funkyfantom

revolution soup

nope only one dude write like that all slow and weird that kind of spacing

you know who?

know the truth about it...no flix please crew

who were the first to rock this roof hard? and the brick one next to it?

For them birthers.... http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/30/obama-zings-trump-at-gala/?hp

perfect

Tracking movement without a phone company warrant... http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/20/3g-apple-ios-devices-secretly-storing-users-location/?hp

Ven AOK showin kids how done!

s and d

those ill retro styles! 1972 bam!

the dude in the back--- what's he holdin a video camera?

It was a straightforward question, but not one usually answered by the likes of Joseph C. Massino. At least not with such candor. The longtime boss of the Bonanno crime family was asked by a prosecutor, “What powers did you have?” Mr. Massino, seated at the witness stand, offered a quick, matter-of-fact reply. “Murders, responsibility for the family, made captains, break captains,” he said. And so it was that Mr. Massino, 68, the only official boss of a New York crime family ever to cooperate with federal authorities, appeared in Federal District Court in Brooklyn on Tuesday and became the first to testify against a former confederate. For nearly five hours, Mr. Massino cataloged his misdeeds, recounting murders and other acts of varying criminal scope. Mr. Massino would tell the jury that the man on trial, Vincent Basciano, the family’s former acting boss, had spoken to him about ordering the 2004 killing of Randolph Pizzolo, a Bonanno associate, a conversation Mr. Massino secretly recorded. Mr. Basciano is charged with ordering Mr. Pizzolo’s murder. But for much of the day, Mr. Massino established his credentials and gave the jury his view from the top, his philosophy of mob management and his personal history — all larded with a steady stream of culinary metaphors and references. “If you need somebody to kill somebody, you need workers — it takes all kinds of meat to make a good sauce,” said the onetime restaurateur, catering consultant and coffee truck owner, referring to what he said were Mr. Basciano’s skills both as a killer and as an earner for the crime family. He recounted turning to crime early as a 12-year-old, stealing some homing pigeons. By the time he was 14, he had run away from home; he said he hitchhiked to Florida, getting arrested twice for vagrancy on the way, and worked as a lifeguard in Miami. By the 1960s, he said, he had progressed to murder, and he testified that he eventually was involved in about a dozen killings, some that he ordered, some that he orchestrated and some that he helped carry out. Mr. Massino’s testimony also highlighted his underworld executive acumen in addition to his lifetime of crime, much of it in service of the Bonanno family, with which he said he had been affiliated for 33 or 34 years. His unassuming appearance, with heavy jowls, drooping eyelids and an expansive midsection, was belied by his authoritative-sounding responses to the prosecutor, Assistant United States Attorney Taryn A. Merkl, who took him through his personal and professional history. (He will not undergo cross-examination until Wednesday or Thursday.) Mr. Massino began cooperating with the authorities after he was convicted of seven murders in 2004, for which he faced life in prison, and was set to go to trial for an eighth, for which he could have faced the death penalty. In 2005, he pleaded guilty to the eighth killing, and Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis of the Federal District Court, who is presiding over Mr. Basciano’s trial, sentenced him