Friday, November 15, 2013

Nov. 22, 1963, was a day that took three famous men


BY CAL THOMAS 

http://washingtonexaminer.com

November 13, 2013





Three famous men died on Nov. 22, 1963. The one getting the most attention, understandably, is President John F. Kennedy.
Less so the other two: Aldous Huxley, author of the futuristic novel “Brave New World,” and Clive Staples Lewis.
Of the three, it was Lewis who not only was the most influential of his time, but whose reach extends to these times and likely beyond.
His many books continue to sell, and the number of people whose lives have been changed by his writing expands each year.
On the 50th anniversary of his death, C.S. Lewis remains perhaps the 20th century’s most towering intellectual practitioner of the Christian faith.
Lewis combined humility — rare among those who have achieved fame — with a style that relied less on argumentation than on logic and persuasion.
He asks readers to join him on a journey he himself has taken and, like a tour guide, shows us a better world and a better life than the one he describes in “The Chronicles of Narnia” as being “always winter, but never Christmas.”
A friend of mine once said, “humility is so light a grace that once you think you’ve achieved it, you’ve lost it.” In so many places — from Washington to Hollywood — people have never had to worry about losing humility, because most have never possessed it. And that is said in all humility.
It is a major reason, I think, why Pope Francis is enjoying so much favorable attention, including from non-Catholics and even non-Christians.
The pope exudes humility in the style of Mother Teresa. There is a natural — or supernatural — attraction to such people because it is a quality most know they should have, but are unsure where to find it. Many refuse to even embark on the journey.
While no one has ever been argued to faith, C.S. Lewis provided a considerable number of arguments to counter those who do not share his beliefs.
In perhaps his most influential work, “Mere Christianity,” Lewis addresses people who call Jesus of Nazareth something he never called himself:
“I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.
"That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher.
"He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell.
"You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse.
"You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.”
It was this passage and Lewis’ chapter on pride that brought Richard Nixon’s “hatchet man,” the late Charles Colson, among many others with hard hearts, to faith.
On Sept. 8, 1947, Time magazine featured Lewis on its cover. It rightly called him “the most popular lecturer in the University,” which was Magdalen College, Oxford.
Like many great writers, most of Lewis’ honors have come posthumously, including this Nov. 22 when his remains will be moved from a modest cemetery in Oxford, England, to Poets’ Corner in Westminster Abbey, where his “neighbors” will include Charles Dickens and Geoffrey Chaucer.
Some people long for another C.S. Lewis, but the original should suffice for at least another 50 years.
CAL THOMAS, a Washington Examiner columnist, is nationally syndicated by the Tribune Content Agency.

Thursday, November 14, 2013

What made the Nazi Holocaust possible? Gun control


By Stephen P. Halbrook
November 7, 2013


This week marks the 75th anniversary of Kristallnacht, or the Night of the Broken Glass, the Nazi pogrom against Germany’s Jews on Nov. 9-10, 1938. Historians have documented most everything about it except what made it so easy to attack the defenseless Jews without fear of resistance. Their guns were registered and thus easily confiscated.

To illustrate, turn the clock back further and focus on just one victim, a renowned German athlete. Alfred Flatow won first place in gymnastics at the 1896 Olympics. In 1932, he dutifully registered three handguns, as required by a decree of the liberal Weimar Republic. The decree also provided that in times of unrest, the guns could be confiscated. The government gullibly neglected to consider that only law-abiding citizens would register, while political extremists and criminals would not. However, it did warn that the gun-registration records must be carefully stored so they would not fall into the hands of extremists.

The ultimate extremist group, led by Adolf Hitler, seized power just a year later, in 1933. The Nazis immediately used the firearms-registration records to identify, disarm and attack “enemies of the state,” a euphemism for Social Democrats and other political opponents of all types. Police conducted search-and-seizure operations for guns and “subversive” literature in Jewish communities and working-class neighborhoods.

Jews were increasingly deprived of more and more rights of citizenship in the coming years. The Gestapo cautioned the police that it would endanger public safety to issue gun permits to Jews. Hitler faked a show of tolerance for the 1936 Olympics in Berlin, but Flatow refused to attend the reunion there of former champions. He was Jewish and would not endorse the farce.

By fall of 1938, the Nazis were ratcheting up measures to expropriate the assets of Jews. To ensure that they had no means of resistance, the Jews were ordered to surrender their firearms.

Flatow walked into a Berlin police station to comply with the command and was arrested on the spot, as were other Jews standing in line. The arrest report confirmed that his pistols were duly registered, which was obviously how the police knew he had them. While no law prohibited a Jew from owning guns, the report recited the Nazi mantra: “Jews in possession of weapons are a danger to the German people.” Despite his compliance, Flatow was turned over to theGestapo.

This scenario took place all over Germany — firearms were confiscated from all Jews registered as gun owners. As this was occurring, a wholly irrelevant event provided just the excuse needed to launch a violent attack on the Jewish community: A Polish teenager who was Jewish shot a German diplomat in Paris. The stage was set to instigate Kristallnacht, a carefully orchestrated Nazi onslaught against the entire Jewish community in Germany that horrified the world and even the German public.

Under the pretense of searching for weapons, Jewish homes were vandalized, businesses ransacked and synagogues burned. Jews were terrorized, beaten and killed. Orders were sent to shoot anyone who resisted.

SS head Heinrich Himmler decreed that possession of a gun by a Jew was punishable by 20 years in a concentration camp. An estimated 20,000 Jewish men were thrown into such camps for this reason or just for being Jewish. The Jewish community was then held at ransom to pay for the damage done by the Nazis.

