Thursday, April 07, 2016

Merle Haggard dies at 79; legendary outlaw of country music, Bakersfield-style


Contact Reporter
http://www.latimes.com/
April 6, 2016


Merle Haggard: Life in pictures
Through it all, the songs still flowed.
Over decades of trouble, fame, and more trouble, Merle Haggard never stopped making up songs. The country-music star seemed afflicted with a song-writing compulsion, much as Woody Guthrie was.
He penned his first ballads as a child. By later life, he claimed to have written 10,000 of them.
He composed wherever he went, all day long. He was inspired by snippets of conversation, flashes of memory. He drew lyrics from a flower, from the view out a bus window.
He once wrote an entire song during the walk from his limousine to the stage.
Even after Haggard's fame dimmed, and audiences shrank, he kept writing, kept singing. He said “the best songs feel like they've always been here.” He seemed to never tire of unearthing them.
The musician, who sang of his law-breaking Bakersfield youth and whose natural, storytelling lyrics won him a vast following — more than 100 of his songs made the Billboard charts — died Wednesday — his birthday — at his home near Redding. He was 79.
Haggard's spokeswoman Tresa Redburn said no cause of death had been determined.
Haggard had been in and out of the hospital in recent months battling pneumonia. His son Ben Haggard, a guitarist in his father's band, said in a statement that Haggard had died surrounded by family and friends. A week ago, he “had told us he was gonna pass on his birthday, and he wasn't wrong,” the statement said.
A Central Valley native and former San Quentin inmate, Haggard was considered one of the leading artists of Bakersfield's honky-tonk scene and his stature in the country-music pantheon ranks with that of Hank Williams and Johnny Cash.
His biggest years stretched from the late 1960s to the early 1980s, during which he once had nine consecutive country No. 1 singles. But Haggard's inborn, relentless creativity never flagged.
He owed some of his fame to conservative anthems, including the combative 1969 release “Okie from Muskogee” which seemed to mock San Francisco's anti-war hippies.
But patriotic pride and political songs made up only a portion of the vast and diverse Haggard portfolio, which included autobiographical laments, odes to working men and women, drinking songs and love songs. A Times critic described his ballads as “caked with the dust of hard-won experiences.”
In life Haggard was by no means the clean-cut square of the Muskogee song, about which he expressed mixed feelings (though after a hiatus, he eventually resumed singing it).
He had grown up a troublemaker — a teenage runaway who rode the rails and turned petty criminal. Sent to prison after a botched burglary attempt, he was among the inmates who watched Cash perform at San Quentin in 1958.
The experience famously helped turn his life around. But it didn't exactly straighten him out. Drugs, divorce and bankruptcy dogged his path, long after success came his way.
He was private, cryptic, and, long after his train-hopping days, he was a fanatic for model trains. Neither his songs nor views were predictable. He wrote, for example, “Irma Jackson,” an anti-racist protest song about a love affair between a white man and black woman, the same year he wrote “Okie from Muskogee.” (Capitol Records delayed the release of “Irma Jackson.”)
Many of his songs were blues-tinged and desolate. Often, they evoked the landscapes of California, his lifelong home. He sang of “Tulare Dust” and the Kern River.
“There's the south San Joaquin where the seeds of the Dust Bowl are found / And there's a place called Mt. Whitney from where the mighty Kern River comes down” is a typical Haggard lyric, “so simple it is hard to see the craft involved,” Times critic Robert Hilburn wrote.
Simplicity was his creed, Haggard told Hilburn in a 2003 interview. “You've got to remember songs are meant to be sung,” he said. “You are not writing poetry.”
Haggard's scores of plain, rough-livin' character songs made him a critics' choice for one of the leading songwriters of his generation; Hilburn once claimed only Willie Nelson rivaled him among living songwriters in the country tradition.
But Haggard was also famous for his rich baritone singing voice. The voice dipped, broke and warbled with despair. It gave vocal form to the electric Fender-guitar twanginess of what came to be known as the “Bakersfield Sound” — that made-in-California genre calculated to cut through the noisy din of Bakersfield bars.
Haggard took singing very seriously. He spoke as a man seeking to master difficult maneuvers. He recounted efforts to hone his voice to approach the authenticity and restless inflection of his idol, country singer Lefty Frizzell.
Eventually, his style would prove so influential that the Haggard sound became a standard country sound. Randy Travis, Garth Brooks, George Strait, Mark Chesnutt and Clint Black are just a few of the artists whose style recalls Haggard's.
Despite this, Haggard in late middle age struggled as new waves of country-pop passed him by.
He lamented the absence of seriousness in this music, and condemned what he saw as the “bubble-gum side.”
To him, country music remained what it had ever been: “An art form,” he called it.
Merle Ronald Haggard was born April 6, 1937, in Oildale, near Bakersfield, the youngest of three children of James Frances and Flossie Mae Haggard. His parents were Dust Bowl refugees from Oklahoma who set up house in a converted boxcar. But Haggard fared better than many fellow migrants because his father had regular work with the railroads.
