06/06: Prague Democracy Conference
Category: America and the World
Posted by: an okie gardener
Gateway Pundit is doing great coverage of the Prague Democracy Conference. We need to keep fighting the good fight.
Category: American Culture
Posted by: an okie gardener
Farmer has been doing good work fast on heavy issues. This post is a mental break. This link will take you to an interview with a star of early 60s pop, Ray (Paul) Hildebrand. Originally from Texas, now living in Kansas. Photognome is aquainted with him and sent the link. A couple of interesting bits below.
Q - And that led to...?
A - More tours. More of the same. They wanted us to become a nightclub act. That was the only thing you did then. I didn't particularly want to and that's part of my story. After they started training us, and getting some people who wanted us to pull away from the major and go big time with RCA Records, I got confused. I didn't know what to do and I just left. (laughs) I just took off one time and just became a missing person for awhile.
Q - What happened to Paula? Did she find someone to take your place?
A - When I took off, it was on a Dick Clark tour. It was a 3 week tour. About a week and a half into it, I kind of flipped out. These people wanted us to go to Philadelphia at the end of the tour and start a new life, I wasn't gutsy enough to say no, or wait awhile, I'm not ready. They had all the big numbers and painted all the big pictures. In my heart, I just felt I couldn't do that, that way. And so, I just took off. She stayed on the tour and finished the tour. Dick (Clark) sany "Hey Paula" with her. He'll never forget that.
Q - He was your stand in?
A - Yeah. I'm not sure of how much of the other stuff he did, but, maybe it was just "Hey Paula". But, she finished the tour and was angry at e, as well she should be. I was so immature at the time. But, I went up to Oregon with some friends and haulded hay for awhile, which I'd done the year before. I came back and sort of took it on the chin, and went back and started working for old Major Bill. That might have been a mistake, but, it was the best I had at the tkme.
In one British interview the Beatles were bumped to give this duo time. No one knows the future.
Q - And that led to...?
A - More tours. More of the same. They wanted us to become a nightclub act. That was the only thing you did then. I didn't particularly want to and that's part of my story. After they started training us, and getting some people who wanted us to pull away from the major and go big time with RCA Records, I got confused. I didn't know what to do and I just left. (laughs) I just took off one time and just became a missing person for awhile.
Q - What happened to Paula? Did she find someone to take your place?
A - When I took off, it was on a Dick Clark tour. It was a 3 week tour. About a week and a half into it, I kind of flipped out. These people wanted us to go to Philadelphia at the end of the tour and start a new life, I wasn't gutsy enough to say no, or wait awhile, I'm not ready. They had all the big numbers and painted all the big pictures. In my heart, I just felt I couldn't do that, that way. And so, I just took off. She stayed on the tour and finished the tour. Dick (Clark) sany "Hey Paula" with her. He'll never forget that.
Q - He was your stand in?
A - Yeah. I'm not sure of how much of the other stuff he did, but, maybe it was just "Hey Paula". But, she finished the tour and was angry at e, as well she should be. I was so immature at the time. But, I went up to Oregon with some friends and haulded hay for awhile, which I'd done the year before. I came back and sort of took it on the chin, and went back and started working for old Major Bill. That might have been a mistake, but, it was the best I had at the tkme.
In one British interview the Beatles were bumped to give this duo time. No one knows the future.
All the rule of law guys must be in love with Reggie Walton right now.
Scooter Libby lied under oath. He got his day in court. Now he is going to jail.
End of bitter sarcasm.
Bill Clinton. Sandy Berger. O.J. Simpson. Probably William "Cold Cash" Jefferson.
Why? What happened?
Somebody give me a thoughtful answer.
One caveat: no explanation may characterize Scooter Libby as the absent-minded professor. The ludicrous memory defense is how we got into this mess.
Scooter Libby lied under oath. He got his day in court. Now he is going to jail.
End of bitter sarcasm.
