a ten looks like this

complete detachment is a mindset pic

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Rock_processor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_processor

http://www.truthed.com/videos/532_police_punch_fan_during_game_fans_retaliate.htm

http://www.truthed.com/videos/532_police_punch_fan_during_game_fans_retaliate.htm

TRENT REZNOR - REZNOR URGES MUSICIANS TO DITCH LABELS

Trent Reznor: "Biggest wake-up calls of my career was when I saw a record contract. I said, 'Wait - you sell it for $18.98 and I make 80 cents? And I have to pay you back the money you lent me to make it and then you own it?" (contactmusic.com)

http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/article/reznor%20urges%20musicians%20to%20ditch%20labels_1099985

TRENT REZNOR - REZNOR URGES MUSICIANS TO DITCH LABELS
Trent Reznor
News
NEWS BY ARTIST ALPHABETICALLY
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z 0




REZNOR URGES MUSICIANS TO DITCH LABELS
REZNOR BLASTS TICKET WEBSITES
REZNOR BLASTS CORNELL RECORD VIA TWITTER
REZNOR MY FANS SCARE ME


Rocker TRENT REZNOR is urging all musicians to follow in his footsteps and ditch their record labels.
Reznor's band Nine Inch Nails broke away from their deal with Universal in 2007, after a tempestuous relationship with the music giant.
The singer describes the experience as "liberating" - insisting big labels make too much money from musicians and are completely out of touch with the industry.
Reznor says, "Anyone who's an executive at a record label does not understand what the internet is, how it works, how people use it, how fans and consumers interact - no idea. I'm surprised they know how to use email. They have built a business around selling plastic discs, and nobody wants plastic discs any more. They're in such a state of denial it's impossible for them to understand what's happening.
"One of the biggest wake-up calls of my career was when I saw a record contract. I said, 'Wait - you sell it for $18.98 and I make 80 cents? And I have to pay you back the money you lent me to make it and then you own it? Who the f**k made that rule? Oh! The record labels made it because artists are dumb and they'll sign anything' - like I did. When we found out we'd been released (from their recording contract) it was like, 'Thank God!'. But 20 minutes later it was, 'Uh-oh, now what are we going to do?' It was incredibly liberating, and it was terrifying."
And Reznor adds that musicians should be exploring other ways to sell their own music, rather than relying on labels: "As an artist, you are now the marketer."


07/04/2009 19:01


Also see: Trent Reznor



TRENT REZNOR News Letter

Subscribe to this news alert service to receive news and reviews on TRENT REZNOR

Unsubscribe

Sign Up Now
Enter your email address


view all comments (15) - add your comments

Comments


screen name:

raffraffraff ( 1)

posted on 10/04/2009 11:36

comments:

I fail to see what the music industry really does for artists or consumers. Example: I just tried to buy the 'Cold War Kids' album online. I live in Ireland, so I can't buy from Napster or Amazon. I use Linux so iTunes is not an option - and anyway, installing bloatware so I can download an album is ridiculous. Comparison: I google a few well-chosen words and clicked three times - the album can be mind for free. Alternative: Go into the city and buy the CD. Extra (environmental & financial) cost of packaging, transportation, store markup... but: "Oh, sorry, we don't have that in stock". So tell me, what did the music industry do for the 'Cold War Kids'? Nothing. Last FM introduced me to their music. YouTube showed me their latest video. If the band had a sell-direct website and a PayPal account, I could have paid them directly, and they'd make some money. Actually, not just 'some' money, but almost the whole amount that I paid. As it is, they get nothing until I find a record store that stocks their CD, and even then, they just get a tiny cut. Fair? I think not.




screen name:

mikey182 ( 1)

posted on 10/04/2009 12:33

comments:

@JJinBrooklyn > But the rest of us, competing for eyes and ears in the media saturated world, what are we to do? What are you doing now? The labels are still alive and massively influential, record stores and online stores abound, they still own or dominate radio airplay and awards. What's different? I agree they might start to struggle, and might be on the way out - but my point is NOW they still have the power and influence they had for Radiohead and NiN, and YOU still can't get heard. It shows that the difference between you and them is either quality (they might be better) or luck (the record companies happened to run with them rather than you). EITHER WAY you can't do anything about it with the old system - you needed talent and/or the good favour of a record company. Now think of the brave new world if everyone ditches the labels, and the hungry consumer uses free outlets (I love last.fm) to try out new music. True, it's still going to take a bit of luck to be heard, but the cream usually does rise to the top. If you have the talent, you will succeed. If you don't, then why should you? Perhaps radiohead & NiN wouldn't have got super-rich without the labels, but I'm pretty damn sure they would have made a good living, making the music they wanted to, and made their fans very happy. Is that such a bad future?

