Saturday, September 18, 2010

Peterson Cos. Cancel Chuck Brown

Chuck Brown is a Washington area icon, the father of go-go music, which is a genre that extends from the center of DC as far as the suburbs and is unknown beyond the region. He's been playing around here since the sixties. He was going to give a concert Tuesday at noon in Silver Spring, in the new Veterans Plaza, to announce a new CD. I saw Aaron Neville there last week, it was great, by the way.

The concert was quietly canceled. No explanation.

Local blogs have been following the story, TBD picked it up.
Calls and e-mails to Downtown Silver Spring’s property manager Peterson Cos., which is responsible for scheduling free concerts on the property, haven’t yet been returned . But Brown’s manager Tom Goldfogle confirms the show’s cancellation. He got the call from the property managers last Friday.

“I have no idea. It’s baffling to me,” he says. “I couldn’t get a good explanation. I’ve been doing this for 20 years, and I’ve never had anything like this occur.”

Although the reason for the show's cancellation is still unclear, it may have something to do with Silver Spring's uneasiness with go-go. During an outdoor youth concert last year, a large brawl broke out during the last act, a go-go band. Dozens of police officers responded and 35 people were arrested.

Whether labeling go-go as a genre of music that attracts violence is fair or not aside, Chuck Brown shows aren’t even known for erupting into violence. The Gazette quoted police officials who weren’t at all worried about next week's show, including Lt. Bob Carter of the Third District saying: "We’re not going to overstaff for Chuck Brown… It’s Chuck Brown! It’s the godfather of go-go!”

“Chuck Brown is not a young go-go band. He plays the Library of Congress, he plays the Kennedy Center, he plays the Smithsonian,” Goldfogle says. Update: Chuck Brown's show in Silver Spring canceled

Chuck Brown is no kid, he is seventy-four years old. Go-go tends to be a wild scene, but this is a local musician as well respected as any, and a musical genre that represents our area in a unique and important way.

Do you remember when the Peterson Companies banned photography in Silver Spring? Yeah. The same Peterson Companies canceled this concert.

This is what happens when you let private business own your public spaces. A government would have been accountable, your rights would be respected. A private company can do anything they want. Here's your libertarian dream come true, free enterprise without government interference, deciding in a boardroom what kind of music it's okay for you to listen to.


Anonymous that j kizzle! said...

hey, Jim, I was at the Aaron Neville concert too

it's the first time I went to a concert there

it was an impressive scene

I like the space and it worked for a pretty large crowd

did you see all the people watching from edges of the multi-level garage across the street?

that being said:

"free enterprise without government interference, deciding in a boardroom what kind of music it's okay for you to listen to"

no, we can still listen to any music we want to

they are just deciding what happens on their property

if you scheduled a free Boy George concert for your backyard and invited the neighborhood, wouldn't you have the right to cancel it?

would that mean you're deciding what music people can listen to?

think about it

when you haven't been up all night watching MTV

September 18, 2010 11:51 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

look, I'm a Tea Party supporter

but, sometimes, whether you are liberal or conservative, you have to forget labels and support a politician just for the entertainment value alone

that's why if I were living in California, I'd be voting Brown for governor

and, I would hope, some Democrats in Delaware will come out for Chris O'Donnell:

"That sly come hither stare ... it's witchcraft?

Christine O'Donnell, the new "it" girl for conservatives, continues to provide for interesting commentary. On last night's episode of "Real Time," host Bill Maher ran a previously unseen late 1990s clip of O'Donnell from his old show, "Politically Incorrect."

During the clip, O'Donnell discusses having dabbled in witchcraft:

O'DONNELL: "I dabbled into witchcraft - I never joined a coven. But I did, I did. ... I dabbled into witchcraft. I hung around people who were doing these things. I'm not making this stuff up. I know what they told me they do.

One of my first dates with a witch was on a satanic alter, and I didn't know it. I mean, there's little blood there and stuff like that. ... We went to a movie and then had a midnight picnic on a satanic alter."

Also, in a paper he wrote, Delaware's Democratic nominee for the U.S. Senate described himself as a "bearded Marxist."

This could be the first race in history that pits someone who dabbled in witchcraft versus someone who dabbled in Marxism."