Bill Clinton. Sandy Berger. O.J. Simpson. Probably William "Cold Cash" Jefferson.
Why? What happened?
Somebody give me a thoughtful answer.
One caveat: no explanation may characterize Scooter Libby as the absent-minded professor. The ludicrous memory defense is how we got into this mess.
"What Next for Congressman William Jefferson, Representative from New Orleans, Louisiana?"
This was the question of the day this morning (6-5-07) on C-SPAN's Washington Journal.
After a brief summary concerning the ninety-four-page, sixteen-count indictment, some excerpts from the Washington Post and Times-Picayune editorials (both of which call for the resignation of Congressman Jefferson), C-SPAN's Steve Scully went to the phones:
First Caller from New Orleans, Louisiana:
What about Bush? Why not impeach Bush? He is the biggest liar of all time.
1. Bush stole the election twice.
2. What about Iran-Contra? Bush lied us into Iraq; he has blood on his hands.
3. He is busy smuggling illegal Mexicans into this country for free labor.
We re-elected Jefferson because we know he is going to help the people recover from Katrina. Why not concentrate on Bush and all his lies?
Steve Scully (interrupting with some facts): how do you feel about your hometown newspaper calling for the Congressman to resign? What about the $90,000 in the freezer?
Caller: How do you know the FBI did not plant that evidence? Let me tell you something, darling. This is just another subversion tactic by Bush to make us forget about Iraq and all of his misgiving with Iraq and Halliburton and he and Cheney. Investigate Bush and all his lies.
Steve: Thank you very much.
The next caller offered a salient point: with a jury pool consisting of people like the caller from New Orleans, Congressman Jefferson has every reason to believe he can beat the rap in court in a community in which 57 percent of the registered voters reaffirmed their loyalty to Jefferson and everything he represents.
This was the question of the day this morning (6-5-07) on C-SPAN's Washington Journal.
After a brief summary concerning the ninety-four-page, sixteen-count indictment, some excerpts from the Washington Post and Times-Picayune editorials (both of which call for the resignation of Congressman Jefferson), C-SPAN's Steve Scully went to the phones:
First Caller from New Orleans, Louisiana:
What about Bush? Why not impeach Bush? He is the biggest liar of all time.
1. Bush stole the election twice.
2. What about Iran-Contra? Bush lied us into Iraq; he has blood on his hands.
3. He is busy smuggling illegal Mexicans into this country for free labor.
We re-elected Jefferson because we know he is going to help the people recover from Katrina. Why not concentrate on Bush and all his lies?
Steve Scully (interrupting with some facts): how do you feel about your hometown newspaper calling for the Congressman to resign? What about the $90,000 in the freezer?
Caller: How do you know the FBI did not plant that evidence? Let me tell you something, darling. This is just another subversion tactic by Bush to make us forget about Iraq and all of his misgiving with Iraq and Halliburton and he and Cheney. Investigate Bush and all his lies.
Steve: Thank you very much.
The next caller offered a salient point: with a jury pool consisting of people like the caller from New Orleans, Congressman Jefferson has every reason to believe he can beat the rap in court in a community in which 57 percent of the registered voters reaffirmed their loyalty to Jefferson and everything he represents.
04/06: What, Me Racist?
rac•ism: a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
na•tiv•ism: the policy of protecting the interests of native inhabitants against those of immigrants.
Is the wave of popular revulsion against the immigration compromise among Republicans fueled by racism and/or nativism?
If you ask the opponents of a comprehensive compromise, they mostly say no. Most take profound umbrage at the suggestion.
I have argued that this debate is not really about illegal immigration; it is, in fact, about who and how many. That is, we could end the problem of illegality by waving our magic legislative wand. Therefore, "law and order" is not at the core of our emotional standoff; rather, our fight concerns the future of our culture as determined by the composition of the next generation.
The opponents to this particular immigration compromise have diverse reasons for their opposition. However, among the grassroots revolt is a vast multitude of Americans who believe that Mexicans are not educable and/or absorbable because of cultural differences and/or their limited capacity for ambition, comprehension and self-improvement.
