JSngry

that same address is used by Collector Records ( Collector / Down South / White Label ) What kind of labels are those in terms of music?

I prefer the second album ove the first.

Checked out both discs last night. There's some "production choices" that I myself find "questionable", and Gilchrist's(?) insistence on using his hometown band isn't always a wise one, imo. But - this is strong, if at times redundant, music with a definite P.O.V.. What I'd really like to hear would be a trio album, or an album with a somewhat more varied instrumentation between tunes. I would recommend these albums, but with caveats. I would, however, recommend keeping an ear out for the further development of Lafayette Gilchrist w/o hesitation. The man has something to say.

http://www.dustygroove.com/jazzcd.htm#404250

I would encourage our resident deep R&B experts to peruse the list of records included on these comps and tell me how many they have heard/heard of.

My bad - currently available on Savoy Jazz!

Last out on 32Jazz. Muse before that, and originally on Cobblestone. Safe to say that my opinion is nowhere near a universally held one, but hey.

Breakthrough.

Gue Gir!

SPLOOKIE!

Pie Traynor Allah Moe Drabowsky

I dunno man. Plenty of outhful looking 40-ish wome, especially when a wig is added, asn seems to be the cse w/this model. I'm looking at the eyes and, in particular, the distance between the nose and the upper lip, and I'm seeing The Bronze Goddess of Fire!

Yes, I would encourage her to sue for support, even if she deliberately tricked someone. Well then, we have a fundamental, profound, & irreconcilable disagreement as to what truly constitues personal responsibility. Fair enough, I suppose, and it renders all further debate irrelevant. The "baseline" has been reached, and there's nowhere to go after that. At least, now knowing that, I can finally go to bed.

Maybe I'm not going to bed after all! Tell it to the judge the next time a pedophile molests a child, or a cleptomaniac shoplifts. Yes, sometimes they do. Indeeed. But not, apparently, with the notion that a human being is a quantity to be unrestrictedly exploited and manipulated for entirely self-serving ends. Intimacy itself, no. Using intimacy as a tool of extortion, yes. Well, if the woman actually comitted fraud, and if she's not held accountable for spending the support money wisely, yeah, he is, at least financially. "Blame", not responsibility. big difference. Show me some good statistics proving that the majority of legitimate complaints about misuse of child support payments result in either an adjustment of the payments or punitave action against the offender, and then maybe I'll reconsider. But when you see a guy scuffling to make payments to a waomn who's remarried or oterhwise gotten "involved" (sometimes more than once) & she's using her current "man" as a means of support for her various kids and spending the support money on self-indulgence, and the courts don't do a damn thing to provide some sort of equity for all concerned, then that's wrong. And I see that all the time. I'm talking about abuse of support money, not abuse of the child. I might not have made that clear. Well, sure, that's always a possibility (even though it fails to address the actual point which I was making). But the law often works in mysterious ways, and the road to hell is frequently paved with lawyer's fees. The best we can do is try to make things right. Or at least better. And that, in any given scenario, is a coin toss at best.

Ok, here's the deal. I have both a son and a daughter. If my son got tricked like this guy allegedly did, I would strongly urge him to voluntarily accept repsonsibility for his the consequences of his actions. Not the actions themselves, for they would quite possibly have been sincere and without guile. But there are consequences, and difficult as they may be to shoulder, they should be accepted voluntarily. Now, if my daughter came to me and told me that she had tricked a guy, I would advise her exactly the same thing. I would not advise her to sue for support. If she lied about her fertility status and/or her feelings for the guy, how is encouraging her to sue in line with my advice for her to accept responsibilty? She's my daughter, so why would I encourage her admittedly deliberate deception by suggesting that she seek money from her victim? How the hell is that encouraging her self-responsibility? All of us here talking that talk - could/would you encourage your own daughter to sue for support if she admitted to you that she deliberately tricked a guy into getting her pregnant? This "you stick your dick in her pussy, you pay the price" talk is all "manly" and shit, but frankly, I'm afraid that there's an undertone of condescension towards women in all of it, as well as some lowered expectations for ourself. "Girls will be girls, you oughta be smart enough to know that you can't really trust 'em". isn't that the message we're ultimately sending? And if "girls will be girls" and it's ok (as it seems to be), then surely it's ok for "boys to be boys". We just gotta be prepared to pay to play, that's all. Yeah, go ahead and fuck'em, just have the checkbook handy if you're dumb enough to knock one of 'em up. Serves you right for trusting them in the first place. Is that what it means to be a man, to expect women to be deceitful, and to chalk it entirely up to our own stupidity when it turns out to be the case? Pretty poor excuse for "manliness", I think, and as long as that's the "best" we can do for ourselves, why should we expect more out of women? And why should they expect more out of us? The cycle continues, and to what end? Thnk about it... And now, I really am going to bed!

