Tuesday, July 31, 2007

The New Russian Fascism

Oil money, a mindless abortion culture, drinking a and a birth dearth make the way for a new fanaticism. The Russians are in trouble and they know it. The trouble is we aren't going to like the end result.
Nashi's annual camp, 200 miles outside Moscow, is attended by 10,000 uniformed youngsters and involves two weeks of lectures and physical fitness.

Attendance is monitored via compulsory electronic badges and anyone who misses three events is expelled. So are drinkers; alcohol is banned. But sex is encouraged, and condoms are nowhere on sale.

Bizarrely, young women are encouraged to hand in thongs and other skimpy underwear - supposedly a cause of sterility - and given more wholesome and substantial undergarments.

Twenty-five couples marry at the start of the camp's first week and ten more at the start of the second. These mass weddings, the ultimate expression of devotion to the motherland, are legal and conducted by a civil official.

Attempting to raise Russia's dismally low birthrate even by eccentric-seeming means might be understandable. Certainly, the country's demographic outlook is dire. The hard-drinking, hardsmoking and disease-ridden population is set to plunge by a million a year in the next decade.

But the real aim of the youth camp - and the 100,000-strong movement behind it - is not to improve Russia's demographic profile, but to attack democracy.
What is it about the intellectuals who always argue that the spectre of fascism is always lurking in America? Only to ignore everything when it in falls in Europe, its natural home.

Meanwhile more from the Land of Putin.

RIP Bill Walsh, football great

One of the great football coaches of all time has died. Say a prayer for Bill Walsh. Joe Montana would not have been the great come-from-behind leader without a great teacher were it not for Walsh.
"This is just a tremendous loss for all of us, especially to the Bay Area because of what he meant to the 49ers," said Joe Montana, San Francisco’s Hall of Fame quarterback. "Outside of my dad he was probably the most influential person in my life. I am going to miss him."

Sunday, July 29, 2007

I am an artist! Where's my subsidy?



A digital photograph of "public art," a staid but intricate sculpture from Bullfinch Place near the JFK Postal Station. I presume you all will deem it sufficiently post-modern with the meaning posited exclusively in the eye of the photographer rather than the sculptor.

Saturday, July 28, 2007

Can someone ring Bono?

Bono likes to pretend that he knows something more about economics than what Jeffrey Sachs teaches him.
Economists see aid to poor nations as ineffective

Aid to poor countries has little effect on economic growth, and policies that rely on such claims should be reexamined, two former International Monetary Fund economists wrote in a paper released this month.

"We find little evidence of a robust positive correlation between aid and growth," wrote Raghuram Rajan, who stepped down as IMF chief economist at the end of 2006, and Arvind Subramanian, who left the IMF this year, said.

"We find little evidence that aid works better in better policy or institutional environments, or that certain kinds of aid work better than others," they added.

Rajan is now teaching at the University of Chicago, while Subramanian joined theWashington-based Peterson Institute for International Economics.

"Our findings suggest that for aid to be effective in the future, the aid apparatus will have to be rethought."
Foreign aid is no better than welfare; it keeps people afloat but driftless. Great discussion at Professor Mankiw's blog.

Krauthammer on Obama the naif

Only the fools at Blue Mass Group would think that Obama scored points in the YouTube debate and that Hillary only won foreign policy cache in the short-term. Meanwhile. Krauthammer fisks Obama.

Do the Democrats want to risk strike three, another national security question blown, but this time perhaps in a final presidential debate before the '08 election, rather than a midseason intraparty cattle call? The country might decide that it prefers, yes, a Republican -- say, Sept. 11 veteran Rudy Giuliani-- to a freshman senator who does not instinctively understand why an American president does not share the honor of his office with a malevolent clown like Hugo Chávez.


Gitell v. the man from Blue Mass Group here.

Miles and Trane

This is worth a listen.



Hat tip to Atlas Shrugs

Wednesday, July 25, 2007

Trite posuers; Boycotting Israel

Patrick Porter at Oxblog raises an objection to the latest effort to measure the pulse on the irrepressible move in Britain to boycott Israeli academics. This has long been a left-wing effort in the UK which kowtows as much as it can to the nation's Islamic minorities. But why are the labor leaders in academia so selective? Is not Hugo Chavez or Fidel Castro worthy of a boycott or two for their suppression of free speech?

This is becoming a bit tiring don't you think? Here's more:
Academic trade unions should be making more efforts to direct their solidarity towards other fellow unionists in countries where it is needed, and where human rights violations are in many ways far worse: Iraq, Iran, China, etc.

And finally, some effort at balance would be nice. The state of Israel is one of the few states on earth that receives continual demands for its extinction, having survived several wars of aggression itself. That this is barely mentioned in these debates suggests that this is not being approached in a fair-minded spirit.

