California Free Press

Bases, Bases, More Bases

Condi Rice is in Bulgaria putting the finishing touches on arrangements for the US to use three military bases there. Meanwhile, 2000 protesters took to thee streets. Bulgaria has a sizable Muslim population, and many of its citizens cannot stomach the idea of US troops being stationed there for the purpose of attacking other Muslim countries. Of course, they are also there to guarantee the flow of oil from the black sea.

This from Reuters:

Protesters from the ultranationalist Attack party, a key opposition group which unexpectedly entered parliament in last year's elections, hoisted banners saying "Condi, we don't want your bombs" and "No to the U.S. bases in Bulgaria". Rice, who arrived in Sofia on Thursday for a two-day meeting of NATO foreign ministers, is due to sign a deal with NATO newcomer Bulgaria to establish three military bases on the Balkan state's territory. Several dozen police with shields and helmets deployed as the protesters held up hundreds of Bulgarian flags, chanted "USA out!" and demanded Sofia hold a referendum on the bases.

And from Alexander's Gas and Oil Connections:

A report said US interest in providing security and prosperity in the Black Sea region is related to the transport of oil. It cites the Washington File report, which says shipping traffic into and out of the Black Sea has more than doubled since 2001, with 150 ships a day passing through the Turkish Straits, including an average of 25 oil tankers per day. A terrorist attack against shipping or port facilities "would directly threaten the interests and economic security of the United States, and of all the nations which use the energy from the region," the newsletter cited Ambassador Beyrle as saying. The Washington File recalls that on October 23, US National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley visited Bucharest, Romania, and said the United States and Romania expected to reach an agreement "very soon" that would allow American troops to use military bases near the Black Sea. "Hadley did not discuss basing negotiations in neighbouring Bulgaria, but US officials have been negotiating with both countries for more than a year." Source: Dow Jones

The US already has more than 700 bases worldwide, but it can't defend its borders. Why? Because it's more interested in presiding over a global empire than it is in defending its citizens from attack.

This from LewRockwell.com:

Why does the US need new military bases in Bulgaria and Romania? According to Chalmers Johnson, in his book "The Sorrows of Empire," America already possesses more than 725 overseas bases. This incredible estimate comes from two official sources: The Department of Defense's "Base Structure Report," and "Worldwide Manpower Distribution by Geographical Area." Johnson claims that the figure is actually an underestimate, because many bases are "secret" or otherwise not listed on official books. As an example, Johnson quotes several sources who cite at least six US installations in Israel which are either operating or are under construction. During the Cold War, it was argued that the US needed forward basing in strategic areas of the world to counter the Soviet position, and contain Soviet expansion. But the US continues to aggressively pursue more bases in far-flung areas of the globe, despite the fact that the Cold War has been over for more than a decade. American officials have explained that the new bases in Bulgaria and Romania are part of a broader US strategy of shifting troops based in Western Europe further east. In other words, now that the Soviet Union has collapsed, America is aggressively expanding into its former sphere of influence by recruiting former Soviet satellites into NATO, and garrisoning them with bases and troops. In fact, since 9/11 alone the US has acquired at least 14 new bases in Eastern Europe, Afghanistan, Kyrgyzstan, the Persian Gulf, and Pakistan, and was evicted from a recently procured base in Uzbekistan. This figure does not include the newly-announced Bulgarian and Romanian bases. Are we to believe that the US needs more military bases worldwide – not less – now that the Cold War is over? Apparently so. Thomas Donnelly, an archetype neoconservative militarist, recently published a pamphlet entitled "The Military We Need," available at http://www.aei.org/books/. Among other things, he argues for the creation of "new networks of overseas bases," and a "semipermanent ring of 'frontier forts' along the American security perimeter from West Africa to East Asia." In Counterpunch, Winslow T. Wheeler quoted Donnelly at a speech before the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute as saying the US "homeland" includes the area defined in the Monroe Doctrine. In Donnelly's mind, the US has apparently already annexed the Caribbean and Central America. Since the end of the Cold War, the US has acquired a plethora of new bases throughout the Persian Gulf. Some observers believe that these bases were obtained to "secure" a strategic commodity – oil. While oil security was certainly a main concern of the first Gulf War, US bases in the Middle East are actually generating the very insecurity – in the forms of terrorism and insurgency – that they supposedly exist to combat. Certainly, there were no terrorist or insurgent attacks on Iraqi oil facilities before that country was invaded, occupied, and garrisoned with US bases and troops. Furthermore, Bin Laden cited US military occupation of Saudi Arabia as a key reason for Al-Qaida attacks against US interests. Another problem with the "oil security" thesis is that America only had two permanent bases (both naval) operating in the entire region during the Cold War, when the Middle East faced the threat of invasion by the Soviet Union – one in Bahrain, and the other on the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia, 3340 miles from Baghdad.

