The 2011 NANO Prize, awarding publication and $500 to a work of flash fiction, micro essay, or prose of 300 words or fewer, is now open. All entrants receive a one year subscription to NANO Fiction. Winners will be announced in October. Please visit our submission manager to enter.
RULES & GUIDELINES
- • All entries must be unpublished and 300 words or fewer.
- • Mailed entries must be post marked by August 31, 2011.
- • While there will be only one winner of the contest, all submitted pieces will be considered for publication.
- • The entry fee is $15 for up to three shorts. Please paste all three works into the submission manager as one submission.
- • You may enter as many times as you like. Each separate entry requires its own entry fee of $15.
- • The entrant’s name should not appear anywhere in the body of the submission.
- • Entry fees are nonrefundable. Please withdraw your submission immediately if taken elsewhere.
- • Friends and family of the editors are not eligible to submit.
Deadline: August 31, 2011
Please visit our submission manager to enter or mail entries with a check or money order toNANO Fiction, PO Box 667445, Houston, TX 77266-7445.
The $5,000 Lions International Essay Contest
(for visually impaired youth)
Lions clubs around the world are encouraged to sponsor students in the Lions International Essay Contest. This contest was created to offer an opportunity to visually impaired young people to express their feelings of peace. The theme of the 2011-12 Lions International Essay Contest is “Children Know Peace.” Students who are visually impaired and who are ages 11, 12 or 13 on November 15, are eligible to participate.
![]()
Summer 2011 Elephant Prize for Short Fiction
We are currently accepting short storie submissions for the Summer 2011 Elephant Prize. Submissions must be under 7500 words. Multiple submissions are accepted: you may submit as many stories as you like.
There is an $8 reader's fee per entry. We understand the reluctance many writers have toward reader’s fees. The contest entry fee allows us to pay out prizes and keep our site running. We try to keep our fees at a minimum. If you do not wish to pay the fee, you may still submit your story to us via Standard Submission, which implies no fee.
All contest entries are also considered as standard submissions and are eligible for the standard payment of $50 per story if accepted.
Contest prizes are as follows:
First Place prize is $350 and publication in In The Snake.
Second Place earns $175 and possible publication.
Third Place earns $125 and possible publication.
In addition, 10 finalists will receive honorable mention.Contest begins on Friday July 1, 2011, and ends Wednesday August 31.
Winners will be announced on October 31, 2011
Update on Dark Romance Indie
“Small of Her Back”
Starring Nicole Beharie
![]()
The last time the Nicole Beharie starrer Small of Her Back was profiled on the site, Tambay had written about the film being in post production back in November at the old site; when writer/director Russell Sharman was trying to raise funds through Kickstarter.
Well, Nicole Beharie fans, the film was indeed funded, exceeding the requested amount of $10,000 by $808. The sound mix and final touches were finished in May. In his latest kick starter update posted on June 30th, director Sharman says, “Hello all of you wonderful SMALL OF HER BACK supporters! It’s been a while, but don’t worry, we’ve been busy. As a matter of fact, just yesterday I picked up the final, color-corrected, sound-mixed version of the film! We had a lot of help getting it here… a couple of outstanding editors in California, Miguel and Alana Aguilar, an amazing sound designer in New York, Garry Rindfuss, and all of the technical know-how of our colorist Bill Harrison and the wonderful people at Evolve Post in Santa Monica.
Everyone worked for far less than they were worth, all because they believe in this project. But of course, we couldn’t have even paid the fraction of their rates if it weren’t for your generosity so many months ago. We absolutely would not be here if it weren’t for each and every one of you. THANK YOU!
Now, over the summer, I’ll be updating the website and sending out the film to festivals. We are all hoping to share the finished product with you and the world in early 2012. And of course, I will keep you posted every step of the way.”
In Small of Her Back, Beharie plays Piper, a young bi-polar woman who never leaves her apartment. She starts an online relationship with a woman named Molly. A man who claims to be John, Molly’s brother (played by Christopher Domig), shows up at Piper’s door late one night to try to talk her out of doing something she’s been threatening. Piper is skeptic but lets him in; this is sort of a dark psychological drama tinged with sexual tension. I read the script a few months ago, and there’s a lot of word play with intriguing climactic revelations and very interesting character study.
The film is the film adaptation to Russell Sharman’s 2008 stage play by the same name.