It's pretty much over for Barry Obama

Stick a fork in Obama. The YouTube debate demonstrated once again that the junior senator from Illinois no legitimate right to be in the same ring as most of the Democratic field.
The significance of the Ahmadinejad/Assad/Chavez/Castro/Kim question was not that it came from a man in California or that it was asked via web video. It was that it revealed Obama’s almost embarrassingly naïve view of a president’s role in world affairs. And that was the real story in Charleston Monday night
On the face of it, even Krazy Vegan Kucinich has more experience than Barry. Obamamania fills the Medicracy's need to justify the early start of Campaign 2008. Tired of the Iraq war without ever expecting the public to tire of the presidential campaign, the mainstream media overrates the need to introduce a fresh face when a familiar one (Clinton) or ones (Biden, Richardson, Edwards) may actually suffice on mattes of great substance.

Do we really need a sit-down with Iran?

Jeff Jacoby asks: Why are we rewarding Iran? Good question.

Tuesday, July 24, 2007

Spitzer goes Nixon on us

Round 1: Bruno. Goodie two-shoes Spitzer is starting to fritz.

Monday, July 23, 2007

Hitchens rips Galloway, Saddam's poodle, a new one

This is not going to go down easy with the Hate-Halliburton, BushHitler, Daily Kos Krowd! After a couple of years of apologizing for George Galloway, fifth columnist and shil for Saddam, the left has a lot of explaining to do.
The "anti-war" movement is not blameless in all this. When Galloway came to testify before the Senate and delivered a spittle-fueled harangue instead of answering the direct questions posed to him, he became a populist hero on the Left, was rewarded with a moist profile in the New York Times that praised his general feistiness, and was invited back to the United States to mount a speaking tour in which he repeated his general praise for the heroic "resistance" in Iraq, adding a few well-chosen words in support of the Assad regime in Syria. Praise was showered upon him in the Daily Kos, by columnists in The Nation, and elsewhere. Now we have the sober words of Sir Philip Mawer, the parliamentary commissioner for standards among elected members, who adds to the existing reports and evidence by saying that however much Galloway may have "prevaricated and fudged," the evidence against him is "now undeniable."

I do not think that an 18-day suspension from the House of Commons is anything like enough punishment for what Galloway has done, first on behalf of a sadistic and genocidal megalomaniac and second to steal food and medicine from the mouths of desperate Iraqis. We ran into each other a few times on his debate-tour, and on the last occasion on which we exchanged views, when he told me that he would never debate with me again (which he has since consistently refused to do), I told him that we were not done with each other. I would, I told him, be waiting to write a review of his prison diaries. The Senate subcommittee referred his "false and misleading" statements under oath (a crime under 18 USC Section 1001) to the Department of Justice in November 2005. Prosecutors in Manhattan (location of the banks through which some of the shady transfers were made) have also been handed the relevant papers. And the evidence adduced by the House of Commons must necessarily be considered by Scotland Yard, because it goes far beyond the damage done to the honor of Parliament. In the meantime, it will be interesting to discover whether Galloway's former wife, or the associates of his campaign who also received "Oil for Food" money, ever declared the income or paid any tax on it. And if I was the editor of the Daily Telegraph in London, whose printed documents about Galloway appear to have been vindicated by the parliamentary inquiry, I would want to revisit the judgment for libel that Galloway astonishingly managed to win, even under a notoriously oppressive law, in an English court. His troubles are only now beginning.
Like Hitchens, I would love to read the Galloway Prison Diaries.

Goldwater: Quote for the day

Barry Goldwater wrote in The Conscience of a Conservative, "I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom."

Goldwater was much reviled in his time but he proved in the long run that ideas matter. He rightly saw the welfare state as a threat to individual freedom.

Cato's David Boaz offers this insight.

Shameless

Yeah if this were a Republican, you'd hear a lot about the abuse of power from the mainstream media. Bob Dole once remarked:"Where's the outrage." Well this time it's on the sidelines particularly when a media-favored Democrat like Charlie Rangel abuses power.
New York's Charlie Rangel provoked smirks this week when news emerged that the Harlem Congressman was humbly seeking a $2 million earmark to create a "Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service" at the City College of New York.

Titters turned to dropped jaws yesterday when a 20-page glossy brochure popped up, describing the yet-to-be-created center. That flyer, which asks for donations, explains that organizers need a mere $4.7 million to restore a "magnificent Harlem limestone townhouse" that will house the center, plus another $2.3 million endowment for its operating costs.

What, overtaxed taxpayers might ask, would all this money buy? One dollop would go to provide "a well-furnished office for Congressman Rangel" and another dollop would fund "the Rangel Library," which will be "designed to hold the product of 50 years of public service by the major African-American statesman of the 20th and early 21st centuries."