Walking San Diego: Mission San Diego De Alcala

From downtown San Diego we take the Blue line to Old Town from whence we pick up the Green Line. The Green Line takes us east through Mission Valley past Fashion Valley Shopping Center, Mission Valley Shopping Center, the Hazard Center, Fenton Marketplace (home to IKEA, Costco and Lowe's), past Qualcomm Stadium to the Mission San Diego Station. We get off here and head north on Rancho Mission Road. Pretty soon we come to a little boutique shopping center on our left called Rancho Mission Plaza. Here they have about any type of food you could want including McGregor's Grill and Ale House, Mexican, Chinese, a coffee shop and my favorite, Chiba Japanese. Here you can get a Chiba chicken dinner for $4.95 including chicken, rice, salad and very generous portions. It could be your main meal of the day. Also you can get a draft beer for $2.00. You can't beat that! If you're not completely satisfied, there's a 7-11 across the street. Or you can stop there on the way back for ice cream if you retrace your steps from the Mission. On this hike, we choose to continue on from the Mission to the next trolley stop, Grantville.

Head east on San Diego Mission Road and in a short time you'll arrive at the Mission. It's best to walk on the north side of SD Mission Road crossing at the intersection with Rancho Mission Road as there is no crosswalk from the south side once you get to the Mission. 

First some history is in order. In 1542 the Spanish explorer Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo discovered what later became San Diego. However, he named it San Miguel because it was on or about the feast day of St Michael when he discovered it. Cabrillo didn't hang around long and then the area was rediscovered by Sebastian Viscaino in 1602. Viscaino landed and explored around for awhile renaming it San Diego in honor of St Didacus' feast day which ocurred on or about the time Viscaino landed. Now you might ask why didn't he name it St Didacus. Fortunately, for all San Diegans, we're not known as St Didacans! Well, San Diego is the Spanish name for St Didacus which is the Latin name. Now that we're straight on that, we might note that Cabrillo gets all the credit for discovering San Diego while Viscaino, who gave it its name, is hardly mentioned. Life isn't fair!

Nothing much happened until 1769 (San Diego was a sleepy, sleepy little town) when the Spanish king decided that outposts should be established along the California coast to discourage encroachment from Russian fur traders. The Franciscan Padres saw this as an opportunity to spread Christianity among the natives, and the king decided to let the Padres carry his water. Thenceforth, two expeditions were dispatched with Father Junipero Serra in charge of establishing the Missions. He established the first Mission on the western end of Mission Valley close to where the Praesidio is now located. By he way the Praesidio is not an historic landmark, but was built in the 1930s sort of as an advertising gimmick.

A few years later in order to obtain a better water supply and to be closer to the Indian Villages, the Mission was moved to its present location at the eastern end of Mission Valley right on the San Diego River. Although the water supply was better, the decision to locate close to Indian Villages turned out to be fatal for Father Luis Jayme who had by now taken over from Fr. Serra who had gone on to establish other Missions further up the coast. In 1775 Indians attacked and destroyed the Mission killing Fr. Jayme.

The Mission is quite extensive and is connected to a fully functional school. The grounds are very impressive. It's a beautiful place to spend some time. It's quite historical also being the first of 21 Missions established up and down California. With all that it took me 40 years before I decided to spend some time visiting it. I think it's the kind of tourist attraction that's last on the list of most natives as well as non-native visitors. People would rather head for the zoo or Sea World or any number of other attractions, but if you're looking for a peaceful place to spend some time in a beautiful setting, you could do a lot worse.

