More than two centuries after his death, two additional works have recently been identified as being composed by the Austrian master. While the pieces might have been played before, Sunday will be the first time they will be performed as compositions of the popular prodigy.

The venue is Salzburg, Amadeus’ birthplace and the city that nurtured his early musical career. The International Mozarteum Foundation will officially present the piano pieces at a hotly awaited event that will feature a live performance by Austrian pianist Florian Birsak.

Officials, protecting the works like state secrets after officially announcing their discovery last week, have said only that they were created by a young Mozart and are contained in a manuscript owned by the Mozarteum for more than 100 years.

“These are two substantial pieces of piano music, composed before Mozart’s 10th birthday,” Ulrich Leisinger, the Mozarteum’s head of research, said in an e-mail to The Associated Press.
………………

Hm. New singles from musical artists after their career tend to be duds. Further, digging into the vaults doesn’t bring out the Greatest.  A new song tracked onto a compilation or anthology – convincing completists to buy it.  Remember the two Beatles songs from the last decade?
…………………..

Most likely resembles the latter. One of the two pieces is said to have leaps, crossed hands, speed etc. to mostly show off (written when M. was pretty immature). Something I read includes a remark that probably applies to the piece or at least to the period: The Salzburg court trumpeter and close friend of the Mozart family, Johann Andreas Schachtner, described being shown an inkblot-stained score of a part of concerto written by the young Mozart. Mozart’s father, Leopold, had first dismissed the piece – but then looked at it a little more closely. “Look here Mr Schachtner,” he said. “See how everything is correct and regularly set – it is only useless because it is too difficult for anyone to play.”
………………………….

Anyway, when I manage to save up for a European vacation, I’m not going to travel over to the Mozarteum, opting instead to the Bachitorium.

Tumbling over the comments sections of various sites, we come to comments such as:

Are the Humiliating Comment-makers Netizens CHICOM or just ACORN?
Thank God for Attny. Taitz and her actions to save the US Constitution and the US, itself.
Ever notice: On ALL the search engine searches (Read they’ve been suppressing pro-birther results) the criticisms of all us “Birthers” is the same as they do in Red China?
There, the government employs a horde of “Netizens” to go to sites to humiliate & denigrate & suppress anti-government talk. They’re paid about $.25 each, I’ve read.
Just like these apparent ACORN operatives do, they ALWAYS humiliate, denigrate, and use varying terms of “Mental Illness” in volume! Buzzwords like “Wingnut,” “Birther,” “Insane,”Unhinged, “Delusional,”
That’s what happens to the average Chinese when they type out loud, and the Chinese have even more “Mental Health” Prisons as do the Russians.
The apparent wave of the future for us here in Obamaland?
But the CHICOMS have been waging economic and PSYOPS warfare on us a long time. They’ve apparently continued their terroristic use of Biblical prophesies (Remember what they did on 6/6/6?) by creating as part of The Big 0’s Economic Manchurian Candidate grooming and Legend, that he’s actually the Anti-Christ (Imagine the desired reactions.) That his name, “Barrack Obama,” means “Antichrist,” in ancient Hebrew in the Book of Luke, according to a religious researcher can be seen at this YouTube video on World Net News.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=105527
This creation of a well-groomed “Legend,” part of an overall economic warfare agenda, taking over at the top, is as old espionage craft as is planting ads in prominent Hawaii newspapers, making myth become “The Truth.”r

There is no argument against those points or order.

The constitutional crisis that might erupt if this thing is not resolved:

Well, this is kind of interesting.  From the blog of Seattle’s very own Stranger:

Somewhat shocking is that Doc Hastings talked more than anyone else in our House delegation last session because, well, who the fuck knows anything about Doc Hastings?

Well, the man resides in the part of the state which Stranger readers in Seattle would drive past without stopping, in infrequent forays to Spokane.  So he would be the most likely “Invisible Man” in a Washington Congressional Congregation.  But I think I can debunk this:

Something tells me Doc Hastings is the Congressional equivalent of an old man writing angry letters to the editor, or sitting on his porch yelling at kids to get off his lawn.

No, he is nowhere near as interesting or illuminating.  Pursue the quotations of Doc Hastings at your own leisure.

Last week I marvelled at a reference to Doc Hastings as having emerged as a “leading critic” of the Obama Administration.  This, I suppose, is the transformation of a relatively small fish in a big pond as a mid-bench member of the Majority Party to a relatviely big fish in a small pond as a slightly further up in the middle benches member of the Minority Party.