According to the brochure, the library not only would tell "the story of one great man.... The Rangel archivist/librarian will organize, index, and preserve for posterity all documents, photographs, and memorabilia relating to Congressman Rangel's career."

...Yesterday, Republican Study Committee Member John Campbell brought an amendment to the House floor that would have stripped Mr. Rangel's homage to himself. He was defeated 316-108. Only one Democrat voted to kill the earmark.
Who's John Campbell? He's the guy standing next to your scrivener last month at a Heritage Foundation event in DC.

Thank God we had Robert Nozick

Robert Nozick put John Rawls in his place. Thank goodness for that; it's too bad he left us way too early. The post-modern liberal socialist philosopher Rawls often had some useful arguments to make but when it came to practical politics he turned out to be a bit of a twit
What Rawls contributed to the political education of American intellectuals was not any sort of rigorous analysis, but an overall spirit or outlook detrimental to freedom. He coined a doctrine of what he called "excusable envy," according to which it is rational to envy people whose superiority in wealth exceeds certain (unspecified) limits, and to act on that passion. He cancelled out his ostensible prioritization of liberty by holding that liberty must first be given its "fair value," meaning that political liberties, including freedom of the press, may need to be restricted so as to ensure that the political process yields legislation that is "fair" to the poor. In his later writings, increasingly deferential to the Marxist critique of liberalism, Rawls wrote that securing people's equal rights and liberties must be preceded by government's first having ensured that their "basic needs" for economic goods were met -- thus sanctioning the alibis offered by assorted despots for violating their subjects' elemental rights to free speech, the freedom from arbitrary arrest, and the security of individual life and property.

John Rawls's intellectual legacy for American politics was an unfortunate one. Then again, he disparaged our political regime as only an "allegedly" democratic one anyway, and grew increasingly bitter in his last years, according to his closest associates, over our failure to institute the policies he happened to favor -- such as severe campaign-finance restrictions and universal health insurance. Whatever one's views on such issues, neither Rawls's principles nor his spirit offer a promising approach for addressing them.
Nozick was a great corrective for the excesses of Rawls's redistributionist anti-libertarianism. For a taste of Nozick's unabashed defense of capitalism, read this.

Sunday, July 22, 2007

Red White and Blue; Toby's 30 percent

I"m sure that everyone who counts in the media isn't paying as close attention as Stuart Rothenberg to the Silent Majority.
Keith, one of the brightest of stars in the world of country music, drew more than 20,000 fans to the Nissan Pavilion, and Genos, a public affairs specialist in the Marines, joined a handful of other Marines posted just inside the venue’s gate as thousands of music fans poured in.

The placement of the Marines’ recruiting tent — which included a pull-up bar for those wanting to test their strength and a few tables on which sign-up sheets sat for those seeking information about joining the Marines — surely tells you something about the crowd.

While I didn’t take a survey of attendees, it was pretty clear that I was surrounded by the “Other America,” the 30 percent of Americans who still say they approve of the job that President Bush is doing.

No, I saw not a single T-shirt supporting the president — or any of the Republican presidential candidates, for that matter. In this political environment, even Bush’s supporters tend to keep quiet, more than a bit disappointed by the war and by his administration’s overall performance. The closest thing I saw to a liberal message at the event was a Ben & Jerry’s “Lick Global Warming Campaign” ad on the giant video screens that flanked the stage.

What was more important, I suspect, is that I didn’t see a single T-shirt that was critical of the president, Vice President Cheney or the war. (I know what you are thinking: Maybe folks at these concerts are too busy wearing T-shirts about getting drunk or with pictures of semi-naked women on them to bother with politics.)

I saw plenty of flags — Confederate and American — in the parking lot as tailgaters, most of whom looked like college kids more interested in partying than making a political statement, warmed up for the event. And when, throughout the show, Keith mentioned his multiple trips to Iraq and Afghanistan, saluted a number of uniformed military in the audience or sang his signature songs “American Soldier” and “Courtesy of the Red, White and Blue (The Angry American),” the crowd went nuts.

Yes, many in this audience were members of the “Silent Minority,” the 30 percent of America that doesn’t always agree with Bush but isn’t calling for his political lynching.
These voters may or may not be ripe for picking by Democrats. But this year's version of the Silent Majority isn't in love with the moonbats controlling the Democratic Party.

The Prince of Darkness, an old shoe leather reporter

Good review of Robert Novak's new book. I think I'll put it on my reading list.