Are these particular voices of skepticism racists? Are they nativists?
Part of the problem with this debate is that the label racist and nativist have become vile epithets.
Culture of Intolerance for Intolerance.
We live in a curious moment in time in which our collective rhetoric claims that we prize nonconformity, critical thinking and dissent. Dissent is the highest form of patriotism. Certitude is tantamount to ignorance. Truth is in the eye of the beholder.
On the other hand, the forces of nonconformity and tolerance exert enormous peer pressure on public figures and private individuals to conform to the ideology of tolerance. So much so, intolerant dissenters put their livelihoods and tranquility at risk when they question the creed of tolerance.
Examples: academics who suggest that Asians score higher than persons of African descent on standardized tests are immediately suspect (at best) or ostracized (in the extreme). Woe to the politician who suggests that a larger percentage of African Americans go to prison for any reason other than systemic racism built up in our nation over the course of four hundred years of oppression. Race and abortion? Race and single-parent families? Race and wealth and poverty? You get the picture. All taboo subjects in our current climate, unless you tow the party line.
Moreover, "racism" has become the most powerful condemnation in our society on the personal level. You meet a person at an event who seems perfectly engaging and affable, but someone whispers in your ear: "he's a racist." A look of revulsion comes over your face. You take an extra sip of your drink because it suddenly takes great effort to get your food down. You begin to plot your immediate exit strategy, and you make sure you avoid eye contact with this person for the duration of the engagement.
Understanding that "racism" has become the deadliest of political poisons, conservative proponents of the immigration compromise should never have brought up racism or nativism as political cudgels with which to beat their brothers in temporary opposition--no matter how relevant the charge.
The Fair Solution: We should allow racists and nativists to make their case in the simplest terms in a non-hostile environment. I disagree with the assumption that White Europeans are inherently superior stock for democratic citizenship--but it is a reasonable argument for which serious people can produce reams of evidence from all kinds of disciplines including history, the social sciences and the hard sciences. It is a claim that is eminently more defensible that the 9-11 conspiracy theory. Why not let the racists and nativists have their day in open court?
But that is impossible. So, the folks who might ordinarily make their case in clear and logical terms must cloak their arguments in professions for "law and order," anti-terrorism warnings and outlandish projections concerning the budget and the already doomed and despised social safety net.
Of course, as I have said many times before, the most frustrating thing about this debate is the misdirected fury and dread. The anti-illegal-immigrant impulse is actually a manifestation of the completely understandable frustration with a changing culture, but, unfortunately, currently it has no place to surface other than stalking horse issues.
na•tiv•ism: the policy of protecting the interests of native inhabitants against those of immigrants.
Is the wave of popular revulsion against the immigration compromise among Republicans fueled by racism and/or nativism?
If you ask the opponents of a comprehensive compromise, they mostly say no. Most take profound umbrage at the suggestion.
I have argued that this debate is not really about illegal immigration; it is, in fact, about who and how many. That is, we could end the problem of illegality by waving our magic legislative wand. Therefore, "law and order" is not at the core of our emotional standoff; rather, our fight concerns the future of our culture as determined by the composition of the next generation.
The opponents to this particular immigration compromise have diverse reasons for their opposition. However, among the grassroots revolt is a vast multitude of Americans who believe that Mexicans are not educable and/or absorbable because of cultural differences and/or their limited capacity for ambition, comprehension and self-improvement.
Are these particular voices of skepticism racists? Are they nativists?
Part of the problem with this debate is that the label racist and nativist have become vile epithets.
Culture of Intolerance for Intolerance.
We live in a curious moment in time in which our collective rhetoric claims that we prize nonconformity, critical thinking and dissent. Dissent is the highest form of patriotism. Certitude is tantamount to ignorance. Truth is in the eye of the beholder.