Haggard described his mother as socially ambitious. His early life contains a telling hint of middle-class aspiration: He took violin lessons as a child. Later, he would play an able fiddle.
Otherwise, young Haggard claimed that he was not encouraged in music. He had always composed, he said. He described his childhood self staring out of classroom windows, making up songs. Haggard recalled an uncle telling his mother, “if you want that boy to amount to anything, you better take that guitar out of his hands.”
After his father died suddenly when he was 9, Haggard ran away. He jumped on freight cars, and spent time in a home for delinquent boys. By 13, he was singing in bars. By 17, he had married a waitress, Leona Hobbs. But he was in jail for auto theft at the birth of their child, the first of four.
Then Haggard broke into a bar, wound up in jail and tried to escape, and in 1958 was sentenced to six to 15 years in San Quentin, where Cash's performance prompted him to form a prison band.
This real-life narrative would become a classic trope of country music. “Mama Tried,” considered by some critics to be Haggard's greatest song, is a fairly straight autobiographical account of his road to San Quentin.
Its indelible chorus — “I turned 21 in prison doin' life without parole” — exaggerates his sentence; paroled after less than three years, Haggard was able to unfurl his musical gifts under state supervision.
He worked briefly as a ditch digger and pursued gigs in Bakersfield bars, where a new country-rockabilly music scene was gaining popularity. Its high priest was Haggard's predecessor and early collaborator Buck Owens, whose ex-wife, singer Bonnie Owens, Haggard would marry after divorcing Leona.
Haggard joined Wynn Stewart's band. The popularity of his rendition of Stewart's “Sing a Sad Song” (1963) was a premonition of future success.
Haggard was an ardent fan of Jimmie Rodgers and Bob Wills. He had talent. He had hawkeyed good looks. But he also had, like them, a strong sense of craft. Over the next few years, he would produce a startling string of hits — 13 Billboard country Top 10 singles by the end of the decade.
These songs established his stardom. Several became virtual country standards. “The Bottle Let Me Down,” “Sing Me Back Home,” “Mama Tried,” “Okie from Muskogee,” and “Workin' Man Blues” were all produced from 1966 to 1969.
“Okie's” overt right-wing political message, delivered at the height of Vietnam War protests — and “The Fightin' Side of Me,” a subsequent, even angrier swipe at the anti-war movement — made Haggard a darling of conservatives. Richard Nixon sent him a congratulatory letter; then California Gov. Ronald Reagan pardoned him and segregationist George Wallace sought his endorsement for president.
Though sincere in his conservative views, Haggard was uncomfortable with his political role. He referred to himself as “dumb as a rock” for writing “Okie,” though he defended the emotions behind it.
Much later, he would lament the Vietnam-era's stark political divide, and the legacy of bitterness he said it left.
Meanwhile, the bouncy “Okie” song went on to have life of its own. It was covered by, among others, left-populist folk singer Phil Ochs, who (intended irony aside) gave it surprising soulful depths.
By the '70s, the Bakersfield Sound had tilted the country music industry west, away from Nashville. Times writer Peter H. King summed up the phenomenon with three nouns: “Buck and Merle and Bakersfield.”
Haggard produced hits steadily over the next two decades; 38 of his songs would be Billboard country No. 1 singles. Reiterating the underdog themes of his early music in the 1970s, he produced the recession ballad “If We Make It Through December” in 1973. He joined forces with Nelson to sing “Pancho and Lefty” in 1983, and won a Grammy in 1984 for “That's the Way Love Goes.” He was inducted into the Country Music Hall of Fame in 1994.
He expressed gratitude for the favorable turn of his life after prison. But his living of it remained jagged. The marriage with Bonnie Owens didn't last, and neither did two subsequent marriages. Haggard drank — and wrote songs about it. The 1980 hit, “I Think I'll Just Stay Here and Drink” was one of them. He made tens of millions of dollars, and lost them. He had trouble with the IRS, and declared bankruptcy in 1993, the same year he married his fifth wife, Theresa Lane.
He stuck to a grueling touring schedule. He was driven perhaps by money woes but also by demons. By his own admission, he had trouble settling down. His friends worried about him.
He aged and country music changed. The hits ebbed. But the songs still flowed. Haggard had two more children with Lane, who lived with him at a 168-acre ranch outside Redding in the Lake Shasta area.
In 2000, he released the album “If I Could Only Fly” to critical praise.
In 2002, he published the second of two autobiographies, and released a stinging song about the Iraq war during President George W. Bush's term. This song was a contrast to the Main Street-pride spirit of “Okie.”
Haggard said he did not vote for President Obama, but he spoke glowingly of his election — and, of course, wrote a song about it. He also defended Obama against conservative attacks and called the president's right-wing critics “almost criminal.”
He was, by then, “one of the last damn cowboys left,” a San Francisco Chronicle critic declared. In 2008, Haggard had part of a lung removed, and soon resumed touring.
He had once called his life “a 35-year bus ride.” But the train-hopping Bakersfield desperado had underestimated.
Six decades after his prison days, he was still traveling and performing every few days.