Wednesday, July 18, 2007

Oh no! Tax revolt in Norway, prized welfare state

Tax revolts can grow from the ground up even in Norway, the "model" welfare state. Norway is on the wrong side of the Laffer Curve.
Norwegians are among the most heavily taxed people in the world, and that in turn has made Norway one of the most expensive countries in which to live. Most accept the taxes they're ordered to pay on income and even net worth and property, but growing numbers are publicly complaining about sky-high taxes on everything from cars to fuel to consumer goods.

Norwegians differentiate between skatter (taxes) and avgifter (duties, fees or user taxes) and the latter is the most hated. They're what causes a glass of house wine at an Oslo restaurant to cost the equivalent of nearly USD 16, or a gallon of gas to cost nearly USD 9 at current exchange rates.

"It's clear that taxes are much too high in oil-rich Norway," Oslo resident Gro Pettersen told newspaper Aftenposten. "It's sick!"

The taxes placed on new cars, which can more than double the price of the car itself, are another bone of contention, even though most Norwegians support measures to protect the environment. "The car tax is much too high, but so are most all the other avgifter also," said Ernst Bendiksen of the northern city of Vadsø, where Norwegians are far more dependent on their cars than those living in cities with good public transit systems. "We certainly don't get anything in return for them."

Wednesday, July 11, 2007

Milhous, always entertaining

The last liberal president, Richard Nixon, is the gift that keeps giving for psycho-historians.
WASHINGTON - President Nixon and his 1972 re-election campaign tried to tie Democrats to the mob, gay liberation and even slavery, according to newly released papers and tapes betraying bare-knuckle tactics from the dawn of the Watergate scandal.

Still, even as Nixon's lieutenants explored every avenue for defeating Democrat George McGovern and nullifying critics of all stripes — "hit them" was a favorite phrase — the president brooded over his reputation as a hard man whose gentle side was not being seen by the public.

Nixon called that side of him "the whole warmth business."

In 1970, he wrote an 11-page, single-spaced memo detailing his acts of kindness to staff and strangers and expressing regret that he was getting no credit for being "nicey-nice."

And in the profanity-laced conversation for which he was known in private, Nixon complained bitterly about Democratic campaign hecklers who shouted down his speeches, in contrast to well-mannered Republicans.

"Our people," he snapped, "are so goddamn polite."
Nixon's crime was that he got caught.

Monday, July 09, 2007

Shocker: Howie is going to rival WTKK-FM Talk

In a stunning blow to the station where has worked for more than 15 years, Howard Lawrence Carr is packing it up for rival talk station WTKK. Moreover, it will be early to rise for Howie who owns Boston radio's afternoon drive time. At WTKK, he'll take over the coveted morning slot once held by Don Imus.
In a bombshell development, WRKO-AM radio host Howie Carr is jumping ship to rival station WTKK-FM, where he’ll take over the prized morning-drive slot.

Tonight, WRKO said not so fast.

The AM station announced they expect to keep Carr in his seat "for many years to come."

Carr, whose contract with WRKO-AM (680) expires in September, is set to host WTKK’s morning drive show solo and replaces shamed syndicated talk jock Don Imus, who lost his national show after the “nappy-headed hos” scandal.

Carr inked a five-year deal with WTKK (96.9), according to his lawyer, Bret Cohen of the law firm Mintz Levin. Carr could not be reached for comment and is vacationing in Florida.
Is this a good move for Howie? He says it's not about the money, Ahem...

And there are more pressing questions:

Will the Howie trademark talk about hacks and pop culture cut it in the morning? Will Max Robins do mornings? How will the Death Pool sound on FM?

Did the constant Red Sox pre-game pre-emptions rub Howie the wrong way?

Did the hiring of the felon as Howie calls him endearingly Tommy "Taxes" Finneran have anything to do with it?

Is this the beginning of the end for WRKO?

And what does this say about the Jason Wolfe-Julie Kahn empire?

What will become of the ever-so-lovely Sandy, Howie's vital foil and a potential on-air talent?

Does Victor Bravo, aka Virgin Boy, return for the afternoon slot freed up by Howie?

Will Howie make frequent appearances on the moderately successful Eagan and Braude mid-day show? Will Jim Braude have seizures? Will Howie get to interview the Governor, Deval Patrick?

This tumultuous event definitely increases the value of John Dennis and Jerry Callahan. It forces Entercom's management to pay a dear financial price to keep their all-star WEEI morning team in place either in their current slot or an afternoon one.

Lots of reports from all over. Brian Maloney at SaveWRKO has more.