From that perch, Hastings has found the new found role of scheduling massive floor speeches.  That, apparently, fits the bill these days in terms of “emerged as a leading critic”.  (Also, I guess push polls fits that bill, but that may have always been there.)  It is a brisk walk down from his previous role.  He used to be a frequent gaveller, meaning even when he didn’t speak, he logged a lot of time on C-SPAN.  Indeed, one of Doc Hastings’s career highlights, I would say, was being the man that held up the 15 minute voting session for the Medicare D program to three hours — recently referenced in the Dennis Hastert portrait raising ceremony.:

In his prayer opening event, Rev. Daniel P. Coughlin, the House chaplain, noted that Mr. Hastert was also a wily strategist who learned to “never take his eye of the clock, but use it to his advantage” – an apparent reference to Mr. Hastert’s decision to hold open a floor vote for more than three hours to secure approval of the Medicare drug program.

Stepping aside his placement on the institutionally ineffective Ethics Committee when it threatened to actually do a job and look into Tom DeLay, the most bizarre moment in Doc Hastings career came when Hastings was placed as an extra-constitutional Emergency Provisional Speaker in case of a chaotic Armegeddon scenario — which, come to think of it, would make for the most dull and uninspired work of Speculative Fiction imaginable.

If you throw in his latest battle against roaming horses, a not altogether absurd position except that he’s phrased it as “welfare for wild horses”, and the rather sedate comfortably fiefdomed Congress-critter (who can get by so long as he can secure necessary Hanford funding) actually becomes a mildly interesting figure.

I am wondering what the floor voice chart would look like in, say, 2003-2006 as opposed to 2007-2009.  In other words, does the out party – having to find its place as an oppositional force– take to the floor and speak a lot?  This results in such a situation as Earl Blumenauer describes here.

In the middle 1980s, as Ronald Reagan’s “revolution” settled to its deal-making and reality checking against old guard Republicans and incumbent Democrats, a band of Republicans, largely elected in 1980 off of Reagan’s coat-tails, took to the floor and offered up a steady dose of ferment — a cluster of Republicans trying to turn around their debate through C-SPAN, the man who made a name for himself with this legislative tactic being one Newt Gingrich.  Tip O’Neil became annoyed enough by a projected outside image of stampeding movement conservatives that he had C-SPAN shift production to have the cameras scan around the Congressional chambers and reveal the emptiness of the chambers.

The background here:  David Vitter is the Louisiana Senator who got in trouble due to purchasing the services of a prostitute.  He has received a primary opponent in the name of “Stormy Daniels”, a Porn star, who is not going to win, but whose run serves as a reminder of the the prostitute scandal through the minds of the voters for the next year. AND SO…

An advisor to Stormy Daniels’ potential senatorial campaign had his car blown up yesterday on a street in New Orleans. Political advisor Brian Welch was unharmed.

Surveillance footage broadcast on local news affiliate ABC-26 shows what appears to be a man opening the driver’s-side door, throwing an object in the vehicle and then the car exploding.

“It looks like the pictures you would see in Iraq following a roadside car bombing,” reporter Glynn Boyd said of the damage to Welch’s car.

Having a porn star consider a run for senate certainly is a controversial campaign to be involved in, especially in the Deep South, so Welsh questioned if someone is trying to send him a message, but wouldn’t point fingers so early on.

He’s waiting for more forensic information and hopes witnesses would come forward with more details, but swears this incident will not deter him from continuing to work with Daniels.

“No one has seen anything like this before…not in such a dramatic fashion,” Welsh told ABC-26. “It’s too early for me to go pointing fingers. I’d like to hear officially what happened and then we can take it from there. .”

Famous last words: “If someone’s trying to send me a message like this, it’s not going to work.”   And for the conspiratorial-minded out there, she has now been charged with domestic violence (news mixed in with footage of the car-bombing here).  Is David Vitter running in the same Louisiana political tradition as Huey Long with regards to his political enemies?  Actually, who’d want to destroy the career of a fringe novelty political act — almost but not quite the equivalent of destroying the candidacy of, say, Bob Kelleher … or Gordon Allen Pross.

I’m reading a Birchite written biography of Robert Welch.  One thing it has done is cement for me the answer to the question “which side of an ideological divide do you slot Lyndon Larouche?”.  Yes, with all due respect to various Marxist memoirs and historical left-wing sect pamphlet propaganda I’ve looked at, it is “right”, qualified as it is with idiosyncracies aplenty and from out a Trotskyite core (enough to lead him to a pause).  But perhaps this question entangles itself with what you want to focus on: the policy apparatus behind those large public works projects aren’t getting us anywhere, the conspiratorial worldview has gotten them places.