Merle Haggard, Country Legend, Dead at 79


BY  
Merle Haggard, 2014 Kevin Winter/WireImage/Getty

Merle Haggard, who over six decades composed and performed one of the greatest repertoires in country music, capturing the American condition with his stories of the poor, the lost, the working class, heartbroken and hard-living, died at his home in the San Joaquin Valley, California, after a battle with pneumonia, his spokeswoman Tresa Redburn confirmed. He was 79.  

In American and country music, few artists loomed larger. Haggard's career spanned 38 Number One country hits, and his rough hard-edged style influenced country and rock & roll artists from Waylon Jennings and Gram Parsons to Jamey Johnson and Eric Church. As a songwriter, Willie Nelson called him "one of the best." 

"Merle Haggard has always been as deep as deep gets," Bob Dylan told Rolling Stone in 2009. "Totally himself. Herculean. Even too big for Mount Rushmore. No superficiality about him whatsoever. He definitely transcends the country genre. If Merle had been around Sun Studio in Memphis in the Fifties, Sam Phillips would have turned him into a rock & roll star, one of the best."

Haggard didn't have to look far for material. His greatest songs – the Depression-era poverty described in "Hungry Eyes," the prison diaries "Sing Me Back Home" and "Mama Tried," the hard-living anthems like "I Think I'll Just Stay Here and Drink" and "Back to the Barrooms" – were all taken from the pages of his own life. He was born April 6th, 1937 near Bakersfield, California, two years after his family moved west from Oklahoma during the great dust bowl migration. Haggard's father found work on the railroad, playing fiddle in roadhouse bands on the side, and bought the family a $500 boxcar house. When Haggard was nine, he lost his father to a stroke, setting him on a path of what he called "illegal motion." A year later, he hopped his first train with a friend, riding for 18 hours until getting caught. "I tried to explain [to my mother] that anybody could ride with a pass; it took a man to ride the way we had," he said. 

At 11, Haggard's mother turned him into authorities for being "incorrigible." He spent his teens in an out of reform schools. By his own estimate, Haggard was locked up more than a dozen times, on charges including robbery, truancy, petty larceny, shoplifting, check forgery and car theft. 

He credited music as his salvation: At 14, Haggard went to see country star Lefty Frizzell perform in Bakersfield. He snuck backstage and sang one of Frizzell's songs for the performer, who pulled Haggard onstage. Haggard cited that encounter as the moment he fell in love with performing. 

Haggard's luck ran out in 1957, when Haggard and a friend attempted to rob a cafe. He was sentenced to five years in San Quentin State Prison. He worked in the textile mill and "started trying to build up a long line of good things to be proud of." The stay shaped the rest of Haggard's life and music; a conversation with convicted rapist Caryl Chessman through the prison air-vents inspired his death row ballad "Sing Me Back Home;" he chronicled his father's death and the regret he felt behind bars in "Mama Tried." 

 In 1958, Johnny Cash visited San Quentin. Haggard, then 20, was in the audience. "He had the right attitude. He chewed gum, looked arrogant and flipped the bird to the guards—he did everything the prisoners wanted to do. He was a mean mother from the South who was there because he loved us. When he walked away, everyone in that place had become a Johnny Cash fan." In San Quentin, Haggard said he "saw the light. I realized what a mess I made out of my life, and I got out of there and stayed out of there. Never did go back." 

After being released early in 1960, Haggard returned home and made his name on the Bakersfield club circuit.  Along with Buck Owens, Haggard became one of the key architects of the hard-edged Bakersfield sound, a revved-up, rockier answer to countrypolitain Nashville. One night, his future collaborator George Jones dropped into an early performance. "He kicked the doors of the office open and said 'Who in the fuck is that?'" Haggard said. "One of the greatest compliments of my life was when George Jones said I was his favorite country singer." Haggard soon scored his first national hit with "Sing a Sad Song." That led to a deal with Capitol Records, and he scored his first Number One hit with 1966's  "I Am a Lonesome Fugitive." It kicked off a rapid run of Number Ones, including 1967's "Branded Man," 1968's "The Legend of Bonnie and Clyde" and 1968's "Sing Me Back Home." 

Outside of his songs, Haggard kept the public in the dark about his prison stint – that is, until he appeared on the Cash's network television show in 1969, and Cash urged Haggard to tell his story. "I was bull-headed about my career. I didn't want to talk about being in prison," Haggard said. "But Cash said I should talk about it. That way the tabloids wouldn't be able to. I said I didn't want to do that and he said, 'It's just owning up to it.'"

After that, Haggard's success only grew. He had a hit with his signature song, "Okie From Muskogee," in 1969, which he wrote after becoming frustrated watching hippies protest the Vietnam War.  Released three weeks after Woodstock, the song captured the tension between the hippies and the heartland. Its plainspoken pro-military, anti-drug, anti-premarital sex lyrics became an anthem for Americans feeling alienated by the counterculture movement. It stayed at Number One a month. That year, Haggard won the Academy of Country Music's Top Male Vocalist award four years in a row, and was named Entertainer of the Year in 1970. 

In 1972, Ronald Reagan, then Governor of California, pardoned Haggard for the attempted burglary charge that landed him in San Quentin. A decade later, Haggard would perform at the White House and Reagan would call Merle Haggard's music "the heart and soul of America." 
Haggard's hits only made up a small portion of his greatest work. His career is full of left turns; the same year as "Okie From Muskogee," he released a Jimmie Rodgers tribute album Same Train, a Different Time, and 1970's The Best Damn Fiddle Player in the World (Or My Salute to Bob Wills), for which Haggard spent four obsessive months learning to play the fiddle, employing the surviving members of Wills' band the Texas Playboys. He was furiously prolific; only a decade into his career, he released an LP titled Merle Haggard Presents His 30th Album

Haggard was married five times. His second wife, Bonnie Owens, was his backup singer, and helped shape his sound and shared writing credit on Haggard's hit "Today I Started Loving You Again." They divorced in 1978, but continued to tour together (Owens even was a bridesmaid at Haggard's next wedding, to country singer Leona Williams).

After divorcing Williams in 1983, Haggard moved onto a houseboat on Lake Shasta and bought a stake in a local resort and partied non-stop, a period he sang about on 2011's "Down on the Houseboat." "Johnny Carson and I were spending more money on spousal support in the 1980s than any other Americans," Haggard later wrote. "He used to make jokes about it." In 1993, Haggard married Theresa Ann Lane. They married in 1993, had two children and remained married until Haggard's death.