BostonRadioWatch.com, one of the best "trade" web sites on Boston radio, thinks the flight of Howie will result in several interesting chess moves.
WTKK's blockbuster move to land Carr will set off some major speculation as to how WRKO's programmers will counter the latest development in the talk radio battle. Will "Dennis and Callahan" move over to WRKO's PM drive to do a non-sports show? Will Don Imus who is rumored to be returning to the airwaves after the summer will somehow fall into the equation? Only time will tell, but for now it's advantage WTKK.
The demise of WRKO began with its deal to be the Red Sox station except when sister WEEI carries the game, a stupid dualism that strains credibility. It made matters worse by brushing asideScotto, a likeable, hip talkmaster in favor of Tommy "Taxes" Finneran. The Wolfe-Kahn tag team of destruction need a miracle and fast.

Saturday, July 07, 2007

Removing Halberstam's Halo

Jules Crittenden links to a post at National Review Online by Mark Moyar that attempts to place blame for the American loss in Vietnam on Halberstam's reporting. I'm not sure I agree particularly when Moyar drifts into conspiratorial territory by overhyping Halberstam's influence.
Halberstam, Sheehan, and Karnow inadvertently caused enormous damage to the American effort in South Vietnam—making them the most harmful journalists in American history. The leading American journalists in Vietnam during 1963, they favored American involvement in Vietnam, in stark contrast to the press corps of the war’s latter years. But they had a low opinion of South Vietnamese president Ngo Dinh Diem and decided that he would need to be removed if the war was to be won. Brazenly attempting to influence history, Halberstam, Sheehan, and Karnow gave Diem’s opponents in the U.S. government negative information on Diem in print and in private. Most of the information they passed on was false or misleading, owing in part to their heavy reliance on a Reuters stringer named Pham Xuan An who was actually a secret Communist agent. The journalists convinced Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge to accept their reports in place of much more accurate reports from the CIA and the U.S. military, which led Lodge to urge South Vietnamese generals to stage a coup. Press articles suggesting that Diem had lost his principal ally’s confidence made the South Vietnamese generals receptive to coup plots — the Vietnamese elites generally misinterpreted American news reporters as official spokesmen of the U.S. government.
For another view on the late Halberstam see Seth Gitell's comment from last month.

Cat Stevens Live Earth Headliner: A death-to-Rushdie kind of guy

Yusuf Islam or Cat Stevens as he is known to us in the Western world wanted Salmon Rushdie dead in 1989 upon the publication of The Satanic Verses. He supported a fatwa issued by the ayatollah and has never looked back hoping the modern world would soon forget his disdain for the rights of others. The prize-winning author of Midnight's Children refreshes everyone's fading memory.
However much Cat Stevens/Yusuf Islam may wish to rewrite his past, he was neither misunderstood nor misquoted over his views on the Khomeini fatwa against The Satanic Verses (Seven, April 29). In an article in The New York Times on May 22, 1989, Craig R Whitney reported Stevens/Islam saying on a British television programme "that rather than go to a demonstration to burn an effigy of the author Salman Rushdie, 'I would have hoped that it'd be the real thing'.''

He added that "if Mr Rushdie turned up at his doorstep looking for help, 'I might ring somebody who might do more damage to him than he would like. I'd try to phone the Ayatollah Khomeini and tell him exactly where this man is'.''

In a subsequent interview with The New York Times, Mr Whitney added, Stevens/Islam, who had seen a preview of the programme, said that he "stood by his comments".

Let's have no more rubbish about how "green" and innocent this man was.

Salman Rushdie, New York
Apparently Al Gore didn't get the memo. After all climate change -- and not terrorism -- is the most pressing issue to the self-indulgent hypocrites worried about global warming. Who knew that Al Gore would be so sentimental about the vindictive heirs of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini?

The Arabs and the Iranians and their cartoons


The last I heard, no Jew anywhere in the world was burning effigies or inciting riots or calling for jihad as a result of these cartoons. And the Iraq Study Group says we should engage these people! When will the West learn?

This is sick

Where is the proof? There is none. But never let the facts get in the way of a good story that diverts attention from your own shortcomings.
PARIS (Reuters) - A senior French politician, now a minister in President Nicolas Sarkozy's government, suggested last year that U.S. President George W. Bush might have been behind the September 11, 2001 attacks, according to a website.

The www.ReOpen911.info website, which promotes September 11 conspiracy theories, has posted a video clip of French Housing Minister Christine Boutin appearing to question that Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda group orchestrated the attacks. Boutin's office sought to play down the remarks.

Asked in an interview last November, before she became minister, whether she thought Bush might be behind the attacks, Boutin says: "I think it is possible. I think it is possible."

Boutin backs her assertion by pointing to the large number of people who visit websites that challenge the official line over the September 11 strikes against U.S. cities.

"I know that the websites that speak of this problem are websites that have the highest number of visits ... And I tell myself that this expression of the masses and of the people cannot be without any truth."

Boutin's office sought to play down the remarks, saying that later in the same interview she says: "I'm not telling you that I adhere to that position." This comment does not appear on the video clip on ReOpen911.