September 18, 2010 1:02 PM  
Anonymous thomas more said...

Obama would like to compile an "enemies list", kind of like Nixon.

He wants Congress to pass a law that no one can criticize him without providing him a name.

"A running feud over what to do about a Supreme Court decision that loosened restrictions on political advertising raged on Saturday as President Obama pounded Senate Republicans for blocking a bill that would force broad disclosure of the sponsors and financiers of such ads.

In his weekly address, using unusually strong rhetoric, Obama said the court's opinion giving wider latitude to the backers of campaign commercials has resulted in a "flood of deceptive attack ads sponsored by special interests, using front groups with misleading names."

"We've tried to fix this with a new law -- one that would simply require that you say who you are and who's paying for your ad..." Obama said."

they talk about him like he's a dog

and he wants to make 'em pay!!

Sir Barry "Henry VIII" Obama

September 18, 2010 2:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"We've tried to fix this with a new law"

Fix what?

A Supreme Court decision?

trying to find some legalistic way to violate the seperation of branches of government?

Barry, respect our constitution

you're not in Indonesia anymore

September 18, 2010 2:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

He who has the most money can say whatever he wants and hide his authorship, huh Anon?

That's not freedom, that's propaganda!

We all have the right to stand on a soapbox and state our opinions but most voters don't listen to a soapbox talker hiding under a hood.

If you've got something to say about a candidate or an election contest, be proud of your pronouncements and honestly identify yourself. Don't be a chicken-spit like Martha Schaerr and keep secrets from voters.

September 18, 2010 2:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"He wants Congress to pass a law that no one can criticize him without providing him a name."

He's not alone.

"The 2008 presidential election ushered in an unprecedented amount of campaign spending, with the presidential candidates taking in over $1.7 billion in donations. But, according to new research, corporations and their allies will trounce 2008’s “political spend-a-thon” in the 2010 midterm election season. “Liberated” by the Supreme Court’s recent Citizens United decision, corporations and “well-established political players” will pump in 10 to 15 percent more cash in 2010 to “disrupt” races with more negative ads:

After the astronomical sums of cash thrown into the 2008 campaign, everyone’s pumping in even more — about 10 to 15 percent more— according to Kip Cassino, vice president of research at the media analysis firm Borrell Associates.

“Unlike a lot of industries in the United States right now, which are seeing some downturns, political spending is absolutely a growth industry,” Cassino says.

Fueling it, he says, is corporate money — dollars liberated by the Supreme Court when it ruled that corporations and unions can be unrestrained in their campaign spending.

Cassino says corporate funds probably account for a 10 percent jump in advertising.

And of course, those advertisements are almost always negative.

“The unwritten charter of these groups is to really be disruptive and try to go in there and turn a race on its head — or put a candidate on the defense,” says Evan Tracey, president of the Campaign Media Analysis Group, which tracks political advertising. “And by that nature, most of those ads that they’re gonna run this fall are gonna be negative ads.“

The political players looking to up the ante include “big budget groups” like GOP operative Karl Rove’s American Crossroads and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which is “the biggest collection point for corporate contributions.” American Crossroads “committed to raising tens of millions of dollars” while the Chamber will spend $40 million more than 2008 this year and “may go higher.” Along with a 2007 decision backing the Federal Election Commission’s drastic undercutting of disclosure rules, “business and its allies” can continue to support right-wing candidates and “wildly misleading” ads without anyone knowing who is pulling the purse strings."

No wonder the rich want to extend their tax cuts!

September 18, 2010 3:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Americans of both parties overwhelmingly oppose a Supreme Court ruling that allows corporations and unions to spend as much as they want on political campaigns, and most favor new limits on such spending, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Eight in 10 poll respondents say they oppose the high court's Jan. 21 decision to allow unfettered corporate political spending, with 65 percent "strongly" opposed. Nearly as many backed congressional action to curb the ruling, with 72 percent in favor of reinstating limits.

The poll reveals relatively little difference of opinion on the issue among Democrats (85 percent opposed to the ruling), Republicans (76 percent) and independents (81 percent).

The results suggest a strong reservoir of bipartisan support on the issue for President Obama and congressional Democrats, who are in the midst of crafting legislation aimed at limiting the impact of the high court's decision.