Actually, there's quite a lot to see here. You enter the courtyard and grounds through the Gift Shop. There is a $2.00 fee (for seniors). I think it's $3.00 for adults. There's the room where Father Serra slept on the left. There's a large courtyard. The main church is on the left and there's another building on the right where the rest rooms are located. The gardens are beautiful. There is also an architectural dig on the right.

When you enter the main church on the left you can walk straight through to another garden courtyard.

Here is a picture taken inside the church.

In addition to the church there is also a chapel. Here is a picture of the chapel.

There is also an interesting Museum which explains the history of the Mission. There was the Mexican Occupation during which the Missions were secularized and the San Diego Mission was turned over to Santiago Arguello. I suppose he was a VIP back then. Then in the period shortly before and after the Mexican-American War, the Church was occupied by US Cavalry. The Mission was not given back to the Catholic Church until Abraham Lincoln did it after the Civil War.

The Mission fell into total ruins and was not reconstructed and restored until the 1930s. Only Fr. Serra's quarters were part of the original Mission. However, the restoration was faithful to the original.

Now a few final words about Didacus before we move on with our walking tour to the Grantville trolley station from which we'll embark on our trip back to downtown San Diego. I always wondered why they called it Mission San Diego de Alcala. Where did the "de Alcala" come in? Well, Didacus (or Diego) was born in 1400 in Spain. He became a Franciscan brother and converted natives to Christianity in the Canary Islands. In 1450 he went to Rome and took charge of an infirmary where he was engaged in the nursing of sick friars some of whom were said to have miraculously recovered under his care. Returning to Spain in 1460, he became an infirmarian at the University of Alcala near Madrid where he cared for students and the poor. Aha! So that's where the "de Alcala" comes in.

He died in 1463 and was buried at the University. In 1562, Carlos, the son of the King of Spain was severely injured and close to death. Diego's 100 year old body was placed in bed with Carlos while the Franciscans prayed. In the morning Carlos awoke, recovered, and attributed his recovery to the vision he'd seen of a Franciscan friar. The King and his son petitioned Rome to have Fr. Diego declared a saint. In 1588 he was declared a saint.

In back of the Mission is a large, modern church. In the back is a platform from which you can see a view of the San Diego River and views eastward to Mt. Helix and San Diego State. One can see I-8 in the picture.

We continue eastward on San Diego Mission Road heading for the Grantville Trolley Station. You can't miss it. It looks like a spaceship.

Here it is from the Home Depot parking lot.

And here it is up close.

Don't forget to click on any picture to see a larger version of it! Now it's back to downtown San Diego via the Green Line to Old Town and the Blue Line from there! Enjoy!

Bush Plans to Nuke Iran

The Bush Administration plans underway to nuke Iran are "eerily reminiscent of the run-up to the Iraq War" according to an op-ed in the Sunday April 23, 2006 edition of the LA Times by Zbigniew Brzezinski. The rationale for using tactical nuclear weapons as opposed to conventional bombs to take out Iran's nuclear facilities is that, since the facilities are underground, conventional bombs will not penetrate sufficiently into the earth. Only nuclear weapons will create a big enough crater to effectively obliterate facilities located several stories underground.

In an article in TIMESONLINE  entitled "The Idea of US nuclear attack on Iran is just nuts, says Straw",

The Foreign Secretary described the idea that the White House wanted a nuclear strike as “completely nuts”. He insisted that Britain would not support pre-emptive military action, adding: “I’m as certain as I can be sitting here that neither would the United States.” Speaking to the BBC, Mr Straw said: “There is no smoking gun, there is no casus belli. We can’t be certain about Iran’s intentions and that is, therefore, not a basis on which anybody would gain authority to go for military action.” He was responding to a new article by Seymour Hersh, published in The New Yorker. It has been seized on as evidence that any hope of a diplomatic solution to the stand-off is being swept aside by White House hawks. Hersh says that President Bush now believes his historic purpose is to stop President Ahmadinejad, whom he is said to regard as a “new Hitler”, acquiring nuclear weapons. The article suggests that Pentagon plans presented to the White House include the use of a “bunker-buster” tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, against underground sites in Iran because of concerns that conventional strikes would not be “decisive”. Hersh says that some senior military officers are so alarmed about Mr Bush’s willingness to use nuclear weapons that they are ready to resign in protest.