They have no shame!

More of the Clinton Show from Dick Morris. Weren't the Clinton years wonder years? Pardons for sale and all those years of peace and prosperity. These people can't help themselves.

Thursday, July 05, 2007

Ted Nugent takes on the Summer of Love and wins!

What if drugs didn't consume the lives of Jimi Hendrix or Jim Morrison or Janis Joplin? What creative heights would they have achieved? Ted Nugent -- a product of the Sixties but an evolving and sober one -- offers an assessment on the anniversary of the Summer of Love. The cultural left post-modern transgressive aren't going to like Ted any more after this litany.
The Summer of Drugs
By TED NUGENT
July 3, 2007; Page A17

This summer marks the 40th anniversary of the so-called Summer of Love. Honest and intelligent people will remember it for what it really was: the Summer of Drugs.

Forty years ago hordes of stoned, dirty, stinky hippies converged on San Francisco to "turn on, tune in, and drop out," which was the calling card of LSD proponent Timothy Leary. Turned off by the work ethic and productive American Dream values of their parents, hippies instead opted for a cowardly, irresponsible lifestyle of random sex, life-destroying drugs and mostly soulless rock music that flourished in San Francisco.

The Summer of Drugs climaxed with the Monterey Pop Festival which included some truly virtuoso musical talents such as Jimi Hendrix and Janis Joplin, both of whom would be dead a couple of years later due to drug abuse. Other musical geniuses such as Jim Morrison and Mama Cass would also be dead due to drugs within a few short years. The bodies of chemical-infested, braindead liberal deniers continue to stack up like cordwood.

As a diehard musician, I terribly miss these very talented people who squandered God's gifts in favor of poison and the joke of hipness. I often wonder what musical peaks they could have climbed had they not gagged to death on their own vomit. Their choice of dope over quality of life, musical talent and meaningful relationships with loved ones can only be categorized as despicably selfish.

I literally had to step over stoned, drooling fans, band mates, concert promoters and staff to pursue my musical American Dream throughout the 1960s and 1970s. I flushed more dope and cocaine down backstage toilets than I care to remember. In utter frustration I was even forced to punch my way through violent dopers on occasion. So much for peace and love. The DEA should make me an honorary officer.

I was forced to fire band members and business associates due to mindless, dangerous, illegal drug use. Clean and sober for 59 years, I am still rocking my brains out and approaching my 6,000th concert. Clean and sober is the real party.

Young people make mistakes. I've made my share, but none that involved placing my life or the lives of others at risk because of dope. I saw first-hand too many destroyed lives and wrecked families to ever want to drool and vomit on myself and call that a good time. I put my heart and soul into creating the best music I possibly could and I went hunting instead. My dream continues with ferocity, thank you.

The 1960s, a generation that wanted to hold hands, give peace a chance, smoke dope and change the world, changed it all right: for the worse. America is still suffering the horrible consequences of hippies who thought utopia could be found in joints and intentional disconnect.

A quick study of social statistics before and after the 1960s is quite telling. The rising rates of divorce, high school drop outs, drug use, abortion, sexual diseases and crime, not to mention the exponential expansion of government and taxes, is dramatic. The "if it feels good, do it" lifestyle born of the 1960s has proved to be destructive and deadly.

So now, 40 years later, there are actually people who want to celebrate the anniversary of the Summer of Drugs. Hippies are once again descending on ultra-liberal San Francisco -- a city that once wanted to give shopping carts to the homeless -- to celebrate and try to remember their dopey days of youth when so many of their musical heroes and friends long ago assumed room temperature by "partying" themselves to death. Nice.

While I salute and commend the political and cultural activism of the 1960s that fueled the civil rights movement, other than that, the decade is barren of any positive cultural or social impact. Honest people will remember 1967 for what is truly was.

There is a saying that if you can remember the 1960s, you were not there. I was there and remember the decade in vivid, ugly detail. I remember its toxic underbelly excess because I was caught in the vortex of the music revolution that was sweeping the country, and because my radar was fine-tuned thanks to a clean and sober lifestyle.

Death due to drugs and the social carnage heaped upon America by hippies is nothing to celebrate. That is a fool's game, but it is quite apparent some burned-out hippies never learn.

Mr. Nugent is a rock star releasing his 35th album, "Love Grenade," this summer.
I wish people would grow up. There's a lot of truth to what Nugent is saying "even if" he's a right-winger. He's made his mistakes but he's learned.

Rolling Stone has commentary from a variety of guests. My favorite: "A hippie would of used the word BUMMER [to describe the societal excesses caused by the comfortable revolutionaries]. I use the word TRADEGY."