I have long noticed the Larouchite love affair with the “they call him Marxist, Fascist, Left, Right” argument.  I’ve never been sure where this is supposed to get them anywhere, but I guess the love affair with this is as good a reason as any to bounce about the political landscape as they “flank” various issues and movements (hm).  It is a fallacious argument, made by plenty of more mainstream pols.  Bill O’Reilly uses it with regularity.  He reads a letter calling him a Right-wing fanatic.  He then reads a letter calling a Left-wing fanatic.  And he finishes with a letter affirming his “if you’re getting it from both sides, you must be doing something right”.  The lesson, of course, is that you have a good chance of getting a letter read on the air if you write calling him a left-wing fanatic.  (A few years’ ago a liberal blogger tested that thesis and hit pay-dirt.)  The generic retort to Larouche is, of course, to be content to push all that aside and settle on “Fruitcake.”  (Or, Mark Levin’s “Looney Tunes“.  Another neat bit of invective: Ladouche.)

But this “slot ideological placement” is only intermittently an interesting question — the cult mostly just slides everything into a projection of itself — ’tis what a cult does.  A different question, far more pertinent, occupies my thoughts when I consider the Larouchites (dissecting an rare species of exotic floral.)  Slowly and surely, a few comments and questions have emitted over the Internet which slot recent Republican commentary on Obama Administration health care policy with Lyndon Larouche’s months long campaign — best illustrated by sticking a mustache on Obama’s face.  Representative Virginia Foxx threw out the Eugenics equation!!  And also, did you see that elderly woman at a Townhall meeting?  Notable, though, is that even Representative Foxx isn’t saying Obama is physically/literally cribbing from Hitler’s policies.  Which is to suggest, we can go ahead and cite this is as a perversion of a criticism from Betsy McCaughey, thank you very much — with some broad “eugencs” blouters from various sources, that include the deluge of Larouche.

But the boiler room over in Leesburg may as well consider this a “hit” regardless.  An observation from the Bircher book — the Birchers took credit for more than they were due in their battles against the Illuminati and Communist infested world.  (Also Welch spoke out against the encroaching Dark Ages, a Spenglerite notion I suppose but one that naturally allows for a “design to fail” as well a version of…

“It’s either LaRouche’s solution or a Dark Age. You decide.”

An interesting thing… even bonker quasi-supporters seem able to grasp this “design to fail”.  See, from Transition #743, 1997 — an interview with Kelefa Sanneh and Killah Priest:

KS:  What about someone like Lydon Larouche?  He’s another person who claims to be exposing truths that the government is trying to hide.  Larouche has had a high profile in the African American community ever since his 1992 presidential bid, when he chose the black activist Reverend James Bevel to be his running mate.  What do you think of Larouche?

KP:  Yeah, the book is deep.  He was part of the plan and they gypped him.  I don’t know what they did.  But Cooper is like Larouche: the Armegeddan that he wants to prevent is destined to happen.  [followed by some more bonkers commentary that’d make you cringe.]

The database I plucked that out is likely available to you too.  But if pressed, I’ll finish that “Killah Priest” quote, as well go back and drdge up the question I am sure is on your mind:  What has Ward Churchill said about Lyndon Larouche?

The question with the Larouche cult’s particular brand of demougery: what measurement can we use to suggest they’ve injected something into our discourse, and to what degree have they simply reflected some bad impulses?  It is, I think, mostly the latter but there are times when the former does impugn on us, and there are a few small times when there are not clear – cut answers.  I guess I’m willing to give them all credit for “Prescott Bush financed the Nazis”, only faintly the great Leo Strauss game.

When I referenced Spengler, on the tip of my mind only due to a random comment seen somewhere, I am of course refering to Oswald Spengler, and not Goldman (wikipedia page in error, incidentally) — though I guess I may as well be referencing both.  But to go on with that element.:

The prospects for all of Eurasia now hang on the probable impact of two reactions of Europe to the present, terminal financial crisis of the virtually doomed U.S. Obama administration: the September 27 general election in Germany and the presently inevitable breakdown-crisis of the U.S.A.’s system during the interval of approximately Oct. 2-12, 2009.

Unless the present U.S. Obama administration is taken over by sane forces within the Administration and Congress prior to September, the oncoming U.S. crisis now scheduled for early October 2009 will actually explode, like a bomb set off by a proximity fuse during the period of the run-up to the Sept. 27 general election—or, in the alternative, even earlier.

