot??

Mathematics, the Universe and God

In ancient Egypt they worshiped the Sun God, Ra. Various religions have worshiped the sun. In ancient times they didn't know that the Milky Way galaxy, our home galaxy even existed. They didn't know that stars were actually suns like our sun, and they didn't know until recently that there were other galaxies in the universe, in fact billions of other galaxies each containing billions of stars or suns, assorted black holes, and other junk like asteroids, comets and dust. In addition they didn't know about the existence of sub-atomic particles like quarks until recently. If the ancients had known all this, the tremendous span of dimension from sub-atomic to the dimensions of the universe in space and time (a diameter of some 28 billion light years and 13.7 billion years, respectively), the ancients might well have worshiped the universe itself, the reality of which is beyond anything we possibly can even conceive of. Hence reality itself outstrips anything we possibly could conceive of in all its facets. When you add to this the fact that life exists within the universe, you have something pretty spectacular indeed, a complete miracle outstripping any miracles ever claimed to be such by anyone.

It's amazing how in one age people will claim that something is miraculous when, in a later age, the principles behind it are understood and the miraculous turns into the mundane. For instance, a hundred years ago people gazed into crystal balls and claimed to see things going on in some other locale. Well, today we can gaze into a modern day crystal ball otherwise know as a TV set and see instantaneously scenes that are happening on the other side of the world or even on the moon! The march of science guarantees that the miraculous will become the mundane. Religions have struggled to keep up with reality as the knowledge of it has unfolded. For instance, the Catholic Church did not admit until the 1950s that Galileo was in fact right. The earth does go around the sun. Other religions still haven't admitted that the earth is more than 5000 years old as it says in the Bible while in fact carbon dating has placed it at about 5 billion years old.

I start from the premise that no one really knows certain things like whether or not God really exists, what happens to us after we die, the meaning of life, the meaning of the universe etc. Religions have claimed to know these things, but in essence anything that any religion claims is merely a belief, and a belief can be right or wrong. Anyone, in my opinion, has the right to speculate about any of this stuff, but most people don't because they accept what their religion tells them without question. Why? Because they're afraid if they don't, bad things will happen to them either in this life or the next. However, most, if not all, human progress has been achieved by those who've had the guts to get beyond these fears and ask what might seem to some to be sacrilegious questions. Some like Galileo have been considered to be blasphemous. Organized religions have the power to invoke fear if you don't do what they tell you to do or don't believe what they tell you to believe.

I reserve the right to speculate about the "eternal" questions because I think I have about as much chance of being right about them as anyone else including those who claim to know everything since "God told them it was so." I start with the assumption that there is a God since, if nothing else, the miracle of the existence of the universe, in and of and by itself, would qualify as a God if God were nothing more than that. So I start with the assumption that, much like the ancients who worshiped the sun, the universe itself is worthy of worship if God is in fact nothing more than the sum total of everything that exists in the universe. However, I will in this forum speculate about the nature of God since, if God exists, we might ask what is his or her nature. It's a legitimate question. I will use the pronoun He to refer to God. Hope no one is offended by that.

Now there is speculation and there is speculation. One might ask is there such a thing as intelligent speculation and, if so, what are its parameters. When creative people do science or art or mathematics (here's where the mathematics come in), they always speculate according to their personal values. Einstein said "God does not play dice with men." That was a personal value. Of course, scientists have to subject their theories (or speculations) to experiment before they are proven true or false. Mathematicians just have to have a consistent theory because their work is completely abstract and not subject to experimentation. Scientific values have to do with elegance, simplicity (you can't get more elegant or simpler than E=MC[squared]), and symmetry. So if pre-eminent physicist Stephen Hawking can speculate about what happened before the universe began, why the big bang did or did not represent a singularity, certainly there are criteria that might allow one to speculate about the Nature of God.

The mathematician, Cantor, developed a whole theory about infinity. In fact he proved to the acceptance of other mathematicians that there are many different kinds of infinities. Now most people can't comprehend even one infinity let alone an infinite number of different kinds of infinities. Some of these same sorts of considerations might be able to be used in speculating about God. A lot of the religious ideas about God are anthropomorphic. That is they assume God has human attributes. The ancient Greeks and Romans had many Gods, and they all had human attributes like jealousy, sexual desires, seeking after power and dominance etc. What if God is not anthropomorphic? What if God is more akin to the laws of physics and chemistry than He is to human nature? And if Cantor can speculate and even prove things about something we can have no real grasp of, might we not be able to speculate and even prove some things about God?