These horrific events were widely reported in the American media, such as The New York Times. After Hitler launched World War II, the United States made preparations in case it was dragged into the conflict. Just before the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, Congress passed a law noting the Gestapo methods and declaring that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms may not be infringed by such measures as registration of firearms.

Kristallnacht has been called “the day the Holocaust began.” Flatow’s footsteps can be followed to see why. He would be required to wear the Star of David. In 1942, he was deported to the Theresienstadt concentration camp, where he starved to death.

One wonders what thoughts may have occurred to Flatow in his last days. Perhaps memories of the Olympics and of a better Germany flashed before his eyes. Did he have second thoughts about whether he should have registered his guns in 1932? Or whether he should have obediently surrendered his firearms at a Berlin police station in 1938 as ordered by Nazi decree, only to be taken into Gestapo custody? Did he fantasize about shooting Nazis? We will never know, but it is difficult to imagine that he had no regrets over his act of compliance.

Today, gun control, registration and prohibition are depicted as benign and progressive. Government should register gun owners and ban any guns it wishes, Americans are told, because government is inherently good and trustworthy. The experiences of Hitler’s Germany and, for that matter, Stalin’s Russia and Pol Pot’s Cambodia, are beneath the realm of possibility in exceptional America. Let’s hope so.

Still, be careful what you wish for.

Stephen Halbrook is research fellow with the Independent Institute and author “Gun Control in the Third Reich: Disarming the Jews and ‘Enemies of the State’” (Independent Institute, 2013).


Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/7/halbrook-the-key-to-this-german-pogrom-is-confisca/#ixzz2kcaf0tFz
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Wednesday, November 13, 2013

Sex at Sunset






By Mark Steyn

National Review's Happy Warrior
November 12, 2013

The popular Yumel doll.

The Yumel doll (AFP)

To Western eyes, contemporary Japan has a kind of earnest childlike wackiness, all karaoke machines and manga cartoons and nuttily sadistic game shows. But, to us demography bores, it's a sad place that seems to be turning into a theme park of P. D. James's great dystopian novel The Children of Men. As readers may recall from earlier citations in this space, Baroness James's tale is set in Britain in the near future, in a world that is infertile: The last newborn babe emerged from the womb in 1995, and since then nothing. The Hollywood director Alfonso Cuarón took this broad theme and made a rather ordinary little film out of it. But the Japanese seem determined to live up to the book's every telling detail.

In Lady James's speculative fiction, pets are doted on as child-substitutes, and churches hold christening ceremonies for cats. In contemporary Japanese reality, Tokyo has some 40 "cat cafés" where lonely solitary citizens can while away an afternoon by renting a feline to touch and pet for a couple of companiable hours. In Lady James's speculative fiction, all the unneeded toys are burned, except for the dolls, which childless women seize on as the nearest thing to a baby and wheel through the streets. In contemporary Japanese reality, toy makers, their children's market dwindling, have instead developed dolls for seniors to be the grandchildren they'll never have: You can dress them up, and put them in a baby carriage, and the computer chip in the back has several dozen phrases of the kind a real grandchild might use to enable them to engage in rudimentary social pleasantries.

P. D. James's most audacious fancy is that in a barren land sex itself becomes a bit of a chore. The authorities frantically sponsor state porn emporia promoting ever more recherché forms of erotic activity in an effort to reverse the populace's flagging sexual desire just in case man's seed should recover its potency. Alas, to no avail. As Lady James writes, "Women complain increasingly of what they describe as painful orgasms: the spasm achieved but not the pleasure. Pages are devoted to this common phenomenon in the women's magazines."

As I said, a bold conceit, at least to those who believe that shorn of all those boring procreation hang-ups we can finally be free to indulge our sexual appetites to the full. But it seems the Japanese have embraced the no-sex-please-we're-dystopian-Brits plot angle, too. In October, Abigail Haworth of the Observer in London filed a story headlined "Why Have Young People in Japan Stopped Having Sex?" Not all young people but a whopping percentage: A survey by the Japan Family Planning Association reported that over a quarter of men aged 16–24 "were not interested in or despised sexual contact." For women, it was 45 percent.

The Observer seems to have approached the subject in the same belief as P. D. James's government porn stores — that it's nothing that a little more sexual adventurism can't cure. So Miss Haworth's lead was devoted to the views of a "sex and relationship counselor" and former dominatrix who specialized in dripping hot wax on her clients' nipples and was once invited to North Korea to squeeze the testicles of one of Kim Jong-il's top generals. In other words, as the Observer puts it, "she doesn't judge." Except, that is, when it comes to "the pressure to conform to Japan's anachronistic family model," which she blames for the young folks checking out of the sex biz altogether.

But, if the pressure to conform were that great, wouldn't there be a lot more conforming? Instead, 49 percent of women under 34 are not in any kind of romantic relationship, and nor are 61 percent of single men. A third of Japanese adults under 30 have never dated. Anyone. Ever. It's not that they've stopped "having sex" — or are disinclined to have hot wax poured on their nipples. It's bigger than that: It's a flight from human intimacy.

They're not alone in that, of course. A while back, I flew from a speaking engagement on one side of the Atlantic to a TV booking on the other. And backstage at both events an attractive thirtysomething woman made the same complaint to me. They'd both tried computer dating but were alarmed by the number of chaps who found human contact too much effort: Instead of meeting and kissing and making out and all that other stuff that involves being in the same room, they'd rather you just sexted them and twitpiced a Weineresque selfie or two. As in other areas, the Japanese seem merely to have reached the end point of Western ennui a little earlier.