to two consecutive life terms. By testifying for the government, he is seeking a sentence reduction, though he told the jury that none had been promised. In his words: “I’m hoping to see a light at the end of the tunnel.” Dressed in a black and gray jogging suit with a white T-shirt visible beneath, he alternately rested his folded hands on the edge of the witness stand or on his belly as he answered questions about his early crimes, his rise in the Bonanno family and his management of hundreds of members and associates after he became boss in 1991. The jurors at times appeared rapt, but at times seemed to fade as photograph after photograph of Bonnano crime family figures were introduced into evidence. He presented himself as a master of the deft bureaucratic maneuver, both in his dealings with internal family rifts and with other crime clans, and in his efforts to thwart law enforcement. He described going to the bosses of the Gambino and Colombo families — Paul Castellano and Carmine Persico, respectively — in 1981 before taking pre-emptive action against three senior Bonanno figures who were moving against his faction in a brewing power struggle. After securing approval to kill the men, Mr. Massino and several others shot them to death in an ambush in the basement of a social club. He also testified about codes that he and his confederates worked out — to discuss murder plots and in one instance to determine if a social club had been bugged — without alerting law enforcement. He described changes he put into effect after becoming boss that were meant to reduce the risk that members of his family could incriminate themselves or one another. For example, Mr. Massino closed all the family’s social clubs, saying that if crime family members hung out in these storefront establishments, they made the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s job easy, because one agent conducting surveillance outside could see everyone come and go. “If you close the club,” he explained, “it takes 50 F.B.I. agents to watch 50 people.” He was, he said, extremely careful about where and when he talked about mob business. “You never talk in a club, you never talk in a car, you never talk on a cellphone, you never talk on a phone, you never talk in your house,” he testified, saying that so called walk-talks, where two or more crime figures would carry on a roving conversation as they strolled the streets, were safest. Indeed, Mr. Massino said he discussed mob business in a walk-in refrigerator at a catering business where he worked to avoid electronic eavesdropping. His efforts to thwart investigators, he said, were aided by at least four unnamed law officers: two New York Police Department detectives in the 1960s; an F.B.I. agent who warned him of a pending arrest in the 1980s; and a Pennsylvania state trooper who destroyed copies of his fingerprints sometime later. While most of his testimony on the first day of the trial focused on Mr. Massino’s background and the family’s history and leadership, Ms. Merkl did ask a number of questions about the man on trial, Mr. Basciano. Mr. Basciano has already been convicted in a separate case of murder and racketeering, also before Judge Garaufis, and was sentenced to life in prison in 2008. In this case, he is charged with ordering the murder of Mr. Pizzolo, who prosecutors said had insulted Mr. Basciano when he was the acting boss; he faces the death penalty if convicted. Mr. Basciano’s lead lawyer, George R. Goltzer, said in his opening statement that his client had not ordered the killing, but falsely admitted doing so to Mr. Massino to protect a friend who did order the killing, and his own business interests.

