وكانوا يسمونه ” سعد ”  في منزل عائلتها ، تحكي عن ذكرياتها في العيد  عبر لقاء قصير اجرته المذيعة سهير شلبي معها في بداية الثمانينات الميلاديه ، تحدثت عن مسلسل بابا عبده الذي مثلته مع الراحل عبدالمنعم مدبولي واخرجه محمد فاضل مذكرة بانه نقطة تحول في مسيرتها الفنية ، كما تحدثت عن العيديه وافضل عيديه  تلقتها  مشاهده ممتعة .

+ للمزيد عن آثار الحكيم اضغط هنا .

Wat als mijn oma mijn opa niet had over gehaald om in de Molenstraat te gaan wonen?

Dan hadden mijn vader (een knappe, lange jongen van 20 met donkerbruine haren en heldergroene ogen) en mijn moeder (15, blond, slank, felblauwe ogen, knap gezicht) elkaar waarschijnlijk nooit ontmoet.

Dan hadden ze elkaar niet het hof kunnen maken in de schaduw van de hoge kastanjeboom in de voortuin van mijn moeder en waren ze vijf jaar later, op de warmste dag van 1980, niet met elkaar getrouwd.

Wat als mijn vader nooit naast mijn moeder was gaan wonen? Dan hadden ze nooit ruzie gekregen en waren ze achttien jaar later niet gaan scheiden, maar dan hadden ze mij vast ook niet gemaakt.

Enjoy your thanksgiving in this world of shit. peace.

Transformer art

1)     Di solito, all’ultima campanella, gli studenti fuggono via come faine sorprese in un pollaio. L’altro ieri, invece, ne vedo un paio di terza (un ragazzino e una ragazzina) fermi all’uscita. Da professore educato quale sono, con la borsa a tracolla e una fame da lupo, li saluto (ovviamente in inglese) mentre esco:

Teacher: Bye-bye, see you on Thursday.

Student (boy): Professore, scusi, le posso fare una domanda?

Teacher (una domanda? all’uscita? di sicuro mi dovranno dire di un qualche atto di bullismo che hanno visto o subìto, forse li hanno rinchiusi al bagno, gli hanno rubato il cellulare o chissà che altro. Ma dico, semplicemente): Yes, tell me.

Student (boy): Siccome sto leggendo il suo libro (il teacher pensa: Ahi!) e c’è un racconto con questa XXX (nome non troppo comune)…

Teacher: Ah, stai leggendo il libro?

Student: Sì, e c’è questa XXX, volevo sapere se si è ispirato a XXX di classe nostra.

(XXX era la ragazza accanto a lui, che sorrideva)

Teacher: No, ho preso solo il nome XXX, il resto è tutto diverso. E’ una donna di 40 anni che fa l’insegnante, non c’entra niente.

Student: No, così, ero curioso.

Teacher: OK, no problem, have a nice day, see you!

StudentS: Bye!

Mmmmm… Stamani il ragazzino era assente. Ormai il libro lo avrà finito di leggere. Quel che è fatto è fatto. Gli chiederò un’opinione, sono troppo curioso…

2)     Stamani, dopo l’ultima campanella, in sala insegnanti mi ferma una mia collega di lettere, persona da me stimata per il suo carattere pacato e l’affinità di un certo sentire, anche se abbiamo stili di vita completamente diversi (lei è sposata con prole, credente, ecc.). Una dei pochi milanesi simpatici che abbia mai conosciuto (l’altro, così a pelle, è Enzo Jannacci). Sta passando un brutto periodo in famiglia, più o meno come quello passato da me negli ultimi anni. La madre le è morta da poco e il padre sta male. Io so benissimo come si sente, e lei sente che io lo so. Comunque, per dare un’idea della sua gentilezza, 10 giorni fa mi chiamò per dirmi che non sarebbe potuta venire alla presentazione del libro alla Biblioteca Labronica, che aveva già sistemato i figli per un paio d’ore, aveva organizzato tutto per venire, ma poi il padre si era sentito male ed era sul treno per andare a Milano. Questo per dire. Insomma, stamani mi ferma in sala insegnanti:

Collega: Senti, Emiliano.

Io: Dimmi.

Collega: Ho cominciato a leggere il tuo libro.

Io: Bene. Ti piace?

Collega: Scusa, ma non posso leggerlo, ora.

Io: Non ti preoccupare, lo leggerai in un altro momento.

Collega: Ascolta, mi piace, ma mi fa stare troppo male, mi ci ritrovo troppo.

Io: Non ti preoccupare, ho capito, lo so che non sono proprio racconti allegri, lo leggerai quando sei più tranquilla.

Collega: Sì, infatti, guarda, scusa, ti spiego, nei racconti che ho letto finora mi ci ritrovo in qualche modo, sicché mi immedesimo, e ci sto male. E poi quei finali coi bimbi…

Io: Tranquilla, lo so, lo riprendi quando hai voglia.

Collega: Lo volevo regalare anche a mia sorella (ndr: che oltretutto vive a Milano col genitore malato)…Poi però ci ho ripensato, non è un buon momento neanche per lei.

Io: No, infatti, direi di no. Comunque, se hai bisogno di qualcosa, di parlare, lo sai, ci sono.

Collega: Grazie, lo so.

(è triste pensare che, a livello razionale, la sua tranquillità arriverà solo con la scomparsa di qualcuno, oltretutto qualcuno che lei ama molto. è strana, la vita. è così)

3)     Anche questo è successo in sala insegnanti, stavolta alla prima ora.

Collega1 (matematica): Emiliano, ho cominciato a leggere i tuoi raccontini. Lo sai, mi sto divertendo…

Io: Mi fa piacere…

Collega1: E poi ci sono quei finali…deliziosi!

Collega2 (Lettere): Deliziosi? Sono STILETTATE DI GHIACCIO NEL CUORE!

E con questo, visto che l’ho nominato, vi lascio con Jannacci e una delle canzoni più belle (e tristine) che abbia mai scritto. Ho scoperto che è stata la sigla di un programma del 1980, Saltimbanchi si muore (che io non ricordo per niente), praticamente un concentrato della scuola di cabaret milanese. Basta guardare i nomi nella sigla. La canzone si intitola Io e te.

Avrei voluta scriverla io.

Don’t mind me, just uploading some classic punk here.

DL

-j33bus

De La Soul – “Me, Myself And I” ([realizador desconocido], 1989)

Ein weiterer Arcade-Klassiker ist im Anmarsch: Missile Command (oder ursprünglich auch Armageddon) von Atari. Bereits 1980 erschien das Spiel und wurde sogar noch bis 2005 weiterhin auf insgesamt 24 Plattformen veröffentlicht, zuletzt auf dem Nintendo DS in einer Atari-Klassiker-Sammlung. Es erschien in der sogenannten goldenen Ära der Computer- bzw. genauer gesagt, Arcade-Spiele und gilt selbst darin als eines der erfolgreichsten überhaupt. Indiz dafür ist beispielsweise das Auftauchen im Action-Film Terminator 2 und in der Nerdserie Chuck wurde dem Spiel sogar eine ganze Folge gewidmet.