By 2020, in the Land of the Rising Sun, adult diapers will outsell baby diapers: The sun also sets. In The Children of Men, the barrenness is a medical condition; in real life, in some of the oldest nations on earth, from Madrid to Tokyo, it's a voluntary societal self-extinction. In Europe, the demographic death spiral is obscured by high Muslim immigration; in Japan, which retains a cultural aversion to immigration of any kind, there are no foreigners to be the children you couldn't be bothered having yourself. In welfare states, the future is premised on social solidarity: The young will pay for the costs of the old. But, as the West ages, social solidarity frays, and in Japan young men aren't even interested in solidarity with young women, and young women can't afford solidarity with bonnie bairns. So an elderly population in need of warm bodies to man the hospital wards and senior centers is already turning to robot technology. If manga and anime are any indication, the post-human nurses and waitresses will be cute enough to make passable sex partners — for anyone who can still be bothered.

Tuesday, November 12, 2013

Today's Tune: Johnny Cash - The First Time Ever I Saw Your Face

Book Review: 'Johnny Cash: The Life' by Robert Hilburn

By Eddie Dean
November 3, 2013
In the pantheon of American cool, it's tough to top Johnny Cash. He's right up there with Marlon Brando, Miles Davis and Jesse James. Cash has had die-hard fans of every stripe, from the Rev. Billy Graham, who for decades featured him on his evangelical crusades, to director Quentin Tarantino, who champions Cash songs like "Folsom Prison Blues" as "poems to the criminal mentality." Ten years after his death at 71, he is still a hero for millions allergic to any other country music, and his legacy as a rebel has inspired countless regrettable tattoos.
For his followers, Cash was more prophet than entertainer, offering a message of redemption as deep and alluring as his signature voice, his timeless music and his tormented life. "People believed in Johnny Cash," said his longtime bass player Marshall Grant. "They didn't just like his music. They believed in him."