In the scheme of things, saving the 38 billion bucks that Congress seems poised to agree upon is not a big deal. A big deal is saving a trillion bucks. And we could do that by preventing disease instead of treating it. For the first time in history, lifestyle diseases like diabetes, heart disease, some cancers and others kill more people than communicable ones. Treating these diseases — and futile attempts to “cure” them — costs a fortune, more than one-seventh of our GDP. But they’re preventable, and you prevent them the same way you cause them: lifestyle. A sane diet, along with exercise, meditation and intangibles like love prevent and even reverse disease. A sane diet alone would save us hundreds of billions of dollars and maybe more. This isn’t just me talking. In a recent issue of the magazine Circulation, the American Heart Association editorial board stated flatly that costs in the U.S. from cardiovascular disease — the leading cause of death here and in much of the rest of the world — will triple by 2030, to more than $800 billion annually. Throw in about $276 billion of what they call “real indirect costs,” like productivity, and you have over a trillion. Enough over, in fact, to make $38 billion in budget cuts seem like a rounding error. Similarly, Type 2 diabetes is projected to cost us $500 billion a year come 2020, when half of all Americans will have diabetes or pre-diabetes. Need I remind you that Type 2 diabetes is virtually entirely preventable? Ten billion dollars invested now might save a couple of hundred billion annually 10 years from now. And: hypertension, many cancers, diverticulitis and more are treated by a health care (better termed “disease care”) system that costs us about $2.3 trillion annually now — before costs double and triple. It’s worth noting that the Federal budget will absorb its usual 60 percent of that cost. We can save some of that money, though, if an alliance of insurers, government, individuals — maybe even Big Food, if it’s pushed hard enough — moves us towards better eating. The many numbers all point in the same direction. Look at heart disease: The INTERHEART study of 30,000 men and women in 52 countries showed that at least 90 percent of heart disease is lifestyle related; a European study of more than 23,000 Germans showed that people with healthier lifestyles had an 81 percent lower risk. And those estimates might be on the low side. Dean Ornish, the San Francisco-based doctor who probably knows more about diet and heart disease than anyone, says, “My colleagues and I have found that more intensive diets than those studies used can reverse the progression of even severe coronary heart disease.” In his latest book, “The Spectrum,” Ornish recommends that people at risk eat stricter diets (more plants, higher fiber, lower saturated fats and so on) than those who are generally healthy, but it’s not all or nothing — the more you change your diet and lifestyle, the healthier you are. “What matters most,” he says, “is your overall way of eating and living. If you indulge yourself one day, eat healthier the next.” I’ve been preaching similarly for years. But the trillion-dollar question is, “How do we get people to eat that way?” I don’t have an easy answer; no one does. But it for sure will take an investment: it’s a situation in which you must spend money to make or save money. (Yes, taxes will go up, but whose taxes?) Some number of billions of dollars — something in the rounding error area — should be spent on research to figure out exactly how to turn this ship around. (The NIH, which pegs obesity-related costs at about $150 billion, just announced a new billion-dollar investment. Good, but not enough.) Corny as it is to say so, if we can put a man on the moon we can create an environment in which an apple is a better and more accessible choice than a Pop-Tart. Some other billions of dollars must go to public health. Again: we built sewage systems; we built water supplies; we showed that we could get people to eat anything we marketed. Now all we have to do is build a food distribution system that favors real food, and market that. Experts without vested interests in the status quo come to much the same conclusion: Only a massive public health effort can save both our health and our budget. Can we afford it? Sure. Dr. David Ludwig, a Harvard-affiliated pediatrician and the author of “Ending the Food Fight,” says, “The magnitude of the deficit is small when you consider costs of nutrition-related disease; the $4 trillion that the Republicans want cut over a decade is about the same as the projected costs of diabetes over that same period.” In last week’s issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association, Ludwig made a number of concrete suggestions, like restructuring subsidies, regulating the marketing of food to children and adequately funding school lunch programs. His most novel ideas use existing and future technologies to help the food industry retain profits while producing less junky products: devising a method of preserving polyunsaturated fats, for example (dangerous trans-fats are widely used simply because they are stable) or making bread with real whole grains instead of refined ones. (His research demonstrates that people who eat ultra-processed grains rather than whole grains for breakfast go on to consume 600 to 700 calories more than other people each day.) “I’m not arguing that the food industry should be philanthropic,” he says. “Its purpose is to make money. But the goal of the government should be to encourage industry to make money by producing more rather than less healthful foods.” The best way to combat diet-related diseases is to change what we eat. And if our thinking is along the lines of diet improved = deficit reduced, so much the better. If a better diet were to result only in a 10 percent decrease in heart disease (way lower than Ludwig believes possible), that’s $100 billion project savings per year by 2030. This isn’t just fiscal responsibility, but social responsibility as well. And the alternative is not only fiscal catastrophe but millions of premature deaths. Visit my blog, where you can find out more about my columns, or what I just cooked. You can also join me on Facebook or Twitter