Ziel ist es Städte bzw. Raumbasen, welche am unteren Bildschirmrand auf einer Art Mond oder Planet stationiert sind, zu beschützen. Dafür stehen einem drei Abwehrraketensysteme zur Verfügung, die jedoch auf jeweils 10 Schuss begrenzt sind. Man muss pro Level also mit insgesamt 30 Raketen auskommen, um die von oben herabfallenden feindlichen Geschosse zu zerstören. Als weitere Schwierigkeit fliegen ab und zu Bomber und Satelliten über die Basis hinweg, welche ebenfalls mit Raketen ausgerüstet sind und die Stützpunkte dementsprechend angreifen. Diese Raketen gilt es mithilfe eines Fadenkreuzes anzuvisieren und zu beschießen, um die Städte bzw. die Abwehrbatterien zu beschützen. Aufgrund der Bewegung der Geschosse gestaltet sich das natürlich schwieriger, als man zuerst denken mag, aber mit etwas Übung hat man die Winkel schnell raus. Schafft man es allerdings nicht rechtzeitig einer der Raketen abzuschießen, muss man sich leider von einer Stadt bzw. Raketenbasis verabschieden und somit geht einem, zumindest bei letzterem, wertvolle Munition verloren. Am Ende eines Levels kommt der Beschuss zum Erliegen und die übrig gebliebenen Städte und Raketen werde zum Punktekonto addiert – bleibt nichts stehen, ist das Spiel vorbei. Beim Erreichen von 10.000 Punkte erhält man eine neue Stadt und dadurch auch ein Leben mehr. Jedoch bleibt auch der Schwierigkeitsgrad nicht unverändert: Die Geschosse fallen schneller herab und auch für andere Gemeinheiten ist im weiteren Verlauf gesorgt.

Im Gegensatz zur Urversion braucht man im Flashspiel nur noch mit der Maus über den Bildschirm fahren und klicken, wenn eine Abwehrrakete gezündet werden soll. Damals musste man sogar noch für die drei verschiedenen Abwehrbatterien den jeweils richtigen Knopf drücken und gesteuert wurde mit einem Trackball. Eine moderne Fassung namens Lunar Command findet ihr hier. Und zu guter Letzt natürlich noch das Video:

ET,  The Extra-terrestrial

Director: Steven Spielberg.

Guión: Melissa Mathesson

Intérpretes: Henry Thomas, Dee Wallace, Peter Coyote, Robert Mc Naughton, Drew Barrymore, K. C. Martel, Sean Frye.

Música: John Williams.

Fotografía: Allen Daviau.

EEUU. 2002. 119 minutos.

El poder de las imágenes

Aunque resulta notorio que Steven Spielberg es uno de los más grandes storytellers del Cine contemporáneo, su enjundiosa potencialidad comercial le ha venido restando créditos entre la crítica con pretensiones refinadas. Sin embargo, los tiempos cambian, y las conciencias también: los mismos que hace años le tachaban de entertainer sin miga, ahora empiezan a respetar el talento de un director capaz como pocos de convertir ideas en imágenes y hacerlas fluir. Y pienso yo que los parabienes cosechados por filmes como Minority Report, Catch me if you can o Munich no son más merecidos que los que en su día se escatimaron a, por citar algunas, Jaws, Raiders of the Lost Ark o Empire of the Sun, todas ellas rotundas obras maestras (eso he dicho, rotundas obras maestras). En realidad, son los críticos los que tienen que hacer su proceso de aprendizaje. No Spielberg, a quien le sucede como a Hitchcock. Los dos son igual de genuinos, y a los dos les caracteriza su singular talento. Eso sí, uno habla de inocencias perdidas y el otro se enzarza en las zonas enfermizas de la psique humana. Pero eso qué más da. Por uno y otro, y en términos artísticos, lo decisivo no son los envoltorios temáticos, sino la fuerza de las imágenes: al igual que las imágenes de Vertigo, las de Artificial Intelligence hablan por sí solas de grandeza cinematográfica. Lo mencionado trae a colación esa máxima que dice que los directores de cine filman una y otra vez la misma película. Creo que es bien cierto en el caso de Spielberg (también en el de Hitchcock), y al respecto pienso que ET es la batuta, la partitura de pulsiones convertidas en imágenes que se dirimen en cada nuevo título de la filmografía del realizador. Y me refiero a opciones éticas y estéticas y a estrategias narrativas, al modo en que la forma va alumbrando infinidad de matices al fondo.

     De qué habla ET. Superficialmente diríamos que se trata de una historia de amistad bigger than life, la que se establece entre un extraterrestre perdido muy lejos de su casa (ET) y un niño (Elliott) que vive con su madre divorciada y sus dos hermanos en una periferia residencial. Afinemos.

 Dos niños

ET es un niño, al igual que Elliott. Nos lo cuenta la primera secuencia del filme: unos extraterrestres están recogiendo muestras de plantas en un bosque, y su actividad botánica se ve súbitamente interrumpida cuando unos hombres hacen acto de presencia; uno de los extraterrestres ha sido irresponsable, su curiosidad le ha llevado a apartarse demasiado de la nave (de ahí deducimos su mocedad), y los suyos no pueden esperarle más so riesgo de ser descubiertos (¿y cazados?) por los hombres; anótese al respecto que la narración parte del punto de vista de los extraterrestres, primero a quienes vemos recoger plantas, luego viendo a ET desesperado tratando de volver a su nave: por oposición, los hombres tienen intenciones hostiles, ello enfatizado en el modo en que son retratados: primero vemos la amenazante proyección del haz de luz de sus rancheras en la noche arbolada y después nada más que sus manos y pies, la música de John Williams subraya la sensación de miedo y peligro. El plano que culmina la secuencia recoge toda la desolación: ET no ha llegado a tiempo, y la cámara recoge su pequeña efigie de espaldas, en un claro, jadeante. Se ha perdido, está solo en un lugar extraño, identificado en las luces de la ciudad que se ven en la lejanía…

 Dos niños perdidos

El sentimiento de pérdida: el horizonte inalcanzable que la criatura observa en la secuencia comentada se parangona con otro que atañe a Elliott: México: allí es donde está su padre, donde se ha marchado con su nueva novia, según nos revela una de las secuencias de presentación de su familia. Esa pérdida es reciente, así lo demuestra esa conversación, los nervios a flor de piel de Mary, la madre, que inevitablemente derivan en lágrimas.