Johnny Cash: The Life

By Robert Hilburn
Little, Brown, 679 pages, $32
Johnny Cash at the Columbia Recording Studio in Los Angeles in 1961, the year the Carter family (including future wife June) joined him on the road. Copyright Leigh Wiener
Cash's notorious struggles with drug addiction and his outlaw ways only made him more believable, and forgivable, to his core audience. No matter how many motel rooms he trashed or how many drunken nights he spent in jail, he was always welcomed into the living rooms of middle America. Who else could get away with singing "When Uncle Bill Quit Dope" on a prime-time TV show (as he did in 1971) or serenading Richard Nixon at the White House with his antiwar protest song "What Is Truth"?
In a musical genre known for its simplicity and sincerity, Cash was a complex, conflicted Renaissance man and a restless searcher who spent much of his life on the run from the small-town heartland he championed in his songs. He was a self-mythologizer and storyteller who never let the facts ruin a good yarn. Despite two memoirs written decades apart, he never set the record straight on many of the legends and myths he helped forge through the years.
"Time and again," writes Robert Hilburn in "Johnny Cash: The Life," "he said he wanted people to know his entire story—especially the dark, guilt-ridden, hopeless moments—because he believed in redemption." But such disclosure "was a goal that John didn't always live up to in his own autobiographies because, he said, he didn't want to hurt those close to him."
A former pop-music critic for the Los Angeles Times, Mr. Hilburn got as close to the Cash inner circle as any journalist could. He was the only reporter present at the historic Folsom Prison show in 1968, and he interviewed Cash over the years up to his final days. The result is the most authoritative and revealing portrait to date of the most chronicled figure in country-music history. Having conducted extensive interviews with family members and intimates, Mr. Hilburn uncovers affairs and relapses and car wrecks, but he focuses mainly on his subject's empathetic art, exploring how "someone from a cotton patch in Arkansas could develop such a deep sense of compassion and purpose in his music."
Mr. Hilburn makes a strong case that Cash was, at heart, a writer. He had a love of words and knack for versifying that intensified after the death of his most important boyhood influence, his brother, Jack, killed at 14 in a woodsaw accident, who had aspirations to be a preacher. But Cash's efforts as a fledgling author were overshadowed by "the gift" recognized by his mother when she heard the tall and lean 15-year-old through an open window singing a gospel song. "You've got a gift, J.R. . . . ," she told him. "God's got his hand on you." It was a pronouncement he took as infallible.
When Cash auditioned for Sam Phillips of Sun Records in Memphis in 1954, his singing caught the ear of the producer who had discovered Elvis. Phillips was drawn by the "understated force" and "authority" of Cash's husky baritone, seasoned beyond his 22 years. It came from the deep well of the American folk tradition, conjuring a bygone frontier of tobacco auctions and tent revivals and levee camps, resounding with echoes of hellfire preachers and medicine-show hawkers.
Just as crucial, though, was that Cash had something to say and said it with conviction. He wrote his own material, and he identified with the characters who peopled his songs, from the joyous shoeshine boy of "Get Rhythm" to the coldblooded, haunted killer of "Folsom Prison Blues" to the proud, patriotic veteran in "Ragged Old Flag." His themes stayed the same for six decades, championing the downtrodden and the outcast and the hopeless.
For his backing band, Cash recruited a pair of young novices, Luther Perkins and Marshall Grant, dubbed the Tennessee Two. Their uncluttered, rudimentary playing on lead guitar and stand-up bass complemented their leader's commanding vocals and rhythm guitar. The trio's primitivist, bare-bones approach propelled Cash originals like "I Walk the Line" from the country charts onto the pop Hit Parade. "Unlike most singers on the radio at the time, he didn't just sing along with the beat," notes Mr. Hilburn. "He treated every line as if it mattered."
By the time Cash signed with Columbia in 1958, he had a national following, a growing family and a drug habit. By his own account, Cash's dependence on amphetamines—and later on, barbiturates and painkillers—was immediate and lasting and had little to do with the rigors of touring, which is what most musicians of the era used benzedrine and other pep pills for. "I honestly believed the bennies were God-sent to help me be a better performer," he wrote in his first memoir; but "inside that bottle of white pills, which only cost eight or ten dollars for 100, came at no extra cost a demon called Deception."
The drugs triggered a dark side of Cash's already mercurial personality. One of the best testimonials (oddly, not referenced by Mr. Hilburn) of Cash's Jekyll-and Hyde temperament came from another polymath and fellow pillhead, Merle Travis, who mentored Cash and also taught him how to throw a Bowie knife. "I'm impressed with him like a snake behind glass," he said. "There ain't no twilight and there ain't no dusk to Johnny Cash. He's like a sunny day, or he's completely dark."
After his debut for the label, "The Fabulous Johnny Cash," proved a hit on the charts, Columbia let its new star pursue his own musical agenda despite his escalating personal problems. He recorded gospel albums, in part to fulfill a vow that he had made when his brother died, to spread Jesus' promise of salvation as a singer. At Sun, Phillips had discouraged Cash's sacred music, saying it didn't sell, and he proved right.
What galvanized Cash was a series of ambitious concept albums he made in the early 1960s. Inspired by Travis's seminal 1947 LP, "Folk Songs of the Hills," he wove together recitations and spoken segues with folk ballads and original compositions, creating brilliant narratives of word and song. In "Ride This Train" (1960), "Blood Sweat and Tears" (1963) and "Bitter Tears" (1964), he celebrated the pioneers' westward migration, working people and their struggles, and the plight of American Indians. In these albums, still regarded as classics, the singer and the poet fused into a consummate storyteller. All sold poorly.
To research the double-LP "Ballads of the True West," Cash went on drugged-out forays alone in the desert, a landscape so merciless that he imagines God giving it to the devil in "Mean as Hell," a poem he recites on the album. "I slept under mesquite bushes and in gullies," he wrote in the liner notes. "I ate mesquite beans and squeezed the water from a barrel cactus. I was saved once by a forest ranger, lying flat on my face, starving." Along with the drugs, these exercises in physical and psychic extremes, Mr. Hilburn shows, gave Cash what he needed for his art, at great cost to his health and home life.
Cash's overidentification with his subject matter spurred much of his mythmaking, as when he falsely claimed Cherokee blood or when he said that he crawled into Nickajack Cave in 1967 near the Tennessee River intent on never leaving alive. Mr. Hilburn questions the circumstances of this "suicide tale," which Cash said ended with a miraculous escape to freedom.
As the book recounts in meaty but not salacious detail, Cash's empathy for the forlorn and oppressed did not extend to his family, including his first wife and four daughters, as well as friends and band members and managers, who bore the brunt of his drug-induced rampages. "When Cash described himself as a 'C+ Christian' at various times in his life, most thought this American icon was just being humble," writes Mr. Hilburn. "To those who'd been close to him at various points, it appeared he was being a bit generous with his evaluation."
Through most of the '60s, many dismissed Johnny Cash as a lost cause and believed his days were numbered. One chapter in Mr. Hilburn's book is titled "The Deathwatch." But not only did Cash keep cheating death, he found ways to keep salvaging a career on the brink, as when he had a dream about mariachi horns that helped make 1963's "Ring of Fire" his biggest hit yet.
Along with the drugs, Cash took shortcuts in search of his muse, as when he lifted hefty chunks of a 1953 record, "Crescent City Blues," without credit, for his own "Folsom Prison Blues," a theft that later forced him to settle a lawsuit. Mr. Hilburn seems to give Cash a free pass, citing the "breakthrough" of the key line that Cash added, which gives the song its signature shock value: "I shot a man in Reno just to watch him die."
When Cash sang those words in his opening number at Folsom Prison in 1968, he won over the hardened convicts and earned himself an 11th-hour reprieve from his label bosses who had all but given up on their strung-out, unbankable star. The book reveals that he was nervous before the 9:40 a.m. show, which he had persuaded Columbia to record for a live album. With his career at stake, he gobbled a hidden stash of pills, despite knowing how the drugs had sabotaged his voice many times before. Producer Bob Johnston told Mr. Hilburn that, when he "later asked him, [Cash] said, 'I took more pills that morning than I ever had in my life.' He was scared."
The dosage apparently gave Cash the edge he needed to connect like a live wire to his audience. As Mr. Hilburn recalls, "the atmosphere was electric as Cash prowled the stage between verses with the pent-up tension of a caged panther." "At Folsom Prison" sold three million copies and catapulted the 35-year-old has-been to new heights of fame.
Cash's second wife, June Carter, often caricatured as a sort of hillbilly Florence Nightingale, gets her due here. If she indeed saved Cash's life and, as Cash always averred, helped to save his soul as well, she took her sweet time about it. Their stormy courtship from 1961 to 1968, conducted mostly on the road while Cash was still married to his first wife, Vivian, featured Cash's worst binges and best post-Sun recordings. It was a chaotic but creative period when he was breaking commandments like hotel furniture. June was the rock that Cash clung to, even as he had an affair with her younger sister, Anita, a singer and member of the Cash troupe. The trysts began shortly after Johnny and June wed in 1968; it remained a guarded family secret until 2003, when an unnamed "insider" told a tabloid that Anita, "on her deathbed in 1999, asked for June's forgiveness for the affair."
After the Folsom album, the couple became country-music royalty. Onstage, June's zany down-home humor lightened her husband's brooding gravitas. Offstage, she played a gracious hostess to an adoring public. Meanwhile, he struggled with relapses, and June herself became hooked on prescription drugs. As Mr. Hilburn shows, they were both more addicted to the road and the roar of the fans than anything else.
His popular TV show secured Cash's status as the Man in Black, and his compulsive mythmaking continued when he debuted a song of that name for a live broadcast audience in 1971. The lyrics are a litany of the social causes he fought for and the underdogs for whom he donned his somber attire. Critics pointed out that he had been wearing black stage clothes since the Sun years, because, as he had said often, dark outfits didn't show dirt stains.
"Johnny Cash: The Life" traces the long descent from the artistic summit of Folsom. In the years between, there were some triumphs, like the gospel album "The Holy Land" (1969). A kind of narrative pilgrimage, it featured tape-recorded impressions that he had made while on location (in Israel) visiting the places that he first heard about as a boy when his mother read to him from the Bible. But there were also embarrassments, such as "Look at Them Beans" (1975), whose cover featured Cash sprawled in a pile of green beans, and the self-parody "Chicken in Black" (1984).
These debacles didn't stop him from starring in a steady supply of made-for-TV movies and ads for gasoline and money machines. He was dropped by Columbia and shunned by country radio. Undaunted, he published a novel about the Apostle Paul, some of which he wrote while in rehab at the Betty Ford Center.
Then, in the early 1990s, came redemption in the form of an unlikely career comeback. Now ailing and in his 60s, Cash summoned his reserves to make a series of stripped-down albums with indie-rock producer Rick Rubin. Mr. Hilburn tends to overrate the uneven quality of this late output, but it did make Cash a darling of the grunge generation and a grizzled symbol of defiance against the music-industry establishment.
As Cash weakened and various illnesses forced him to retire from touring, Mr. Rubin encouraged him to press on in the studio. In this unrelenting documentation of a dying artist, there was a sort of ghoulishness. Some critics cried exploitation. If such was the case, Cash was a willing participant. Smote like Job, he found refuge from the pain in his music, and it gave him purpose. Most important, the nearness of his impending demise inspired him to write again.
In 2002, a year before his death, he worked feverishly for months and composed "The Man Comes Around," a humble elder's unsparing Jeremiad. Along with his devastating mea-culpa cover version of "Hurt" and its vanity-be-damned video, which depicted Cash in his ruined shell of a body, it would help to "cement Cash's legacy," Mr. Hilburn writes near the end of his finely wrought biography. "The Man Comes Around" is a dire warning about Judgment Day, set to an insistent Sun-era guitar riff and framed with a recitation intoned by Cash's ragged voice, as if already emanating from beyond the grave.
Cash considered it his final testament and said as much in one of his last interviews with the author. "I called upon Jesus," he said. "I tried to praise Him with 'The Man Comes Around.' If someone is still listening to my music fifty years from now, I hope they're listening to that song."
—Mr. Dean collaborated with Ricky Skaggs on "Kentucky Traveler: My Life in Music," just published by It Books.