In a reply to an e-mail I sent the film’s director back in June of this year about film festival submissions, Sharman says, “We’ve only submitted to one (festival) so far, and won’t hear back until late fall. The rest have deadlines throughout the fall for the 2012 season. So we’ll be plugging away at those submissions for the next few months. As soon as we hear some good news, I’ll be sure to let you know.”
I believe the festival he’s referring to is Sundace; in a previous e-mail exchange, Sharman said he was submitting the film to the festival in the summer. “Our hope is for a premier at Sundance in January (2012). I will definitely keep you and everyone who has supported the film up to date once we start hearing back from festivals. In the meantime, everyone who has seen the rough cuts of the film have been VERY impressed. So…so far so good!—Russell”
We should hear back soon enough, since it’s already the middle of August and time flies! We may see Nicole in four films this winter through the spring: Steve Mcqueen‘s Shame , My Last Day Without You, Small of Her Back and T.D. Jakes’On the Seventh Day. Let’s not forget Matthew Cherry‘s feature film directorial debut The Last Fall.
Here’s the first trailer.
Small of Her Back from Russell Sharman on Vimeo.
The Sojourner Project
Awareness & Solutions Regarding Human Trafficking
The Feminization of Migration
and the Fight Against HIV
June 2nd, 2011
![]()
[crossposted at Future Challenges Organization's blog]
Is there a direct relationship between the feminization of migration and HIV prevalence on the African continent? The answer is more complicated than it appears. While the HIV/AIDS epidemic and the aftershocks of regional conflict have had disproportionate impacts on African women, the assumption that HIV/AIDS and conflict/displacement are somehow related is spurious. Yes, migration in its myriad forms- primarily labor migration and forced migration- does add risk factors that contribute to the HIV/AIDS epidemic, but we cannot say that it is a direct relationship. Women who migrate for work face vulnerabilities (risk factors including separation from partners, family, loss of support base) that increase their chances of being infected with HIV.
Areas where there are disruptions in the social order tend to have higher HIV rates. This includes war zones, impoverished and disenfranchised outer-city slums. There are various forms of migration: examples include forced migration due to regional conflict or land grabs or labor migration in response to high regional unemployment. It is important to note that in the last fifteen years, we have seen the feminization of migration on a global scale
. A majority of refugees and internally displaced people are women and their children, and an increasing percentage of migrant laborers are women. A growing number of rural-to-urban migrantsare women in both Asia and Africa. Globally, women represent about 50 percent of the migrants.
Areas with low levels of education, high unemployment tend to have high rates of circular labor migration. In South Africa, gendered migration patterns were largely due to the several factors. First, a decline in patriarchal control, plus the end of Apartheid afforded women greater mobility. Prior to the fall of the Apartheid government, Influx Control Acts specifically granted economically-productive (Black) African men the right to migrate for work, while limiting their female counterparts‘ mobility.
In 1995, 38% of South African women ages 15-65 were actively looking for work. In 1999, that figure was 95%. This trend South African women entering the migrant labor force occured in the context of decreasing marital rates and income insecurity. Taking all of these factors into account, there is a trend of women increasingly constituting temporary, migrant labor populations. Migration is essential to economic well-being- especially for women.
In West Africa, migration patterns have been a mainstay of the regional economic bloc, dating back to the trans-Saharan trade of the 8th century. This includes North-South migration within Ghana, Togo, Benin, and Nigeria and the longer distance migration between the northern Sahelian countries (Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger and Chad) and the coastal countries to the south. Historically, migrant populations have been mostly male, but recently, women have comprised significant number.
High HIV Prevalence Among Migrant Women:
There is a circular relationship between HIV and population mobility. Migrants face separation from their partners and families, also separation from the social mores that might govern their behavior- particularly when they face loneliness and isolation in communities that are not theirs. Additionally, migrants‘ vulnerability to exploitation is exacerbated by a loss of localized social support systems, linguistic differences and power imbalances between job seeker and employer. For migrant women, especially refugees and internally displaced persons, sexual violence is a risk factor. For all migrants, lack of access to healthcare is a major factor in heightened prevalences of HIV among migrant populations.
