Dan Gould

He's not "banned", he's suspended for ten days. And he hardly qualifies as a poster child for steroids: 4 homers in 1300 lifetime at bats. It makes me wonder whether he's being honest when he says he hasn't juiced. What will it say about any testing program if its demonstrated that some legal supplement turned out to trigger the positive result? Yeah, athletes are responsible for what they put in their bodies ... but the whole idea here is to find and punish CHEATERS, and a guy whose game is all about speed, not power, doesn't strike me as someone who actually had the requisite intent of getting an unfair advantage. Not saying that he couldn't be juicing, but this is definitely not the guy MLB expected to be the first to test positive.

Moods and maybe Good Deal or Here We Come.

I remember I spotted this at a record show at a time when I didn't know the non-BN Three Sounds discography, so it was quite a pleasant surprise, just finding it. Its OK. nothing special though.

Peter, I've got two ideas in that regard: Pitching an article to DB or Jazztimes that they could use as a sidebar to a review of Janie Harris' biography of Gene Harris. Trying to pitch the story of how this music was rescued to NPR. The advantage there would be that the music itself could be incorporated into the report.

Just ask Jim to make Politics invisible to you. Then you won't see the Political Forum, and any active Political threads will not be visible on the View New Posts link either.

Allen didn't post, so I will: It made it to Maine in one piece! Can't wait to hear what Allen is able to accomplish with it.

What do you need? A check? How much? That's not the problem. The current server the board resides on won't support Version 2, so Jim has been waiting to hear that the board's been migrated to another server before he can upgrade himself.

I think Funny Rat is so settled into the collective consciousness that it should never be changed. MM, here's all you need to know about Funny Rat, my earlier description: No vermin. Not funny.

Acquitted? dang, I thought he was just dead. Bronson, Baretta, you say tomato, I say, "Well? Are you feeling lucky, punk?"

I finally got a chance to hear this, and everyone should get this immediately. I think it is sure to make a helluva lot of year end lists. In fact, between this and my own recent find that rescued some forgotten music, I'd safely say this is much better and more historically significant, too.

Congrats! Sounds like Greg is earning his keep, and the band is profitting!

I'll be flamed but I don't care cause I put my Dex-aholic bona fides up against anyone, but I have never gotten into the Keystone recordings because of Cables' piano. Love Dex but just can't get into Cables' style. Give me Kenny Drew!

"Your face is my case!" Even better,

I thought the Prestige titles came out as a two-fer CD from a British company?

I'm transferring audio off of video tape of this group, and have other radio audio sources. Definitely worth hearing!

Does the album really consist of 50 favorites of Hollywood stars? Sounds like the worst kind of cocktail piano imaginable.

Anybody seen that Amy/Bolton? Would love to see/hear that one! How ironic that this gets mentioned. Just last night I started to do some audio transfers of videos borrowed from a board member, and the first one I wanted to hear was the Amy/Bolton tape. I was doing it into the computer so I wasn't even looking at the video (yet) but judging from the audio signal, the source was in pretty good shape. Here are the details: 1) Summertime 2) Katanga 3) Laura (Bolton feature) 4) Blues for Amy 5) theme Curtis Amy, tenor sax Dupree Bolton, trumpet Dolo Coker, piano Ray Crawford, guitar Victor Gaskin, bass Ronnie Selico, drums Date is given as the 60s, but I noticed that the host mentioned that "Tippin on Through" was the current release by Curtis Amy, so that would help narrow the date down (not sure but I think that was about 1966?).

Yes, that's exactly what it means. It's the prosecutions job to convince the jury. If they didn't do it, they didn't meet their burden. and it is the jury's job to seriously evaluate the evidence presented to them, to judge the relative merits of the opposing sides by using their God-given intelligence. So, in reality, the jury failed to meet their burden, and their burden is every bit as important a part of the system of justice as the prosecution's.

Um...afraid not. Just because the jury fell for a snow job doesn't mean the prosecution didn't meet its burden. The glove, blood and DNA evidence alone met the burden.

It should not be forgotten that the Bruno Magli pictures were brought out during the civil trial, not the criminal trial. For most people it only confirmed what we knew from the criminal trial, and certainly the state met its burden in the criminal trial, but the fact is that while the Magli pictures go to O.J.'s guilt, they have nothing to do with the Cochran defense in the criminal trial.

The more I think about Chuck's comments the more I disagree. Courts of law are supposed to find truth. Lawyers are supposed to zealously represent their client. They aren't supposed to perpetrate frauds, which is what the Simpson defense consisted of (like the nonsensical Furhman was a racist who found two gloves at the murder scene and, not having anyway of knowing if Simpson was even in town, took one glove with him to the Simpson estate so that he could frame O.J. And then there's the final piece of the system, the jurors. The jurors in this case were a joke, because intelligent people who took their duties seriously would have seen through all of the crap the defense threw up and would have convicted him. The adversarial system is a great thing. Facts and interpretations of fact should be tested by opposing parties, and yes, the state has the higher burden of proving "beyond and to the exclusion of all reasonable doubt". It is most certainly not a great thing when a no-brainer case is corrupted by a fraudulent defense. It is most certainly not a great thing when a murderer who's guilt no intelligent person can deny walked free due to the "adversarial system". It is not a net gain to the nation.

Do we win more when a murderer walks free because of the scummy defense used? Wouldn't it be better to point to the TOUGH cases that the defense wins and say that the country is better off because of the adversarial system and the higher burder on the government? This was not a tough case. No one with a brain can seriously deny that Simpson was guilty. Therefore, it cannot be regarded as "good" that he walks free. Its unfortunate that he killed them in the era before the rise of "CSI" and its imitators. Then, DNA was boring, confusing and easy to ignore. Now, everyone seems to know that this kind of evidence is impossible to deny or ignore. (I should credit sports columnist Bill Simmons for that observation. He wrote a fine piece about the Simpson trial on the ten year anniversary.)

What parts of the next two items "seem possible" to you? (my emphasis added)

Anyone else NOT agree with this opinion? I certainly do not agree with it either. It was the fundamentally fraudulent and deceitful defense that was offensive, not Cochran's race.

Not necessarily my favorite character, but it was definitely spot-on and very funny.