La Conexión

 Precisamente tras una de esas escenas domésticas -en la que Elliott menciona a su padre, y su hermano mayor Mike le reprocha haberlo hecho y así propiciado las lágrimas de su madre-, el niño acude al fregadero, presto a lavar los platos, pero no lo hace, se distrae mirando al exterior, y la cámara recoge la abstracción de esa mirada, ponderada por el vapor que emana del agua caliente. Previamente, alguien o algo le ha enviado una seña desde el cobertizo, pero hay algo más, algo psicológico, íntimo, que aquí se anticipa y que el resto del metraje nos confirmará: Elliott ha sentido una presencia, y sus ansias por dar con ella le superan: a pesar de que su hermano ha mencionado que “el coyote ha vuelto” al encontrar una huella en el cobertizo, Elliott no tiene miedo de salir de noche a esperar, a encontrar esa presencia. Hay un primer encuentro accidentado, en el que cada uno aterroriza al otro: la cámara encadena tres primeros planos, en angulaciones diversas del grito de Elliott; a ET apenas le vemos, pero sí atestiguamos la barahúnda que provoca su estampida: un columpio que se mueve, el cubo de la basura por los suelos… La noche siguiente se producirá el contacto, de un modo que nos recuerda al cuento de Pulgarcito: ET le devuelve a Elliott los caramelos que éste había dejado por el bosque a modo de anzuelo. Spielberg rueda con sumo mimo y capacidad para la sugestión las presentaciones entre Elliott y el extraterrestre. Williams enfatiza la profunda ternura que exudan las imágenes. (Y Spielberg aprovecha para lanzar un guiño a Lucas con los muñequitos de Bobba Fett y Lando Calrissian, y hasta para autocitarse, cuando Elliott le muestra a ET su pecera: “el tiburón se come a los peces, pero nadie se come al tiburón”). Esa ternura se tamizará con notas hilarantes cuando ET conozca a Mike y a Gertie, los dos hermanos de Elliott. Pero lo que prima en la narración es el desarrollo de ese vínculo psicológico íntimo entre la criatura y el niño que le ha adoptado, vínculo que se materializará en una suerte de telepatía o incluso de simbiosis emocional en la famosa secuencia en la que ET se queda en casa y Elliott acude a la escuela, donde debe diseccionar a una rana. A título anecdótico, Elliott se emborracha porque ET bebe cerveza, pero lo más interesante es el impulso irrefrenable del niño (dictado por ET) de liberar a todas las ranas, impulso que Elliott llevará a cabo sin la menor censura, y con ímpetu suficiente para contagiar al grueso de sus compañeros. Al final de esa insólita catarsis, Elliott reproduce la secuencia climática de la película que ET está viendo en casa (otro homenaje: “The Quiet Man”, de John Ford), y besa a la chica del mismo modo que el Duque besaba a Maureen O’Hara. Se trata de una sucesión de escenas donde la irrealidad se apodera de la narración, y las imágenes abren de par en par las puertas de un mundo de fantasía sin otra lógica que la pura magia, un país mitológico en el que anidan libres los pulsos de la inocencia.

 La celebración de la inocencia

 Este país mitológico es un ideal, que se opone a las penalidades de la realidad. Y este país mitológico tiene nombre: es el país de Nunca Jamás. Así nos lo confiesa abiertamente la escena más decisiva de la película, en la que Mary le está leyendo a Gertie   un pasaje de Peter Pan, en el que Campanilla se está muriendo: “Podría curarse si los niños creyeran en las hadas. ¿Creéis en las hadas? Si crees, bate palmas”; Gertie y su madre baten palmas, y Campanilla se salva. Al mismo tiempo, en la habitación contigua, Elliott se ha cortado accidentalmente una mano, y ET alza su dedo índice, que empieza a brillar; toca la herida de Elliott y ésta sana al instante ante la estupefacción del niño. No hacen falta más evidencias para entender que Spielberg y la guionista Melissa Matheson promueven en ET una lectura contemporánea de los mitos que Barrie inmortalizó en su cuento. La realización de Spielberg sigue ese norte en todo momento, y es por ello que la tesis de la película es tan hermosa y clarividente. No hay nada más prodigioso que el vuelo nocturno de Elliott y ET con la bici: los dos niños “alcanzan la luna”,  o al menos la cruzan en la que probablemente sea la imagen más iconográfica que el filme nos deja. Por otro lado, debemos volver a incidir en el hecho de que los adultos sólo sean mostrados cuando la más cruda realidad hace acto de presencia (cuando ET se muere), y que incluso Mary, que es la única adulta a la que la cámara exceptúa de esa norma, sea incapaz de ver a ET ni siquiera cuando le tiene frente a sus narices (la escena con Gertie, en la que la niña quiere mostrarle a ET, pero Mary, atolondrada por prisas y temores, alcanza a noquearle accidentalmente al abrir la nevera, pero no alcanza a verle). ET es una hada, tiene poderes mágicos, da vida a las plantas, y puede sanar heridas: pero en la cruda realidad sufre un colapso respiratorio, y, como Campanilla, muere; o quizá la realidad reclama a Elliott, y desecha a ET (el primero va recuperándose en proceso inverso a la agonía del segundo); Spielberg rueda ese pasaje con profundo dramatismo, no escatima la visión frontal del dolor (los médicos prueban de reanimar a la criatura con  electroshock); ET muere porque no puede vivir en la realidad, y Gertie le pregunta a su madre si puede desear que vuelva, y Elliott se despide de él diciendo que “creeré en ti todos los días”: como Campanilla, ET precisa que los niños crean en él, y merced de ese deseo sin mácula de los pequeños, resucita… La sinfonía de la inocencia, de la magia, de la imaginación al poder, alcanza su cota definitiva en la huida con las bicis: los niños –con la inestimable ayuda de su aliado del espacio- burlan el completo aparato humano y huyen al bosque, donde empezó todo.

Adiós a la inocencia

En el bosque, donde empezó todo, debe terminar todo. Con su inteligencia superior, ET logró articular un modo de comunicación con los suyos, que vienen a buscarle. Es el momento de las despedidas. El final del viaje, del ensueño. Spielberg reclama su reino: el itinerario de luz y color de las emociones alcanza aquí su cenit. La banda sonora de Williams, sencillamente sublime, también. ET dice adiós, y la nave despega, dejando la estela de un arco iris. Y algo más, tras de sí. Lo guarda Elliott en su corazón. La Magia. En el último plano del filme, vemos al niño superado por la emoción, pero no por el dolor… De esa naturaleza son las lágrimas que Spielberg exprime de nuestros ojos. Y su maestría reside, simplemente, en conseguir arrancárnoslas.

 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0083866/

http://www.et20.com/

http://www.filmsite.org/etth.html

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19970914/REVIEWS08/401010316/1023

http://www.reelviews.net/movies/e/et.html

http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/feature/2002/03/22/et/index.html?CP=IMD&DN=110

http://decentfilms.com/sections/reviews/1673

http://moria.co.nz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1325&Itemid=0

http://www.metacritic.com/video/titles/et/

http://www.spiritualityandpractice.com/films/films.php?id=8084

Todas las imágenes pertenecen a sus autores

One thing i didn’t like about the transformer movie is that sound wave didn’t get alot of time. Hes a major character in the transformer universe hopefully he gets some more burn in the next film.

Soundwave

And here is one of the songs from the ninja assassin movie. Sounds like an old wu-tang song to me. The movie looks hot im in there like swimwear..lol

Best 80s TV Shows

• Magnum PI
• Miami Vice
• Three’s Company
• Remington Steele
• The A-Team
• Knight Rider
• CHiPs
• Cheers
• MASH
• The Cosby Show
• Dallas
• Taxi
• The Dukes of Hazard
• The Jeffersons
• Happy Days

Este post esta dedicado a la pelicula que mas te haya desilusionado en este año, esa pelicula que esperaste con ansias y que se suponía seria buena ya sea por su historia u otro motivo.

A mi en lo personal me desencanto la pelicula “G.I. Joe The Rise of Cobra”, no estoy diciendo que la pelicula fuera un total disparate pero ha decir verdad me esperaba más de ella.

Creo que la historia no le hace merito a los dibujos animados de los 80, más bien hicieron algo un poco alejado y diferente de lo que vivimos en aquella época. Otro punto fue que ni bien empieza la pelicula nos llenan la pantalla de pura acción y no nos dejan digerir bien la escena cuando ya están poniendo otra escena cargada de más acción.

Por otra parte hubo momentos donde pensé (y aún creo que es así) donde nos muestran diversos personajes tan variados que me dio la impresión que solo lo hacen para vender juguetes posterior a la pelicula, es como si vieras un comercial de Max Steel.

Vuelvo y repito con esto no estoy diciendo que la pelicula fue mala, es solo que no me dejo la impresión que esperaba con relación a los dibujos animados.

A ti cual fue la pelicula que mas te desilusiono este año 2009?