Wednesday, July 04, 2007

The Clinton Show is back

Of course, the Clintons can't restrain themselves in the rush to pile on the Libby fiasco. The woman won't apologize for her vote on the Iraq War but she becomes unleashed when the President wisely commutes Scooter's sentence. The Clinton pardons were far more offensive (including the indulgences to the Clinton library paid by one Denise Rich) but we didn't hear the Democrats or the New York Times complain about justice. How convenient!

More from the Examiner
Republicans who clamored for the impeachment of former President Bill Clinton for lying about his affair in the White House with Monica Lewinsky may justifiably be taken to task now for merely tut-tutting Libby’s crime. Perjury is perjury, regardless of the position of the guilty or the magnitude of the topic misrepresented. Like every other felony, if you commit perjury, be prepared to do some hard time.

But no GOPer is making as much noise as the chorus of the nation’s most prominent Democratic leaders, some of whom should have Googled Clinton’s commutation record before opening fire on Bush and his Libby decision.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, for example, accused Bush of “betraying the American people” and then added that “he has abandoned all sense of fairness when it comes to justice, he has failed to uphold the rule of law.”

Pelosi had a much different understanding of fairness, justice and the importance of upholding the law back in 1999, when Clinton commuted the sentences of 16 imprisoned members of the Puerto Rican terrorist group FALN. The House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved a resolution of disapproval, but Pelosi said she would have voted no had she been present for the tally. Pelosi was thus defending Clinton’s commutations of sentences received for seditious conspiracy, conspiracy to make bombs, bank robbery and illegal possession of stolen firearms, among other things. Between 1974 and 1983, FALN mounted numerous attacks against this nation’s police and military, killing six people and maiming many others.

Then there is Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., who saw in Bush’s Libby commutation “a clear signal that in this administration, cronyism and ideology trump competence and justice.” Clinton touts her years as first lady among her qualifications for being president, but she has never publicly repudiated either her husband’s FALN commutations or his pardons of Susan McDougall, convicted of mail fraud, and Marc Rich, the stock speculator convicted of tax evasion. McDougall was a former Clinton business partner, and Rich was the former husband of Denise Rich, a major Clinton fundraiser, both of whom clearly qualify as Clinton cronies.

Tuesday, July 03, 2007

An American hero

This is how an American sacrifices for his fellow man.

"Recycling is cheaper, no matter how much it costs!"

Michael Munger, economist from Duke, says: "I'm saving the Earth, one piece of expensive garbage at a time."

Incredible.

Monday, July 02, 2007

Rolling back the rolling back canard

Others bemoan the SCOTUS push back on racialism. Stephen Chapman is more level-headed.
The real educational problems faced by minority kids today are not lack of white students to sit by but inadequate choice, lack of order, a shortage of good teachers and families who don't make a priority of learning. Most parents, given a choice between racially balanced schools and safe, sound schools, would unhesitatingly choose the latter. In the wake of this decision, education officials can now focus more on what's really important.

Ask a liberal to peel away that tired self-denial about terrorism

Surprise! I agree with Christopher Hitchens, a very honest leftist willing to stare atavistic Islamofascists in the eye. He and I apparently have contempt for the same archtype, the progressive who ties himself up in his underwear as to not offend any "minority."
To the shame-faced white-liberal refusal to confront these facts, one might counterpose a few observations. The first is that we were warned for years of the danger, by Britons also of Asian descent such as Hanif Kureishi, Monica Ali, and Salman Rushdie. They knew what the village mullahs looked like and sounded like, and they said as much. Not long ago, I was introduced to Nadeem Aslam, whose book Maps for Lost Lovers is highly recommended.

He understands the awful price of arranged marriages, dowry, veiling, and the other means by which the feudal arrangements of rural Pakistan have been transplanted to parts of London and Yorkshire. "In some families in my street," he writes to me, "the grandparents, parents, and the children are all first cousins—it's been going on for generations and so the effects of the inbreeding are quite pronounced by now." By his estimate and others, a minority of no more than 11 percent is responsible for more than 70 percent of the birth defects in Yorkshire. When a leading socialist member of Parliament, Ann Cryer, drew attention to this appalling state of affairs in her own constituency, she was promptly accused of—well, you can guess what she was accused of. The dumb word Islamophobia, uncritically employed by Christiane Amanpour in her otherwise powerful documentary, was the least of it. Meanwhile, an extreme self-destructive clannishness, which is itself "phobic" in respect to all outsiders, becomes the constituency for the preachings of a cult of death. I mention this because, if there is an "ethnic" dimension to the Islamist question, then in this case at least it is the responsibility of the Islamists themselves.