n the scheme of things, saving the 38 billion bucks that Congress seems poised to agree upon is not a big deal. A big deal is saving a trillion bucks. And we could do that by preventing disease instead of treating it. For the first time in history, lifestyle diseases like diabetes, heart disease, some cancers and others kill more people than communicable ones. Treating these diseases — and futile attempts to “cure” them — costs a fortune, more than one-seventh of our GDP. But they’re preventable, and you prevent them the same way you cause them: lifestyle. A sane diet, along with exercise, meditation and intangibles like love prevent and even reverse disease. A sane diet alone would save us hundreds of billions of dollars and maybe more. This isn’t just me talking. In a recent issue of the magazine Circulation, the American Heart Association editorial board stated flatly that costs in the U.S. from cardiovascular disease — the leading cause of death here and in much of the rest of the world — will triple by 2030, to more than $800 billion annually. Throw in about $276 billion of what they call “real indirect costs,” like productivity, and you have over a trillion. Enough over, in fact, to make $38 billion in budget cuts seem like a rounding error. Similarly, Type 2 diabetes is projected to cost us $500 billion a year come 2020, when half of all Americans will have diabetes or pre-diabetes. Need I remind you that Type 2 diabetes is virtually entirely preventable? Ten billion dollars invested now might save a couple of hundred billion annually 10 years from now. And: hypertension, many cancers, diverticulitis and more are treated by a health care (better termed “disease care”) system that costs us about $2.3 trillion annually now — before costs double and triple. It’s worth noting that the Federal budget will absorb its usual 60 percent of that cost. We can save some of that money, though, if an alliance of insurers, government, individuals — maybe even Big Food, if it’s pushed hard enough — moves us towards better eating. The many numbers all point in the same direction. Look at heart disease: The INTERHEART study of 30,000 men and women in 52 countries showed that at least 90 percent of heart disease is lifestyle related; a European study of more than 23,000 Germans showed that people with healthier lifestyles had an 81 percent lower risk. And those estimates might be on the low side. Dean Ornish, the San Francisco-based doctor who probably knows more about diet and heart disease than anyone, says, “My colleagues and I have found that more intensive diets than those studies used can reverse the progression of even severe coronary heart disease.” In his latest book, “The Spectrum,” Ornish recommends that people at risk eat stricter diets (more plants, higher fiber, lower saturated fats and so on) than those who are generally healthy, but it’s not all or nothing — the more you change your diet and lifestyle, the healthier you are. “What matters most,” he says, “is your overall way of eating and living. If you indulge yourself one day, eat healthier the next.” I’ve been preaching similarly for years. But the trillion-dollar question is, “How do we get people to eat that way?” I don’t have an easy answer; no one does. But it for sure will take an investment: it’s a situation in which you must spend money to make or save money. (Yes, taxes will go up, but whose taxes?) Some number of billions of dollars — something in the rounding error area — should be spent on research to figure out exactly how to turn this ship around. (The NIH, which pegs obesity-related costs at about $150 billion, just announced a new billion-dollar investment. Good, but not enough.) Corny as it is to say so, if we can put a man on the moon we can create an environment in which an apple is a better and more accessible choice than a Pop-Tart. Some other billions of dollars must go to public health. Again: we built sewage systems; we built water supplies; we showed that we could get people to eat anything we marketed. Now all we have to do is build a food distribution system that favors real food, and market that. Experts without vested interests in the status quo come to much the same conclusion: Only a massive public health effort can save both our health and our budget. Can we afford it? Sure. Dr. David Ludwig, a Harvard-affiliated pediatrician and the author of “Ending the Food Fight,” says, “The magnitude of the deficit is small when you consider costs of nutrition-related disease; the $4 trillion that the Republicans want cut over a decade is about the same as the projected costs of diabetes over that same period.” In last week’s issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association, Ludwig made a number of concrete suggestions, like restructuring subsidies, regulating the marketing of food to children and adequately funding school lunch programs. His most novel ideas use existing and future technologies to help the food industry retain profits while producing less junky products: devising a method of preserving polyunsaturated fats, for example (dangerous trans-fats are widely used simply because they are stable) or making bread with real whole grains instead of refined ones. (His research demonstrates that people who eat ultra-processed grains rather than whole grains for breakfast go on to consume 600 to 700 calories more than other people each day.) “I’m not arguing that the food industry should be philanthropic,” he says. “Its purpose is to make money. But the goal of the government should be to encourage industry to make money by producing more rather than less healthful foods.” The best way to combat diet-related diseases is to change what we eat. And if our thinking is along the lines of diet improved = deficit reduced, so much the better. If a better diet were to result only in a 10 percent decrease in heart disease (way lower than Ludwig believes possible), that’s $100 billion project savings per year by 2030. This isn’t just fiscal responsibility, but social responsibility as well. And the alternative is not only fiscal catastrophe but millions of premature deaths. Visit my blog, where you can find out more about my columns, or what I just cooked. You can also join me on Facebook or Twitter

when a dude dies people start callin his real name so you figure it out

british tabloid bullshit fraud the worst of all I feel bad for revs that all the people who tried to continue what he started make total garbage street art sucks

you talking about cromag, gstack or who? ...cause what you said isn't making any sense

ae cgk

Why you taking flicks of my surplus scrap cans again?

can anyone think of any pieces that fit in with this style? pretty unique....especially in 1993

Who cares who they mention? The whole project sounds stupid... Like trying to write a book about every person who ate pizza in America.

history is, by nature, a lie. just sayin..... I don't think any one photo or page of text could begin to touch on what Cromag was like as a person or his place in the context of Graffiti then or now. That said, it is retarded not to have a flick of something by core on a page about the crew he started... Like Death and TC5 or Lost and RIS

yo where did you get this flick----almost unheard of?