Now it has been said that God is all loving, all knowing and all powerful. My personal feeling is that God cannot be both all loving and all powerful because, if he were, he would net let the slaughter of innocents take place, and, as we know from history and from present day news reports, innocents are being slaughtered every day. There are both man made and natural disasters. If God were all powerful, he could tweak things a bit so that disasters could be averted especially for those who are on his good side - those who are evidently very "religious." For instance, why did God let 9/11 happen? Surely, a lot of good people were led to their deaths by madmen. This caused tremendous suffering. Why did God let this happen? This is the question that, in the aftermath of 9/11, all clergymen backed away from because they didn't want to come face to face with the implications. Either God is not all powerful or God is not all loving. Other disasters like the tsunami, Hurricane Katrina, genocides in Darfor and Rwanda, earthquakes in Pakistan and elsewhere leaving thousands homeless etc could prompt the same observation.

My personal opinion is that God is not all powerful. God is not sitting up there manipulating reality, granting favors to those who pray, granting more favors to those who pray harder etc. Jesus said that "the rain falls on both the good and the evil." Nature is what it is and natural disasters can occur for a variety of reasons. It is up to man (pardon the expression) to act in such a way as to prevent or ameliorate natural and man made disasters including the slaughter of innocents. I believe that God has delegated this authority to us. For instance, early warning systems, devised by man, can alert people to earthquakes, tsunamis etc. Evacuations systems, disaster relief etc are man made devices to ameliorate disasters. Man made disasters such as 9/11 can be prevented by providing security systems to protect from such things ever happening again. We learn from disaster and we can take steps to prevent future disasters. The criminal justice system is supposed to provide justice and deterrents when criminals act in such a way as to deprive people of their rights, property or life.

So I think that God is not all powerful. I agree with the Deists to the extent that I think God set up the universe much as a watchmaker makes a watch, wound it up and let it go, subject to the provisions of the laws of nature supplemented by man made laws and subject to the constraints of the design aspects of the universe. What these design aspects are are not entirely clear. Einstein postulated a cosmic constant. The speed of light and other things could have been designed differently. What kind of universe we would be living in even if life were possible at all if some of these design parameters were different is the subject of more hopefully informed speculation by physicists.

US Government Hijacked by Neocon Cabal

With the US Congress effectively neutralized by its own rules which prevent the minority party from exerting any restraint or oversight on the executive branch, the neocons are finally in a position of absolute power. Their Project for a New Century has gone into effect with the election and re-election of George W Bush, a man who came to the Presidency in search of a foreign policy which was conveniently supplied to him by the neocon think tanks. Lacking any experience in world affairs, Bush has played the role of the front man, the mouthpiece, the totally scripted propagandist for neocon and corporatist policies. In a nutshell the neocon thinking is that, since the Soviet Union bowed out, we are the only remaining superpower. Therefore, we should do whatever we want in exerting influence over the rest of the world. We're Number 1. Yeaaa!

Bush wakes up in the morning and gets handed his script. This represents his movements and utterances for the day, where he shall go, what he shall say, what TV cameras and mikes he'll address. His role is confined to Propagandist in Chief. Previous Presidents were fully scripted in that they had speechwriters write their speeches. The Bush Presidency, thanks to Carl Rove, has gone a few steps beyond that so that the President is merely a puppet-on-strings controlled by the neocon agenda which in short is to dominate the world in pursuit of American corporatist interests.

Mr. President, you got a little off script there when you cut loose with that remark that the next President would have to deal with the war in Iraq. Now what you should have said is something  like "The troops are coming home next year providing that the Generals on the ground yada yada yada." That gives you an out, Mr. President. When next year comes you can always say that the Generals on the ground think that conditions will be auspicious for the troops to come home next year.