Labor Migration
In South Africa and Northern Tanzania, migrant women have higher prevalences of HIV than their non-migrant counterparts. This is due, in part, to the fact that the sex trade serves as a complementary work sector to local mining industries. In the mining sector, workers often live away from their spouses, living in company-owned housing. For this reason, among others, there is a demand for a localized sex industry. Within the sex trade, young girls often recruit their peers, citing opportunity and income. However, for the less-fortunate, sex trafficking is their entry into sex work. I discuss the overlap between human trafficking and HIV/AIDS in Africa in this article.
Forced Migration
A 2007 United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) report questions the commonly-held belief that there is direct relationship between conflict, forced migration and wartime rape and increased HIV prevalence among internally-displaced persons and refugees. The data, culled from seven countries/regions affected by conflict [Democratic Republic of the Congo, Southern Sudan, Rwanda, Uganda, Somalia, Burundi, and Sierra Leone] revealed that there was no increase in prevalence of HIV infection during periods of conflict. However, it is important to note that the sample population was primarily refugee and IDP women and children who sought and received antenatal care.
There is no substantive evidence that refugees exacerbate the HIV epidemic in their host communities. With the exception of the Eastern part of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, HIV prevalence is higher in urban areas than in rural areas. Most refugees on the African continent are fleeing rural areas- which typically have lower HIV prevalence- affected by conflict. This may explain why refugees generally have a lower HIV prevalence than that of their host communities. In Burundi, Rwanda and Uganda, HIV prevalence in urban areas affected by conflict had similar rates to urban areas unaffected by conflict. In the rural areas of these countries, the prevalence of HIV infections remained relatively low and stable. Furthermore, there is no evidence that refugees exacerbate the HIV epidemic in their host communities.
One of the challenges here is to broaden the sample population beyond the minority of refugees who had access to medical care. While the regions of origin for most refugees and IDPs are rural areas are typically characterized by low HIV prevalence, we cannot assume the same for future conflicts. Unchallenged assumptions about trends in migration, pandemics and regional conflict will only endanger the most vulnerable among us.
Stop Coddling the Super-Rich
By WARREN E. BUFFETT
Published: August 14, 2011
Kelly Blair
![]()
OUR leaders have asked for “shared sacrifice.” But when they did the asking, they spared me. I checked with my mega-rich friends to learn what pain they were expecting. They, too, were left untouched.
While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks. Some of us are investment managers who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to classify our income as “carried interest,” thereby getting a bargain 15 percent tax rate. Others own stock index futures for 10 minutes and have 60 percent of their gain taxed at 15 percent, as if they’d been long-term investors.
These and other blessings are showered upon us by legislators in Washington who feel compelled to protect us, much as if we were spotted owls or some other endangered species. It’s nice to have friends in high places.
Last year my federal tax bill — the income tax I paid, as well as payroll taxes paid by me and on my behalf — was $6,938,744. That sounds like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income — and that’s actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent.
If you make money with money, as some of my super-rich friends do, your percentage may be a bit lower than mine. But if you earn money from a job, your percentage will surely exceed mine — most likely by a lot.
To understand why, you need to examine the sources of government revenue. Last year about 80 percent of these revenues came from personal income taxes and payroll taxes. The mega-rich pay income taxes at a rate of 15 percent on most of their earnings but pay practically nothing in payroll taxes. It’s a different story for the middle class: typically, they fall into the 15 percent and 25 percent income tax brackets, and then are hit with heavy payroll taxes to boot.
Back in the 1980s and 1990s, tax rates for the rich were far higher, and my percentage rate was in the middle of the pack. According to a theory I sometimes hear, I should have thrown a fit and refused to invest because of the elevated tax rates on capital gains and dividends.
I didn’t refuse, nor did others. I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone — not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 — shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain. People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off. And to those who argue that higher rates hurt job creation, I would note that a net of nearly 40 million jobs were added between 1980 and 2000. You know what’s happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation.
Since 1992, the I.R.S. has compiled data from the returns of the 400 Americans reporting the largest income. In 1992, the top 400 had aggregate taxable income of $16.9 billion and paid federal taxes of 29.2 percent on that sum. In 2008, the aggregate income of the highest 400 had soared to $90.9 billion — a staggering $227.4 million on average — but the rate paid had fallen to 21.5 percent.
The taxes I refer to here include only federal income tax, but you can be sure that any payroll tax for the 400 was inconsequential compared to income. In fact, 88 of the 400 in 2008 reported no wages at all, though every one of them reported capital gains. Some of my brethren may shun work but they all like to invest. (I can relate to that.)