…the beautiful-oh-so-talented Sade is ready to bless ears with her new Album titled: Soldier of Love, though we would have loved for it drop during this holiday season, Sade Adu, is most definitely worth the wait…the album is set to launch on February 8th…in the meantime, feast your eyes on the cover work…

Taxi – Let The Sunshine In

Svensk disco av bästa märke är detta i mina öron. Därtill den bästa cover av låten Let The Sunshine enligt min åsikt. Jag hade förmånen att få se det här gänget live nån gång på senhösten/vintern 1980 tror jag det var eller möjligtvis början på 1981. Platsen var i alla fall Mayday Club i Västervik och jag minns inte så mycket från själva konserten mer än att de var riktigt bra, men man kunde ju bara en av låtarna de släppt på skiva och det var den här.

Däremot så uppstod en pinsamhet efter konserten och det var när DJ’n skulle börja spela igen. Han hade nämligen inte fått spela den här låten innan de uppträdde för att inte förstöra intresset innan konserten. Men efter konserten var det helt ok och då släppte han loss tolvan med Taxi framförandes Let The Sunshine In i Cerwin Vega-systemet med sina dubbla jordbävningshorn.

Snacka om att konsertljudet vi precis hört innan bleknade rätt så rejält vid jämförelse. Även om de hade ett helt ok PA som kunde leverera bra tryck och volym så var det en västanfläkt i jämförelse med discoanläggningen på Mayday. Så man kan säga att det blev lite pinsamt eftersom gruppen var kvar och fick höra kvällens insats devalveras av en vinylskiva och då till på köpet en vinylskiva med dem själva.

Men man kan ju trösta dem med att det var en uttans bra vinylskiva som de spelat in. Den platsar definitivt på topp tio-listan av de bästa svenska discolåtarna av klassiskt snitt. En annan låt som jag spontant kan komma på som oxå platsar där är Sad Motion och deras låt Den Där Festen. Tyvärr så finns inte den på YouTube annars hade den varit given på bloggen helt klart. Men man kan inte få allt och man kan ju alltid hoppas på att den dyker upp så småningom i alla fall.

Tjillevippen

notbugs

A boa repercussão da série “Glee” gerou um interessante artigo de Tom Leão no Globo Online, com direito a possibilidade de ouvir uma das músicas da trilha:

Para entrar em sintonia: “Glee” é uma série de TV (exibida aqui pelo canal por assinatura Fox) que mostra um grupo de desajustados num colégio americano que possuem talentos musicais e são ajudados por um professor gente boa a vencerem pela música, apesar de todo o preconceito que rola na escola.

A trama até soa manjada. Mas a série tem um ritmo esperto, atuações que não se levam a sério e serve como antítese ao artificial “High school musical” ou até mesmo à frustrada tentativa de reviver o clássico musical dos anos 1980 “Fama”, que foi um fracasso.

Elenco de Glee

Mas o mais legal mesmo são as reinterpretações e reinvenções para clássicos e standards da música pop em geral das últimas décadas, tocadas no formato banda de escola (fanfarras), a capella ou coro clássico de musical. No caldeirão de “Glee” não há preconceito de gênero ou estilo. Entra tudo o que for bacana e tiver a ver com a trama.

Leia o artigo completo e ouça “‘Don’t stop believin”, da trilha sonora de Glee, clicando aqui.

Leia também:
- Glee: Não são só os teens que gostam

[ source ][ wiki ]

Escuchar las primeras notas de esta canción hace que se me ponga la piel de gallina. Tengo que ser sincera y decir que la primera versión que escuché fue en la película Shrek, aunque como todas las canciones que pongo en el blog, son canciones que a lo largo de los últimos 20 años han sido versionadas por numerosos artistas.

Leonard Cohen escribió “Hallelujah” en 1984 y la incluyó en su album Various Positions. No tuvo mucho éxito en los primeros años, pero gracias a las muchas versiones que se hicieron consiguió hacerse famosa. Trata de temas bastante ambiguos que llevarán a que se forme debate acerca de las intenciones del cantante.

Antes de investigar sobre la canción no había escuchado la versión de Leonard Cohen. El ritmo, y el tono de su voz hace que sólo identifique la canción gracias al estribillo, me parece que es demasiado lenta y no tiene acompañamiento casi musical (sólo el de una guitarra).

El primero en versionar ” Hallelujah” fue John Cale en 1991 en su album I’m your Fan.  John Cale le pidió permiso a Cohen para poder modificar una parte del texto. La canción de John Cale es la que se utilizó en la película de Pixard Shrek. Lo curioso es que en la versión en CD que se sacó de la película se sacó la versión de piano de Rufus Wainwright

Jeff Buckley inspirado por John Cale, y no por  Cohen, versiona la canción llegando a ser la más conocida de todas. Incluyéndola en su album Grace logrará en 2004 el puesto 259 de la Revista Rolling Stone (Las 500 mejores canciones de todos los tiempos). En 2007 la revista Q Magazine la clasifica como una de las 10 mejores canciones, haciendo referencia a la versión de Buckley como “lo más perfecto que se puede conseguir”.

Una de las últimas versiones es la de la cantante británica Alexandra Burke (5º ganadora del certamen británico de Factor X).  Su versión llegó a ser número uno en Diciembre de 2008 en el Reino Unido.

En mi opinión una de las mejores versiones es la de Imogen Heap, no conozco mucho más de esta cantante inglesa, pero como amante de las series americanas es la canción que apareció en el final de la segunda temporada The Oc, y que marca un antes y un después en el desarrollo de la historia …

Esta publicación se la quiero dedicar a una gran amigo que me ha ayudado y me ha dado muchos consejos para el blog . Mañana día 24 será su cumpleaños y que mejor forma de agradecérselo que con una canción que le gustará. Destacar que su versión favorita es la de Jeff Buckley.  ¡FELICIDADES CURRO !

(no se me olvida decir que la idea de esta canción fue suya, gran conocedor y amante de la música)

baby i’ve been here before
i’ve seen this room and i’ve walked this floor
i used to live alone before i knew you
i’ve seen your flag on the marble arch
but love is not a victory march
it’s a cold and it’s a broken hallelujah

Charlotte Pichon Muñoz

Bits & Pieces 2 (1980)

Först måste jag göra vågen för snubben som satt ihop det här klippet. Han har nämligen bemödat sig med att göra ett bildspel med omslagsbilder till den skiva som just mixas i klippet. Helt underbart och det gör att det blir lite kul att kolla på klippet. Annars brukar man ju bara lyssna när dylika klipp spelas på YouTube och där inte finns nån riktig video till. Här blir det istället en riktigt underhållande tillbakablick på musikhistorien när man får se skivetiketter och omslag avlösa varandra i nån slags orgie i nostalgiska referenser.

Att jag tog med det här klippet hänger ihop lite med det inlägget jag hade om Grand Master Flash och The Wheels Of Steel nyligen. Den låten fick ju nämligen status som en egen låt trots att det ju faktiskt är lite av en mashup eller medley som det kallades förr. Får nog gå igenom alla såna begrepp vid tillfälle för jag inser att det har ändrat betydelse till viss del genom åren. Hur som helst så är Bits & Pieces, som kom 1980, ett bra exempel på dåtidens medley som var oerhört populära bland oss DJ’s. Gemene man var dock rätt frustrerade över dem då de ju bara fick höra snuttar av sina favoriter.

