TAISHA ABELAR NEW BOOK COMING OUT : UPDATE

Guess what?  If you go to April 1 2023 and see the post TAISHA ABELAR'S LOST BOOK -   STALKING WITH THE DOUBLE (RESTORED VERSION)  you will be able to read a manuscript copy of the book.

*******************

Linking to a French blog site that has videos of Interview of Taisha Abelar: still checking : Her book due out ANY MOMENT. (That's what they said in the spring too!)

According to http://www.nagualist.com/new-taisha-abelar-book it is due out July 30th 2011, published by Penguin.

You can use the search feature of this blog to read past posts on Taisha Abelar.

UPDATE JANUARY 5, 2011 I'M STILL WAITING....

AMY WINEHOUSE DEAD FROM LIFE and WHY USING ILLEGAL DRUGS is STUPID STUPID STUPID

The surprising but not shocking death of AMY WINEHOUSE, the Jewish-British singer, whose music I've posted on this blog because I like it, who took a hell of a lot of International Razzing over her drug and alcohol addictions, and who appeared to be too fragile to deal with fame and the pressure of having to outdo herself on her next try, has me thinking about drug use and abuse : addiction.

Reading one story about Amy's life, I was reminded that she wasn't always sick.

I was thinking about a Psychology 101 class I took years ago in which the professor, explained to us why we should never bother to take that first opportunity to use cocaine. She said a small percentage of us have cocaine receptors in our brain and will become addicted that first try. The chance of ruining your life was a chance not worth taking.

It's a chance I never took not only because the professor said so, but being out of control of one's life never sounded like fun to me. Also I wanted to feel what I was feeling. I consider emotions to be important, a form of intelligence.

Since when did "recreational" use mean - not a little buzz - but out of control? For some people the first drink is the slippery slide down to the street, or in this case, Amy's, coffin.

I also thought about how I was often shunned by "druggies" and "boozers" in my own life, shunned for not being cool enough, or whatever.

To this day my reputation proceeds me. No one has ever offered to sell me any illegal drug.

Cool seems to have been the most important thing for a lot of talented people, most of them probably posers, since the most naturally cool people are actually sociopaths, they with their unblinking reaction to things that make most of us quite emotional.

When someone says "You cool with that?" What are they really asking us to not mind?

Should I suppose that "CREATIVE" people are more prone to use illegal drugs? (And by illegal I also mean the misuse of prescriptions since you are not using it as prescribed.) Are creative people all actually psycho, in need of psych meds, and self treating?

Back to Psychology 101, I believe that basic needs pyramid - food, shelter, clothing - and creature comforts, along with a lot of equipment such as a lap top computer, are essential for allowing us to create. The struggle with drugs, with survival, does not support creativity.

The list of the talented musically, dead at 27, goes like this: Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, Jim Morrison, Amy Winehouse. Is this the perfect age to move out of this life and leave behind a collection of music that is classic enough to create estates; wealth not enjoyed while living? Maybe its all about a hard "Saturn Return" astrologically, in other words fate, or simply the fast burn of a not so eternal flame.

C 2011 Christine Trzyna All Rights Reserved including Internet Rights and International Rights : Contact author to reuse.

HAVANA NOCTURENE by T.J. ENGLISH : BOOK EXCERPT

Page 110

"The casinos were in fine fettle and the Havana Mob was beginning to assert itself in the early months of 1953, but all was not right in the land of Christopher Columbus. Batista's golpe had created a mood of unrest that would not go away. A tradition of rebellion had been reawakened, though it was difficult to gauge the actual level of resistance. Censorship was rigorously enforced on the island. The regime enacted the Law Of Public Order, which had a subset of Legislative Decree 977, a law that made it a criminal act to release any statement or information against the dictatorship. Through SIM, the government maintained a network of spies and paid informants who passed along information regarding "subversive activities." Newspapers were a common target, their offices trashed and editors threatened or imprisoned if they published anything even remotely contrary to the wishes of the government. In fact, anyone who disseminated anything perceived to be anti-Batista - pamphleteers, political activists, or rabble-rousers of any kind - was met with harassment, imprisonment, or death.

C 2007, 2008 T.J. English

Published by William Morrow an imprint of HarperCollinsPublishers

MURDOCK AND BROOKSIE HAVE GONE TOO FAR HACKING INTO PRIVATE VOICE MAIL ACCOUNTS : A BRITISH JOURNALISM SCANDLE : CHRISTINE TRZYNA OPINION

Scandal of the New Century ? YES! CERTAINLY! (If you haven't heard about this one yet, click on the title above to get to the Christian Science Monitor article, one of thousands of news reports about reporters !)

Do Reporters have the Right to Break a Story just because they can?

It seems that in an effort to have the news (and sell copy), there has been a severe and unforgiveable amount of privacy invasion. In this case someone who was found murdered, it is implied, may have just had a chance because, to cover their actions, journalists may have erased communications between the victim and those phoning her.

(( I think : As we know voice mail is time and date stamped. These attempts at communication are now tampered with. When, during the 6 months from missing to found dead, did these journalists pick up her voice mails and erase? Was she alive but her cell phone turned off? Had she been using it?))

THE ACTIONS OF THE JOURNALISTS, THIS EDITOR, THIS PUBLICATION and ITS OWNER are challenging existing notions and laws about privacy for the vast majority of us who are not celebrities, but in this case, even if this mudered one were a celebrity, it would still be unforgiveable: this is not the same as reporting a "baby bump" when your informant is a sales clerk on Rodeo who waits on the rich and famous.

TO THE POINT : There is need for a new and clear understanding of JOURNALISTIC BOUNDARIES these days and that means REVIEWING THE JOB DESCRIPTIONS.

Journalists should never misrepresent themselves or their intent in writing an article and SHOULD NOT BE, for instance, SNEAKS, LIARS, or LAW BREAKERS in order to get a story!

Sometimes it seems that, in search of a story and accuracy, Investigative Journalists (which includes gossip columnists) seem to be doing the job of Police Investigators, Private Eyes, Spys. The competition to get the story first is fierce, but journalists should be judged too on their professionalism and that means holding to standards! Do you have informants who remain unnamed? Of course!

INTERFERING in the work of Police Investigators, Private Eyes, and Spys, of law enforcement and the criminal justice system however, is WAY TOO FAR OVER BOUNDARIES.

I do hold the editor more responsible than those working under her. I hold editors responsible for their decision to hand out assignments and to choose to print articles as they were written and to challenge reporters to greatness.

C 2011 Christine Trzyna All Rights Reserved including Internation and Internet Rights

KATHARINE HEPBURN Quote

"If you always do what interests you at least one person is pleased."
- Katharine Hepburn