Background Checks as the New Racism


Leftists push to make it illegal for employers to ask, “Have you ever been convicted of a felony?” 


Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius waits to be questioned by members of a House committee about the Obamacare rollout. ( Andrew Harrer / Bloomberg / October 30, 2013 )

The Obama administration has a schizophrenic attitude toward requiring people to go through criminal-background checks. Last week, Senator John Cornyn (R., Texas) grilled Kathleen Sebelius, the Health and Human Services secretary, about why the 45,000 “navigators” who assist people in signing up for Obamacare aren’t required to undergo a criminal-background check, even though they handle sensitive personal information.

“So a convicted felon could be a navigator and could acquire sensitive personal information from an individual unbeknownst to them?” Cornyn asked her. “That is possible,” said Sebelius, noting that states could always impose their own requirements — as some have done.

The risk that unscrupulous or untrustworthy people could hold federally funded jobs or own guns certainly concerns the Obama administration in other contexts. The Office of Personnel Management conducts more than 2 million background checks a year for federal jobs. The FBI conducted just shy of 20 million background checks on gun owners in 2012.

In 2009, Robert Groves, President Obama’s handpicked director of the U.S. Census Bureau, announced that every one of the 1.2 million to 1.4 million people he would hire for the next year’s national head count would be investigated and fingerprinted — and felons wouldn’t be hired. “The goal is to ensure the public is protected,” the bureau announced at the time.

So given all of the background checks at the federal level, why not include the Obamacare navigators?

Michael Astrue, who served as commissioner of Social Security until earlier this year, and Scott Gottlieb, physician and resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, warned in the Wall Street Journal in September about the security risks presented by the navigators:
The Obama administration created unnecessary opportunities for fraud with the White House’s pork-minded insistence on funding favored community groups to employ “navigators” to solicit applicants and help them input their personal information, such as income and Social Security numbers. The navigators were hastily hired and trained (they are still being hired) and were not given extensive background checks. The personal data for millions of people will be entrusted to these navigators — and to a computerized system that has been rushed into operation.
Astrue and Gottlieb cautioned against the possibility of identity theft. That is not idle speculation. Remember ACORN, the fraud-laced “community organizing” group that once boasted Barack Obama had served as its lawyer and as one of its key trainers? ACORN finally went bankrupt in 2010 after dozens of its employees were convicted of voter-registration fraud and others showed up in undercover tapes offering advice on how to set up brothels and evade paying taxes. Investor’s Business Daily has reported that United Labor Unions Local 100, a New Orleans group run by ACORN founder Wade Rathke, announced on its Facebook page that it’s going “to do mass enrollment and help navigate people into the marketplaces In Arkansas, Louisiana, and Texas under the Affordable Care Act!”