Men sen fanns det medleys som bara var skräp och det var när det var dåligt mixat eller dåligt klippt. Eller så fanns det skräckexempel där en del originallåtar var med men sen hade man fyllt ut resten med covers. Finns dock guldkorn även bland skräckexemplen och jag ska se om jag vid tillfälle kan ta med ett sådant. Har nämligen ett sånt som poppar upp i skallen just nu men nu när jag kollade så finns det inte på YouTube så då får man väl fixa det själv.

Hur som helst så tillhör Bits & Pieces 2 ett av mina favoritmedleys från den tiden, dels för att det är bra mixat med tanke på dåtidens tekniska möjligheter. Sen är det en sån suveränt bra blandning på låtar så man kan få ståpäls för mindre.

Tjillevippen

notbugs

1750 (en su primera edición) y  1758 (en su segunda  edición  publicada):  Baumgarten  usó  la palabra  ”estética”, se  la designó  como: “ciencia de lo bello, se le agrega  un estudio de la esencia  del arte, de las relaciones  de ésta  con la belleza y los demás valores”. Algunos  autores  han pretendido  sustituirla  por otra  denominación: calología, que atendiendo  a su etimología  significa  ciencia  de  lo  bello (kalos, «bello»).

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Gottlieb_Baumgarten

http://opusprima.wordpress.com/2008/08/23/la-estetica-de-baumgarten/

1900: La moda comienza este año con la llamada silueta S, debido al corsé que empujaba el busto hacia arriba, estrechando la cintura y sus faldas  ajustadas a  la  cadera  ensanchándolas en forma de campana al llegar al suelo. En el mundo  laboral se empieza a  incorporar  los trajes  sastre y el corte  con influencia  masculina  para las  mujeres. Los vestidos eran largos, cubrían los zapatos, las plumas y los encajes  hacían  furor, destacando los grandes  sombreros con infinidad  de adornos y ornamentos. La moda prácticamente solo fue seguida por las clases altas inglesas y francesas.

 1908: La  silueta  era  mucho  mas recta, sin marcar tanto la cintura. Radicalmente  cambió la ropa interior;  se dejó  de  usar  el corsé a  cambio  del  sujetador,  las  faldas  se  estrechaban  tanto  en su  vuelo  que casi  no dejaban andar, los  sombreros  eran  muy  anchos, la  silueta  era  un  triángulo  invertido, haciendo  surgir el escote en V.

http://alaridodelamoda.blogspot.com/2009/09/1908-aparecio-el-corpino.html

1910: Pasan de  moda las mujeres y sus curvas  con el  “talle de avispa”, en esta fecha la mujer convierte el corsé en una faja  que le desdibuja la cintura. Se  instalan  los  PRIMEROS  INSTITUTOS DE  BELLEZA en las principales  capitales  europeas. Estalla  la  guerra  del 14 y la belleza desaparece  como  encanto.  No existe  ese afán  por  conseguir la belleza  artificialmente.

1918: Resurge la femineidad  con un ímpetu insospechado. Surge una mujer  “nueva”, la que tiene que trabajar, la que viste estilo “sport”, la que se corta el cabello “porque el pelo largo es molesto para la mujer que tiene que trabajar”.

1920: La ropa era mucho más práctica. Nuevamente vuelve a cambiar la silueta descendiendo la cintura a su posición anatómica, marcando el talle y ensanchando los hombros. En esta década se destacan las faldas cortas. Desaparecen los sombreros y se vuelven a dejar crecer el pelo.

 1930: El look se militarizo y los tejidos se volvieron pobres debido a la década de guerra, debido a esto las chicas se vestían con uniforme de ciudad, es decir, trajes de chaqueta. La moda se vio totalmente afectada por la guerra.

1940: Volvió el esplendor. Se vuelve a forzar la silueta con una cintura estrecha y se le dio volumen a los hombros y a los pechos. Se aumentó el vuelo de sus faldas, estas con el largo por debajo de las rodillas. Las mujeres estaban cansadas del estilo masculino, asique volvieron las curvas. Los zapatos se estilizaron haciéndolos mas puntiagudos, usaban abrigos de paño, y bolsos al codo. Triunfó el nuevo look de Cristian Dior.

1950: Se utilizaba ropa cómoda surgiendo así la ropa juvenil. Se había puesto de moda la ropa extravagante. Los estampados eran de mariposas y de flores. Las siluetas volvieron hacer más lisas y se comenzaron a imponer rápidamente por todo el mundo las minifaldas.

1960: Surgió el concepto de la ropa diferente, original, divertida y extravagante. El cabello se usaba corto y con cortes geométricos. Tanto los hombres como las mujeres comenzaron a usar pantalones de campana y aparecieron  las blusas de algodón.

1970: Década muy diversa, se produjo un furor hacia lo RETRO. Las flores fueron el principal símbolo en la ropa y en el pelo. Resaltaban los trajes y vestidos, con ajustados pantalones. El algodón fue remplazado por la lycra; usaban botas o zapatones de tacón.

1980: Hubo un nuevo estilo que se caracterizaba por el uso de ropa interior visible, y esto nunca se había visto en el pasado, por lo tanto, esto fue sinónimo de liberación para las mujeres. Gracias a esta tendencia, las mujeres de hoy pueden vestir “sin tener que preocuparse por las transparencias o los tirantes de los sujetadores”.

1990: Había mucha variedad,  no había una tendencia específica y duradera. Trataban de ponerse lo más cómodo, sin darle mucha importancia a la opinión de los demás o a las tendencias, porque la gente había llegado a la conclusión de que no se estaban expresando con libertad. La gran modificación en esta época fue la aparición de los piercings, tatuajes y el pelo teñido.

http://punksunidos.com.ar/artecorporal/2008/08/tatuajes-en-los-ojos-donde-la-tinta.html

articoli correlati su C.P.  http://comunitaprovvisoria.wordpress.com/?s=sisma

This is an annual event that i always go to every year. Its good to see that the turn-outs are becoming better as the year goes by. Its always a good look for me i advise you if you are into the vintage clothing scene to check it out.  You can find out by going to the event why for the select few veiw this is a lifestyle rather than a fad.

lo-life bbq 4th annual

And here is some footage from the event. It was funny watching it because i spotted myself in the footage. Im only in there for a couple of a seconds but it was funny to me nonetheless. Enjoy the footage….peace.

Video flyer para la fiesta Africa!

African party video-flyer!

1980

Uma anotação manuscrita indica a data de 6ª feira, 5 de Dezembro de 1980.

1982

Panfleto eleitoral da Juventude Centrista.

Double Dip Recession: Reagan & Obama

Typical of great statesmen, Ronald Reagan took no credit for our nation’s recovery during his tenure. He was called “The Great Communicator” because he almost single-handedly restored the nation’s confidence. Indeed, what we’re experiencing now is, first and foremost, a crisis of confidence. “I wasn’t a great communicator,” Reagan said in his farewell address, “but I communicated great things, and they didn’t spring full bloom from my brow, they came from the heart of a great nation – from our experience, our wisdom, and our belief in the principles that have guided us for two centuries.”

He added, “There were two great triumphs … that I’m proudest of. One is the economic recovery, in which the people of America created – and filled – 19 million new jobs. The other is the recovery of our morale. America is respected again in the world and looked to for leadership.” Fast forward to today; one of the most basic strategies in a successful magic trick is the use of misdirection and diversion. A great magician amazes by doing the obviously impossible and the audience applauds, delighted to be fooled, misdirected to look left when the real action is on the right, and cannot explain the inexplicable.

