Swaggarts TV ministry, which began in , continues airing in the U. New logo, used from March 9, Telemundo network affiliates Digital low-power stations Television stations in Minnesota Spanish-language television stations in Minnesota Television channels and stations established in DTV America. It later joined with the city of St. You must log in to edit Common Knowledge data.
Bob Dylan And Madonna – Photographs
Some of the paintings appear to have begun as small doodles which he developed into intricate highly involved images.
Those familiar with his method of painting say Hendrix worked with 5 or 6 watercolor pens held between the fingers of his right hand as his other hand deftly created the amazingly intricate designs.
All of the original art works in this outstanding collection have been examined and authenticated by Leon Hendrix, brother of the artist and a founder of the prestigious James Marshall Jimi Hendrix Foundation of Seattle, Washington.
Jimi's outlook on art took a different turn when in he met Arthur Lee the musician and producer of several psychedelic record albums. This experience, along with his starting to use acid and other hard drugs in began the change in Jimi's style of dress and his expressions in fine art. His paintings represent brightly colored fanciful figures and inventive forms in various sizes, with the smallest being about 4 inches and the larger ones approximately 18 inches.
All are powerful, highly creative and unique hallucinogenic works of art. One of the reasons Jimi's art works are always immediate, intimate and precise is because he was extremely nearsighted and never wore glasses. Oddly his biographers report that as a young boy in school Jimi displayed special talent in art, but had no early interest in music.
Herbert Gstalder Frank B. Cermak Christopher Manion Leon J. Professional Business Machines Inc. Be Active Brands, Inc. Commercial File of New York, Inc. Boys Town New York, Inc. Bhaskar Menon Arthur Flew. Salinas Comprehensive Chiropractic P. Salinas D C Paul. The Corinthian Group Inc. Matthew Riley Kevin Riley. The Broadway Group Ny. Leslie Dantchik Rhonda Hakimi. Metropolitan Valuation Services, Inc. Martin Levine Steven J. Roberta Lerner Jack Obryicki.
Career Services Management, Corp. Contrary to the belief that lack of up-front structures lead to insidious, invisible structures based on elites, the absence of structures in small, mutual trust groups fights elitism on the basic level — the level of personal dynamics, at which the individual who counters insecurity with aggressive behaviour rules over the person whose insecurity maintains silence. The small personally involved group learns, first to recognise those stylistic differences, and then to appreciate and work with them; rather than trying to either ignore or annihilate differences in personal style, the small group learns to appreciate and utilise them, thus strengthening the personal power of each individual.
Given that each of us has been socialised in a society in Which individual competition with every other individual is the way of existence, we are not going to obliterate personal-styles-as-power, except by constant recognition of these differences, and by learning to let differences of personal style exist together. Insofar as we are not the enemy, but the victims, we need to nurture and not destroy each other. The destructive elements will recede gradually as we grow stronger.
But in the meantime we should guard against situations which reward personal style with power. Meetings award prizes to the more aggressive, rhetorical, charismatic, articulate almost always male. For people priding themselves on cynicism about social taboos, we sure are sucked in by this taboo against anarchism. Like masturbation, anarchism is something we have been brought up to fear, irrationally and unquestioningly, because not to fear it might lead us to probe it, learn it and like it.
For anyone who has ever considered the possibility that masturbation might provide more benefits than madness, a study of anarchism is highly recommended — all the way back to the time of Marx, when Bakunin was his most radical socialist adversary Why has the Left all but ignored anarchism? It might be because the anarchists have never sustained a revolutionary victory. Marxism has triumphed, but so has capitalism. What does that prove, or what does it suggest but that maybe the loser, up to this point is on our side?
Sure, the old generation of American Leftists were narrow-minded not to see capitalism regenerating in Russia; but the tunnel vision with which we have charted a path of Marxist-Leninist dogma is not something to be proud of either. Women, of course, have made it out of the tunnel way before most men, because we found ourselves in the dark, being led by the blind men of the new Left, and split. Housewife for the revolution or prostitute for the proletariats; amazing how quickly our revision restored itself.
All across the country independent groups of women began functioning without the structure, leaders and other factotems of the male Left, creating independently and simultaneously, organisations similar to those of anarchists of many decades and locales. The style, the audacity of Emma Goldman, has been touted by women who do not regard themselves as anarchists Few women have gotten so many men scared for so long as Emma Goldman.
It seems logical that we should study Emma, not to embrace her every thought, but to find the source of her strength and love of life. It is no accident, either, that the anarchist Red Terror named Emma was also an advocate and practitioner of free-love; she was an affront to more capitalist shackles than any of her Marxist contemporaries. The source of this idea was a natural reaction against the overstructured society in which most of us found ourselves, the inevitable control this gave others over our lives, and the continual elitism of the Left and similar groups among those who were supposedly fighting this over-structuredness.