not mine but funny and true

"WHITE " Pride"
Reply to: pers-hrwku-1115543535@craigslist.org [Errors when replying to ads?]
Date: 2009-04-09, 10:12PM PDT


"WHITE " Pride"

This is great. I have been wondering about why Whites are racists, and no other race is.....

Proud to be White

Michael Richards makes his point......
Michael Richards better known as Kramer from TVs Seinfeld does make a good point.



This was his defense speech in court after making racial comments in his comedy act. He makes some very interesting points...



Someone finally said it. How many are actually paying attention to this? There are African Americans, Mexican Americans, Asian Americans, Arab Americans, etc.

And then there are just Americans. You pass me on the street and sneer in my direction. You call me 'White boy,' 'Cracker,' 'Honkey,' 'Whitey,' 'Caveman'... and that's OK.



But when I call you, Nigger, Kike, Towel head, Sand-nigger, Camel Jockey, Beaner, Gook, or Chink .. You call me a racist.



You say that whites commit a lot of violence against you... so why are the ghettos the most dangerous places to live?



You have the United Negro College Fund. You have Martin Luther King Day.



You have Black History Month. You have Cesar Chavez Day.



You have Yom Hashoah. You have Ma'uled Al-Nabi.



You have the NAACP. You have BET... If we had WET (White Entertainment Television), we'd be racists. If we had a White Pride Day, you would call us racists.


0A
If we had White History Month, we'd be racists.



If we had any organization for only whites to 'advance' OUR lives, we'd be racists.



We have a Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, a Black Chamber of Commerce, and then we just have the plain Chamber of Commerce. Wonder who pays for that??



A white woman could not be in the Miss Black American pageant, but any color can be in the Miss America pageant.



If we had a college fund that only gave white students scholarships... You know we'd be racists.



There are over 60 openly proclaimed Black Colleges in the US. Yet if there were 'White colleges', that would be a racist college.



In the Million Man March, you believed that you were marching for your race and rights. If we marched for our race and rights, you would call us racists.



You are proud to be black, brown, yellow and orange, and you're not afraid to announce it. But when we announce our white pride, you call us racists.



You rob us, carjack us, and shoot at us. But, when a white police officer shoots a black gang member or beats up a black drug dealer running from the law and posing a threat to society, you call him a racist.



I am proud... But you call me a racist.



Why is it that only whites can be racists??



There is nothing improper about this e-mail. Let's see which of you are proud enough to send it on. I sadly don't think many will. That's why we have LOST most of OUR RIGHTS in this country. We won't stand up for ourselves!


BE PROUD TO BE WHITE!



It's not a crime YET... but getting very close!

it's NOT ok to contact this poster with services or other commercial interests


PostingID: 1115543535

Obama seeks $83.4 billion in special war money

Obama seeks $83.4 billion in special war money

Buzz Up
Send
Share
Print

Featured Topics: Barack Obama Presidential Transition

Play Video
AP – In Iraq, Obama calls on Iraqis to take control

Slideshow:Iraq

Play Video
Video:Jake Tapper on Obama's NATO Plea ABC News

Play Video
Video:Obama pushes for political progress in Iraq Reuters

AP – Defense Secretary Robert Gates looks on as President Barack Obama makes remarks on veterans healthcare, …
By ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 7 mins ago

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama asked Congress on Thursday for $83.4 billion for U.S. military and diplomatic operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, pressing for special troop funding that he opposed two years ago when he was senator and George W. Bush was president.

Obama's request, including money to send thousands more troops to Afghanistan, would push the costs of the two wars to almost $1 trillion since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, according to the Congressional Research Service. The additional money would cover operations into the fall.

Obama is also requesting $350 million in new Pentagon funding to deal with Mexican drug cartels and conduct other security activities along the U.S.-Mexico border, along with another $400 million to help Pakistan in counterinsurgency efforts along the border with Afghanistan.