Last week, Obama said that he’s worried that spending too much money to help revive the economy could undermine a fragile U.S. recovery and throw the economy into a double-dip recession. Isn’t this like a guy shooting his neighbor and then saying, “Hey, buddy, you’re bleeding.” Yeah, comments like that give me confidence in the quality of Ivy League education. In fact, “Double Dip”, is a perfect nickname for this dolt. Let me get this straight – Obama says that if he keeps doing what he’s been doing, bad things will happen? But he’s going to keep doing it anyway because he wants universal health care and cap and tax. Obama’s comments and his direction is as sturdy as pushing on a string.

First, what does double dip Recession Mean? When gross domestic product (GDP) growth slides back to negative after a quarter or two of positive growth. A double-dip recession refers to a recession followed by a short-lived recovery, followed by another recession. The causes for a double-dip recession vary but often include a slowdown in the demand for goods and services because of layoffs and spending cutbacks from the previous downturn. A double-dip (or even triple-dip) is a worst-case scenario. Fear that the economy will move back into a deeper and longer recession makes recovery even more difficult.

Well, before we can have a double dip recession we’d need to have the upside first, don’t we? Look at it like an upside down bell curve or the letter ‘U’. Have we bottomed out and improved? Are we in a U shaped recession? Without bad government policies/stimulus, which has caused rising unemployment and weak corporate profitability, it would have been V shaped. We would be in a W-shaped recession if the stimulus had any nominal effect and it created brief GDP growth, fell back, and then rose again – thus a double-dip recession. Right now, let’s just call it an L-shaped downturn. When Bush was POTUS, Obama said we were in recession when the GDP was still growing and now that they’re in power, Obama is saying we are out of it even though quarterly GDP continues to shrink.

Obama is foreshadowing the fact that he wants to spend money to ‘boost’ the economy, but at the same time cover his butt in the event of creating too much red ink. Too late. To start, when the stimulus money disappears, the programs that have begun won’t be able to sustain themselves when the states affected don’t have the funds to continue these ludicrous plans. In ten short months, Obama had presided over the biggest spending binge in world history. The U.S. national deficit has risen to $1.4 trillion since Obama took office ($1,412,442,058,575) and the national debt is now $12 trillion according to the Treasury Department’s Bureau of the Public Debt. With our mounting national debt and budget deficits, it is reasonable to assume that near-term future interest rates on new and refinanced debt will double or triple. There is no indication that Obama’s Road to Damascus conversion from big spender to debt reducer is anything more then rhetoric tailored to the comfort-sounding, albeit, misleading sound bite of the day.

Housing prices have been propped up, banks and auto companies have been bailed out, regulations have been increased, anti-capitalist measures installed, debt covenants have been violated, unemployment insurance has been extended, money supply has grown exponentially. In addition, there’s the cap-and-trade bill, the healthcare bill, and a “czar” around every corner. In short, the problems that caused the great recession have been compounded. Real output must then necessarily decline. How can anyone logically assert that we are in the beginning of a recovery? Until small business recovers, this economy will not.

Unless lawmakers make big changes, the interest Americans will have to pay to keep the country running over the next decade will reach unheard-of levels. In Fiscal Year 2009 (FY09), the U. S. Government spent $383 Billion of your money on interest payments to the holders of the National Debt. In 2015 alone, the estimated interest due – $533 billion – is equal to a third of the federal income taxes expected to be paid that year. And, as more money goes to interest, creditors may become concerned that the country can’t pay down its principal and lawmakers will be less able to pay for other national spending priorities. Less debt means less pressure on interest rates; more debt means greater pressure on interest rates.

Your money is spent through Appropriations Bills passed by The U.S. Senate and signed by the President. The Government does not have any money, it takes your money from you and, borrows more, then spends it on the appropriated bills. The bailouts of 2008 and 2009 are purely deficit spending. Expect to see enormous deficits in the foreseeable future, leading to much more debt; and interest payments on that debt will soon surpass social spending and become the largest item in the federal budget. Basic economics says that the President and Democrat Congress are doing the exact opposite of what should be done to shorten a recession (such as cut taxes across the board – personal, corporate, and capital gains – and slash government spending). In fact, this administration will bankrupt our economy if this spending spree continues on course.

Despite Bush’s bank lending plan that was proposed to restore economic confidence, the Democrats had “Plan B,” and no sooner was Obama sworn-in to office than they implemented their $4 trillion “recovery plan,” none of which is recoverable because that greatest transfer of wealth in history has nothing to do with recovery and everything to do with the socialization of the U.S. economy, Obama’s ultimate agenda. Obama’s promise to “fundamentally transform the United States of America” is in sharp contrast to Reagan’s massive tax reductions, deregulation and anti-inflation monetary policies. Obama is a clear and present danger to the U.S. and its Constitution and the American people. The overreaching authoritative hand of the federal government doesn’t do anything well. It’s inefficient, slow, prone to fraud, and ineffective.

Effect on Business & Consumers

Frozen credit lines. High unemployment. Foreclosures. Contrary to what Team Obama says, the economy is still contracting. At the very least, the business community and investors are NOT jumping back into the economy with both feet; they are still watching to see what legislative and regulatory monstrosities come out of Washington. With unemployment soaring and tax receipts slumping, the deficit will continue to rise. And, forgotten in all this is the job killer of rising taxation. The Bush tax cuts are set to expire next year and everyone’s marginal tax-rate are set to go up 10%. This does not account for what Charlie Rangle will push through Ways and Means or the impact of the “tax” on energy because of cap and trade or the number of taxes hidden in the health care bill or the impact on small businesses that create 70% or more of the new jobs.

Do the math yourself. What the business owner keeps is dependent on what they have to generate in new business and its correlating profit margins – let alone having excess revenue to hire, particularly if the business-to-business market and consumer markets are soft and interest rates have to go up, which is almost inevitable. The Fed has artificially depressed short-term rates to this point, but they can’t keep it up forever. When those rates balloon upward, massive defaults will follow, which will have a rather nasty effect on currently inflated equity prices. And any increase in interest rates will increase the debt service payments on small business and individuals.

When interest rates rise, consumers, businesses and the economy are affected in several ways. Consumers are less likely to purchase products such as automobiles, mortgages and other consumer goods. Higher interest rates means consumers must pay higher finance charges. Two-thirds of economic activity is based on consumer spending and when consumers stop spending the economy slows. Many companies too need to borrow money and accumulate hefty debt loads if they want to continue to do business. When interest rates increase, the cost of borrowing money increases as well, this cuts into the profits of a company. A decrease in profits will cause the price of a company’s stock to decrease and rebuilding of inventories, one of the main drivers of the economy’s recovery, is hampered when business can’t borrow or its profits fall.

A lot of consumers have credit products too such as credit cards and mortgage loans that have variable rates. When interest rates increase, or resets kick in, a consumer’s monthly payments will increase in order to accommodate the higher amount of interest that needs to be paid monthly. If the payments on a mortgage increase substantially, many consumers will not be able to make the payments, leading to delinquency and foreclosure. Also, if consumers cannot make credit card payments, credit card companies will probably have to write-off a number of accounts as bad debts. In order to stop the losses, many credit card issuers will lower consumer credit card limits as well as the limits on home equity accounts. This will further curtail consumer’s ability to spend and throw the economy further into a downward spiral.