It gets even worse. Bush is planning to set off a 700 ton conventional bomb in the Arizona desert June 2 which will simulate the destructive power of a 700 pound tactical nuke in order to assess the destrucrive power necessary to destroy an underground network of bunkers. This plan is called Operation Divine Strake.

....The United States is set to conduct its largest ever conventional explosives test in June by detonating a 700 ton mass of fuel oil.  The test will gauge the American ability to attack enemy underground facilities associated with weapons of mass destruction.  The brilliant minds at the Pentagon call this test "Divine Strake."

And regarding the "Divine" moniker, William M. Arkin goes on to say

....nicknames shouldn't be political or religious or politically incorrect, that it makes no sense, given the gigantic universe of words available (my Code Names book contained over 3,500 names currently in use), to have an entire test series devoted to weapons of mass destruction testing that uses the "Divine" moniker? And it is a series: In addition to Divine Strake, the DTRA has conducted or is planning to conduct, I've now learned, tests and experiments called Divine Buffalo, Divine Invader, Divine Helcat, Divine Kingfisher, Divine Umpire, Divine Zorro, Divine Warhawk, Divine Albatross, and my favorite Divine Hates, a test, according to DTRA documents, that will gauge "WMD production and storage tunnel complex functional defeat." That would be something like destruction in English. In September 2001, right after 9/11, when no doubt the highest paid person in the Pentagon named the upcoming operation in Afghanistan "Infinite Justice" -- U.S. Central Command is actually assigned the "IN" two-letter block -- a media uproar ensued when Muslim scholars and clerics objected to the name on the grounds that infinite justice can only by dispense by Allah. The operation nickname was changed to "Enduring Freedom." Do we really need "Divine" anything to name our military activities? Of course there is a possibility that "Divine Strake" will be abandoned and the brilliant minds will come up with something even worse.

And on March 16, 2006 in an article by Sam Knight entitled America will strike first, says Bush in new security plan

America will continue to pre-emptively attack its enemies and Iran is now the greatest danger facing the United States, George Bush announced today in a new version of his "National Security Strategy". In the 49-page document released four days before the third anniversary of the American -led invasion of Iraq, Mr Bush gave a resolute, upbeat account of the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and said his Administration would continue to confront states before they had a chance to attack America or develop nuclear weapons. "Our strong preference and common practice is to address proliferation concerns through international diplomacy, in concert with key allies and regional partners," he wrote. "If necessary, however, under long-standing principles of self defense, we do not rule out the use of force before attacks occur, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy’s attack."

George Bush's poll ratings are at an all-time low. There are only two things that will bring back the glory days that Bush's poll ratings shortly after 9/11 represented. Number 1: another attack on the US Homeland. Well, the Bush Administration, by leaving the borders, ports and major nuclear and chemical facilities unprotected can only be seen as welcoming that. Number 2: an attack by the US on some other country. A bunker-busting tactical nuclear attack on Iran, while not as effective as alternative Number 1, would fill the bill. Finally, Bush's poll ratings and the fate of the Republican Party would be gotten out of the doldrums.

There is a question of  timing, however. Since this would be another preemptive strike, it would be done at the time preferred by the attacker. So the Bush administration naturally is sitting there thinking about what timing would be the most politically rewarding. Would it be before the Congressional elections of this November, or would it be before the next Presidential election in November 2007? I think there's not enough time to whip the American people into a frenzy about Iran before the elections of 2007. I also think Bush wants to go out with a bang so to speak. Therefore, my guess is that the Divine Strike (as opposed to Divine Strake) will occur sometime in 2007 in the hopes of raising Bush's approval ratings as he exits the world stage, giving him something in the way of a legacy, galvanizing the American people and guaranteeing a Republican for the next President.

What the Democrats Should Do: Take a Stand, Stupid!

I'm a registered Democrat. I don't agree with everything they do or have done, but I think Bill Clinton was an infinitely better President than George W Bush. Jimmy Carter has done more good for the world than any 10 other persons. At least they're not the warmongers the Republican neo-cons are. It looks like they're poised to take over the House and Senate in the mid-term elections and put a stop to the insanity of an unchecked President. I'll give them another political cycle, and then, if they aren't capable of putting this country on a better course, I'm re-registering as an independent.