Many of the groups that have divvied up the $67 million in federal money available for hiring navigators say that they can’t afford the background checks some states are requiring. They note that the 20 hours of training each navigator receives includes warnings about the penalties for misuse of personal data. Amanda Ptashkin, outreach director for Georgians for a Healthy Future, complains that Georgia requires “a time-consuming process” that includes an affidavit of citizenship, a $50 fee, fingerprinting, and a background check. But the navigator jobs pay up to $48 per hour — exceptionally good money in a soft job market — and the burdens aren’t different from those that many private-sector applicants face.

But even these basic requirements will change if many of the civil-rights and advocacy groups involved in the navigators’ patronage trough have their way. There is an active campaign on the left to “ban the box,” or remove the checkbox question that’s common on job applications: “Have you ever been convicted of a felony?”

Last month, California governor Jerry Brown signed a law banning public employers from asking about criminal records until the employer has established the applicant’s “minimum qualifications.” The federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued a “guidance” last year saying that employers must establish that an inquiry into an applicant’s criminal record is a “business necessity” before they can make the inquiry. Otherwise, the employer could face employment-discrimination lawsuits under the theory that such background checks have a “disparate impact” on African Americans and Hispanics and are therefore unfair. The EEOC’s guidance also effectively requires that employers signal to job applicants that they were screened out of the job-applicant pool because of their criminal records, making the odds of a lawsuit against them dramatically higher.

Even worse, the EEOC has pursued employers that have a clear “business necessity” interest in the integrity of their employees, such as G4S Secure Solutions Pennsylvania, a firm that provides security guards for nuclear power plants and other sensitive sites. The EEOC went after the security firm for not hiring an individual convicted twice of burglary. G4S thought it was merely being prudent: Pennsylvania law forbids the hiring of individuals as security guards if they have felony convictions. 

The Obama administration is clearly moving away from its prior support for background checks, at least when its politically correct allies find such checks offensive. But I am certain that most Americans would be angry to learn that the kind of vigorous background checks census workers underwent just three years ago have been abandoned in the case of Obamacare navigators. After all, the personal data the navigators will handle is even more sensitive than what census workers were tabulating.

Roger Clegg, head of the Center for Equal Opportunity, laments that we seem to have ignored Martin Luther King’s appeal to judge people “by the content of their character” rather than “by the color of their skin.” Today, all too often, skin color trumps all: Race is often used as the basis for preferring one job applicant or college student to another. But under the EEOC’s guidance, employers who try to factor in the content of one’s character, at least as revealed by one’s criminal record, risk costly litigation and stigma. Welcome to the Catch-22 world of the Obama administration.

— John Fund is national-affairs correspondent for NRO.

Monday, November 11, 2013

Today's Tune: Big Country - Where The Rose Is Sown/Come Back To Me (Live)

A Veteran's Day Meditation

November 11, 2013
Shellie Starr drops off balloons and other items at her son's grave at the Grand Army of the Republic Cemetery near Snohomish on May 22, 2006, a day before what would have been the Marine corporal's 23rd birthday. Jeff Starr was killed in Iraq last year on Memorial Day. The Starr family will meet with President Bush during his visit to the Seattle area today. During a speech at the U.S. Naval Academy, Bush read from a letter that Jeff Starr left on his computer for his fiancee to read in the event of his death. Photo: Karen Ducey/Seattle Post-Intelligencer, June 15, 2006