While the hits slowed down, Haggard never stopped touring. In the Nineties, he summed up his career as "a thirty-five-year bus ride." He and the Strangers played theaters and casinos year-round, often on double-bills with friends like Bob Dylan and Willie Nelson. "There is a restlessness in my soul that I've never conquered, not with motion, marriages, or meaning," Haggard said recently. "I've mellowed a lot, but it's still there to a degree. And it will be till the day I die." 

In addition to the musical satisfaction he got out of playing live, he saw touring as a form of self-preservation: "I really don't have a choice," he told RS in 2012. "For me to be able to bring a show in front of people I've got to stay in shape for that and there is no way to slip by. You can go see some old guys, and I won't name any, that have let it go. They'll go out there and play two or three songs and bring somebody else to play the rest of it. I don't want to do that. I want to be able to give them a ticket at the value of the show. I want a good show for the ticket value. If I can't do that then I'll go sit down. Hard work requires hard work. If you get soft you can't do it."

In recent years, Haggard proudly welcomed his son, Ben, into the band, a virtuoso at Roy Nichols-style Telecaster twang. Ben controlled his father's social media accounts, giving a window into a different side of Haggard, goofing off at a restaurant table or wearing an "I Love Haters" sweatshirt. 

Haggard's image was a hardened, gruff troubadour, but in his personal life, he was polite, reserved, with an intensely curious mind, especially about current events. A news junkie, he was politically outspoken, taking stances unpopular in the country music world. Decades after his anti-drug anthem "Okie from Muskogee," Haggard shrugged off the lyrics – "I didn't know anything about marijuana back then," Haggard told RS last year – and advocated for marijuana, calling it, "one of the most fantastic things in the world." After receiving a Kennedy Center Honor from President Obama in 2010, Haggard made news speaking in support of the President, describing him as "very different from the media makeout. It's really almost criminal what they do with our President. There seems to be no shame or anything. They call him all kinds of names all day long, saying he's doing certain things that he's not. It's just a big old political game that I don't want to be part of."

Unlike many of his peers, Haggard never stopped writing, releasing 15 albums since 2000. Songs like "What Happened?" and "I've Seen it All Go Away," addressed fading American ideals, describing, as Rolling Stone's Jason Fine wrote in 2009, "a country that has sold out its ideals and abandoned civil liberties, and where people have become timid and small-minded." "It's a bleak time in our history," Haggard toldRS in 2012. "The condition of our country, I don't think has been in the worst condition since I've been alive. I don't think young people have a handle on it, on what they've lost. I feel like a preacher in front of a congregation. I don't know what to tell them but they have lost a great deal and I doubt that we'll gain it back in their lifetime. We may never gain it back. When you look at things realistically, this country was built on three shifts every 24 hours and we are talking about working three or four days a week. I don't see how we can ever gain back to where we were. There's nobody who wants to do the stoop labor, and there is a whole bunch of it to do."

As recently as January, when Haggard last spoke with Rolling Stone, he was writing and recording, preparing to hit the studio for a follow-up with Nelson, encouraged by their record and ticket sales. "Our names are like magic together," he said. 

He was looking forward to hitting the road despite reeling from a two-week hospital stay for double pneumonia. "They gave me some steroids one time and I got up and I was giving judo lessons," he joked. "I can't stand up with weight. My wife is taking care of me. I've lost a lot of weight. I'm going to appear different on stage, well, I'm still on top of things. I'm doing a lot of writing and I'm just proud to be alive and hope that people realize that. I really sincerely thank everybody for the prayers."


Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/merle-haggard-country-legend-died-at-79-20160406#ixzz459OvKAgM
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook

Related:

A Look Inside Britain's Muslim Sex Grooming Gang Scandal


April 6, 2016
For the past few decades, British authorities have been caught up in the pervasive meme of multiculturalism -- the falsehood that all cultures are equal and that to believe otherwise is to commit the worst modern day offense -- to be “racist.”
Under this fallacy, the British government in 2001 introduced a series of restrictive speech codes that criminalized criticism of Islam, followed by a Racial and Religious Hatred Bill imposing fines and even imprisonment for speech that “incited hatred against a person for their religious or racial background.”  
These laws have victimized a number of Britons. Hoteliers Ben and Sharon Vogelenzang were prosecuted for “insulting” a Muslim guest. Liberty Great Britain party chairman Paul Weston was arrested on suspicion of racial harassment after publicly reading a passage critical of Muslims from Winston Churchill’s The River War. Dr. Vladislav Rogozov, a Czech-born, UK cardiac anesthesiologist, is being investigated by Sheffield's Royal Hallamshire Hospital for giving an online interview about his 2013 confrontation with a Muslim surgeon who refused to replace her blood-specked hijab with the proscribed, operating-theater headgear.
In this context and political climate, with racism conflated with religion – one specific religion – it is easy to see how government and public service employees would fear professional and legal repercussions (up to seven years in prison) merely for speaking up about criminal behavior by Muslims who justify their actions citing the Koran. In this way, teachers, police, child care workers, government officials and others have been silent about the growing menace of Muslim gangs who sexually groom and exploit children in the UK.
In his riveting book, Easy Meat: Inside Britain’s Grooming Gang Scandal(World Encounter Institute/New English Review Press, 2016. 328 pp., $17.20) author Peter McLoughlin explains how multiculturalism-inspired political correctness along with its companion, willful blindness concerning Islamic doctrine, has jeopardized the safety and well-being of children. McLoughlin posits that, since 1988, this nationwide sexploitation has resulted in the shattering of lives of between 100,000 to 1 million girls. The author documents how the fear of being deemed racist and facing criminal charges, dismissal or even threats of violence, has led to suppression of information and a stunning lack of intervention on behalf of young victims. In essence, an extensive, insidious operation that targets children for sexual grooming and enslavement has been covered up because of political correctness and fear of Muslim retribution.
The book’s title comes from former UK Home Secretary, Jack Straw, who saw Muslim perpetrators viewing non-Muslim British victims as “easy meat.” Indeed, some Muslim sex-gang groomers actually blame the girls, some as young as 11 years old, for being purposely alluring and sexually advanced to corrupt Muslims
In his research on Muslim groomers, McLoughlin uncovered an unusual distinction between them and non-Muslim pedophiles. Non-Muslim pedophiles are typically lone adults who groom children for sex in reclusive secrecy, worry about being prosecuted by law enforcement, meet accusations with defensive denial and worry about being discovered, shamed, and criticized by friends or relatives. Muslim perpetrators, however, work in gangs, see nothing wrong with their shariah-sanctioned activities, receive collusive support from their communities and feel they are above the law. During his investigations, McLoughlin found not one case of non-Muslim men grooming Muslim girls, although 95% of men in Britain are non-Muslims.
News coverage of the crimes has been mostly obfuscated by a complicit media that characterizes the overwhelmingly Muslim perpetrators as generic “Asians.” According to McLoughlin’s research, limited press coverage by mainly self-censoring journalists and lenient, if any, criminal charges have enabled the gangs to act with relative impunity since 1988.
The author describes how Muslim flesh-peddlers operate as part of a well-organized extensive network of taxi drivers, shop and restaurant owners, and security guards. Girls, mainly between the ages of 11 and 14, the majority from state-run children’s homes, are ensnared while traveling from school to home, at shopping malls, restaurants, bus stations and similar public venues. They are enticed with flattery, feigned friendship, gifts, alcohol and drugs. Alarmingly, a footnote in the book references a quotation from a city outreach worker with the Children’s Society who states, “every girl living in a children’s home in the city of Birmingham is being sexually exploited.”
McLoughlin makes reference to the staggering profitability of the sex grooming enterprise for the Muslim community. He cites a 2007 expose, Mothers of Prevention by Julie Bindel, a feminist writer and founder of the legal reform group, Justice for Women.
Bindel estimated that a pimp can make $325,000 to $550,000 annually with one 16-year-old girl. From that, Bindel extrapolated that over the average 15-year-per-girl pimping period, the annual value of this criminal activity could amount to approximately £300 million or $425 million.
McLoughlin does a good job of portraying the frustration and desperation of victim’s families who have sought help to no avail for well over a decade from local councils, law enforcement, child care professionals and journalists. Remarkably, for the most part, UK authorities have failed to warn parents that young girls are at risk or to recommend extra supervision and vigilance. No organized programs to educate girls and parents exist and authorities have largely refused interviews with the media on the topic. Teachers and school administrators have failed to secure the school perimeter to stop sex grooming gangs from lying in wait for girls outside of school premises.
The author reports that police routinely dismiss parents’ concerns and have failed to set up surveillance operations at strategically significant locations. Police have even arrested parents for trying to save their children. In one such case, fathers, who were able to track down their daughters and tried to rescue them were arrested by police. In fact, McLoughlin discloses that law enforcement officers have actually returned wayward girls to their pimps.
McLoughlin reveals that local authorities – social workers, teachers’ unions, educational organizations and childcare agencies – have made no effort to intervene or draw public attention to the pervasive threat. He submits that feared charges of racism preclude their mandated responsibility for the protection of children. In fact, the author reports how major teachers' unions are behind an organization – Unite Against Fascism – that blocks the publicizing of the sex grooming gang phenomenon and its Muslim community participation.
In 2008, a taxpayer-funded national education film, My Dangerous Loverboy, commissioned by the United Kingdom Human Trafficking Centre, was produced ostensibly to warn and educate girls about generic sex grooming gangs. But no mention was made of Muslim involvement or the victims’ young ages. According to McLoughlin, the film has been difficult to obtain and has not been shown to the intended audience: girls, parents, social workers, police officers, school nurses, doctors, teachers, youth workers, sexual health practitioners. My own extensive, month-long efforts to locate a copy were unproductive and met with denials of the crimes’ Muslim connection.
In Easy Meat, McLoughlin laments the very limited prosecution of Muslim sex grooming and pimping crimes. In the rare instances of successful criminal litigation, typical sentences are minimal and usually partially served, if at all, despite existing sentencing guidelines. Gang members have been known to assert Muslim supremacy, make accusations of Muslim victimhood and racism, and threaten retaliation against the girls and their families. Some have clearly cited religious motivations for their crimes in court.
Astonishingly, few victims receive any special protection during the trials. Protection of defendants’ rights supersedes that of victims, even with child victims. The 1989 Children’s Act, a statute requiring the child’s welfare be the court’s paramount consideration, doesn’t seem to make the slightest difference in the proceedings and outcome. More distressing is the fact that the greater the Muslim population density in an area, the lower the conviction rate.
The backdrop for sexual grooming and enslavement of children lies in Islamic doctrines outlined by McLoughlin. He reviews the pervasive slave-taking history of Islam from the 7th century, as well as Islamic doctrine from the Koran citing Islam's view of non-Muslims, its treatment of women and sexual slaves, and the permissibility of sex with children by Mohammed’s example with his nine-year-old third wife, Aisha. McLoughlin explains how sex as rape has historically been used as a weapon of war to assert Islamic supremacy. Islamic doctrine encourages the rape and enslavement of non-Muslims, even with married infidel women as a legal and moral enterprise.
Further, the required first and foremost allegiance to the Umma, or Muslim community, and the inbred obligation of enmity toward non-Muslims facilitates the pimping of non-Muslim girls and hinders any attempts at exposing its criminality and eventual prosecution. Sexual slavery has historically been used as a religious weapon to advance the domination of Islam. 
In Easy Meat, McLoughlin details how the sexploitation and enslavement of girls, once viewed as a great evil in Western society, has become a pervasive, routine, and almost pedestrian part of everyday life in the UK. On this issue, the courageous author effectively deals with the contention that Western civilization is fighting for its very existence in a clash between civilization and barbarism. His book serves as a grave warning for other countries as they consider increased levels of Muslim immigration.