Remember that next time you vote then. There's at least one political party that feels that same exact way. So the woman who perpetrated fraud has no contingent and/or parallel responsibility? She's entitled to reap the fruits of her deception unencumbered by any legally binding stipulations? Is that "morally" sound law? People who buy merchandise that was intentionally made in a defective manner chose to buy it because they think that it is something that they want. They don't buy it thinking that maybe they shouldn't buy it because it might be defective. They buy it because the product as advertised appeals to them. When they find out that they have been scammed, do they not have recourse? Of course they do. Yet in this instance, you seem to place the blame entirely on the "buyer", and not the "seller", and for reasons solely of biology. That does not make sense to me. Even though one is a commercial transaction and the other an exchange of "intimacy", the underlying activity of creating a false sense of trust and then betraying it for self-serving ends is the same. And I can not see any good to come out of "rewarding" that. The assumption that in any situation it is acceptable for a victim of intentional deception to bear 100% of the legal "blame" is unacceptable to me. And if we do not allow for consideration of "going against the norm" in certain unique circumstances, then that is exactly what we are endorsing. I'll pass on that, thank you. Of course, I would hope that a man who found himself in such a situation would take an interest in the child. But what if the woman showed no little or no concern for using the support money for the benefit of the child? Should the father then be required to pay anyway? Pay for what? Good luck getting custody, and good luck getting the child taken away from the mother. That's not the way it usually works. And it is not totally uncommon for a woman who engages in such trickery to behave in such a manner, sometimes to the point of repeating the same trick on another unsuspecting man. Again I ask - where is the "justice"? And where is the interest in the welfare of the child? Careful now. If the moral character of a plaintiff is to be the sole detrminant of the overriding, general validity of said plaintiff's specific legal complaint, then we might well have legitimate grounds for overturning Roe v. Wade. Or Miranda v. Arizona. Be very careful...

A friend recently hipped me to two compilations on this label - Screaming Black & No Black Money Baby. The music is obscure, really obsure, really really obsure, really, really REALLY obscure R&B from, I'm guessing, the 1950s and early 1960s. The former's music seems to be New Orleans in origin; not sure about that of the latter. Some of it is of severely "local" quality and some of it is just totally killer Sound quality vaires wildly, to put ti mildly. But it's all obsure. Really, really, really, REALLY obscure. Other than Chris Kenner & Lloyd Price on the former, I've never heard of any of these artists. Which is not all that odd. I mean, I'm a big R&B buff, but I'm in no way a hardcore collector. But when I do a Google search for an artist & song on one of these discs and the only relevant hits that I get are from their inclusion on these discs, I figure that the shits got to obscure. Really, really, really, really, REALLY obscure. I mean, who the hell has, much less puts out, two previously unreleased demos by Baby Little & The Hardbreakers (sic), or a previously unissued cut by Doug Powell & The Valiants? I feel as if I should have heard of Marie Williams And "Cat Scratching" or "You Shouldnt Oughta Done It" by The Night Owl, but damned if I ever have. And neither has Google, other than on one of these CDs. So who are/is these people/person known only as "The Dutchman" at "P.O. Box 1200 OBL 3260 AE HOLLAND"? And where the hell do they find all these 45s that you'd have a hard time finding even in a backwoods Goodwill store? As always, thanks in advance!

Not knowing which Jim I am , I'm going to retire from this thread and go to bed after posting a request for information in the Misc. Music thread.

Well then, not only am I flattered and honored, I am genuinely humbled. Thank you.