Some months back I wrote, buoyed by the persistent fears of a father, how my son the Army Special Ops Captain was leaving for Afghanistan to begin yet another tour of duty. Indeed, in "Wrestling with a Young Man's Duty," I attempted, amongst other things, to articulate the dread that every parent, wife, or child must countenance when their loved one flies away from their care and into Harm's Way. Having invested so much of our hope and joy into these brave young hearts spinning away from us, a part of us stops breathing and stands in limbo on a shelf until they return. Last week, my "Young Captain" came home, and I could finally begin to go about the business of living again -- of planting for the harvest that all living creatures undertake as they toil in the expectation of happiness and meaning.
Today is Veteran's Day. In order that we may understand in truth, one's inquiry must start at the very beginning.
The Great War, as it was once known, had been the most terrible conflagration of artificially imposed human death, suffering, and misery that had been experienced in modern times. This cataclysm of sixteen million dead and twenty million wounded irrevocably changed the cultural/political landscape and the very gene pool of Europe. So great was the collective cry of relief when the Entente and Central Powers laid down their arms on that crisp Fall morning, that what we now know as World War I was universally heralded as the final "war to end all wars." In retrospect, the melding of unabashed hope and naïve hubris accompanying such a bold claim can now only raise an occasional cynical brow of incredulity; for we have since been bitterly schooled in the unveiled horrors of the human heart -- culled from the flinty crucible of the Twentieth Century.
But on the eleventh day of the eleventh hour of the eleventh month in the Year of Our Lord 1918, if for only a brief span of years, our spears -- even if not fully beaten into ploughshares, were put aside as men provisionally swore in their chests to make war on one another no longer. That following year, American President Woodrow Wilson proclaimed:
To us in America, the reflections of Armistice Day will be filled with solemn pride in the heroism of those who died in the country's service and with gratitude for the victory, both because of the thing from which it has freed us and because of the opportunity it has given America to show her sympathy with peace and justice in the councils of the nations...
It would not be until 1954 that the term Armistice was replaced with "Veteran" by President Eisenhower, as the hallowed grounds of the Somme and Verdun were partially eclipsed in remembrance by exotic haunts such as Normandy, Leyte Gulf, Pork Chop Hill, and a thousand others. Indeed, our Veterans have stood before us as flesh and granite living and bleeding testaments: answering the eternal rancor abiding in the black designs of tyrants. In our namesake, through the exertions of fathers, sons, and lovers, resides the oxygen of liberty that fuels the noble heart in throwing down those grim towers -- in the gilded service of peoples who can never repay us and whose countenance we have never fully beheld.
But we who can rejoice in our ecstatic blessings following the return of our beloved warriors know well in the vault of our beings that it could easily have been otherwise, and it seems that for nearly every tear-stained reunion filled with beaming smiles, there has been a darkened house with pulled shades where men and women wrestle with the lonely blistering repercussions that tragically accompany that mailed fist of duty -- as it forever freezes and torments in its glacial embrace. For such as these, the yearly exhumation of beautiful ribbons and the eloquent prose of poppy strewn fields grows threadbare as aching arms strain to remember the fallen who remain forever young. These are the harried lives left behind on the windward shore of a Great Sea to nurse afresh wounds that are excised annually -- that no Gold Star will ever redeem. For such as these, the time we have accorded as Veteran's Day stands as a dual-edged knife of precious and grievous memory.
Only five days after his twenty-second birthday, at an age when young people have only begun tasting life on their own, Marine Cpl. Jeff Starr was struck down by a sniper's bullet in Ramadi on Memorial Day 2005. Despite his youth, Starr was well into his third Iraqi deployment when the bullet pierced his heart. He never regained consciousness. Back in 2004, Jeff and thirteen of his fellow soldiers were pinned down in Falluja by several hundred members of the insurgency and fought tooth and claw for several long agonizing hours before reinforcements arrived. This harrowing event would make a profound impression on Starr, prompting him to compose a letter that was recovered posthumously and delivered to his parents in August, months after his death. He wrote this following prescient letter to his girlfriend:
Dearest ----
Obviously, if you are reading this, then I have died in Iraq.
I'm writing this for one reason only. On April 13th 2004, I thought I was going to die. My only regret is that I hadn't spent enough time with you. That I hadn't told you everything I wanted to. Being in Iraq for a 3rd time, I don't want to feel that way again because it was the worst feeling ever. So this letter is in case I won't ever get the chance to tell you. I kind of predicted this, that is why I'm writing this in November. A third time just seemed like I'm pushing my chances. I don't regret going, everybody dies but few get to do it for something as important as freedom. It may seem confusing why we are in Iraq, it's not to me. I'm here helping these people, so that they can live the way we live. Not have to worry about tyrants or vicious dictators. To do what they want with their lives. To me that is why I died. Others have died for my freedom, now this is my mark. Well I can't type forever, I know you want to read more but I thought simple and to the point would be easier. I love you with all my heart.
Goodbye my Love...
Cpl. Starr had planned to leave the Corps in August and begin a career in law enforcement. He had joined the service as a high school senior and had earned two naval medals of distinction, one for his valor. His parents, Brian and Shellie Starr of Snohomish, Washington, as well as all who loved his shining face, have borne, and will continue all of their days, to bear the burden that a young corporal saw fit to take upon his youthful shoulders. And for this we honor him on this eventful day.
On Veteran's Day, when this once great City of Human Freedom again bows its head and remembers the collective sacrifice of its Best and Brightest Children, it should be a civic blasphemy, at least for this day, to engage in the wrangling of venal politics. The heroic deed needs little fanfare because the noble renunciation of one's claim to life or the faithful rendering of service to others shouts to the very hilltops. Tales of gallant service should reverberate gratitude in our soul's very marrow, and the fact that such a day is often reduced to just another episode of unreflective pleasure reveals reams about us spiritually.
But on this day the hedonist shall have no place. This day is for those who have: answered the clarion call, manned the ramparts, and poured themselves into the breach. These so honored are incandescent lives known perhaps only to their family and friends -- who all share a part in that stunning loss that will never fully heal. The American Veteran has always warred down tyranny without blinking, without regard to life or treasure -- without standing down. In Arlington, or in a verdant shrine in ten thousand home towns, those ribboned crosses bear homage to liberty in silent witness. It is the solemn echo of sacred duty, of towering sacrifice, and of abiding love.
Glenn Fairman writes from Highland, Ca. He can be contacted at arete5000@dslextreme.com.


Marine Cpl. Jeffrey Starr


Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/11/a_veterans_day_meditation.html#ixzz2kL1hA4h4
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Sunday, November 10, 2013

Obama's Republic of Lies

Posted By Roger Kimball On November 9, 2013 @ 8:21 am In Uncategorized | 50 Comments

Political Cartoons by Gary McCoy
“Access to power,” Plato said in The Republic, “must be confined to men who are not in love with it.”  I think that’s pretty good advice, and I wish our masters in Washington were a bit better at following it than they are. It is a curious irony that the burning desire for high office is a disqualifying character trait for the beneficent exercise of high office. But we see corroborative evidence of that irony all around us.

More from Plato: “All goes wrong when, starved for  lack of anything good in their own lives, men turn to public affairs hoping to snatch from thence the happiness they hunger for.  They set about fighting for power, and this internecine conflict ruins them and their country.” Plato could be pretty obscure, but here he speaks with arresting clarity.