From a small business’s point of view, no material change would make one want to hire more staff or take any risk. The Democrats are simply too hostile to business. Credit markets have dried-up, more inflation on the horizon, the crippling energy costs, and consumers less disposable income – those still with jobs anyway – all are barriers to any recovery. Globalization and export of jobs have economic consequences too; The national help desk for Bright House Networks is in the Philippines, Honeywell has hired foreigners to build-out war machine, Verizon DSL help-desk is now in India, Taiwan, etc., Hewlett Packard support is located all over the world and Neilson Media fired 3,500 Americans in lieu of foreigners. Now Nestle’s Water plant has cut 40% of it’s work force and Danka has been sold-out to foreign interests as well.

Add that to the loss of farm produce in California to save the Delta Smelt, a minnow, and the possibility of staring food shortages in the eye and we have real consequences of a left-wing economy facing us. OPEC too is talking about moving away from the US dollar as the currency oil is traded in. The natural effect of monetizing debt is a devaluation of the dollar, double-digit inflation and a lower standard of living. We’re seeing our dollar decline in value, yet President Training Wheels continues to print more money. What incentives are there to invest? Obama and company want the economy to falter, even collapse, so that the government can takeover all major aspects of the American financial system. Obama is now the Pinball Wizard and we are seeing a Weekend at Bernie’s act as I type; he has stolen the thorny crown as possibly the worse president since Jimmy Carter.

Obama is planning to raise all corporate taxes too. The price of everything you buy will go up to cover that tax cost. So, you will be paying those corporate taxes. With higher taxes businesses have to either raise prices or cut cost. When the economy goes into a recession, businesses lay off workers because of the lack of demand for goods and services. To spur demand, businesses will sometimes lower prices which eat into their margins. Consumers will delay spending because they will wait to see how low the prices will go. Companies and organizations will lay off more workers because they will try to cut expenses in an effort to maintain profit margins.

An economy can enter a state of deflation too, which is a constant downward spiral of prices versus inflation where there is a sustained rise in prices. The inflation-deflation debate heated up too in 1981-82 during Reagan’s on-again, off-again recession. Deflation, to us, is too much debt chasing too little income. Inflation and deflation are two sides of the same coin and both are always with us to some varying degrees. During periods of inflation, capital moves away from job-creating and during periods of deflation businesses avoid borrowing to fund future growth, knowing full well that the money they’ll pay back over time will be more than what they borrowed.

As more consumers delay spending while waiting for prices to bottom out, the economy slows even more. There will be more layoffs and more price reductions and more foreclosures. And, some leading corporate executives worry there’s no economic engine available to drive growth in 2010: Technology, construction, finance – all sectors that have powered the U.S. economy out of the doldrums in the past – are flat this year. The commercial real estate sector too is poised for a crash of its own, further dragging down the prospects of recovery of the national economy. While Obama has turned to government to solve the problems of the people, Reagan turned to the people to solve the problems of government.

Stimulus 101: Reagan versus Obama

During his 1980 Labor Day speech at New Jersey’s Liberty State Park, Republican presidential nominee Ronald Reagan listed the economic failures of his opponent, President Jimmy Carter. With the Statue of Liberty as a backdrop, Reagan used the moment to respond to Carter, who had accused Reagan of misusing the term “depression” to describe a recession that began in January of that year. “Let it show on the record that when the American people cried out for economic help, Jimmy Carter took refuge behind a dictionary. Well, if it’s a definition he wants, I’ll give him one. A recession is when your neighbor loses his job. A depression is when you lose yours. And recovery is when Jimmy Carter loses his.”

However imprecise Reagan’s macroeconomic definitions may have been, he’d made his point. Semantics don’t mean much to Americans who have lost or are about to lose their jobs, their savings and their homes. Obama says the economy is the worst since the Great Depression. Actually, it is the worst since the Reagan recession of 1982-83. Further, the 2009 market crash is not the worst since 1929, but since 1987 — also on Ronald Reagan’s watch. What did Reagan do – or, more importantly, didn’t do – in response to these “crises?” versus from what Obama is doing?

In both cases, Reagan did the exact opposite of Mr. Obama’s massive government spending infusions. As for the Reagan recession, he waited extremely patiently – to the point where he drove his advisers nearly nuts – for his huge 1981 tax cuts to take effect. He didn’t spend money because he believed spending had been out-of-control, particularly since FDR’s New Deal and LBJ’s Great Society, which created systemic deficits. Reagan felt that high spending, high regulation, and high taxes had sapped the American economy of its vitality, and particularly its ability to rebound from recession. The economy needed to be freed in order to perform.

Reagan’s prescription rested on four pillars: tax cuts, deregulation, reductions in the rate of government spending, and a stable, carefully managed growth of the money supply. The federal income tax reduction was the centerpiece: Reagan secured a 25% across-the-board reduction over a three-year period, beginning in October 1981. The upper income marginal tax rate was dropped from 70 percent, which Reagan believed was punitive and stifling, to 28 percent. By 1983, America had begun its longest peacetime economic expansion in history, cruising right through the 1987 market plunge.

What did Reagan do about the October 1987 crash? Basically nothing; certainly nothing like a massive government stimulus. “Some people are talking of panic,” Reagan calmly confided to his diary. “Chrmn. of Stock Exchange is acting very upset.” Those are Reagan’s only diary references to the financial crisis. With the economy freed, he was confident it would bounce back. Reagan let the economy correct itself. The Cato Institute’s Richard Rahn wrote an excellent op-ed for the Washington Times, in which he evaluates the “worst recession since the Great Depression” meme and compares the situations inherited and actions by Presidents Reagan and Obama. I urge folks to give it a read, but here are the highlights:

Even though the president, many members of Congress and many journalists keep saying we are in the worst recession since the 1930s, it is an assertion that is premature, to say the least.

At the end of World War II, from 1945 to 1946, there was a very sharp drop in U.S. output (12.1 percent) as the war economy began its transition to a civilian economy. The deepest and longest-lasting recession the United States has experienced since then began in 1980, when Jimmy Carter was president (the gross domestic product dropped 9.6 percent in the second quarter of that year) and did not end until fourth-quarter 1982, almost two years into the Reagan presidency. There were positive quarters during this almost three-year period, resulting in what is known as a double-dip recession, but GDP did not return to the 1979 level until well into 2003. Unemployment peaked at 10.6 percent in the fall of 1982.

Both President Reagan and President Obama inherited an economy suffering from a year of no growth, along with rising unemployment. (The numbers are almost identical.) But Mr. Reagan faced a far direr situation in that inflation was in the double digits and the prime interest rate was at 20 percent. In contrast, Mr. Obama inherited an economy in which inflation was falling (in fact, inflation has been close to zero for this year) and interest rates were very low.

…The Misery Index dropped by more than 10 points during the Reagan presidency, the single largest improvement during any president’s tenure in the last half-century.

…President Obama has taken the polar opposite approach to President Reagan’s to reignite the economic-growth engine. Reagan pushed for cuts in marginal tax rates to encourage people to work, save and invest in an effort to spur the supply side of the economy as well as the demand side. Mr. Obama has chosen only to greatly increase government spending in an attempt to increase demand while, at the same time, many of his new labor, environmental, energy and other regulations are impeding the supply side of the economy.

Mr. Obama had the advantage of both houses of Congress being controlled by his party, so he was able to get his stimulus package passed within a few weeks of taking office. Reagan was handicapped by having the opposition party in control of the House of Representatives, whose members both delayed (until August 1981) and reduced his tax-reduction stimulus package.

In fact, the Reagan tax cuts were not fully phased in until 1983, more than two years after he assumed office. Reagan, hobbled by an opposition Congress, was not able to get the spending-growth restraint he wanted, so substantial budget deficits occurred early in his administration, at one point reaching 6 percent of GDP. In retrospect, the Reagan deficits look small compared to the deficit of 13.5 percent of GDP this year and the Obama administration and Congressional Budget Office projections of huge deficits in the years to come.