On the other hand, the forces of nonconformity and tolerance exert enormous peer pressure on public figures and private individuals to conform to the ideology of tolerance. So much so, intolerant dissenters put their livelihoods and tranquility at risk when they question the creed of tolerance.
Examples: academics who suggest that Asians score higher than persons of African descent on standardized tests are immediately suspect (at best) or ostracized (in the extreme). Woe to the politician who suggests that a larger percentage of African Americans go to prison for any reason other than systemic racism built up in our nation over the course of four hundred years of oppression. Race and abortion? Race and single-parent families? Race and wealth and poverty? You get the picture. All taboo subjects in our current climate, unless you tow the party line.
Moreover, "racism" has become the most powerful condemnation in our society on the personal level. You meet a person at an event who seems perfectly engaging and affable, but someone whispers in your ear: "he's a racist." A look of revulsion comes over your face. You take an extra sip of your drink because it suddenly takes great effort to get your food down. You begin to plot your immediate exit strategy, and you make sure you avoid eye contact with this person for the duration of the engagement.
Understanding that "racism" has become the deadliest of political poisons, conservative proponents of the immigration compromise should never have brought up racism or nativism as political cudgels with which to beat their brothers in temporary opposition--no matter how relevant the charge.
The Fair Solution: We should allow racists and nativists to make their case in the simplest terms in a non-hostile environment. I disagree with the assumption that White Europeans are inherently superior stock for democratic citizenship--but it is a reasonable argument for which serious people can produce reams of evidence from all kinds of disciplines including history, the social sciences and the hard sciences. It is a claim that is eminently more defensible that the 9-11 conspiracy theory. Why not let the racists and nativists have their day in open court?
But that is impossible. So, the folks who might ordinarily make their case in clear and logical terms must cloak their arguments in professions for "law and order," anti-terrorism warnings and outlandish projections concerning the budget and the already doomed and despised social safety net.
Of course, as I have said many times before, the most frustrating thing about this debate is the misdirected fury and dread. The anti-illegal-immigrant impulse is actually a manifestation of the completely understandable frustration with a changing culture, but, unfortunately, currently it has no place to surface other than stalking horse issues.
Timeless wisdom from Merle Haggard:
Wish a buck was still silver.
It was, back when the country was strong.
Back before Elvis; before the Vietnam war came along.
Before The Beatles and "Yesterday,"
When a man could still work, and still would.
Is the best of the free life behind us now?
Are the good times really over for good?
Are we rolling down hill like a snowball headed for hell?
With no kind of chance for the Flag or the Liberty bell.
Wish a Ford and a Chevy,
Could still last ten years, like they should.
Is the best of the free life behind us now?
Are the good times really over for good?
The year was 1982. Ronald Reagan was in the White House, and we were on the cusp of an American renaissance. Has the last twenty-five years been a aberrant up-tick in a longterm decline? Or, is it within our power to pick ourselves up and dust ourselves off once again?
Wish a buck was still silver.
It was, back when the country was strong.
Back before Elvis; before the Vietnam war came along.
Before The Beatles and "Yesterday,"
When a man could still work, and still would.
Is the best of the free life behind us now?
Are the good times really over for good?
Are we rolling down hill like a snowball headed for hell?
With no kind of chance for the Flag or the Liberty bell.
Wish a Ford and a Chevy,
Could still last ten years, like they should.
Is the best of the free life behind us now?
Are the good times really over for good?
The year was 1982. Ronald Reagan was in the White House, and we were on the cusp of an American renaissance. Has the last twenty-five years been a aberrant up-tick in a longterm decline? Or, is it within our power to pick ourselves up and dust ourselves off once again?
My Mantra: Nobody Knows Anything.
But everybody says Fred Thompson is going to get into this race within the month. Let's assume they are right.
Where are we? And what does the advent of Thompson mean?