By sometime no later than early through middle September, all present operating delusions about their own prospects, among leading Eurasian nations will have been exploded: if the U.S. goes down, the entire world goes down, and the debris of the explosion will be a planet-wide new dark age which no presently existing nation of the world would survive in a recognizable form.

Well, that keeps this question in the minds of the faithful, I suppose.  The faithless will move on.:

But what I did not agree with-was trying to link Obama to Hitler!! WHAT IS WRONG WITH THESE PEOPLE??
I have a copy of a booklet that the LaRouche supporters were giving out entitled: “ACT NOW TO STOP OBAMA’S NAZI HEALTH PLAN!!!
The front cover of the booklet shows Obama photoshopped in with Hitler and some of his Nazi supporters.
This to me, is TOO STRONG OF A STATEMENT-ONE CAN MAKE THE POINT THAT THEY BELIEVE OBAMA MAY BE SACRIFICING THE HEALTH OF THE MENTALLY ILL AND POOR BUT LINKING HIM WITH HITLER DOESN’T FLY WITH ME!!!

And the explanation for the current questioning from these guys:

That was annoying enough on its own, but one of the guys blocked my path. “Would you like to give our President a shave?” he asked.

I really didn’t like being impeded in my quest for a sandwich. “Crazy losers” I muttered, and steered around him. His associate called after me in a jeering tone, “see you next fiscal year!”

Next fiscal year? Was he saying that when I saw next year’s deficit I’d come around to their side? I highly doubted it. But that kind of false confidence is what keeps people like that out on the streets with their placards, year after year. Anyway, thankfully I was back on path to the Brown Bag, and my quest for the almost-perfect sandwich was soon fulfilled.

While I recognize nobody reads this stuff except the terminally curious (because we can’t quite tell the difference between the sort of thing just (oh for the love of god, I had the perfect auto-generated word salad link) and this sort of thing — skip to italics), it is pretty evident that the Org has positioned itself to wander back to support of Obama.  It is in the “Unless the present U.S. Obama administration is taken over by sane forces within the Administration and Congress prior to September” equation, and the equation within:   On the basis of that defeat, a new team of economists, grounded in the reality of this existential crisis, can be brought in.

Such is the meaning of “Would you like to give our President a shave?” — only you, through the agias of supporting these supporters of a negligible fringe cult leader — can free Obama of his Hitlerian mustache!  Does that mean anything?  Not really.

Several years ago, I found the title of the perfect book to take to court when trying to avoid Jury Duty:  Our Enemies In Blue.  Pick up a copy, put it on your book-shelf, and eagerly pull it out when summoned with the notification — as an experiment.

The great footnote in the history of the Obama Administration passed everyone, received its fifteen minutes of hub, beer choices dissected, sociography studied — can’t just be Obama, the cop, and the professor — got to balance the racial scales with Biden.  Media descended, stood at long range with cameras — all quite ridiculous, really.

Nothing much comes out of this.  We have two new celebrities.  Officer Crowley, the man who abused his power, and Professor Gates, the man who was guilty of the great crime of “Contempt of Cop”.  Crowley apparently finding the loophole for arrest by getting the man outside the house, thus making “disorderly conduct” feasible — if you’re in the mind to see it as such.  The police report already disposed as fictitious in that the only part verifiable, the 911 call, was ficitious.  As examples of a wanton police state go, this is actually negligible enough — worse than that is this or this.  (Or, this.)

After the hub-bub of the “Beer Summit”, I’ll not so much put aside the racial component as get back to it from a separate angle.  I am well aware of the small “c” conservative and understandable deference to police that  holds much public opinion behind Officer Crowley.  It is a tough job, somebody’s got to do it, and a “baddie” can jump right out at any time.  It is from this starting point of “on guard” that we arrive at the anonymous LAPD officer writing for the National Review these well travelled fascistic comments in opposition to private property rights.  And it is there that we also get Rudy Giuliani’s lessons from his Mafia Father — minute in — to not question the cop.

NRA politics tends to go on about how the government is coming to take away your guns, and that will happen “FROM MY COLD, DEAD HANDS!”  I suppose the part where this Vinn Diagram between the “deference to the police” and “Proud ‘Gun Nut'” meets hasn’t worked out the contradiction — when that fateful day comes for the government gun confiscation, it would be a police agency.  Either that, or it may be that a fear of the gun confiscation is an example of  “White Male Privilege”.