When Bush came to power, the neocons had half of what they needed to pursue their agenda - a front man who knew nothing about foreign policy. Now all they needed was a pre-text, an excuse for invading Iraq. Luckily, the terrorists handed them their excuse when they blew up the World Trade Center. They had wanted to take over Iraq, had planned to take over Iraq and now they had their excuse for taking over Iraq. The terrorists played right into the neocon hands. It  couldn't have been scripted any better if they had scripted it themselves. They had their front man, a puppet-on-a-string President who got a free legacy, and they could go merrily on their way establishing military bases in formerly Soviet controlled or influenced territory.

The problem is that the Project for a New Century will end up taking almost the entire century before the US can extricate itself from Iraq. Did I say extricate? With Iraq, the US stepped on a hornet's nest, opened a can of worms and stuck itself to a tar baby. But not to worry. The scenario has changed somewhat, but the scenario has not really changed at all. The US never planned to extricate itself from Iraq. The US plans to stay in Iraq and make it their base for controlling the whole Middle East. With the world's largest Embassy comprising 104 acres, bigger than Vatican City, under construction with a completion date of June 2007, it is the only construction project in Iraq that is on schedule. Completely self-contained with its own water, electrical and sewage systems, the rest of Iraq can go to hell in a handbag, and the Embassy, as big as a small city, will crank serenely on. This in addition to four gigantic military bases will make Iraq a center from which American power will emanate and extend its tentacles throughout the Middle East.

I like Stephen Colbert. He speaks truthiness to power. From now on he's persona non grata at the White House after he roasted President Bush at the Correspondents' dinner. Remember Freedom Fries? All things French were denigrated. Why didn't they change the pronunciation of "Chevrolet" which is pronounced Chevrolay, the French pronunciation, (silent t) to Chevrolettt. That would have taught the French a lesson. Oh, I see. You can't mess around with a corporate symbol. Anyway Colberrr (silent t) will now be referred to as Coal-burttt by the Press Secretary at the White House or maybe just Coal-buttt. He's an apt counterpoise to the Voice of American Propaganda, Rush Limbaugh, who, in his latest venture has decided that, since his voice is a talent from God, he should use it for more than just talk. He should sing as well. He's just recorded his first CD with backup vocals by Kinky Friedman and Willy Nelson. It's called "Hillbilly Smack". It goes something like this: "Hillbilly Smack! Hillbilly Smack! Doctor shoppin, wife swappin Hillbilly Smack! When I went out a-shoppin at the mall the other day. I stopped in at the Wal-Mart just to meet the folks who pray. I hope that our Dear Jesus will send a clue to me. And tell me where to find some ... Hillbilly Smack. Hillbilly Smack! Hillbilly Smack! Doctor shoppin, wife swappin Hillbilly Smack!"

But you know, as Stephen Colbert pointed out, even though President Bush has just a 33% approval rating, you can look at it as the glass being 2/3 empty or you can look at it as though the glass is 1/3 full. You know, Mr. President 1/3 of the American people still support you.That's 100 million people. That's nothing to sneeze at. And they support you very passionately, Mr. President, unlike those lukewarm-water-in-their-veins Democrats, those wish-washy, gay marriage touting, weak at the knees, shrinking violet Democrats, those lllliiibbberallllls. Disgusting. You, Mr. President, represent the dyed in the wool, red-blooded, red, white and blue, true Americans, the ones who've gone to war to protect American freedom, Mom and apple pie. Men like Vietnam flying ace, Randy "Duke" Cunningham, who single handedly downed 5 MIGs including the infamous Colonel Toom in one day! Now who can begrudge him a little poker party followed by a poke-her party, if you know what I mean.

I know. I know. Why, do you say, did he need all those expensive French commodes? Well, they weren't really for him. When his wife found out about the poke-her parties, he needed to do something to placate her. Of course, Kobe did it by buying his wife a $4 million diamond ring, but, you know, Congressmmen don't really have that kind of money. They just get a few perks here and there from their constituents in return for steering a few defense contracts their way. Nothing wrong with that. Spread the wealth!

11 score and 10 years ago our forefathers brought forth upon this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men were created as either have mores, haves, have lesses or have nots. Now it remains to be seen whether this or any nation so dedicated and so consecrated can remain in the hands of true believers like the Republicans who will cut taxes, raise military spending and borrow the money from Chinese Communist central bankers. But you know the Carlyle Group is getting rich. Halliburton is getting rich. Hell, the Vice-President earned $9 million last year for doing nothing. Kellog, Brown and Root is getting rich. But remember your base, Mr. President: the haves and the have mores. The hillbillies can be bought off with $100 rebates for gas. That would only be another $10 billion for a hundred million people. A drop in the bucket! It might even raise your approval rating to say 36%.