John McCain continues to spin his wheels in the soft, wet turf of the Republican primary. Although he presents legitimate conservative bona fides, the stalwarts within the movement cannot forgive his transgressions concerning campaign finance reform, a weak stomach on tax cuts and, now the final mortal blow to his chance at the nomination, his politically disastrous position on the current immigration reform.
Mitt Romney continues to raise a lot of money, look good on TV, perform well in the debates and court conservatives. Nevertheless, the former-Massachusetts governor has not captured the imagination of the nation, the party or even insomniac C-SPAN junkies. Significantly, Hugh Hewitt and Dean Barnett like him. No matter, he still looks like an also-ran to me.
Rudy continues to lead in the polls. He continues to enjoy respect and admiration from almost every Republican in America. However, we continue to ask the same question: can he overcome his unorthodoxy regarding abortion and gun control? Multiple marriages? Rudy is a long shot--but I tend to think he is a viable candidate. I think he could win the national primary in January and have as good a chance as anybody else to win in November.
Newt Gingrich continues to offer brilliant ideas and canny directions from the sidelines, desperately yearning for the fans to demand his insertion into the game. Will they? Probably not. Will he strap on a helmet and run onto the field of his own accord? Maybe--but I am betting against it. He is smart enough to avoid a humiliating rebuff. The race would need to be in near chaos this fall for Newt to have a chance.
Fred Thompson continues to grow in strength as a shadow candidate. He is a conservative (which is what is needed, we are told constantly). He is actually a taller and statelier version of McCain.
However, watching Thompson tonight on C-SPAN speaking to Republicans in Virginia, I am reminded that he is not as smooth as most of us are expecting. He is not Ronald Reagan--not even close. Of course, Ronald Reagan was a 100-year candidate. Thompson can hope to be as good as Clinton or Kennedy, with some practice, which is not too bad.
Also, to Thompson's advantage, his rougher-than-expected style will cut against the expectation of a glitzy movie star. He is going to run as a populist, conservative, log cabin (in the c.19 sense) kind of man of the people speaking common sense in plain language. It is a time-tested winning persona.
What might happen? Thompson may jump in here next month and rout the opposition. We'll see. On the other hand, some revelation, some concern about his health, some revealing gaffe, or just the fickleness of the modern electorate may cut his lofty stature down to size. Nobody knows.
If Thompson wins the nomination, can he win in November? Yes. Unlikely--but not impossible. The Democrats have the inside track. For myriad reasons, it is a Democratic year. A lot of extraordinary things must happen between now and the fall of 2008 for the Republicans to have a chance. But nothing is set in stone at this point. Stranger things have happened in American politics.
But everybody says Fred Thompson is going to get into this race within the month. Let's assume they are right.
Where are we? And what does the advent of Thompson mean?
John McCain continues to spin his wheels in the soft, wet turf of the Republican primary. Although he presents legitimate conservative bona fides, the stalwarts within the movement cannot forgive his transgressions concerning campaign finance reform, a weak stomach on tax cuts and, now the final mortal blow to his chance at the nomination, his politically disastrous position on the current immigration reform.
Mitt Romney continues to raise a lot of money, look good on TV, perform well in the debates and court conservatives. Nevertheless, the former-Massachusetts governor has not captured the imagination of the nation, the party or even insomniac C-SPAN junkies. Significantly, Hugh Hewitt and Dean Barnett like him. No matter, he still looks like an also-ran to me.
Rudy continues to lead in the polls. He continues to enjoy respect and admiration from almost every Republican in America. However, we continue to ask the same question: can he overcome his unorthodoxy regarding abortion and gun control? Multiple marriages? Rudy is a long shot--but I tend to think he is a viable candidate. I think he could win the national primary in January and have as good a chance as anybody else to win in November.
Newt Gingrich continues to offer brilliant ideas and canny directions from the sidelines, desperately yearning for the fans to demand his insertion into the game. Will they? Probably not. Will he strap on a helmet and run onto the field of his own accord? Maybe--but I am betting against it. He is smart enough to avoid a humiliating rebuff. The race would need to be in near chaos this fall for Newt to have a chance.