I know well many of the mega-rich and, by and large, they are very decent people. They love America and appreciate the opportunity this country has given them. Many have joined the Giving Pledge, promising to give most of their wealth to philanthropy. Most wouldn’t mind being told to pay more in taxes as well, particularly when so many of their fellow citizens are truly suffering.
Twelve members of Congress will soon take on the crucial job of rearranging our country’s finances. They’ve been instructed to devise a plan that reduces the 10-year deficit by at least $1.5 trillion. It’s vital, however, that they achieve far more than that. Americans are rapidly losing faith in the ability of Congress to deal with our country’s fiscal problems. Only action that is immediate, real and very substantial will prevent that doubt from morphing into hopelessness. That feeling can create its own reality.
Job one for the 12 is to pare down some future promises that even a rich America can’t fulfill. Big money must be saved here. The 12 should then turn to the issue of revenues. I would leave rates for 99.7 percent of taxpayers unchanged and continue the current 2-percentage-point reduction in the employee contribution to the payroll tax. This cut helps the poor and the middle class, who need every break they can get.
But for those making more than $1 million — there were 236,883 such households in 2009 — I would raise rates immediately on taxable income in excess of $1 million, including, of course, dividends and capital gains. And for those who make $10 million or more — there were 8,274 in 2009 — I would suggest an additional increase in rate.
My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress. It’s time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice.
Patrick Cockburn:
Libya's ragtag rebels
are dubious allies
![]()
Thursday, 11 August 2011
Rebels, from the Wars of the Roses up to the present civil war in Libya, usually try to postpone splitting into factions and murdering each other until after they have seized power and are in full control. However deep their divisions, they keep them secret from the outside world.
Not so the Libyan rebels. Members of their Transitional National Council (TNC) in Benghazi last month detained their military leader, General Abdel Fatah Younes, on suspicion of treachery, lured him away from his bodyguards and murdered him. This week the head of the TNC, Mustafa Abdel Jalil, sacked his whole government on the grounds that some were complicit in the killing. He was apparently forced to do so in order to quell the rage of the powerful Obeidi tribe to which Younes belonged.
A ludicrous aspect of the whole affair is that at the very moment the rebel leaders are at each other's throats, they are being recognised by country after country as the legitimate government of Libya. This week TNC diplomats took over the Libyan embassies in London and Washington and are about to do so in Ottawa. In a masterpiece of mistiming, Britain recognised the rebel government on the day when some of its members were shooting their own commander-in-chief and burning his body.
If this is how the rebels behave today, when it is much in their interests to make a show of unity, how will they act once they are installed in power in Tripoli? But Nato's sole policy is to do just that. A UN Security Council resolution, intended to stop Gaddafi's tanks taking Benghazi for humanitarian reasons in March, transmuted rapidly into a bid to overthrow him. Britain and France, with essential backing from the US, still maintain that the good of the Libyan people requires the replacement of Gaddafi with those sturdy democrats from Benghazi and eastern Libya represented by the TNC.
Could a strategy of brute force work in a purely military sense? Could the rebel columns of pick-up trucks with machine-guns in the back advance to capture Tripoli behind a creeping barrage supplied by Nato firepower? The Libyan capital is increasingly short of fuel, consumer goods and electricity. The rebels have been making gains on the ground to the east and south-west of the capital. But even with the support of Nato air strikes the advance has been slow. If the rebels make such a meal of taking a town like Brega, with a population of 4,000, on the Gulf of Sirte, can they really fight their way into Tripoli with a population of 1.7 million?
Gaddafi may fall, but it looks increasingly that, if he does, it will be at the hands of a rag-tag collection of militias ever more dependent for success on being backed by tactical support from Nato aircraft. Given that the rebels lack a coherent leadership or a united military force, the outcome is unlikely to be a clear-cut victory. Even if victorious, the rebels will depend on foreign support at every level to exert authority over this vast country.
As with Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003, the US and Britain found it was one thing to overthrow the Taliban or Saddam Hussein and quite another to replace them. Treating dubious local allies as the legitimate government has a propaganda value, but it is unwise to pretend that the local partner carries real authority. With this experience under its belt, it required real fecklessness for Britain to plunge into another conflict on the assumption that this time we were betting on a certain winner. Gaddafi may be overthrown but the struggle for power between internal factions is likely to continue.