"If there's one thing that Americans from the left, right and center can all agree on, it's that they don't want more special interests in our politics," Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), who is spearheading the legislative effort, said in a statement after the poll was released Wednesday.

In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the high court ruled 5-4 that corporations have the same rights as individuals when it comes to political speech and can therefore use their profits to support or oppose individual candidates. The decision appears to open the door to unlimited spending by corporations, trade groups and unions in the weeks leading up to an election, which has been explicitly banned for decades.

Nearly three-quarters of self-identified conservative Republicans say they oppose the Supreme Court ruling, with most of them strongly opposed. Some two-thirds of conservative Republicans favor congressional efforts to limit corporate and union spending, though with less enthusiasm than liberal Democrats.

Indeed, the poll shows remarkably strong agreement about the ruling across all demographic groups, and big majorities of those with household incomes above and below $50,000 alike oppose the decision. Age, race and education levels also appeared to have little relative bearing on the answers.

The questions on corporate political spending were included as part of a poll conducted Feb. 4 to 8 by conventional and cellular telephone. The margin of sampling error for the for the full poll of 1,004 randomly selected adults is plus or minus three percentage points.

With polling numbers showing bipartisan agreement of US voters, how did GOP members of Congress vote?

HR 5175 is the House of Representatives version of the DISCLOSE Act. On June 24, 2010, it was approved by the House with 219 Yays, including 2 GOP members.

S.3628 is the Senate version of the DISCLOSE Act. On July 27, 2010, the cloture vote on the motion to proceed to S. 3628 failed because every GOP Senate member who voted, voted against it.

September 18, 2010 4:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The second morning of speeches at the Values Voter Summit here in DC was dominated by a man who is swiftly becoming the nation's spokesperson on Islamic issues-- former House speaker Newt Gingrich. Fresh off the release of his Islam-focused film "America At Risk," Gingrich told the crowd at VVS that it's time to take federal action to prevent Shariah Law from infiltrating courtrooms in the US.

"We should have a federal law that says sharia law cannot be recognized by any court in the United States," Gingrich said to a standing ovation from the audience. The law will let judges know, Gingrich said, that "no judge will remain in office that tried to use sharia law."

Gingrich made a reference about freshly-minted Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan being "sympathetic" to Shariah and -- as some suggested during her confirmation hearings -- might allow it to be recognized as law in the United States.

September 18, 2010 4:29 PM  
Anonymous time for a tea party said...

A growing number of people believe Republicans and Democrats are doing a poor job of representing the American public and that it's time for a third major political party, according to a new survey.

A Gallup Poll released Friday finds 58 percent of respondents say a third party is needed in this country -- a significant jump from 2008.

Political ideology doesn't seem to be a major factor among those who desire a third party -- with 61 percent of liberals, 60 percent of moderates, and 54 percent of conservatives believing it's time for an alternative.

September 18, 2010 5:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To 429 Anon

Oh yeah, that's right. Those ValulessVoters loved Newt's fear-mongering so much that when they took their 2012 Presidential Candidate straw poll, Newt came in fourth

out of five!

Yikes! How embarrassing!

To 522 Anon

Don't forget this paragraph:

"How much does the rise of the Tea Party play into the numbers? Gallup says probably some, but not a lot. Tea Party supporters fall right in the middle: 62 percent of those who describe themselves as supporters of the grassroots conservative movement favor a third major party, but so do 59 percent of those who are neutral toward the Tea Party."

September 18, 2010 5:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

working for George W. Bush

good for the resume

opposing Obama


"Former GOP congressman and Bush cabinet member Rob Portman has jumped out to a 20 point lead over Democratic Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher in Ohio's Senate race, setting the stage of a midterm sweep of the Senate and governor races in the state, according to a Quinnipiac University poll conducted Sept. 9-14."

September 18, 2010 6:00 PM  
Anonymous happy election season! said...

being a Democrat


September 18, 2010 6:01 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Newt's religious jingoism is alarming.

September 19, 2010 9:30 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Don't Kill Growth and Jobs in the Name of Deficit Reduction

In the fall of 2008 the U.S. and other major economies were in a free fall in the wake of a global financial crisis. Emergency stimulus policies here and around the world broke the fall, but brought us only part way to full recovery.