Wednesday, April 06, 2016

Bill Nye, Not the Philosophy Guy


April 6, 2016
Bill Nye: 5 Misunderstandings About Philosophy
Judging from a recent video in which Bill Nye, "the Science Guy," discussed the relation between science and philosophy, I can only tell you that he sure is not the "philosophy guy."
In a rambling and largely incoherent response to an interlocutor who wondered whether philosophy is still relevant, Nye denigrated the discipline, stating that philosophy never deviates from common sense, that it doubts the reality of sense experience, and that it engages in speculation about whether we might be part of an intergalactic ping pong match!
In regard to the first observation, I would say that, pretty much from Socrates on, philosophers have practically specialized in deviating from common sense. In regard to the second (which flatly contradicts his first assertion), I would say that some philosophers -- Descartes most famously -- speculated along these lines in order to perform a sort of epistemological experiment and certainly not to prove the non-existence of the physical world. In regard to the third, I can only say that this has more to do with someone on an LSD trip than any serious philosopher that I'm aware of.
I don't want to spend any more time engaging Nye's rather silly claims, but I do want to address an issue that undergirds everything he says and that is infecting the minds of many young people today, namely "scientism."
Not to put too fine a point on it, scientism is the reduction of all knowledge to the scientific form of knowledge. In other words, it is a strict identification of the rational with the deliverances of the scientific method developed in the late sixteenth century. That this method -- empirical observation, followed by hypothesis, followed by experimentation, followed by confirmation through repeated experimentation -- has indeed rendered abundant fruit is obvious to anyone. And that its accompanying technology has benefitted the world in countless ways is beyond dispute. But the very success of the sciences invites the distortion of scientism, an epistemological imperialism which consigns extra-scientific forms of rationality to the intellectual ash-heap. And what an impoverishment this produces!
At the very dawn of philosophy, Plato spoke to us of prisoners chained up inside a cave. All they can see are flickering shadows on the cave wall. One prisoner managed to free himself from the chains, escape from the cave, and find an upper world of light and substance. He realized that the shadows that he had spent his life watching were but simulacra of what is truly real. Finally, he gazed up to the sun, whose brilliant light made all things visible.
This splendid fable is the metaphorical representation of the process by which one moves from knowledge of the evanescent world of nature to knowledge of the more permanent things and finally to the source of all knowledge and being. Plato's disciple Aristotle presented the same idea in a more prosaic manner, speaking of the transition from physics (the study of matter in motion) to mathematics (the study of numeric relations), and finally to metaphysics (the study of being as such). Neither philosopher despised what we would characterize today as science -- in fact Aristotle can credibly claim the title as father of Western science -- but they both recognized that there are things the sciences can't know, things that are, in point of fact, the most important, lasting, and fascinating.
The physical sciences can reveal the chemical composition of ink and paper, but they cannot, even in principle, tell us anything about the meaning of Moby Dick or The Wasteland. Biology might inform us regarding the process by which nerves stimulate muscles in order to produce human action, but it could never tell us anything about whether a human act is morally right or wrong. Optics might disclose how light and color are processed by the eye, but it cannot possibly tell us what makes the Sistine Chapel's ceiling beautiful. Speculative astrophysics might tell us truths about the unfolding of the universe from the singularity of the Big Bang, but it cannot say a word about why there is something rather than nothing or how contingent being relates to non-contingent being.
How desperately sad if questions regarding truth, morality, beauty, and existence qua existence are dismissed as irrational or pre-scientific.
The scientism that I've been describing and criticizing is but a symptom of a more far-reaching problem, namely, the fading away of the humanities in our schools. If the study of literature, the arts, and philosophy is regarded as impractical and "soft" in comparison to the study of the sciences, we will produce a generation of prisoners chained inside of Plato's cave. They will know a great deal about the evanescent world of nature, but they won't know anything about how to live a decent life, how to differentiate between the sublime and the mundane, how to recognize God.
So listen to Bill Nye as he leads you through an experiment, but please don't listen to him in regard to the higher questions and the more permanent things.
Bishop Robert Barron is an auxiliary bishop of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles and the founder of Word on Fire.