For the early development of the movement this did not much matter. Its looseness and informality encouraged participation in discussion and the often supportive atmosphere elicited personal insight.
If nothing more concrete than personal insight ever resulted from these groups, that did not much matter, because their purpose did not really extend beyond this. At this point they usually floundered because most groups were unwilling to change their structure when they changed their task. If the movement is to move beyond these elementary stages of development, it will have to disabuse itself of some of its prejudices about organisation and structure. There is nothing inherently bad about either of these.
They can be and often are misused, but to reject them out of hand because they are misused is to deny ourselves the necessary tools, to further development. The structure may be flexible, it may vary over time, it may evenly or unevenly distribute tasks, power and resources over the members of the group. But it will be formed regardless of the abilities, personalities and intentions of the people involved.
The very fact that we are individuals with different talents, predispositions and backgrounds makes this inevitable. The rules of how decisions are made are known only to a few and awareness of power is curtailed by those who know the rules, as long as the structure of the group is informal.
Those who do not know the rules and are not chosen for initiation must remain in confusion, or suffer from paranoid delusions that something is happening of which they are not quite aware. For everyone to have the opportunity to be involved in a given group and to participate in its activities the structure must be explicit, not implicit. The rules of decision-making must be open and available to everyone, and this can only happen if they are formalised.
This is not to say that formalisation of a group structure will destroy the informal structure. But it does hinder the informal structure from having predominant control and makes available some means of attacking it. We cannot decide whether to have a structured or structureless group; only whether or not to have a formally structured one.
Therefore, the word will not be used any longer except to refer to the idea which it represents. Unstructured will refer to those groups which have not been deliberately structured in a particular manner.
Structured will refer to those which have. A structured group always has a formal structure, and may also have an informal one. An unstructured group always has an informal, or covert, structure.
It is this informal structure, particularly in unstructured groups, which forms the basis for elites. It is never used correctly. Within the movement it commonly refers to individuals though the personal characteristics and activities of those to whom it is directed may differ widely. Any individual, regardless of how well-known that person is, can never be an elite. Correctly, an elite refers to a small group of people who have power over a larger group of which they are part, usually without direct responsibility to that larger group, and often without their knowledge or consent.
A person becomes an elitist by being part of, or advocating, the rule by such a small group, whether or not that individual is well-known or not known at all. Notoriety is not a definition of an elitist. The most insidious elites are usually run by people not known to the larger public at all. Intelligent elitists are usually smart enough not to allow themselves to become well known. When they become known, they are watched, and the mask over their power is no longer firmly lodged.
Because elites are informal does not mean they are invisible. At any small group meeting anyone with a sharp eye and an acute ear can tell who is influencing whom. The members of a friendship group will relate more to each other than to other people. They listen more attentively and interrupt less. Of course, the lines are not as sharp as I have drawn them. They are nuances of interaction, not pre-written scripts.
But they are discernible, and they do have their effect. Once one knows with whom it is important to check before a decision is made, and whose approval is the stamp of acceptance, one knows who is running things. Elites are not conspiracies. Seldom does a small group of people get together and try to take over a larger group for its own ends. Elites are nothing more and nothing less than a group of friends who also happen to participate in the same political activities.
They would probably maintain their friendship whether or not they were involved in political activities; they would probably be involved in political activities whether or not they maintained their friendships.
It is the coincidence of these two phenomena which creates elites in any groups and makes them so difficult to break. These friendship groups function as networks of communication outside any regular channels for such communication that may have been set up by a group.
If no channels are set up, they function as the only networks of communication. And it is a rare group that does not establish some informal networks of communication through the friends that are made in it. Some groups, depending on their size, may have more than one such informal communication network.
Networks may even overlap. When only one such network exists, it is the elite of an otherwise unstructured group, whether the participants in it want to be elitists or not. If it is the only such network in a structured group it may or may not be an elite depending on its composition and the nature of the formal structure. If there are two or more such networks of friends, they may compete for power within the group thus forming factions, or one may deliberately opt out of the competition leaving the other as the elite.
In a structured group, two or more such friendship networks usually compete with each other for formal power. This is often the healthiest situation. The other members are in a position to arbitrate between the two competitors for power and thus are able to make demands of the group to whom they give their temporary allegiance.
Since movement groups have made no concrete decisions about who shall exercise power within them, many different criteria are used around the country. As the movement has changed through time, marriage has become a less universal criterion for effective participation, although all informal elites still establish standards by which only women who possess certain material or personal characteristics may join.
The standards frequently include: Other criteria could be included, but they all have common themes. The latter are what any movement or organisation has to use if it is going to be politically effective.