Fred Thompson continues to grow in strength as a shadow candidate. He is a conservative (which is what is needed, we are told constantly). He is actually a taller and statelier version of McCain.
However, watching Thompson tonight on C-SPAN speaking to Republicans in Virginia, I am reminded that he is not as smooth as most of us are expecting. He is not Ronald Reagan--not even close. Of course, Ronald Reagan was a 100-year candidate. Thompson can hope to be as good as Clinton or Kennedy, with some practice, which is not too bad.
Also, to Thompson's advantage, his rougher-than-expected style will cut against the expectation of a glitzy movie star. He is going to run as a populist, conservative, log cabin (in the c.19 sense) kind of man of the people speaking common sense in plain language. It is a time-tested winning persona.
What might happen? Thompson may jump in here next month and rout the opposition. We'll see. On the other hand, some revelation, some concern about his health, some revealing gaffe, or just the fickleness of the modern electorate may cut his lofty stature down to size. Nobody knows.
If Thompson wins the nomination, can he win in November? Yes. Unlikely--but not impossible. The Democrats have the inside track. For myriad reasons, it is a Democratic year. A lot of extraordinary things must happen between now and the fall of 2008 for the Republicans to have a chance. But nothing is set in stone at this point. Stranger things have happened in American politics.
Category: America and the World
Posted by: an okie gardener
LGF has the roundup from Pakistan where the strengthening and assertive radical Islam is sending women back to the Dark Ages. Girls' Schools are a preferred target.
Cultural Relativists have been telling us that all cultures are equal. My response: don't construct a philosophical house you refuse to live in. I don't know of a single politically correct American who would move to Pakistan to live in an area controlled by Islamists.
Cultural Relativists have been telling us that all cultures are equal. My response: don't construct a philosophical house you refuse to live in. I don't know of a single politically correct American who would move to Pakistan to live in an area controlled by Islamists.
Category: America and the World
Posted by: an okie gardener
From the NYT. Poison Chinese toothpaste found here in the states. Link from Drudge. Previous post.
Over 100 years ago in this country we set out to ensure consumer safety through food and drug inspections and standards. Now we are losing that guarantee with cheap imports. Viva free trade.
UPDATE: China seems to be handling things in its usual way: belligerently going on the offensive and blaming the U.S. for blowing things out of proportion. Story here.
Over 100 years ago in this country we set out to ensure consumer safety through food and drug inspections and standards. Now we are losing that guarantee with cheap imports. Viva free trade.
UPDATE: China seems to be handling things in its usual way: belligerently going on the offensive and blaming the U.S. for blowing things out of proportion. Story here.
This story should be huge. A reporter for TIME magazine in Vietnam, a man also used by several other western news agencies and reporters, was a communist agent who fed information to North Vietnam and fed propaganda to news agencies. Lind from Instapundit.
Unfortunately, it will be a cold, cold day in hell before the Sunday morning talk shows fixate on this topic, or CNN devotes extensive time to it.
Think about it: the American media was largely responsible for public opinion turning against the war in Vietnam (e.g., the Tet Offensive which was a stunning defeat for the Viet Cong and NVA was portrayed in the Western press as a stunning defeat for us). And in the midst of the reporting from Vietnam was a Vietnamese communist agent.
How many of the stringers and reporters used in the Middle East today take their orders from Islamic radicals?
Unfortunately, it will be a cold, cold day in hell before the Sunday morning talk shows fixate on this topic, or CNN devotes extensive time to it.
Think about it: the American media was largely responsible for public opinion turning against the war in Vietnam (e.g., the Tet Offensive which was a stunning defeat for the Viet Cong and NVA was portrayed in the Western press as a stunning defeat for us). And in the midst of the reporting from Vietnam was a Vietnamese communist agent.
How many of the stringers and reporters used in the Middle East today take their orders from Islamic radicals?