There's only one problem with a domestic policy that cuts taxes and a foreign policy that requires vast increase in military expenditures. Where's the money going to come from? Fortunately, communist Chinese central bankers have stepped in to fill this void. They give us money to spend foolishly, and what do they get in return? Their principle with interest, to be sure, paid by our children and grandchilldren, but what else, Mr. President? Oh, you can't be too hard on the Chinese? You must consult the playbook, "Horton Hears a Hu in the Bush." The Chinese  are silently forming peaceful alliances with many South American countries while these countries are nationalizing their assets. Flies in the face of globalism, doesn't it? Watch out Carlyle Group! Meanwhile, your nemesis, Fidel Castro, is gaining considerable clout as spiritual leader and inspiration for Chavez in Venezuela and Morales in Bolivia. You may be Leader of the Free World, Mr. President, but Fidel Castro is fast becoming Leader of the Western Hemisphere. Next time Chinese President Hu visits the West, instead of meeting with Bill Gates first and you as an afterthought, he'll probably meet with Fidel Castro first and you not at all. Wouldn't that rankle?

Let's consult "Horton Hears a Hu in the Bush" again. Can you say "over-extended", Mr. President? Rome wasn't unbuilt in a day, you know. It took many years of military adventurism and borrowed money before Rome collapsed. You're going down the same road, Mr. President.

But, Mr. President, you're doing the right thing. The third of the American people who support you think you're doing the right thing. You may not be able to bring about the Best of All Possible Worlds. But you have it in your power to bring about the Best of All Possible Ends of the World. Yes, Mr. President, you are the lucky person, along with Archangel Limbaugh, who has been chosen to hasten Armageddon. Your passionate supporters will be pleased, Mr. President, because they will all be taken up to heaven in the Rapture. Muslims will be happy because they will each get 70 virgins. True, Muslim women will not be so happy because they will have to work overtime portraying themselves as virgins, but, Mr. President, this is a small price to pay. Jews will also thank you, Mr. President, because they are the Chosen People so they have nothing to worry about. The only people who won't be happy with you, Mr. President, are the two thirds of the people who don't support you, but don't worry about them. They're merely Democrats, non-believers and atheist scum. They can all go to Hell and who cares?

The Taco Stands of Mission Gorge

Today we take the San Diego Trolley to Grantville Station in search of a good taco! (Click on any of the pictures to make them larger.) From downtown San Diego take the Blue Line to Old Town. Disembark and continue on the Green Line bound for Santee. This will take you through Mission Valley, past the Fashion Valley and Mission Valley shopping centers, past Hazard Center, Fenton Marketplace (home to IKEA, Costco and Lowe's), past Qualcomm Stadium to Grantville Station. You can't miss Grantville Station. It looks like this:

From the north side of the tracks, you have a nice aerial view up Mission Gorge Road where all the taco stands are located. In fact there's every kind of food you can imagine along the way from Starbucks to 7-11 with all kinds of fast food in between. Here's a view of Mission Gorge Road:

Walk the block or so along the frontage road alongside I-8, and take a right on Mission Gorge Road. The first taco stand you come to is Roberto's on your left:

On your right you'll pass Iowa Meats:

Next is El Pollo Loco. You can't miss it. It's right next to Discount Tire.

Next comes Sombrero open 24 hours:

At Vandever Avenue we have Taco Fiesta, another 24 hour drive through. Or in our case a walk through:

That's it as far as we know. However, if you don't have a hankering for Mexican, you have your choice of McDonald's, Jack-in-the-Box, Carl's, Wendy's - am I leaving anyone out? - I hope not. We continue walking to the intersection with Friars Road for a little extra exercise to work off those tacos. Here there is a huge variety of full service restaurants with every kind of food you possibly could imagine. Now it's time to walk back to the Grantville Station for the trolley ride home. Sure hope you've enjoyed this excercise in walking, Mexican food and photojournalism! Bon Appetit! And Bon Voyage!