Today there is a grave danger that the still-fragile economic recovery will be undercut by austerity economics. A turn by major governments away from the promotion of growth and jobs and to premature focus on deficit reduction could slow growth and increase unemployment – and could push us back into recession.

History suggests that a tenuous recovery is no time to practice austerity. In the Great Depression, Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal generated growth and reduced the unemployment rate from 25 percent in 1932 to less than 10 percent in 1937. However, the deficit hawks of that era persuaded President Roosevelt to reverse course prematurely and move toward budget balance. The result was a severe recession that caused the economy to contract sharply and sent the unemployment rate soaring. Only the much larger wartime spending of the early 1940s produced a full recovery.

Today, the economy is growing only weakly. 7.8 million jobs have been lost in the recession. Consumers, having suffered losses in home values and retirement savings, are tightening their belts. The business sector, uncertain about consumer spending, is reluctant to invest in expansion or job creation, leaving the economy trapped on a path of slow growth or stagnation. Over 20 million American workers are now unemployed, underemployed or simply have given up looking for a job.

The President and Congress should redouble efforts to create jobs and send aid to the states whose budget crises threaten recovery by forcing them to lay off school teachers, public safety workers, and other essential workers. It also makes sense to invest in public service jobs – and in infrastructure projects for transportation, water, and energy conservation that will make our economy more productive for years to come.

September 19, 2010 11:29 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Another tea bagger demurs.

"Christine O'Donnell, the tea party darling whose Republican primary win in Delaware's Senate race shocked the GOP, has canceled her appearances on two national news shows.

O'Donnell had been set to appear on "Face the Nation" on CBS and "Fox News Sunday." "

How very un-Mamma Grizzly of her.

September 19, 2010 12:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"History suggests that a tenuous recovery is no time to practice austerity. In the Great Depression, Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal generated growth and reduced the unemployment rate from 25 percent in 1932 to less than 10 percent in 1937. However, the deficit hawks of that era persuaded President Roosevelt to reverse course prematurely and move toward budget balance. The result was a severe recession that caused the economy to contract sharply and sent the unemployment rate soaring. Only the much larger wartime spending of the early 1940s produced a full recovery."

not a good comparison for your side

FDR's spending made unemployment go down

BO's made it go up

btw, BO has significantly increased war spending already in Afghan

"Newt's religious jingoism is alarming."

considering the Islamic position on homosexuality, you'd think gays would be on Newt's side

in England, the Archbishop of Canterbury has said everyone should be "realistic" and accept that sharia is inevitable

hopefully, we'll never get that realistic here but you'd gays, especially, would not want to know the penalties for sodomy are under sharia

"Karl Rove, political mastermind for former President Bush, said Sunday that Christine O'Donnell, the Tea Party insurgent who won an upset victory in Delaware for the GOP Senate nomination, "can't simply ignore" the controversy stirred over the disclosure that she "dabbled in witchcraft."

"In southern Delaware, where there are a lot of church-going people, they're probably going to want to know what was that all about," Rove said on Fox News Sunday.

O'Donnell had been on Bill Maher's show frequently in the 1990s, and Maher has said he is going to show an O'Donnell clip each week until she agrees to appear again."

poor Karl Rove

America rejected his brand of Republicanism and he's trying desperately to make himself relevant

September 19, 2010 1:52 PM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

Christine O'Donnell dabbled in witchcraft.

Wow, not even Nancy Reagan's astrologist saw that coming.

Maybe Sarah Palin's preacher can cast out her demons?

If we don't like the way the election is heading, perhaps we should just get out our voodoo dolls.

Have a nice day,


September 20, 2010 12:18 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

for those of you bummed about Chuck Brown, he will be appearing at the plaza behind the Ronald Reagan Building downtown on Friday at 5

September 20, 2010 9:54 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

and obama snorted cocaine (as admitted in his books) and Hillary clinton held a seance trying to contact eleanor roosevelt.

Neither Obama or Hillary were in HIGHSCHOOL at the time, they were significantly older.

do you really want to go there ?

those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

September 20, 2010 11:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Loved your insightful statement: "those who live in glass houses should not throw stones."

Looked in a mirror lately?

September 21, 2010 11:02 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home