Colourful, but woefully misleading
The foreign media had its failings in Iraq, was worse in Afghanistan but has reached its nadir in covering the war in Libya. Reporting has become largely militarised. Much of it is colourful stuff from the frontline about the dashes backwards and forwards of rebel militiamen. It takes courage to report this and reporters naturally empathise with the young men with whom they are sharing a trench. Their coverage tends to be wholly in favour of the rebels and in opposition to Gaddafi.
When Abdel Fatah Younes was murdered almost nobody in the foreign media had an explanation as to how or why it had happened. The rebel leadership, previously portrayed as a heroic band of brothers, turned out to be split by murderous rivalries and vendettas. Some reporters simply regurgitated the rebel authorities' unlikely claim that the general had been killed by pro-Gaddafi fighters with camps in Benghazi, while others mentioned that there were 30 different Islamic militias in the city.
To this day politicians justify Nato's intervention in Libya by citing atrocities supposedly carried out by pro-Gaddafi forces such as mass rape or extensive use of mercenaries. Human rights organisations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch long ago revealed that there was no evidence for most of the atrocity stories, as did a UN commission headed by the distinguished legal scholar Cherif Bassiouni. These well-researched reports were almost entirely ignored by the media which first published the Gaddafi atrocity stories,
The militarisation of reporting in Iraq and Afghanistan was boosted by the system of "embedding" reporters with military units. This was inevitable to a degree given the danger from Iraqi insurgents or Taliban. But the outcome has been that war reporting has reverted to what it was during imperial skirmishes in the 19th century, with the world getting only a partial and often misleading account of what is happening in Libya.
Africa’s Discovery of Europe
by David Northrup
I just read a very interesting book on Africa’s discovery of Europe written by a professor of History at Boston College. The book gives an overview of the encounters between Europeans and Africans, from 1450 till 1850. It starts with the first contacts between Portuguese sailors and African coastal states in West-Africa and is as much as possible based on sources from Africans.
![]()
The author doesn’t look at Africa as a victim but rather as an active contributor and partner in the African-European relations. He studies how religion and culture interacted, how sexual relationships came to be, what the effects of new products and technologies were, how politics, economics, culture and religion interacted, etc. (I discovered e.g. that cassava and corn are not indigenous to Africa).
The reader discovers how Africans were an integral part of the globalizing of economical and cultural transactions. Through the life stories of black missionaries, kings, princes, emissaries, traders and slaves we get an insight into the life and times of the first encounters between Europe and Africa. A whole chapter tells us about the stories of Africans who lived in Europe during the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries and how they lived their lives then. I was surprised to discover how racial mixing in the British Isles didn’t raise many eyebrows in those days, even less in Africa.
We discover that the first encounters were encounters of equal parties, each trying to gain as much as possible from the transaction. Racial stereotypes and racial discrimination were only to take their full and aggressive form in Europe and Africa in the second half of the 18th century, most of all due to the influence of the colonists from the Americas and the justification of colonization and slavery.In the first centuries of the slave trade it was rather a coincidence that most slaves were black as Africa had a culture of slavery which post medieval Europe didn’t have. Europe bought the slaves Africa had to offer, for a major part to be able to colonize America. Still, in the first centuries of the slave trade, blacks could buy themselves free and becoming colonizers and slave traders. During those first centuries European presence in Africa was also focused on trade (among it slave trade of course) not on the colonization of the land and peoples of Africa.
To all who want to deepen their understanding and knowledge of history between Africa and Europe I recommend to read this book. The author bases his research on primary sources written by mostly Africans and refers to most important works on the topic.Europe’s history with race is very different compared to that of America, although both sides influenced each other deeply and both regions are becoming more and more alike at the beginning of the 21st century. I’d like to end with a citation I found in this book, it is taken from Frederick Douglass correspondence when travelling in Europe in 1845. It illustrates wonderfully the difference in racial relations in those days: “It is quite an advantage to be a 'nigger' here. I am hardly black enough for the British taste, but by keeping my hair as wooly as possible - I make out to pass for at least half a negro at any rate" Frederick Douglass (1845)
__________________________
New Book! That's the Joint!