When Mark Steyn struck back


 | 
More from Barbara Kay | @BarbaraRKay

Nigel Farage (L) and Mark Steyn

I was one of the lucky attendees last Friday at the Munk Debate in Toronto’s Roy Thompson Hall. The motion before the house concerned refugee policy: “Be it resolved: Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” On the pro side: Louise Arbour, former UN Human Rights commissioner and historian Simon Schama; on the con side journalist Mark Steyn and Britain’s UKIP party leader Nigel Farage.
The Munk tradition is to poll the audience before and after the debate. On this occasion, the audience was, as one might expect with a Toronto audience, heavily salted with elite liberal culturati, and the first poll was 77 per cent for the motion, 23 per cent con. After the debate, the pro vote was 55 per cent and the con 45 per cent, a huge shift in opinion, and therefore a handy win for the cons.
I’m not going to recap the whole debate, as you can watch it online. Summarizing Arbour and Schama: imagine all the kumbaya bromides Justin Trudeau would nod and smile to, and that’s the gist of what they said. I prefer to elaborate on what I consider to have been the tipping point favouring the con side, because it illuminated an important attitudinal gap between progressives and conservatives with regard to our culture.
In his opening statement, Steyn reviewed the present tumultuous situation in Europe. He made it clear that the majority of people streaming into and across the continent are not traditional refugees at all, but male economic migrants, mostly not from war-torn Syria. He, and later Farage, painted a grim picture of the impact that culturally sanctioned aggression is having on communities exposed to critical numbers of migrants, particularly on women and young girls — Steyn cited actual disturbing cases — who are bearing the brunt of the radiating anarchic dynamic inherent in the circumstances.
To some audience members (not to me, but for example to my furiously tweeting companion, a young colleague who happens to bear the same last name as me), Steyn dwelt excessively on the sexual crimes we’ve all read about in Cologne, Hamburg, Malmö and elsewhere. So it apparently seemed to Arbour and Schama, because they mocked Steyn for it in their rebuttals. Arbour sneered at both Steyn and Farage as “newborn feminists” (she got a laugh), while Schama disgraced himself with “I’m just struck by how obsessed with sex these two guys are, actually. It’s a bit sad, really.” (That got a very big laugh.) I took one look at Steyn’s glowering face after that remark — Schama will regret having said it to his dying day, I know it — and I kind of felt sorry for those two liberals, because I knew what was coming.
Steyn slowly rose and riposted, in a tone of withering contempt, “I wasn’t going to do funny stuff. I was going to be deadly serious. (But) I’m slightly amazed at Simon’s ability to get big laughs on gang rape.” Vigorous applause. He went on, “Mme Arbour scoffs at the ‘newfound feminists.’ I’m not much of a feminist, but I draw the line at a three year old … and a seven year old getting raped.” Vigorous applause.
I think that was the moment those of the audience who did change their minds got it. The pro side was happy to talk about “your tired, your poor, your huddled masses,” because they’re abstract images, which liberals like. The words were fresh and meaningful then, but today merely a nostalgic homage to a 19th century immigration adventure with no deep similarities to today’s situation. They’re feel-good words but that shouldn’t make the poet who wrote them in 1883 the author of global refugee legislation in 2016. When Arbour and Schama didn’t like the opposition’s message — no images, just descriptions they interpreted as racist — they chose to shoot the messenger with ridicule, a debating error and an intellectually dishonest strategy.
A civilized culture, which takes centuries of painstaking collaborative work to create, can be easily destroyed, and quickly. This is a reality conservatives understand, but liberals, consumed by guilt for past collective sins, and morally disarmed before the Other, choose to ignore. The Munk debate illuminated this important distinction, and for a change, realism won.
National Post
kaybarb@gmail.com
Twitter.com/BarbaraRKay