Once Reagan’s tax cuts were largely phased in, the economy took off – it grew by 7.6 percent in 1984 alone. We are in the midst of a most interesting experiment. The administration and the CBO forecast moderate and uninterrupted economic growth between the end of this year and 2019. If they are correct, 1980-82 – not the current recession – will remain the longest sustained period without economic growth since World War II. If they are wrong, they indeed will have the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression and no one to blame but themselves.

OK, but Reaganomics created huge deficits, right?

First off, know these crucial facts: The deficit under Ronald Reagan increased 35 percent, from an inherited deficit (from President Jimmy Carter) of $104 billion in 1980 to a final deficit of $141 billion in 1989. The deficit peaked at $236 billion in 1983, particularly because of the plummet in tax revenue during the recession. It began dropping steadily in 1986, continuing through the 1987 crash. (Source: Congressional Budget Office figures, “Historical Tables.”) Compare that to what’s happening now, where the direct opposite of Reaganomics is being pursued by the liberal Democratic president and congressional leadership;

President Obama inherited a record Bush deficit of $400 billion, but is generating a far worse $1.8-trillion deficit in his first year. (Source: Congressional Budget Office, March 20, 2009.) We’ve never seen anything like this. This unthinkable explosion is a direct result of the stunning government spending unleashed by Mr. Obama and the Democratic leadership in just eight weeks — an unheard of development in 233 years of American history.

So, think about this: Reagan increased the deficit by 35% in eight years, whereas Barack Obama has increased the deficit by 450% in only eight weeks. Reagan created an extra $37 billion in annual deficit. Mr. Obama has already created an extra $1.4 trillion in annual deficit. But what, exactly, caused the Reagan deficits? There were several factors: the recession of 1982-83, the Reagan defense spending – implemented to turn the screws on the Soviets – the domestic social spending by the Democratic Congress and more. Some reasons were Reagan’s fault; others were Congress’ doing – both share blame in differing degrees.

Importantly, and despite what you’ve heard, Reagan’s tax cuts didn’t create the deficit. Tax revenues actually boomed from roughly $600 billion in 1981 to $1 trillion in 1989. The primary cause of the deficit was recession and spending, mainly spending – as is always the case. It is especially the case right now under Obama, with the spending component utterly out-of-control. Wealth confiscation and redistribution by government central planners never works; unfortunately, it is that extremely destructive method that Americans elected in November 2008.

Many argue comparing the reaction of Obama and Reagan to their recessions as comparing apples to oranges. Reagan inherited an economy that consisted of double-digit inflation, double-digit interest rates and double digit unemployment. His reaction was to cut taxes and put the money back into the hands of the people who earned it. People began spending. Companies began hiring and the economy responded. Obama on the other hand is increasing spending and taxes at a historic rate never seen before.

Cap and trade to increase energy bills, government control of health care estimated at over $1 trillion which the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has been sending out red flags. With first-time homebuyer tax credits and “cash for clunkers” car-selling schemes, government stimulus spending and bailouts, housing bust, credit crunch – all point to serious fiscal problems – and with Social Security on the verge of bankruptcy this recession will not end soon. This is why bills are being passed without being read and all of the Obama agenda has been put on fast track to keep the details from the public, with a huge assist by the state run media. Americans may well fall victim to their own lack of attentiveness.

Closing

The amounts of deficits the administration are running are unprecedented and unsustainable. More government spending, more government borrowing, more government money printing, more government tax increases. This is not a pro-growth formula which almost guarantees reduced tax revenues, which almost guarantees greater deficits, for every level of government. Credit is contracting. The banks may be getting billions in loans, but for the individual on the street, credit is frozen. Couple this with the loss of primary income streams and you have a lot of people with no money for even essential goods. Employers need to be convinced the economic recovery is here to stay.

And, we continue to lose jobs month-over-month too. And, while the statistics being released are showing a slow down, this is basically a fabrication. There are thousands of people falling off of unemployment compensation each week – none of them are reflected in the official numbers. Foreclosures continue to mount too. In addition to the foreclosures of the last 2-years, we have millions more in play right now, regardless of the mortgage programs the government institutes. Job loss plus credit contraction means there is no way millions of people will be able to make their monthly payments.

The best-case scenario is a “V”-shaped recovery – a sharp drop and a quick rebound – at some near-term point. Next best is a “U” shape, with a sharp drop, a protracted trough, and then a recovery. The worst of all possible scenarios is the “L”-shaped recession, which is a sharp drop followed by a flat line. In other words: No recovery at all. In previous recessions from the 1950’s through the early 1980’s, manufacturing led swifter recoveries. But the hiring that goes along with rebuilding industrial inventories these days just isn’t enough to move the needle in an economy less focused on making things (manufacturing). Consumer spending counts for much more economic activity today, but consumers are in no mood to go on spending sprees any time soon.

Playing politics will bad policy will lead to Obama’s underlying demise. Anybody who says the recession is over is either a liar or ill-informed and anybody who believes them is a moron. The natural effect of monetizing debt is a devaluation of the dollar, double-digit inflation and a lower standard of living. Obama’s economic policies will cause a redistribution of wealth, but instead of raising the standard of living for the poor it will decrease the standard of living for the wealthy with no effect on the poor, except the poor will become more dependent on government handouts as the government takes more and more of what wealth is created by the shrinking private sector. Obama will undoubtedly continue to ascribe blame for the recession to the Bush administration for as long as possible. The National Debt is now $12 Trillion.

And finally, as Reagan proved, the best “stimulus” is one that relies on letting free individuals and entrepreneurs stimulate the economy through their own earnings and economic activity and not government intrusion. Reagan implemented massive tax reductions, deregulation and anti-inflation monetary policies, which brought inflation down to 3.2 percent by 1983 and unleashed a historic period of economic growth. Of course, behind all the policy implementation was the most important element of the recovery: Ronald Reagan was a man of character and substance, as evidenced by his historic re-election in 1984; Obama lacks both.

Double dip? Gee, I hardly noticed the first one.

Note: Economists generally agree that annual deficits should not exceed 3% of the GDP, and that is the level Obama had vowed to reach by the end of his first term in 2013. However, factors such as subsequent spending, tax cuts and unexpectedly low revenues have pushed the forecast of Obama’s deficit to 4.6% of the GDP by then. Currently, the 2009 deficit is 10% of the GDP which is the highest level since the end of World War II when it was 21.5%. If you are wondering who holds the most US debt, here is a list compiled by CNBC.

15: Luxembourg – $104.2 Billion
14: Depository Institutions – $107.3 Billion (commercial banks, savings banks, credit unions)
13: Russia – $119.9 Billion
12: Insurance Companies – 126.4 Billion
11: Brazil – 139.8 Billion
10: Caribbean Banking Centers – 189.7 Billion
9: Oil Exporters – $191 Billion
8: United Kingdom – $214 Billion
7: Pension Funds – $465.4 Billion
6: State and local governments – $522.7 Billion
5: Other Investors – $629.7 Billion (“other” refers to individuals, government sponsored enterprises, brokers and dealers, bank personal trusts, estates, corporate and non-corporate businesses)
4: Japan – $711.8 Billion
3: China – $776.4 Billion
2: Mutual Funds – $769.1 Billion
1: Federal Reserve and Intergovernmental Holdings – 4.785 Trillion