US Embassy in Iraq Bigger than Vatican City

Rising on the banks of the Tigris River is the new US Embassy complex consisting of 21 buildings on 104 acres. This is 10 times bigger than most other embassies world-wide. It will have its own self-contained water wells, electrical and sewage systems. It will not be dependent for anything outside its thick reinforced walls, and, despite what goes on in war-torn Iraq, it will continuie to function serenely.

In the chaos that engulfs Iraq the Embassy project is the only one that is on target. It's due for completion in June 2007.

"The presence of a massive U.S. Embassy -- by far the largest in the world -- co-located in the Green Zone with the Iraqi government is seen by Iraqis as an indication of who actually exercises power in their country," the International Crisis Group, a European-based research organization, said in one of its periodic reports on Iraq. The land is actually owned by the US having been turned over by one of Iraq's provisional governments. Doesn't sound like the US is leaving Iraq any time soon, does it? In fact Iraq is destined to be the new US power base in the Middle East.

As reported by the Washington Times: "The 5,500 Americans and Iraqis working at the embassy, almost half listed as security, are far more numerous than at any other U.S. mission worldwide. They rarely venture out into the "red zone," that is, violence-torn Iraq."

From Arab News:

The high-tech compound will have 21 buildings reinforced to 2.5 times usual standards. Some walls are said to be 15 feet thick or more. Scheduled for completion by June 2007, the installation is touted as not only the largest, but the most secure diplomatic embassy in the world. The $592 million facility is being built inside the heavily fortified Green Zone by 900 non-Iraqi foreign workers who are housed nearby and under the supervision of a Kuwaiti contractor, according to a Senate Foreign Relations Committee report. Besides two major diplomatic office buildings, homes for the ambassador and his deputy, and the six apartment buildings for staff, the compound will offer a swimming pool, gym, commissary, food court and American Club, all housed in a recreation building. Security, overseen by US Marines, will be extraordinary: Setbacks and perimeter no-go areas that will be especially deep, structures reinforced to 2.5-times the standard, and five high-security entrances, plus an emergency entrance-exit, the Senate report says.

Congress has already appropriated $592 million for this project, and chances are that overall costs will exceed the $1 billion originally estimated. Most of this has gone to a Kuwaiti contractor who hires cheap foreign (non-Iraqui) labor.

From Arab News:

Work for the embassy was quietly awarded last summer to a controversial Kuwait-based construction firm, First Kuwaiti General Trading & Contracting (FKTC). FKTC has been accused of exploiting employees and coercing low-paid laborers to work in Iraq. Several of the US contractors competing for the Baghdad embassy project said they were amazed at the US State Department’s decision to award the contract to FKTC. They say that some competing contractors possessed far stronger experience in such work and that at least one award-winning company offered to perform all but the most classified work for $60 million to $70 million less than FKTC. Several other contractors believe that a high-level decision at the State Department was made to favor a Kuwait-based firm in appreciation for Kuwait’s support of the invasion and occupation of Iraq. “It was political,” said one contractor.

Along with the 4 major military bases in Iraq, the US is not going home any time soon. The construction cranes don't lie!

Concert Review: Bob Magnusson

There was a CD release party for Bob Magnusson last night as part of the Jazz in the Park Series. Liquid Lines is the name of the CD, and the group including Bob on bass, Randy Porter on piano, Peter Sprague, guitar, Tripp Sprague, reeds and Duncan Moore, drums, performed several numbers from the CD which was on sale in the lobby and a couple of standards. One of the stalwarts of the San Diego jazz scene, Bob has played with all the greats in jazz and pop including Buddy Rich, Sarah Vaughan, Art Pepper, Art Farmer, Benny Golson, Linda Ronstadt and Madonna!

This group has been playing together for so long in various configurations that it's more like a band of brothers than a group of musicians, and the Spragues and Bob share an avocation for surfing that ties them together even more. The CD, Liquid Lines, is inspired by surfing from Del Mar to Point Loma and points beyond. In general the musicianship was excellent with the empathy and interplay almost telepathic. This is how jazz should be played: with a group of friends and among friends. Bob's extensive family including, wife, mother, 3 daughters and 7 grandchildren were in attendance.