Related

'Indentured' scathes NCAA over control of student-athletes


Bill Savage

March 10, 2016
http://www.chicagotribune.com/
Joe Nocera and Ben Strauss, authors of "Indentured." (Fred Conrad photo / Penguin Random House)
People go to college for lots of reasons: to continue a family tradition or to grasp at bootstraps to raise themselves. To prepare for medical school or law school. To study a beloved subject or to play a favorite sport.
If a young person falls into that last category, their education will be fraught with financial, practical and legal complications thanks to one of the most powerful non-governmental organizations in the United States, the National Collegiate Athletic Association. The NCAA, with its 400-page rule book, has power over almost every aspect of an athlete's life, from high school curriculum (the NCAA mandates high school core courses) to college schedule (forget about taking any class offered during mandatory, or even "volundatory," practice times) to financial situation (don't try to make any money on your own athletic ability or reputation or you'll be ruled ineligible and lose your scholarship).
Many people in academia and the sports media have long held up the NCAA as an exemplary system, one that maintains the purity of college sports by insisting that players be amateur student-athletes rather than paid professionals.
But a growing number of people — including a former head of the NCAA, an erstwhile shoe-contract promoter, active and retired athletes, as well as economists, lawyers, judges and journalists — have begun to question and combat this status quo.
Joe Nocera and Ben Strauss' blistering new book, "Indentured: The Inside Story of the Rebellion Against the NCAA," tells the stories of these rebels. In their vivid portraits and page-turning narratives, Nocera and Strauss clearly demonstrate how the NCAA belies its own purported ideals in ways that betray fundamental American values.
To keep things academic here, I will examine "Indentured" as a proposed curriculum for an interdisciplinary study of sports in higher education, to show what it has to teach its readers, dedicated NCAA fans or sports agnostics alike.
Four academic disciplines matter most for Nocera and Strauss: Economics, law, media studies and history.
First, economics: They agree with many critics who claim that the NCAA is a cartel, an organization of economic entities that cooperate to fix prices or wages for its own benefit, beyond what is "reasonable and necessary." Nocera and Strauss make extensive use of the work of economists Andy Schwarz, Dan Rascher and Ernie Nadel, whose article "Neither Reasonable nor Necessary: 'Amateurism' in Big-Time College Sports" laid the intellectual foundation for a critique of the NCAA's business model. These writers were outraged by the fact that television networks, schools, conferences and coaches make millions of dollars, while the athletes do not directly share in the vast profits their labor creates. Such cartel behavior violates basic free-market principles.
One example: the mistaken idea that television rights are so expensive because coaches' salaries are so high (in most American states, the highest paid state employees are the flagship universities football and men's basketball coaches).
Schwarz writes that "(c)ollege sports broadcast rights are not expensive because it costs a lot to hire coaches .... Coaches are well paid because college sports broadcasts sell for good money and a good coach helps get those broadcast contracts — and the fund-raising that comes with a good team." Nocera and Strauss continue: "Schools wanted money, says Schwarz, and then blamed the market they themselves created."
As for the arguments against paying players, Schwarz utterly demolishes them in "Excuses, Not Reasons: 13 Myths About (Not) Paying College Athletes," which is included here as an appendix, along with his essay comparing college athletes to colonial-era indentured servants, the source of Nocera and Strauss' title.
Of course, labor economics comes into play, and the book explores former Northwesternquarterback Kain Colter's attempt to unionize football players, with the help of longtime activist Ramogi Huma, founder of the National College Players Association, and theUnited Steelworkers union. (Full disclosure: Northwestern is my employer; I have had no extensive personal or professional contact with the NU players, coaches or administrators depicted in this book.) The National Labor Relations Board's final ruling is a study in paradox, as it simultaneously acknowledged that "the players worked long hours under the direction of their coaches and were paid for it (in the form of scholarships)" and rejected their attempt to unionize by saying they student-athletes, not employees.
Second, there's law: Nocera and Strauss depict several lengthy courtroom dramas that could have been as dry and boring as the three-yards-and-a-cloud-of-dust offenses that once defined the Big Ten. Instead, their vivid portraits of the lawyers, plaintiffs, NCAA officials and judges bring these courtroom dramas to life.
Readers get a legal education: we learn the difference between a Supreme Court ruling about pay for assistant coaches and a dicta (a judicial digression, apart from the judgment and theoretically irrelevant) about the theoretical value of amateurism. We explore the world of due process — "the idea that people have legal rights that the state must respect, including the right to defend themselves when accused of wrongdoing" and how the NCAA denies that right to the athletes it investigates. Their stories of many victims of the NCAA's zealous and arbitrary enforcement officers, especially perhaps Ryan Boatright and Aaron Adair, will break any reader's heart.
Then there's NCAA media studies: The NCAA clearly shows that it's not about the story, it's about how you tell the story.
For example, various "reform" efforts, led by the likes of late NCAA President Myles Brand, were merely the reframing of narratives to make the NCAA look as though it were reforming itself. The NCAA increased graduation rates by redefining the relevant span from six to eight years, and subtracting athletes who didn't flunk out but transferred. Sportswriters, long invested — even complicit — in the NCAA's story, paid little attention to such maneuvers.
And so, in Nocera and Strauss' course, we learn how it took an investigation into the NCAA's practices by journalists who were not sportswriters to expose the hypocrisy of coaches and administrators making millions while athletes go to bed hungry (due to NCAA regulations limiting when they could be fed).
One especially egregious example: An athletic director at Ohio State University got a bonus of about $18,000 (an extra week's pay) because a wrestler won an individual NCAA championship. If he'd given one dime of that money to the athlete whose thousands of hours of practice and competition and sacrifice brought that windfall, the athlete would have lost his eligibility and had his championship voided.
Then there's history: Nocera and Strauss also walk us through the NCAA's own forgotten annals and then connect the organization's practices to the fundamental American issue of race.
Once, scholarships — now used to justify not paying the players — were considered a violation of the intrinsic values of amateurism. Back in the day, the NCAA established its authority over universities and made millions of dollars by limiting the number of football and men's basketball games that could be shown on national TV. Then cable TV happened, followed soon after by a revolt of football-centric universities and conferences, which have made billions of dollars more by scheduling games whenever networks will pay to televise them.
But the strongest point in "Indentured" is the way Nocera and Strauss make it crystal clear that the NCAA's injustices have an undeniable racial component.
They summarize the critique of the NCAA by Sonny Vaccaro, the man who first conceived of exclusive shoe contracts, then dedicated his retirement to fighting the NCAA:
How could the basketball establishment deprive young men, most of them black and poor, from being able to make a living when they wanted to? Why was it always black athletes who were targeted? So many of the NCAA's rules surrounding amateurism discriminated against players who lacked money and means. Black athletes from disadvantaged neighborhoods were the ones most likely to struggle in college, because they had gone to subpar high schools — and they were also the ones most often accused of academic fraud. And of course they received no remuneration even as they were making everyone around them rich.
They continue on to cite an explosive 2011 Atlantic article by Taylor Branch:
"Look at the money we make off predominately poor black kids," Dale Brown, the former basketball coach at Louisiana State University told (Branch). "We are the whoremasters." In the most incendiary line in his article, Branch wrote that the NCAA lets off "the unmistakable whiff of the plantation."
In the end, as millions of Americans fill out their office betting pool brackets for the NCAA men's basketball tournament, not everyone will want to hear about these issues. Discussing whether a No. 16 seed will ever upset a No. 1 seed is far more fun.
But to be truly educated requires confronting uncomfortable realities. Anyone interested in higher education, college sports and fundamental American values of due process, fairness and equality should read Nocera and Strauss' book to hear the case they so forcefully and eloquently make against the NCAA.
Bill Savage teaches Chicago literature at Northwestern University.
"Indentured"
By Joe Nocera and Ben Strauss, Portfolio/Penguin, 369 pages, $30
Copyright © 2016, Chicago Tribune
A version of this article appeared in print on March 13, 2016, in the Printers Row section of the Chicago Tribune with the headline "Flunking the NCAA - Joe Nocera and Ben Strauss' `Indentured' hits the mark in investigating college sports" — Today's paper | Subscribe