Man strong, woman weak? Woman no can hurt man? Dude, that is wrong in so may ways. Nothing at all wrong with recognizing and protecting weaknessess, that's the right thing to do. But that works both ways, and in a lot of different ways as well. And to look at it from a purely biological POV is so....MALE! Really, what you're looking at as a "weakness" is such in some ways. But in others, it's a tremendous source of power. And like any power and power-holder, not everybody who possesses it is going to use it benevolently, and not everybody who's on the receiving end of it is going to be able to handle it with a balanced enough perspective to keep from gedtting blinded by it. There are going to be situations where exploitation occurs. No way around that. Now, are you sanctioning exploitation based on your perception of a power as a weakness? Bottom line as I see it - in any "personal" relationship, there has to be something that can at least superficially pass as trust, which in turn requires vulnerability. And to think that "a" woman will not or can not exploit that vulnerabilty and betray that trust if "that" woman has malevolent intentions is just plain wrong. It's something that men are "famous" for doing, but there are women who can play the game far better than most men even thought about playing it. And there are men who are just as naive and, yes, helpless against it as any stereotypically "fragile" female. All I'm saying is that "equal protection under the law" that is based solely on gender is not going to provide truly equal protection. No way. Life is nowhere near that simple.

Yes, women have babies, but they don't make them all by themselves. They need sperm, which, last time I looked, comes from a man. Barring artificial insemenation, that requires a partner. There's lots of ways to get a partner, and not all of them are "ethical". And when it comes to ethics, nature is most assuredly not one-sided. Is it right that the law be? Relationships are all about power and vulnerabilty, in ever-shifting roles and proportions. To think that there are some (and I stress, some) women who do not seek to exploit the vulnerabilities of a man in order to gain power for themselves to the extreme point of using pregnacy as a weapon to accomplish their ends is just not an accurate assumption. Now, yes, we're getting into a very sticky area here, because men are supposed to always be "tough", and if they get suckered by a woman, it's supposed to be a "failure" on their part. They're supposed to jsut admit that they got suckered, take their lumps, and move on. But is that really the way we want to play this game? Don't we already have enough cultural woes engendered by both genders' fears about the other? Show me anybody of either gender who doesn't have some deep-seated hangups somewhere deep inside, and I'll show you somebody who's the exceptiont that proves the rule. So, yeah, we got us some problems already. What are we going to do to make them better, maintain the status quo? Legally, it's an even stickier path. How do you prove intent, anybody's intent? Hell if I know. But I do know that in matters of child custody and child support, the playing field is not level. The closest we have to a levelling mechanism is the laxity in pursuing men who do not follow through on their legally mandated responsibilities, and that's a damn piss-poor way of levelling anything except a child's chances at a fair shake out of life. Far better, I should think, to have the initial decisions and judgements be rendered fairly and equitably, even if it does (and surely it sometimes will) sometimes necessitate defying the current "conventional wisdom". Because a wrong on top of a lie just buries the truth that much deeper.

If people only did things that make sense, we'd not have much need for laws, would we?

Well, yeah. But one of the prerequisites of being betrayed/trapped/played/whatever is a lack of such concern due to the engendering of trust. And trust betrayed is not something that should automatically be rewarded, I should think. There's plenty of predators out there, and not all of them have penises. Are the child-support laws "genital-neutral" when it comes to such people and their victims? Not really. Look, the guy in the article seems pretty much like a sleaze to me. Not much doubt about that from what I read there. But the scenario that he finds himself in is one that you don't have to be a sleaze to find yourself in. I've personally know 2-3 guys, decent guys, who have gotten themselves so-trapped by women who blatantly lied about both their fertility status and their relationship "intentions". These women's intents were entirely predatory. Once pregnancy became a reality, the men didn't have any choices but to either get married, pay out the wazoo, or else run away. Legal recourse to force the woman to accept full responsibility for her deceit was not an option, nor is it one today. Of course it's a complicated subject. But "simplifying" it by a de facto assumption that any and all men who find themselves in such a situation doesn't solve anything. If anything, it makes it worse, because such predatory women have no real fear of being held accountable. And yes, the child suffers, even if the man stays and/or pays. Women such as this don't really want the child, they want what they think they can get with the child - either a man or a payout. And with the laws as they are now, why shouldn't they think this? Make no mistake - in my experience, there are far more sleazy, opportunistic men than there are women. Far far more. But if you're just going to say that it's okay for a man to be victimized by a predatory woman but not okay for a woman to be victimized by a predatory man, then I don't see how that does anything other than reinforce the very same tendencies that create the problems in the first place. Insecure men will still run at the first sign of true intimacy, and insecure women will still seek to inflict damage before having it inflicted on them. Gots to be a better way.

Paul, I'm flattered and honored. Just curious - did you already have the CD before reading the post?

I'm all for that, but otoh, aren't there laws against bait-and-switch on the books to protect the gullible from the predatory?