I don’t suppose that President Obama has much occasion to ponder the writings of Plato. That’s probably just as well, since Plato’s fantasy about the abolition of private property and the cultivation of a class of Guardians who ruled through a mixture of coercion and dissimulation might give him ideas—not, I think, that he needs any more than he already has.  Pop quiz: Plato or Obama?  “If anyone is to practice deception, either on the country’s enemies or on its citizens, it must be the Rulers of the commonwealth, acting for its benefit.”

As it happens, that one is Plato. But it takes a sharp man to tell. I think Obama would find a lot to savor in  The Republic. What do you think? “If you like your health-care plan, you will be able to keep your health-care plan. Period.”

That’s what President Obama said, repeatedly [1] (at least 36 times), when selling ObamaCare to a skeptical public. “If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. Period”
Turns out, of course, that when he said “period,” he meant “gotcha.” No one yet knows the extent of the damage caused from ObamaCare.  One recent report estimates that more than 50 million [2] Americans will be forced out of their current health care plans by ObamaCare. But although we do not yet know the extent of the damage—how many lives will be blighted or lost—because of ObamaCare, we know for a certainty that the legislation was sold to us on false pretenses.  “If you like your plan, you can keep your plan.”  There was never any chance of that, as numerous critics pointed out at the time. They knew it could never be, and so did Obama.

Does it matter? Does anyone really care whether the president of the United States ostentatiously breaks a promise he made publicly on at least 36 separate occasions?  We know what would happen if the president of an insurance company made and then flagrantly broke a promise that his customers could keep their health care coverage if they liked it.  He would be prosecuted and jailed.

Making and breaking a promise like that is what the law calls “fraud,” and as Andy McCarthy points out today in  “Obama’s Massive Fraud [3],” the law takes a dim view of fraud because it erodes the trust upon which civilized life depends. “Fraud,” Andy notes,
is a serious federal felony, usually punishable by up to 20 years’ imprisonment — with every repetition of a fraudulent communication chargeable as a separate crime. In computing sentences, federal sentencing guidelines factor in such considerations as the dollar value of the fraud, the number of victims, and the degree to which the offender’s treachery breaches any special fiduciary duties he owes. Cases of multi-million-dollar corporate frauds — to say nothing of multi-billion-dollar, Bernie Madoff–level scams that nevertheless pale beside Obamacare’s dimensions — often result in terms amounting to decades in the slammer.
Bernie Madoff will be probably cooling his heels as the government’s guest for the duration of his life. And Obama? Nothing but nothing will happen to him. Still, it is interesting (if also depressing) to ask why. Andy McCarthy reminds us that Obama knew at least three years ago [4]that the Affordable Care Act would force millions of people out of their insurance plans. But “the president hid the data”—just as various financial institutions hid data from their investors about the risky mortgage-backed securities they were peddling. The difference is that those financial institutions are being sued by the Justice Department while President Obama . . . well, you know.

Once again, Obama has managed to astonish me. I thought people would be rioting in the streets over this example of what Andy McCarthy rightly calls “massive fraud.” But, no.  His popularity has ticked down a bit more.  Some of his vulnerable Democrat colleagues are panicking a little as they prepare to face what is certain to be a hostile electorate.  But what will happen?

Probably nothing much. Which is too bad.  The other day, I went to a launch party for David Horowitz’s new book The Black Book of the American Left [5]. In the course of his remarks, David made a point I have several times made in this space [6]: ObamaCare is only incidentally about health care. At bottom, it is about control—more specifically, it is about the federal government’s control of the lives of its citizens.  That, indeed, is why the Internal Revenue Service has been enlisted to enforce the provision of this monstrous piece of legislation. This government agency, which was brought into being to collect taxes, has in intervening decades become an important instrument of governmental coercion. ObamaCare was custom-made for an agency like the modern IRS: meddlesome, bureaucratic, and minatory.

My friend Robert Bork was fond of quoting Justice Scalia’s mournful observation that “day by day, case by case, [the Supreme Court] is busy designing a Constitution for a country I do not recognize.” People tend to think that revolutions are violent and dramatic occurrences.  Sometimes they are. But sometimes they happen almost by stealth, an imposition here, a regulation there, an ancient habit of probity or fair dealing quietly elided to make room for some new understanding of the relation between citizens and the state.

Over the last few years, the president of the United States has lied, publicly and repeatedly, about a matter of grave national importance to millions of people.  His dishonesty, like Falstaff’s, is “gross as a mountain, open, palpable.” What will we, the people, do about it?  I think Andy McCarthy is right when he suggests that it is “highly unlikely that Barack Obama will ever be impeached.”  I am not so sure, however, that he is right that it is certain “that he will never again be trusted.” I wonder about that.  Andy ends with the observation that “the American people will not think twice about taking out their frustration and mounting anger on those who collaborate in his schemes.”  I’d like to think so.  But I wonder about that, too.

Article printed from Roger’s Rules: http://pjmedia.com/rogerkimball

URL to article: http://pjmedia.com/rogerkimball/2013/11/09/obamas-republic-of-lies/

URLs in this post:
[1] repeatedly: http://freebeacon.com/36-times-obama-said-you-can-keep-your-health-plan/
[2] more than 50 million: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/11/07/207909/analysis-tens-of-millions-could.html
[3] Obama’s Massive Fraud: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/363538/obamas-massive-fraud-andrew-c-mccarthy
[4] at least three years ago : http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/28/21213547-obama-admin-knew-millions-could-not-keep-their-health-insurance
[5] The Black Book of the American Left: http://www.amazon.com/The-Black-Book-American-Left/dp/1594036942
[6] several times made in this space: http://www.newcriterion.com