The most noticeable thing about all theocracies is their sexual repression and their directly related determination to exert absolute control over women. In Britain, in the 21st century, there are now honor killings, forced marriages, clerically mandated wife-beatings, incest in all but name, and the adoption of apparel for females that one cannot be sure is chosen by them but which is claimed as an issue of (of all things) free expression.
And this piece should be a bit of an eye-opener. Don't you think?

The chipping away of the New Hampshire Advantage

I have one piece of advice for the "reborn" Blue Granite Stater and the Free State types that enable them; When it comes to the income tax Democrats will put in place, just make it a flat one.
Granite Staters have spent the last half-century reveling in their reputation as the keepers of Yankee libertarianism, the rock-ribbed neighbors to the north who loathe taxes, Democrats, big government, and -- well, anything else that reminds them of Massachusetts.

But now, Democrats are running both houses of the state Legislature, the corner office, and the Executive Council for the first time since the 19th century. This spring, New Hampshire became the fourth state to adopt same-sex civil unions. The House passed legislation, later killed in the Senate, that would have enacted a mandatory seat belt law in the last state to lack one. And, the other day, the Legislature adopted a budget that will increase spending by 17 percent over two years, along with a 28-cent cigarette tax increase to help pay for it.
This is what happens when Republicans stay home.

Sunday, July 01, 2007

Proud to be an American, an unhyphenated one

Of course we are a nation of immigrants and we should continue to be so under the right conditions that protect borders, language and culture. My agrarian grandparents came to America and found it wasn't for them. Previous waves of immigrants told their children to become Americans that is to learn the language, succeed in business and promote the culture. That's not the way it is today in part because of the knee-jerk multiculturalism that's taken hold. Peggy Noonan explains why it's important for immigrants to cast away the ways of the Old World. Teddy Roosevelt would be proud.
My grandfather had his struggles here but never again went home. He'd cast his lot. That's an important point in the immigrant experience, when you cast your lot, when you make your decision. It makes you let go of something. And it makes you hold on to something. The thing you hold on to is the new country. In succeeding generations of your family the holding on becomes a habit and then a patriotism, a love. You realize America is more than the place where the streets were paved with gold. It has history, meaning, tradition. Suddenly that's what you treasure.

A problem with newer immigrants now is that for some it's no longer necessary to make The Decision. They don't always have to cast their lot. There are so many ways not to let go of the old country now, from choosing to believe that America is only about money, to technology that encourages you to stay in constant touch with the land you left, to TV stations that broadcast in the old language. If you're an immigrant now, you don't have to let go. Which means you don't have to fully join, to enmesh. Your psychic investment in America doesn't have to be full. It can be provisional, temporary. Or underdeveloped, or not developed at all.

And this may have implications down the road, and I suspect people whose families have been here a long time are concerned about it. It's one of the reasons so many Americans want a pause, a stopping of the flow, a time for the new ones to settle down and settle in. It's why they oppose the mischief of the Masters of the Universe, as they're being called, in Washington, who make believe they cannot close our borders while they claim they can competently micromanage all other aspects of immigration.

Tony Blair: Telling it like it is

The left is always on guard about "fear-mongering" perhaps even in light of this. The left is always worried about the jackboot of fascism falling in America, until it falls in Venezuela and is sustained in Cuba (two backward caudillo republics). Tony Blair, hardly the poodle tells the truth. For the American and British Left the truth hurts. And it will hurt even more when they discover, years from now, that they were on the wrong side of history.
Tony Blair has launched a powerful attack on 'absurd' British Islamists who have nurtured a false 'sense of grievance' that they are being oppressed by Britain and the United States.

In his most outspoken remarks on Islamists, the former Prime Minister warns that Britain is in danger of losing the battle against terrorists unless mainstream society confronts the threat.

Blair's remarks, in which he also attacks some civil liberty campaigners as 'loopy loo', were made in a Channel 4 documentary recorded last Tuesday on the eve of his departure from Downing Street.

'The idea that as a Muslim in this country that you don't have the freedom to express your religion or your views, I mean you've got far more freedom in this country than you do in most Muslim countries,' Blair told Observer columnist Will Hutton, who presents the documentary.

'The reason we are finding it hard to win this battle is that we're not actually fighting it properly. We're not actually standing up to these people and saying, "It's not just your methods that are wrong, your ideas are absurd. Nobody is oppressing you. Your sense of grievance isn't justified."'

Blair held out the example of the overthrow of the Taliban in Afghanistan - criticised by Islamists as an example of the heavy-handed imperial West oppressing Muslims - to highlight unfounded claims of grievance. He asked how it is possible to claim that Afghanistan's Muslims are being oppressed when the Taliban 'used to execute teachers for teaching girls in schools'.
The war on terror is real folks. Don't let your blind hate for Dick Cheney obscure that fact.