The Hip-Hop Studies Reader
(2nd edition)
Sly Stone – I’m Back!:
Family and Friends (2011)
![]()
Sly Stone appeared in the late 1960s just as he was needed – in a time when the music itself seemed to be a reflection of the emotional divide between blacks and whites. There was Aretha Franklin, the Temptations and Sam and Dave on one side, and Jefferson Airplane, Bob Dylan and the Grateful Dead on the other. In the middle? Perhaps Otis Redding or Jimi Hendrix, if they had lived. Otherwise, it was just wide open spaces.
In stepped Stone, a kinetic songwriter and performer with this multi-cultural group the Family Stone and a sound that cribbed the rhythmic ferocity of R&B, but none of its quickly devolving formulaic Motown tics. At the same time, though, there was a distinctly rock ’n’ roll character to this amalgam – an exhilarative focus on hooks, some seriously weird outfits, a tendency toward hedonism.
It was, then as now, something very different, and made the title of Sly and the Family Stone’s debut recording — A Whole New Thing — seem so very apt rather than vaguely arrogant. It really was. A jumble of hits followed, including “Dance to the Music,” “Stand!,” “Everyday People,” “Hot Fun in the Summertime” and “Thank You (falettinme be nice elf agin),” among others.
Then Stone was gone, amid a flurry of missed concert dates (one of which caused a furious riot in Chicago), increasingly erratic behavior, the breakup of the original Family Stone, and a drug bust, among other oddities. Brilliantly unpredictable on record, Stone had become even more unpredictable in real life.
Yet, he had already done so much – both in terms of his groundbreaking sound and vision on the polyglot funk-rock masterpiece Stand!, but also in the tough challenges he threw back at his audience on his frightfully honest follow up There’s a Riot Goin’ On. In a larger sense, the first album celebrated the 1960s’ boundless hopes for change, while the second talked with blunt force about how the decade hadn’t lived up to those promises.
Stone had said quite a bit, more than most, in a brief space in time. That it was over so quickly should matter less now than that it occurred at all. Buried in that outburst of creativity is a lyric that says a lot about what happened next, as Stone eventually disappeared for nearly two decades: “Dyin’ young is hard to take,” Stone sings. “Sellin’ out is harder.”
So, even as the Family Stone’s influence continued to sweep across rock music, he all but vanished from public life – out, it seemed, of meaningful ideas. Stone kept working, however, only in the shadows. Born in Texas as Sylvester Stewart, the California-raised Stone returned to the Lone Star State to record the three new tracks on I’m Back, playing all of the instruments during sessions held in Grand Prairie beginning in the late 1980s. This was just before he and all of the original members of his band were inducted into the Rock ’n’ Roll Hall of Fame.
The results, coupled here with a series of newer reworkings of his most famous hits, are the principal selling point for I’m Back: Family and Friends — due on Aug. 16 from California-based Cleopatra Records. The remakes certainly have their moments – among them, Jeff Beck’s distinctive contribution to “(I Want to Take You) Higher,” the Woodstock anthem; Bootsy Collins’ skyscraper-rattling bass contributions to “Hot Fun”; and those gurgling organ fills from the Doors’ Ray Manzarek on “Dance to the Music.” Perhaps a new generation will uncover these nervy anthems all over again. Still, it’s the opportunity to hear something new from Stone – something perhaps approaching the cataclysmic bass riffs, the transformative lyrical genius, the roiling gumbo of soul and meaning of his best work around 1970 – that draws you in the furthest.
“Plain Jane,” a previously unheard Stone composition, is a nasty whoosh of funk. Stone again settles into a raucous chorus of singers, recalling the dangerous allure of a particularly memorable party girl, even as he saws out a grease-popping wah-wah riff. This is what that botched turn-of-the-1980s project with George Clinton should have sounded like.
“His Eye is on the Sparrow,” a traditional hymn with a new rearrangement by Stone, circles back to explore the gospel underpinnings in his work – and, just as interestingly, echoes the upbeat vibe that made “Everybody’s a Star” such a lasting testament to positivity.
Finally, there is the terrific “Get Away,” co-written with designer Ruby Jones, creator of those memorably funked-up old outfits worn by Stone, Miles Davis, Jimi Hendrix and others. Featuring a quietly conveyed lyric, almost like the echo of “Family Affair,” Stone – who handled all of the instruments himself – quickly ramps up into a harder, more vital groove.
It took him a while to form the words, but it turns out Sly Stone has something left to say. My only quibble is that you wish there was more.