At least the Republicans are willing to take a stand on principles. Remember Newt Gingrich and his Contract with America? The Democrats should do the same thing: set forth a statement of principles which they will do their best to implement if they gain some measure of control over the political process.

Here is my list of principles I believe the Democrats should stand for:

1. Homeland Security - Reorient the Defense Department away from military adventurism around the globe to protecting our borders. This is more important than deciding right now what to do with the 12 million illegals who are already here. Military assets and expenditures should be redirected to the task of actually defending America. That includes satellite and electronic surveillance directed at our borders instead of everywhere else in the world. It includes assets such as helicopters and rapid deployment vehicles used on the border. It includes protecting and surveilling our ports and airports, chemical and nuclear plants and other vulnerable places. What I'm saying is not to merely strengthen the Border Patrol, but to re-task the military with this responsibility. It's ridiculous that the military has nothing to do with actually defending the homeland at the borders and other vulnerable places, but is only involved in overseas adventurism. Get rid of at least half of the 700 military bases that dot the globe and redirect those assets and expenditures. Be stronger (only different) than the Republicans on Defense (real defense) and Homeland Security. Take the issue away from them!

2. Tax Relief and Fiscal Responsibility. Give a tax break to the middle class while raising taxes on the rich and on corporations. Take the issue away from the Republicans! Be for a balanced budget. Castigate the Republicans for their massive budget and trade deficits and adding trillions to the National Debt. Orient everything solidly towards the Middle Class! Forget about the minorities and disenfranchised groups. Forget about the unions. They are passe and paternalistic anyway. Corporations are shifting the risk of providing health care and pensions to the middle class. Benefits are not going to be employer-based any more. Benefits should be society-based not employer-based anyway. This is the approach other advanced industrial societies have taken for years. It's time for America to get in the real world!

3. Health Care. Undo the mess the Bush Administration has made with Medicare Part D, the drug coverage. Be for universal health care or at least Medicare coverage for kids as well as Seniors. Simplify everything. Get rid of deductibles and co-pays. Get rid of the administrative overhead. This alone will save billions of dollars. Cut deals with the drug companies on behalf of the American people like other countries do. Bring some sanity to the health care mess. Health care as well as social security should be means tested. The rich and upper middle class should pay something over and above what comes out of taxes. Again be for the middle class. Be for society-based as opposed to employer-based solutions. Forget about minorities and the disenfranchised. They will benefit from any society-based solutions anyway. Means test the rich.

4. Three Dollar a Gallon Gas and the Environment. This should be an issue the Democrats can use to their advantage. Move the country away from oil dependence. Invest in non-polluting technologies. Recognize the phenomenon of global warming. Sign the Kyoto Treaty. Reduce greenhouse gasses.

These are four issues the Democrats should concentrate on. They don't have to take stands on every other petty, little issue. Be focused, take a stand and mean it. On all these issues, they should be able to outdo the Republicans if they orient their message to the Middle Class.

Arrow's R Notation

In the arcane world of social  choice, a man by the name of Kenneth Arrow looms large. In 1951 he published a book, "Social Choice and Individual Values," in which he supposedly proved that social choice is impossible. But what is social choice? Let us say we have a society composed of N individuals numbered 1,2,3, ... . Those individuals have to order a set of M alternatives with their most preferred alternative being their first choice etc. Let's indicate the alternatives as a, b, c, ... . Then a social welfare function accepts the individual orderings as inputs and produces as output the social ordering which is an ordering of the alternatives that applies to the whole society.