While the Iraq war by far gets the most money, the request reflects a shift in focus from Iraq to Afghanistan, where severe challenges remain and where the former Soviet Union learned firsthand the difficulties of battling Islamic extremists.

"Nearly 95 percent of these funds will be used to support our men and women in uniform as they help the people of Iraq to take responsibility for their own future — and work to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaida in Pakistan and Afghanistan," Obama wrote in a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, acknowledged that Obama has been critical of Bush's use of similar special legislation to pay for the wars. He said it was needed this time because the money will be required by summer, before Congress is likely to complete its normal appropriations process.

"This will be the last supplemental for Iraq and Afghanistan," Gibbs said.

In a statement, Pelosi said Congress would carefully review Obama's request and "engage in a dialogue with the administration on appropriate benchmarks to measure the success of our investments."

Last June, Congress approved $66 billion in advance 2009 funding for military operations. All told, the Pentagon would receive $142 billion in war funding for the budget year ending on Sept. 30.

The request is likely to win easy approval from the Democratic-controlled Congress, despite frustration among some liberals over the pace of troop withdrawals and Obama's plans for a large residual force of up to 50,000 troops — about one-third of the force now there — who will train Iraqis, protect U.S. assets and personnel and conduct anti-terror operations.

The request would fund an average force level in Iraq of 140,000 U.S. troops. It would also finance Obama's initiative to boost troop levels in Afghanistan to more than 60,000 from the current 39,000. And it would provide $2.2 billion to accelerate the Pentagon's plans to increase the overall size of the U.S. military, including a 547,400-person active-duty Army.

Some Democrats were not pleased.

"This funding will do two things — it will prolong our occupation of Iraq through at least the end of 2011, and it will deepen and expand our military presence in Afghanistan indefinitely," said anti-war Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif.

But House GOP leader John Boehner of Ohio predicted that Republicans would overwhelmingly support the request, provided congressional Democrats don't seek to "micromanage" the war by adding a timeline or other restrictions on the ability of military officials to carry on the fight.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates, a holdover from the Bush administration, said, "The reality is the alternative to the supplemental is a sudden and precipitous withdrawal of the United States from both places, and I don't know anybody who thinks that's a good idea."

Obama was a harsh critic of the Iraq war as a presidential candidate, a stance that attracted support from the Democratic Party's liberal base and helped him secure his party's nomination. He opposed an infusion of war funding in 2007 after Bush used a veto to force Congress to remove a withdrawal timeline from the $99 billion measure.

But he supported a war funding bill last year that also included about $25 billion for domestic programs. Obama also voted for war funding in 2006, before he announced his candidacy for president.

The request includes $75.8 billion for the military and more than $7 billion in foreign aid. Pakistan, a key ally in the fight against al-Qaida, will receive $400 million in aid to combat insurgents.

The upcoming debate in Congress is likely to provide an early test of Obama's efforts to remake the Pentagon and its much-criticized weapons procurement system. He is requesting four F-22 fighter jets costing about $600 million as part of the war funding package but wants to shut the F-22 program down after that.

Included in the request is $400 million for the first installment of a new program to train and equip Pakistan's military. The Associated Press reported last week that the program would total as much as $3 billion over the next five years and would include money for helicopters, night-vision goggles and communications equipment.

Distribution of the funding will be controlled by the military and will be tightly focused on improving the ability of Pakistan's military, including its Frontier Corps, to better fight insurgents hiding in safe havens along the border. It also will allow commanders to provide humanitarian relief to people affected by military operations.

The funding measure would include $3.6 billion for the Afghanistan National Army.

Obama is also seeking $30 million in Justice Department funding to implement the shut down of the facility in Guantanamo Bay holding enemy combatants. There's also $250 million to combat western wildfires.

Poor countries would receive $448 million to help them deal with the global financial crisis.

The White House wants the bill for the president's signature by Memorial Day, said a House Democratic aide.

Obama warned lawmakers not to succumb to the temptation to use the must-pass war funding bill as a vehicle for other spending.

"I want the Congress to send me a focused bill, and to do so quickly," he wrote.

Obama announced plans in February to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq on a 19-month timetable.

His new request would push the war and diplomatic money approved for 2009 to about $150 billion. The totals were $171 billion for 2007 and $188 billion for 2008, the year Bush increased the tempo of military operations in a generally successful effort to quell the Iraq insurgency.