An Aside: Judy and I were late getting to the concert as usual since I have to pick up Judy in La Mesa at 5 PM when she gets off work, and drive to Balboa Park. (That's her on the right.) We munched down our Subway sandwich on I-8, parked and were walking toward the San Diego Museum of Art. Judy expressed regret that we would be late again. I said, "Not to worry. No self-respecting jazz musician ever starts a concert earlier than 10 minutes late so we've got plenty of time." Luckily, I'm on Holly Hofmann's reservation list or we wouldn't have gotten in. It was a sold out crowd. The ushers told us, much to Judy's chagrin, that we would never find two seats together so we worked on finding Judy a seat. That accomplished, I headed further down front when a woman stood up front and center and motioned she had two seats available. I waved to Judy, and we ended up having two seats together, the best seats in the house, thanks to, as it turned out, Bob's wife! I got to see Bob's Grandchildren as one after another they squirmed around on Grandma's lap, and what cute kids they are too! What a fortunate man to have such a beautiful family and to have spent his life in such a beautiful locale and earned his living doing something that's so rewarding and such fun! All this and surfing too. Heaven couldn't be much better.

Back to the Concert: They started out with "Afternoon at First Point," a tune I really liked. Randy Porter, on piano, is a total virtuoso with an excellent jazz feel and full of surprises. There is only one thing though. Randy, lose the white shirt! It seemed like the glare off an iceberg, and at times had me reaching for UV protection!  It made me appreciate more the darker, muted and understated threads the others were wearing! "Aqua Reflections" set a pensive mood, another excellent tune!

Most of the tunes were written by Bob, but they "covered" "I Cover the Waterfront." I felt the medium up groove was a little too fast. This is really a singer's tune, and, as sung by Billie Holliday, is a love song with a yearning, wistful quality. I didn't feel the arrangement captured the essence of the tune. Part of the homework of a jazz musician is listening to the legacy from the past and building on that. It seemed like this tune came right out of the Fake Book. They all played good, however.

"Reef Dance" went over well. Another surfing inspired tune. Brother Tripp was "out front" as the only hornman on the gig, and did a great job on tenor sax, flute and especially his harmonica solo on the last tune of the night. In general the sound system was adjusted well except I thought that Peter Sprague's guitar could have been brought up more. Peter's solo spots were great, but I couldn't hear him all that well in the ensemble work. The ensemble work, however, was the highlight of the evening. Intricate, crisp and clear - this was music of the highest calibre. I can't say enough about Duncan Moore's drumming. He's always there interacting but unobtrusively so. He has Big Ears! The sound of his drum kit, the micing of the drums and the guy playing them - all I can do is to agree with Cal Worthington - you can't beat that! His cymbal work behind Bob's bass, a tick tick rather than a ting ting, was perfectly suited and articulated.

Bob shared the spotlight on his special evening with Oscar Castro-Neves who performed Antonio Carlos Jobim's tune, "The Waters of March." Here is a tune that at first sight seems like just a jumble of words with not much of a melody, but the effect is hypnotic. This tune just grows on you. Oscar did a great solo turn.

After the break, they did more tunes from the CD. They maintained the high quality both of composition and performance of the first half. One quibble is that I found the tune, "The Search, the Discovery," a little long on search and a little short on discovery. The highlight of the second set, no doubt, was Key Largo sung by Coral MacFarland Thuet. Peter Sprague did an excellent solo intro, and Coral, as is her wont, captured the spirit and essence of the tune. In my opinion she is in the top rank of jazz singers because, like Billie Holliday and Frank Sinatra, she doesn't need 10 grace notes to embellish every note of the melody. Instead, she feels the tune, what the composer had in mind, adds her life experience to it, and communicates that effortlessly to the audience.

The last tune of the evening, "Newbreak," paid homage to another surfing spot off Sunset Cliffs, and featured the aforementioned wonderful harmonica work of Brother Tripp.

As we were leaving, Judy said to me, "I usually don't like originals, but these were all so good." I'm sure the audience, as evidenced by their enthusiastic response, agreed. I think it was typical of Bob Magnusson that he didn't hog the spotlight, featured other artists like Oscar Castro-Neves and Coral Thuet, honored his Mom and other family members and even introduced some of his surfing buddies and webmaster! But the music more than spoke for itself. This group deserves wider than local recognition, and we are indeed fortunate to have Bob as a superlative member of the San Diego jazz scene. Long may his flag continue to wave! Happy surfing!