If individual 1 prefers a to b, we write aP1b. If society prefers a to b, we write aPb. So far so good. But we also want to provide for the case in which an individual is indifferent between a and b. We write this aI1b and aIb, respectively. Arrow's analysis then combines these two relationships into a relationship he denotes as R which means "prefers or is indifferent to" so aR1b means individual 1 prefers a to b or is indifferent between a and b. Arrow's rationale for this is the following: "Instead of working with two relations, it will be slightly more convenient to use a single relation, 'preferred or indifferent.'" (p. 12) (emphasis added)

Arrow then goes on to postulate two axioms. Axiom 1 states that either xRy or yRx and he notes that this does not exclude the possibility that both xRy AND yRx. Axiom 2 has to do with transitivity which will not concern us here. Again Arrow states (p. 13): "Axioms 1 and 2 do not exclude the possibility that for some distinct x and y, both xRy and yRx. A strong ordering on the other hand, [one with only preferences and without indifferences] is a ranking in which no ties are possible." This is blatant nonsense. One could have half the population with xPy and half with yPx [strong orderings] and that certainly would represent a tie so a tie is possible. What Arrow is implying without coming out and saying it directly is that in his world a tie between two alternatives is to be represented as a social indifference. This is completely arbitrary and limits his entire analysis.

One must assume that in Arrow's world each individual will submit his input in terms of R. That is individual 1 would submit aR1b, aR1c etc. until all pairwise comparisons have been made. For now we will go along with Arrow's demand that only pairwise comparisons need to be submitted. It can be assumed that individuals are not permitted to submit a comparison using the indifference relation since then what would be the purpose of introducing R to make the analysis "slightly more convenient." The whole idea of "slightly more convenient" is to reduce the number of relations from 2 (P and I) to 1 (R). However, Arrow proposes (without saying so) to use the I relation in the social choice to cover the case of a tie. Therefore, the social choice could be aRb, bRa or aIb.

Now the idea of the social welfare function (or of any function for that matter) is to connect each element of the domain (consisting of all possible combinations of individual choices) to an element of the range (consisting of all possible social choices). There are a great number of possible functions. Each function will hook up elements of the domain with elements of the range differently. The important thing is that each possible element of the domain is hooked up to one and only one element of the range. Arrow implies that any element of the domain that represents a tie (such as half the population having aRb and half having bRa) should be hooked up with the range element aIb. Respectfully, I disagree with this approach for the following reason: the half of the population that has aRb could actually prefer a to b (no one is indifferent), and the half of the population that has bRa could actually prefer b to a. That represents a tie to be sure, but society is hardly indifferent between the two alternatives. Arrow has confused a tie with an indifference! By so doing he has guaranteed that his analysis will yield the result that no social choice is possible.

Secondly, I would like to point out that individual information is lost when an individual submits his input as aR1b or "I prefer a to b or I'm indifferent between a and b." The system does not know which, and this introduces ambiguity at the outset. Not only that, but say an individual is indifferent between a and b. He has two ways to express it! He can submit either aR1b or bR1a. The resulting analysis becomes meaningless as the system knows not how many of the individual aRb's represent indifferences and how many of them represent preferences. Ditto for the individual bRa's! There can be no meaningful social welfare function given these kinds of inputs.

Therefore, I suggest that Arrow's approach is not acceptable and that his conclusion that social choice is impossible is invalid. A more rigorous approach is necessary involving the possibility of ties between orderings as elements of the range. One possibility of dealing with these ties is to randomly choose among them which I think my friend, Ben, at Oxford is considering as a doctoral these.

For more on this subject, please see my website Social Choice and Beyond.

Concert Review: Highlights in Jazz

Highlights in Jazz, New York City's oldest running concert series held a jam session April 6, 2006 in the Tribeca Performing Arts Center. Jack Kleinsinger is the producer of these events. The line-up for this evening was David "Fathead" Newman and Ernie Watts, tenor saxes; Lew Soloff, trumpet; Steve Turre, trombone; Mulgrew Miller, piano; Ray Drummond, bass; and Jimmy Cobb, drums.

I attended with my friends, Renee and Helen, and sat in the front  row as usual when I attend with these ladies! The group started off with Dizzy Gillespie's "A Night in Tunesia." Many a good lick was blown by all. Ernie Watts was the only LA based musician there and his performance was most impressive tossing off complex figures with ease. I would have liked to hear more from Fathead, but his sound was softer and quieter, and as usual in these types of formats, the more extroverted players took over.

Ernie Watts and Lew Soloff did a couple of numbers in a quintet format. I remember Lew from his high note solo on the Blood, Sweat and Tears recording of "Spinning Wheel." I admire his facility with the horn, and he gives it his all, but idea wise, there are a lot of New York based cats that can outdo him such as Brian Lynch, Ryan Kisor and Roy Hargrove. Roy loves jam sessions so he should be a natural for one of Jack's "Highlights."

Steve Turre had a featured spin. Of course he brought out his conch shells and gave them a work-out. Helen didn't care too much for Steve's conch shell playing. I guess she thought it was too much of a gimic which, for all intents and purposes, it is. Steve is a consistent poll winner and a consummate showman, but personally I prefer the trombone work of John Fedchock whose New York Big Band has made some excellent recordings. Steve also has his own big band consisting of all conch shell players called Sanctified Shells.

A young trombonist, Roland..., was presented with a $1000. prize by Jack and performed a nice plungered and muted version of "My Romance." He was also a student of Steve's. The most impressive performance of the evening for me was a duet by Mulgrew Miller and Ray Drummond, "Sweet and Lovely." They had outstanding empathy. In fact Ray's eyes were glued on Mulgrew for the entire tune. I don't think he blinked once! Along with Jimmy Cobb, this rhythm section was outstanding the entire evening!

The night ended as it had begun with another tune by Dizzy Gillespie, "Manteca." I had to admire Lew's playing on this one. Anyone who can play Dizzy's part on "Manteca", ...well...my hat's off to him! All in all another successful outing by Jack Kleinsinger and the longest running jazz series in New York City.

After saying good-bye to Helen and Renee, I used my fun pass for the last time and took the C train back to Port Authority Bus Terminal where I caught the bus for the North Bergen Park Ride lot and picked up my rental car. Luckily I had my XM Roady with me so I could listen to jazz all the way home!

Concert Review: Nnenna Freelon

Nnenna Freelon performed a long set with no intermission at Skidmore College in Saratoga Springs, New York, Friday, April 7, 2006. The concert  was free and open to the public which began assembling more than an hour prior to concert time. Needless to  say, it was standing room only. This was a good gig for Freelon who was at the college on a McCormack Residency which has hosted jazz musician Joshua Redman and poet Robert Pinsky among others. This concert was the culmination of Nnenna's residency.

Freelon is a six-time Grammy Award nominee in two jazz vocal categories. Beautiful to look at, this mother of three has a very dramatic flair in addition to her vocal talents. Her onstage movements and facial expressions amounted at times to acting and dancing skills. She started off in a Frank Sinatra bag with "All or Nothing at All." Her back-up group was superb with percussionist Beverly Botsford rising to the level of co-front liner at times.  Normally averse to percussionists, I was totally captivated by Botsford's performance. From her score of instruments she always chose just the right one for just the right accent dancing among them like an antediluvian elf.

Nnenna spent much of her time honoring the memory of Billie Holliday, conjuring up her spirit and life with a running commentary. She performed Billie's compositions "God Bless the Child" as well as the number after which Billie had to leave the stage, "Strange Fruit." Freelon recorded "Blueprint of a Lady" on Concord Records in 2005 so Lady Day's legacy is a major focus of her work.

Some of her approach was reminiscent of Cassandra Wilson as she deconstructed melody, harmony and rhythm and then reconstructed these elements into a unique blend. Only the lyrics stayed the same. Drummer Kinah Boto laid down reggae, hip-hop and funk beats, but hardly any swinging 4/4. Pianist McCune and bassist Batchelor had some good solos along the way. About the only song sung straight was the spiritual, "There is a Balm in Gilead" done with just voice and piano.

She sang the ultimate My-Man-Done-Me-Wrong song, "Don't Explain," sounding much like Nancy Wilson who specialized in that genre with songs such as "Guess Who I Saw Today." Nancy is known for her precise diction and extended sibilants, and Nnenna followed in her footsteps in that regard.

After the finale, "All of Me," the very appreciative audience brought her back for an encore featuring Botsford wailing on congas. From smoky joints to prestigious colleges, jazz has come a long way. Not intimidated at all by the "hallowed halls," Nnenna dispelled whatever vestiges of staidness might have remained at Skidmore. It was nice of the Dean to open the concert to the public, and I felt it was well worth the drive in the rain up the New York Thruway from New Paltz where I started and ended the day.